Science Debate

Do you support Evloution?

  • Yes,

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A bit of both.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Angel

New member
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/13060083.htm

Well since this was in the news over the last few weeks. Lets not turn this into a religious rant/debate/you-get-the-idea. Basically, express your ideas but no bashing others views. Keep it clean and mature and non-offensive. :)

Intelligent design does NOT nesscary mean God created things... It could also mean, for want of a better example, Aliens came down and designed us. We should all be aware of the thoery of Evloution. So hopefully I don't have to explain it... If you don't know this try playing pokemon and you'll get the basic idea.

For anyone who doesn't know though these things:

Evloution theories were built up by Charles Darwin many decades ago, at the time it was revolutionary. Charles Darwin lived his whole life fearing being branded as a Heretic after he wrote his famous book on evloution. At the time, being branded as a heretic made you an outcast and criminal. In his book, he never said man was directly related to apes, but at the time, it was obivous what he was saying. At the time, there was another man (whose name slips my mind) who was doing another thoery based on Intelligant design.

The main fear with this debate going on is that there will be a loss of faith in Science. If the argument to teach intelligent design wins, science suffers and many people may choose not to go into the field of science. But if science wins and the thoery is squashed, religious peeps may not like it and it will mean the freedom of speech thing comes into question.

http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/N/N00/N00615_9.jpg
 
They say God created the Earth and Man in seven days....my reply was "How long is a day to God?"

I'm glad you included the third option in the poll, because I believe parts of both are true.


Good topic, btw.
 
Well, I'm going to steer away from the science vs religion since there was a topic like this awhile ago, and I already drained out all my thoughts in there.

But as for intelligent design, yes it is possible, but the fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. Intelligent design goes off of "lack of evidence," and evolution goes off of evidence. There are fossil records, bone structural patterns, DNA evidence, and much more different types of evidence to prove evolution to be true. Intelligent design states the contrary and says all evidence is insufficient so we had to be created by a higher power.

Something that has absolutely no evidence to support itself should never be in a science classroom. If that was the case then anyone can come up with some theory with no evidence but still cannot be disproven, and it'll have to be taught alongside with evolution and creationism. Then there's no point in even teaching the class since it's just going to be a philosophizing life class.

Maybe throw creationism into a literature class, but it certainly doesn't belong in a science class.

Disappointed said:
They say God created the Earth and Man in seven days....my reply was "How long is a day to God?"

I'd have to stick with 24hrs since God used the day Saturday (never seen a Saturday longer/shorter than 24hrs in my life) to rest after he created the world in 7 days.
 
intelligent design should be taught in schools because school is a place to learn, and make decisions. I think its unfair to teach evolution only in schools because thats one sided. Some of the things they teach about evolution isnt even true. I.D. isnt saying hey man jesus died for your sins and you need to go the right path. Its just saying that the world is way too complexe to happen by chance. If they really want to teach science, then they need I.D. Its foolish to overlook how complex the world is if you are going to teach science. Its also foolish to only give one theory and say well we cant talk about the other theorys because of the seperation of church and state, and well evolution squeeks by as a non religion.....even though it basicly is.
 
The main argument against the evloution thoery is there is gaps in the family tree of life. though thats easy to explain.

Say there was one species of insect tht all flies spawned from (which would actually be true if you know what I mean). Insects are difficult to preserve, they have no bone structure and the most common form of survivaul for specimens is through sap traps. So the orginal species of fly could exsist and die without leaving a trace that its species ever exsisted. And no matter how much you search, you never find it.

So this is basically why there is gaps. You can't walk down the street and just trip over the missing link. If there was one specimen that held the answer to everything, it may take centuries to find it.
 
Everyone knows my thoughts on this.. if you don't, search for the Science vs Religion thread..

Saying that you believe something that has so many missing gaps, such as Evolution is the same as saying you believe in Intelligent Design but can't prove it either because there are so many gaps. At this point in the Human Race's ability to understand, you can't prove Evolution, nor can you prove Intelligent Design with Science. The reason why Creationism changed into Intelligent Design is because Evolution is losing ground and more and more evidence is moving toward Intelligent Design, however many of those Scientist are unwilling to acknowledge God, therefore that's why it's called Intelligent Design and not Creationism.

Heck, Charles Darwin didn't even believe the theory of Evolution. Later in his life, he admitted that there were flaws in it.

Anyway, this is my only post on the subject.
 
Angel said:
The main argument against the evloution thoery is there is gaps in the family tree of life. though thats easy to explain.

Say there was one species of insect tht all flies spawned from (which would actually be true if you know what I mean). Insects are difficult to preserve, they have no bone structure and the most common form of survivaul for specimens is through sap traps. So the orginal species of fly could exsist and die without leaving a trace that its species ever exsisted. And no matter how much you search, you never find it.

So this is basically why there is gaps. You can't walk down the street and just trip over the missing link. If there was one specimen that held the answer to everything, it may take centuries to find it.

so the thousands of missing links that transition one species to another all have magically died and there is no trace of them? Or it could be that there really was no missing link. I still never understand people who believe this. Its not like apes and man can create a baby, or any other animal with another species of animal can make a baby. They have to be the same kind of animal to breed.
 
The 7th Number said:
Its also foolish to only give one theory and say well we cant talk about the other theorys because of the seperation of church and state, and well evolution squeeks by as a non religion.....even though it basicly is.

Malitor Greymaulkin said:
Everyone knows my thoughts on this.. if you don't, search for the Science vs Religion thread..

Saying that you believe something that has so many missing gaps, such as Evolution is the same as saying you believe in Intelligent Design but can't prove it either because there are so many gaps. At this point in the Human Race's ability to understand, you can't prove Evolution, nor can you prove Intelligent Design with Science. The reason why Creationism changed into Intelligent Design is because Evolution is losing ground and more and more evidence is moving toward Intelligent Design, however many of those Scientist are unwilling to acknowledge God, therefore that's why it's called Intelligent Design and not Creationism.

Heck, Charles Darwin didn't even believe the theory of Evolution. Later in his life, he admitted that there were flaws in it.

Anyway, this is my only post on the subject.

Between the both of you, give me ONE piece of evidence that can prove creationism/intelligent design to be true (not counter-evidence against evolution or lack-of evidence for evolution, just evidence directly supporting some sort of intelligent design without bringing up evolution or any other theory), and I would consider it worthy to be taught in a science classroom. Otherwise, it belongs in Literature/Mythology class like many older religious theories for how we were made are (Ex: Greek Mythology).
 
The 7th Number said:
Angel said:
The main argument against the evloution thoery is there is gaps in the family tree of life. though thats easy to explain.

Say there was one species of insect tht all flies spawned from (which would actually be true if you know what I mean). Insects are difficult to preserve, they have no bone structure and the most common form of survivaul for specimens is through sap traps. So the orginal species of fly could exsist and die without leaving a trace that its species ever exsisted. And no matter how much you search, you never find it.

So this is basically why there is gaps. You can't walk down the street and just trip over the missing link. If there was one specimen that held the answer to everything, it may take centuries to find it.

so the thousands of missing links that transition one species to another all have magically died and there is no trace of them? Or it could be that there really was no missing link. I still never understand people who believe this. Its not like apes and man can create a baby, or any other animal with another species of animal can make a baby. They have to be the same kind of animal to breed.

Strickly speaking thats not true - Llama and Camels evloved into what they are starting 1 mill years ago. They've bred them...

The difference between a chimpanze and human is 5 mill years. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp Our DNA with chimps is very close. Why haven't they tried breeding a chimp/human hybred... simply because it viliates human conventions and regluations set by the science community themselves.

BTW this popped up just 5 hours ago...

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051102_natural_selection.html

Edit:

BTW if you don't believe in missing links then how about this - there is an estimate that we've still got to discover 99% of all the dinosaur species... In other words... There is a lot of missing dinosaur links.
 
The 7th Number said:
Angel said:
The main argument against the evloution thoery is there is gaps in the family tree of life. though thats easy to explain.

Say there was one species of insect tht all flies spawned from (which would actually be true if you know what I mean). Insects are difficult to preserve, they have no bone structure and the most common form of survivaul for specimens is through sap traps. So the orginal species of fly could exsist and die without leaving a trace that its species ever exsisted. And no matter how much you search, you never find it.

So this is basically why there is gaps. You can't walk down the street and just trip over the missing link. If there was one specimen that held the answer to everything, it may take centuries to find it.

so the thousands of missing links that transition one species to another all have magically died and there is no trace of them? Or it could be that there really was no missing link. I still never understand people who believe this. Its not like apes and man can create a baby, or any other animal with another species of animal can make a baby. They have to be the same kind of animal to breed.

No, unless the species all mutated at the same time, we go through a process called gradualism, which is evolving through time. We can blatantly see this in humans today by our skin color. People of European origin are very pale while people of African origin are very dark. Why? Because our bodies have evolved to give us the skin color that is most beneficial to our environment.

Being white as a ghost and going into a climate such as Africa, you'd be more prone to getting skin cancer and the sun rays are way too strong, so you'd have an overproduction of vitamin D, which can lead to death. Now being blacker than night and going into a climate with very little sun exposure (compared to Africa) will lead to the person getting rickets, a disease caused by lack of vitamin D, since the sunrays there are too weak to penetrate the darker skin and if it occurs in a child, it can lead to deformities/death.

We see evolution every day, but it's not significant enough to notice until you turn the clock millions of years ahead/behind. And even if intelligent design were to be true (even without any evidence supporting it), that in no way disproves evolution since we could have STILL EVOLVED from the original lifeforms that were put on Earth. Saying we all were here as we are now has been disproven since not all species could have possibly survived in different ages of time. ;)
 
Kryptonite is correct about gradualism. If we'd have been given another 50,000 years apart, the various human races may have started to evolve into different species.

Another aspect of us that still is evloving is our brain. It starting evloving 200,000 years ago. About 14,000-60,000 years ago it really took off. It was provoked when a volcano changed the climate (among many things). All those that didn't have this gene died and no one has their DNA today.

In fact everyone on Earth is decended from a population esitmated to have been just 2,000 peeps... It wasn't just us that suffered during this period of time Neanderthals also died out during this period. They were dying out when we met them in Europe.
 
kwiynhmioasnwtag

haha i dont know too much about either but if you read angels and demons from dan brown it has pretty much the same argument religion vs science

someone has already said this but i dont care im not gonna read all the post some are too long

i kinda lean toward the evolution idea tho too bad science is stopping us from evolving huh? i miss natural selection lol :D
 
Kryptonite said:
No, unless the species all mutated at the same time, we go through a process called gradualism, which is evolving through time. We can blatantly see this in humans today by our skin color. People of European origin are very pale while people of African origin are very dark. Why? Because our bodies have evolved to give us the skin color that is most beneficial to our environment.

Being white as a ghost and going into a climate such as Africa, you'd be more prone to getting skin cancer and the sun rays are way too strong, so you'd have an overproduction of vitamin D, which can lead to death. Now being blacker than night and going into a climate with very little sun exposure (compared to Africa) will lead to the person getting rickets, a disease caused by lack of vitamin D, since the sunrays there are too weak to penetrate the darker skin and if it occurs in a child, it can lead to deformities/death.

We see evolution every day, but it's not significant enough to notice until you turn the clock millions of years ahead/behind. And even if intelligent design were to be true (even without any evidence supporting it), that in no way disproves evolution since we could have STILL EVOLVED from the original lifeforms that were put on Earth. Saying we all were here as we are now has been disproven since not all species could have possibly survived in different ages of time. ;)

THANK YOU. I certainly would've said something similar if you hadn't. It's pretty simple, whether you believe in it or not, evolution is all around us. I see nothing to be proven or disproven in that regard; it's just a fact of life. It seems to me like the only people who debate the existence of evolution have a very askew perception of exactly what it is and how it occurs. For example, in my senior year of high school, my english teacher, who knew I supported evolution, approached me with this question:

I saw a dead fish the other day in a part of the lake that had dried up. If evolution exists, then why didn't that fish just evolve to breathe on land?

Now this is someone who simply doesn't understand evolution, and therefore really has no solid arguments against it. Evolution is gradual; it won't happen in an instant and it won't keep you from being mortal. Now, hypothetically speaking, if over a extended period of time it became necessary for a whole entire species of fish to survive by breathing air via an occurence such as the world's water level gradually dropping, that could theoretically take place through generations and generations of new fish. That's really oversimplifying it, though.

All that said, the existence of evolution doesn't actually disprove intelligence design, the existence of god, or whatever you want to call it. Evolution is like the mixture of oxygen we breathe; it's just there. The way this universe actually started is still completely up in the air, whether it came from a big bang, the creation of a higher power, or something else altogether.

Now, while I don't altogether dismiss the possibility of our world being created by another being, I certainly don't think it's a theory that should be taught in schools. The reason for that is that you teach people facts, not what-ifs. Evolution has been proven to be a part of our existence, while intelligent design is all speculation with nothing to back it up. If such a theory were allowed to be taught in schools, then we'd have to let in every theory out there. We'd also have to teach the theory that man was spawned from the great horned cat of Uranus, or whatever other crazy theory someone's come up with that has no basis in fact.

I know people often retort to that with, "well evolution is just a theory too", which I think is bullshit. If you ask me, the only reason it's still referred to as a theory is that the religious fanatics across the globe are too powerful a force to let it be presented as absolute fact. Of course, I have no facts to back up that claim, but then again, I'm not asking for that theory to be taught in schools, either.
 
Your teacher is wrong:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/dipnoi.html

Supposedlly, if their lake dries up then they can soak themselves in mud, keeping them moist and just breathe air. Cost is they can also drown, sounds crazy a fish drowning in water, but they can. then again... Shark drown if they stop moving...

So there, while the average fish can't breathe air, this thing can.

The wonders and marvels of evloution. :)

And strickly speaking anyway without knowing this you can get your answer in the first place from today... Water breathers becoming air breathers millions of years ago. Whether a fish was the one ancestor or something else, you wouldn't be here if the process from sea to land hadn't happened.
 
My take is this -- I'm not sure if this is Intelligent Design or not, but it doesn't really matter:

There's plenty of evidence that evolution has happened and continues to happen, and that the universe has been around for a lot longer than the few thousand years that The Bible would suggest.

However, any form of life is incredibly complex on a physical level. It simply is not believable that all of that -- working more or less harmoniously with other forms of life -- just came together by random chance. Modern robots do not just come together and function on their own, after all. Therefore someone or something -- whether you believe that to be an omnipotent, immortal God or not isn't an issue -- had to have put all of the pieces together deliberately.
 
Ok you will notice that this isn't a big explanation answer this

If god created adam and eve (humen) then what was the point of making everyone else evolve from apes
 
lost_victory said:
Ok you will notice that this isn't a big explanation answer this

If god created adam and eve (humen) then what was the point of making everyone else evolve from apes

well if god made adam and eve then there was no evolution, cos god made all the animals, and plants the way they are today.

i find it funny how people think the world is so old. If you really get into it, you will see that studing the earth supports a young earth. 6 thousand years about. There is no tree's over 6,000 years old, or coral reefs either. If the universe is so old the moon would have a lot more dust on it. That was one of the scares the US had about landing on the moon. They thought if the universe was so old that the ship would land and sink under miles of moon dust. Plus the anual rings that they count in the arctic arent anual, they are just cold and warm days. personally from all of the things i have seen. The world is around 6 thousand years old. Also there is alot of support for the flood. Not a little minor flood, a worldwide flood. Like seashells found on the tops of mountains, and other things.
 
I'll poke holes in this one once at a time.

The 7th Number said:
well if god made adam and eve then there was no evolution, cos god made all the animals, and plants the way they are today.

How do you know? Were you there?

The 7th Number said:
i find it funny how people think the world is so old. If you really get into it, you will see that studing the earth supports a young earth. 6 thousand years about. There is no tree's over 6,000 years old, or coral reefs either. If the universe is so old the moon would have a lot more dust on it. That was one of the scares the US had about landing on the moon. They thought if the universe was so old that the ship would land and sink under miles of moon dust. Plus the anual rings that they count in the arctic arent anual, they are just cold and warm days. personally from all of the things i have seen. The world is around 6 thousand years old. Also there is alot of support for the flood. Not a little minor flood, a worldwide flood. Like seashells found on the tops of mountains, and other things.

I know about the flood support, but a 6,000 year old Earth...? What's your evidence? All of the carbon dating for this that I've heard of suggests billions of years.
 
i already gave some of my proof. "There is no tree's over 6,000 years old, or coral reefs either. If the universe is so old the moon would have a lot more dust on it. That was one of the scares the US had about landing on the moon. They thought if the universe was so old that the ship would land and sink under miles of moon dust."

and carbon dating isnt as accurate as people say it is. Personally i dont like arguments like this because even if you showed someone some proof, that 100% proved either way was the truth, people still wouldnt believe it. It just boils down to what you believe personally.
 
Well, 6,000 years is basically recorded human history. Then theres another question: Oil and coal. It took thousand upon thousand of years for that to happen. There is evidence the Earth is much older in rocks and the sea on its seabed. The fact nothing alive is old enough is meaningless.

We know that Dinosaur weren't around 6,000 years ago because our ancestors never recorded any... A giant thing the size of a house... I think they would have mentioned it... And there are thousands of big animals that died out even before we came along.

Evolution prefers things to happen QUICKLY. The sooner the next generation happens, the better. This has been proven. They maanged to extend the lifespan a of fruitfly from 3 days to 2 weeks simply making making them reproduce late. Longer lifespans have a cost, unless the genes in its DNA are fast chaning, there is a risk that the species won't adapt fast enough.

Carbon dating usually is only 100-50,000 years out, because it depends on age and how fast the carbon inside something was allowed to escape. But I might add, isn't really much of a difference. They can't track you down to the day you died, but they can track which century you died in or which millenia you died in.

Also, your lifespan is wrong. There ARE creatures that are older then 6,000 years... But its basically a bunch of tiny bacteria that they've found inside a rock. One generation happens every so many thousand years. These forms of bacteria are the oldest types of lifeforms, simply because evolution for them is much slower then even normal bacterias (which happen very fast sometimes) because of how often a generation happens. Evoloution for them is slow that they hardly change, hence why their the most primitive lifeforms - they haven't changed as much as everything else. There weren't discovered until fairly recently because they are usually only found several miles under the Earths surface and were discovered by accident in the first place anyway.

Why didn't the spaceship sink when it landed on the moon? Any dust created on it would fly off anyway there is little gravity holding it down. So instead of lying on the surface, it floats off.

This topic is making me sound like a total Geek... Curse my father and his stupid discovery channel programs! (Its all he watches and we're forced to watch them). @_@
 
Top