Originally Posted by ctwickman

this is a good place to start if you are open minded enough to hear and be part of the debate

Originally Posted by ctwickman

^

I think the point of people who "don't believe in evolution" like myself is simply a matter of symantecs. Arguing over apples and oranges never gets us anywhere, so let me just say I don't know of ANYONE who does not believe in microevolution. It is scientific and TESTABLE. There is a big difference between naturally selecting what information is already there or via a point mutation in bacterial R-conjugation (which is how bacteria can become resistant) and leaping from that scientific fact all the way to the imagination that you literally came from a rock, and that rock literally came from nothing. The evolution you speak of is testable and does not create a new species, simply a current species that is resistant to a current environmental insult. This is natural selection which is completely testable and scientific. In order to get it to change, you have to have the insult, and the bacteria in absence of the insult is actually WORSE off and doesn't live as long. Read also sickle cell disease and the resistance in Africans to Plasmodium vivax. The individual is now resistant to malaria, but in the absence of malaria or otherwise lives only to be 40 years old, and has a lot of problems with morbidity in life. The mutation has resulted in a human that has evolved to a.... human, and one who is WORSE off than before in absence of the environmental insult.

That is a far cry from what some propose, that there is no intelligence above ourselves and that we have no conscious origin. This is called pure Darwinism or Macroevolution. I know of no scientist that doesn't believe in Microevolution, but I know quite a few that realize that Macroevolution is totally non-scientific, and may in fact not even be true as evidence for the Cambrian "explosion of life" mounts. Macroevolution (you and I came from a rock, and that rock came from nothing at all) is a leap of FAITH and is totally non-scientific no matter how you want to argue it. It is not testable and if you REALLY read up on it, the evidence is sorely lacking. There are a couple fossil icons of evolution such as Lucy and a couple jawbones, but even the lead curator of the British Museum admits that there are no real transitional fossil forms and has been quoted on it. I am not going to say that Macroevolution is not logical. It totally is. You can IMAGINE it happening logically based on what we know of Microevolution, which is testable. There is a big difference between a logical conclusion and a truthful conclusion, however, and a distinction should be made as for some people the logic that follows from Microevolution leads one to believe Macroevolution has already been proven, which is hasn't. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who will tell you that Macroevolution has been proven, whether they believe in it or not.

Re: Intelligent Design... The information is out there--there is a very large intelligent design movement among scientists and it is growing as we learn more about the complexities of life. This isn't a movement of radical Christians who want you to come to church with them.... these are people who have dedicated their life to scientific research and finding out the truth to our origins, as the debate itself is far from over and there is no reason to believe we have solved this puzzle yet, unless you are so stubborn that your mind is made up based on what you have been taught. http://www.origins.org is a good place to start and has some good debates on the subject, and is lead by a renown professor from Berkeley.

In other words, with Google and the Internet, there is no excuse to be ignorant about intelligent design theories or at the very least the evidence against macroevolution, which you will find there is plenty of. The information and journals are a click away. The only reason certain people don't know much about this, however, is that they either 1) Weren't taught it (i.e., most of us)., or 2) Anything involving intelligence in the design of our bodies is demonized by certain people who simply want to cover their ears because they think it is religious, and they hate religion. Curiousity got the best of me though, and that curious nature has made me, I feel, a fantastic physician and researcher. From the beginning of my medical career I can't think of a single instance where having to believe in macroevolution and origins science is ever relevant in medical science. It certainly isn't taught or integrated into the medical science curriculum they teach at medical schools.

It is not to say that there is direct evidence for "God" but that with the realities we are faced with, when you research what exactly we and this universe are made of, and you learn more about it, you are at least faced with the conclusion that it is totally reasonable to believe that there was intelligence involved in how and why we are here. I am not hear to argue for ID, just to give some information on it because it is currently where I am leaning as I get older and learn more. I have not concluded that Macroevolution is completely false, just that it is as just as non-scientific as ID. The more you read, the more you at least come to the conclusion that those who believe intelligence was involved (whether you call it "God" or aliens, or whatever) are not crazy and merely just ignorant and "stupid," that is such a cop out for those who simply don't feel there can be any debate. Some of the smartest and most informed colleagues that I know are ID proponents. Just the mere fact that our bodies contain vast amounts of design information, which in EVERY aspect of our life is a hallmark of intelligence, at least points us away from the view that our lives have no conscious origin. Then you absolutely must conclude that the universe is either conscious and always has been, or it never was and spontaneously become conscious of itself through us, a product of it. That is what you believe if you are a pure Darwinist.

None of these debates is important to moving medical science forward BTW, it is just fun discussion, though most people's minds seem made up on this forum. If you are interested there is a lot of information out there... like I've said, this is a good place to start if you are open minded enough to hear and be part of the debate:

http://www.origins.org/menus/evolution.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/debates.html

Originally Posted by Sallyanne

Why not let God decide who lives and dies

Originally Posted by Shahlax

I agree that people who hate religion jump onto the evolution band wagon. They don't necessarily look at the lack of evidence holding up darwinism. For instance, how come there are no fossils records showing the intermediary species? All the fossil records show that each species suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed.

Originally Posted by rincewind

You've been ill informed. Try more research. Fossil records DO NOT show that each species showed up fully formed. Far from it.

Originally Posted by Shahlax

There is no fossil record for millions of transitional forms that should have been found. Take the dragonfly for instance. The oldest dragonfly fossil is exactly the same as the newest one. There is no dragonfly with half wings or 4 legs.

Originally Posted by Shahlax

I am no scientist but the 'missing link' debate is a very valid one.

Originally Posted by UJ_99

No, but ancient dragonflies were much larger. Meganeura from the Carboniferous era had a wing span of 700mm, but the modern wing span of a dragonfly is only 100mm.

Originally Posted by UJ_99

Not really - just because a theory has some gaps means you have to throw it out?!? Or because it cannot explain everything, then it is wrong and God must exist? Because that is the argument being put forward by ID proponents, who do little but point at the 'gaps' in Evolution, and say because there are gaps, ID must be right.

ID is a stealth way to teach Christianity in schools, that is all.

Originally Posted by Shahlax

Not to be pedantic, but regardless of wingspan, they are still dragonflies! I am talking about transitional animals, something that is nearly a dragonfly but not quite. That is how evolution supposedly works..

Originally Posted by Shahlax

Of course a theory can have gaps. but the more gaps it has the less believable it is...

Originally Posted by Shahlax

The scientists who believe in ID are not the same people who care about Christianity being taught in schools. That's the US government

Originally Posted by rushman

Religion told us that the sun and universe revolved around the Earth. Galileo found the truth and was persecuted by the catholic church for daring to say that the Earth revolved around the sun. Persecuted to the point that scientists of that period had to meet and discuss their beliefs and findings in secret to avoid punishment from the Pope.


I suppose religion was right then and is still right now?

Originally Posted by rincewind

Replace viruses with bacteria and that's what I was getting at.

Originally Posted by Yorkieabroad

Religious Education - we actually had a class debate about bible vs darwin

Originally Posted by UJ_99

No, but ancient dragonflies were much larger. Meganeura from the Carboniferous era had a wing span of 700mm, but the modern wing span of a dragonfly is only 100mm.