Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
Feb 20th 2008 | 9:16 pm
#76
Thread Starter
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 247
From: Achewood
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
That's why we're having this convo innit 
Now, I'm going to say this from a neutral standpoint. The whole creationalist vs evolution debate is that science says religion fills in the gap by just stating "God did it". But if you think of it, both are based ENTIRELY on faith. If you go back far enough, before the planets were created etc, what was there? Some say it was a reaction caused by gas. Well where did the gas come from? And where did whatever it came from come from? What created space? An what created whatever created space? Eventually you will hit a point where it's nothing but blind faith. If it's based upon blind faith doesn't that contradict everything science stands for? I'm not promoting one or the other, but I find it really hypocritical when people who base everything on the science way totally dismiss the religious beliefs. I say whichever side you're on, be it creationalist or evolutionary, to totally dismiss the other is ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also the state of being ignorant or uninformed. This is a huge question that will never be conclusive and I find it extremely stupid when somebody totally disregards another view point and says, "It did not happen that way". Well you don't have any credit to say that, so don't.
Now, I'm going to say this from a neutral standpoint. The whole creationalist vs evolution debate is that science says religion fills in the gap by just stating "God did it". But if you think of it, both are based ENTIRELY on faith. If you go back far enough, before the planets were created etc, what was there? Some say it was a reaction caused by gas. Well where did the gas come from? And where did whatever it came from come from? What created space? An what created whatever created space? Eventually you will hit a point where it's nothing but blind faith. If it's based upon blind faith doesn't that contradict everything science stands for? I'm not promoting one or the other, but I find it really hypocritical when people who base everything on the science way totally dismiss the religious beliefs. I say whichever side you're on, be it creationalist or evolutionary, to totally dismiss the other is ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also the state of being ignorant or uninformed. This is a huge question that will never be conclusive and I find it extremely stupid when somebody totally disregards another view point and says, "It did not happen that way". Well you don't have any credit to say that, so don't.
Feb 20th 2008 | 9:20 pm
#77
Thread Starter
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 247
From: Achewood
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
But weren't humans once fish of some kind? Decided we'd better grow arms etc and crawled out of the bog? Why are there still think's in the bog? Did they get left behind? 
Didn't we all start in the water?
Wol - with the greatest of respect - I have no idea what on earth you're talking about
Didn't we all start in the water?
Wol - with the greatest of respect - I have no idea what on earth you're talking about
Feb 20th 2008 | 9:21 pm
#78
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,067
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
Dunno, my ex boyfriends can be described as apes with Oakley shades
Feb 20th 2008 | 9:35 pm
#80
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,383
From: 'stralia
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
That's why we're having this convo innit
Now, I'm going to say this from a neutral standpoint. The whole creationalist vs evolution debate is that science says religion fills in the gap by just stating "God did it". But if you think of it, both are based ENTIRELY on faith. If you go back far enough, before the planets were created etc, what was there? Some say it was a reaction caused by gas. Well where did the gas come from? And where did whatever it came from come from? What created space? An what created whatever created space? Eventually you will hit a point where it's nothing but blind faith. If it's based upon blind faith doesn't that contradict everything science stands for? I'm not promoting one or the other, but I find it really hypocritical when people who base everything on the science way totally dismiss the religious beliefs. I say whichever side you're on, be it creationalist or evolutionary, to totally dismiss the other is ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also the state of being ignorant or uninformed. This is a huge question that will never be conclusive and I find it extremely stupid when somebody totally disregards another view point and says, "It did not happen that way". Well you don't have any credit to say that, so don't.
Now, I'm going to say this from a neutral standpoint. The whole creationalist vs evolution debate is that science says religion fills in the gap by just stating "God did it". But if you think of it, both are based ENTIRELY on faith. If you go back far enough, before the planets were created etc, what was there? Some say it was a reaction caused by gas. Well where did the gas come from? And where did whatever it came from come from? What created space? An what created whatever created space? Eventually you will hit a point where it's nothing but blind faith. If it's based upon blind faith doesn't that contradict everything science stands for? I'm not promoting one or the other, but I find it really hypocritical when people who base everything on the science way totally dismiss the religious beliefs. I say whichever side you're on, be it creationalist or evolutionary, to totally dismiss the other is ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also the state of being ignorant or uninformed. This is a huge question that will never be conclusive and I find it extremely stupid when somebody totally disregards another view point and says, "It did not happen that way". Well you don't have any credit to say that, so don't.
The scientific arguments may not have conclusive proof, but they do have a hell of a lot of evidence. I'm not sure what religious evidence there is for creation, beyond 'well we exist don't we?'
But hey if you're religious then I guess evidence and proof is not a big thing for you anyway, so perhaps it's no big deal and blind faith is preferable. (Not 'you' anyone in particular, just 'one')
Feb 20th 2008 | 9:50 pm
#81
Thread Starter
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 247
From: Achewood
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
The scientific arguments may not have conclusive proof, but they do have a hell of a lot of evidence. I'm not sure what religious evidence there is for creation, beyond 'well we exist don't we?' But hey if you're religious then I guess evidence and proof is not a big thing for you anyway, so perhaps it's no big deal and blind faith is preferable. (Not 'you' anyone in particular, just 'one')
But hey if you're religious then I guess evidence and proof is not a big thing for you anyway, so perhaps it's no big deal and blind faith is preferable. (Not 'you' anyone in particular, just 'one')
Feb 20th 2008 | 9:59 pm
#82
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,383
From: 'stralia
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
I'm not somebody to come to for answers from the Bible, but I think it is more than "We just exist". There's no doubt that science works. We have technology to prove this. But here's a question that has yet to answered but people will believe that Science is responsible without any concrete evidence. Is that not the same as a religious person believing in a deity to be responsible even though there is no concrete evidence to support it? Just as science has means to support why it works, so does religion. It seems to me that both are similar. Science can support its theories from a certain point up to now, but prior to that point, it can't. It has to go upon faith. Religion is based upon faith. From a neutral position, people on either side are pretty similar. It just seems unjust to dismiss the other view. Maybe it's a bit of science and a bit of religion? As it's not conclusive yet, this can't be an absurd question. In fact, it would seem more rational to me.
Also, if you look back through history there have been many phenomena that were explained religiously but have since been explained & proven scientifically. I can't think of anything that was explained scientifically and then has been widely replaced by religious theory - but if there's an example then it would be interesting to know about. Course there have been scientific theories disproven and replaced by other theories, but that's the beauty of science - it's always open to be challenged and tested, in a way that religion is not.
Feb 20th 2008 | 10:24 pm
#84
Thread Starter
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 247
From: Achewood
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
Well, to me religion is about faith, so if there were proof then it wouldn't be religion any more, it would be science.
Also, if you look back through history there have been many phenomena that were explained religiously but have since been explained & proven scientifically. I can't think of anything that was explained scientifically and then has been widely replaced by religious theory - but if there's an example then it would be interesting to know about. Course there have been scientific theories disproven and replaced by other theories, but that's the beauty of science - it's always open to be challenged and tested, in a way that religion is not.
Also, if you look back through history there have been many phenomena that were explained religiously but have since been explained & proven scientifically. I can't think of anything that was explained scientifically and then has been widely replaced by religious theory - but if there's an example then it would be interesting to know about. Course there have been scientific theories disproven and replaced by other theories, but that's the beauty of science - it's always open to be challenged and tested, in a way that religion is not.
If A is superior to B in everyway possible and B required a consious, intelligent, living creator, then A just has to have had one to. I hope what I said makes sense. Well, this is all my reasoning anyway
Last edited by burtreynoldsisonit; Feb 20th 2008 at 10:27 pm.
Feb 20th 2008 | 11:06 pm
#85
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
Obviously the theory has developed since the days of Darwin so you have to make sure what Darwin actually said still applies.
Feb 20th 2008 | 11:10 pm
#86
Thread Starter
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 247
From: Achewood
Feb 20th 2008 | 11:16 pm
#87
Account Open
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,298
From: Brisbane
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
But that's not how it works !
Feb 20th 2008 | 11:35 pm
#89
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
That's science. It moved on. That's the problem most religious people have with science. How can it be true if the theories keep changing? Good science moves towards the truth through constantly questioning its own beliefs and improving them. It is possible that this is a never ending process.
Your earlier comments about science relying on faith is a misunderstanding of science. All proofs, theories, etc... in science require evidence otherwise they are not scientific proofs, theories, etc... The only thing in science that doesn't have evidence (or has little supporting evidence) is a conjecture which is the starting point of the scientific method. If the physical evidence can't be provided to support the conjecture then it doesn't progress any further.
Also note that science does not exclude the possibility of a god. Science is not able to prove the existance nor disprove the non-existance of a supernatural being so therefore this is outside the realm of science. It can however prove that what is around today evolved rather than just appearing.
Your earlier comments about science relying on faith is a misunderstanding of science. All proofs, theories, etc... in science require evidence otherwise they are not scientific proofs, theories, etc... The only thing in science that doesn't have evidence (or has little supporting evidence) is a conjecture which is the starting point of the scientific method. If the physical evidence can't be provided to support the conjecture then it doesn't progress any further.
Also note that science does not exclude the possibility of a god. Science is not able to prove the existance nor disprove the non-existance of a supernatural being so therefore this is outside the realm of science. It can however prove that what is around today evolved rather than just appearing.
Feb 20th 2008 | 11:53 pm
#90
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: Theory of Evolution: Seriously??
What I don't get is this;
If we all evolved from some single cell amoeba or whatever and everything is evolving to be 'better' - ie to be able to survive better (that IS what the theory is isn't it?) - why are the so many hundreds of thousands of completely different, mostly (I discount the cockroach) amazingly complex forms of life on this planet all getting along just fine thankyou??
What I mean is - if we've been evolving for millions and millions of years (by the way - the statement somewhere in this thread that we have now evolved more dextrous thumbs due to mobile phones - well, let's just say that I let a bit of wee out) why on earth haven't we all evolved into the same 'being'? You know - the 'most likely to survive' species? Some might argue that humans are just that (and I'd agree as I just don't get this evolution theory - it doesn't make sense) but what about everything else?? Why, for example, are cockroaches still around? Why are they still here when everyone dumps gallons of mortein on the things? Are we suggesting that - at some point in our evolution - we were cockroaches? Or maybe something similar but with thumbs?
The other big thing I have a problem with is, if we are all evolving (and continuously so according to the theory) why the bloomin' heck isn't there either;
A) One single 'being' on earth - due to the fact that we have all evolved to the pinacle of evolution (or at least at the same point along the road)
B) A 'smooth' transition of 'beings' from Bex (
) to the most intelligent human being. Why are there 'jumps' from amoeba to cockroach to fish to cat to what-the-hell-ever??
I don't get it
Why - from all the fossils that have been dug up are there no 'in-between-can't-quite-make-my-mind-up-what-I-want-to-be' fossils?
I think there's big, BIG holes in the whole thing. I'm not suggesting I have an answer - it just winds me up people saying that 'THIS IS HOW IT IS - WHY DON'T YOU GOOGLE IT' - just because some dude in a wheelchair told them so.
Graham
If we all evolved from some single cell amoeba or whatever and everything is evolving to be 'better' - ie to be able to survive better (that IS what the theory is isn't it?) - why are the so many hundreds of thousands of completely different, mostly (I discount the cockroach) amazingly complex forms of life on this planet all getting along just fine thankyou??
What I mean is - if we've been evolving for millions and millions of years (by the way - the statement somewhere in this thread that we have now evolved more dextrous thumbs due to mobile phones - well, let's just say that I let a bit of wee out) why on earth haven't we all evolved into the same 'being'? You know - the 'most likely to survive' species? Some might argue that humans are just that (and I'd agree as I just don't get this evolution theory - it doesn't make sense) but what about everything else?? Why, for example, are cockroaches still around? Why are they still here when everyone dumps gallons of mortein on the things? Are we suggesting that - at some point in our evolution - we were cockroaches? Or maybe something similar but with thumbs?
The other big thing I have a problem with is, if we are all evolving (and continuously so according to the theory) why the bloomin' heck isn't there either;
A) One single 'being' on earth - due to the fact that we have all evolved to the pinacle of evolution (or at least at the same point along the road)
B) A 'smooth' transition of 'beings' from Bex (
) to the most intelligent human being. Why are there 'jumps' from amoeba to cockroach to fish to cat to what-the-hell-ever?? I don't get it
Why - from all the fossils that have been dug up are there no 'in-between-can't-quite-make-my-mind-up-what-I-want-to-be' fossils?
I think there's big, BIG holes in the whole thing. I'm not suggesting I have an answer - it just winds me up people saying that 'THIS IS HOW IT IS - WHY DON'T YOU GOOGLE IT' - just because some dude in a wheelchair told them so.
Graham
Secondly I think you are making an assumption that humans are the pinnacle (or the end-game) of evolution. This is not true. Humans are good at filling their niche but are not very good at filling the cockroaches' niche. They are not the pinnacle of evolution as there is no such thing as the pinnacle of evolution.
Note that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, we didn't evolve from chimps (which answers the question why are chimps still around). Our common ancestor evolved one way to fill the chimp niche and another way to fill the human niche. Humans are not that good at filling the chimp niche (although we may be quite good at chopping it down). And yes they have found this common ancestor.
