Did Evolution Really Happen?

[Mr.Grieves]

Right, a snowflake is a complex structure with symmetry or some sort of mathematical boundaries. How do mathematical boundaries evolve?

Depending on what you mean by that they don't, but complex systems manifest within those boundaries consistently all throughout nature; systems which grow increasingly complex the more closely you look at them. 'DNA', while indeed an extremely complex system, doesn't necessarily require a guy scratching his chin, going 'HmMMm', and then scribbling it all down, just as the exceedingly complex structure of a unique snowflake doesn't require a designer with a blue-print and a ruler to plot it all out. These things can manifest by themselves, simply because they're possible within the parameters available.

 

[Kung Fu]

Here I mean Darwinism.

Darwins study consisted of micro evolution/adaptation and macro evolution. The evolution you speak of do you mean how one completely different species evolves into something else for example, a fish over time evolving into a giraffe?

 

[rainerann]

Depending on what you mean by that they don't, but complex systems manifest within those boundaries consistently all throughout nature; systems which grow increasingly complex the more closely you look at them. 'DNA', while indeed an extremely complex system, doesn't necessarily require a guy scratching his chin, going 'HmMMm', and then scribbling it all down, just as the exceedingly complex structure of a unique snowflake doesn't require a designer with a blue-print and a ruler to plot it all out. These things can manifest by themselves, simply because they're possible within the parameters available.

No, it wouldn't be completed individually. These aren't individual "eureka" moments for God to be made fun of. This process demonstrates the presence of some sort of algorithm that would have to be integrated into evolutionary theory for it to be a complete explanation of origin. How does evolutionary theory explain the presence of an algorithm that determines different boundaries for a snowflake than for an individual water molecule? Where did math come from?

 

[Sherekeewoman]

Why do you think Evolution is a lie?

I'm fairly certain evolution is real. Consider your own life. As a baby your brain is huge, but nevertheless you can't speak, run. As a child you can run, speak, and throw a ball. But you probably still can't drive a car, work manual labor, or design a computer. That's evolution, you start out as a simple little baby and become a complex adult.

The birth of our species must of been similar, only it took much longer. We had to go through a lot of "simple" stages. The origins of pretty much everything start out in some simple form. Like planets, and even the entire galaxy

AND... look at the FETUS during gestation! We have tails that are reabsorbed! The genesis into human form shows evolution in plain sight. That doesn't mean God isn't real! Evolution was part of God/Creator's plan from the beginning..... it takes TIME....millions of years for the DNA coding to become higher evolved.....we are STILL in evolution. Science just measures and shows patterns in the reality of the Universe that was created by God's Thought Seed.

 

[mecca]

This is a clear example of mankind harnessing and in a sense usurping the evolutionary process, and again, we're talking spans of a few hundred, a few thousand years, rather than hundreds of millions of billions of years, a scale of time many humans have trouble comprehending.

True

 

[mecca]

you can call it mother nature, you can call it God's work or will.
in the end mother nature didn't come out of no where.

Exactly

 

[mecca]

I don't think it's a lie. I don't think it is a completed subject. Therefore, I disagree with presenting evolution as complete fact. I think Richard Dawkins suggested that evolution was basically fact in one of his documentaries. I find him to lack a lot of objectivity as a scientist.

Evolution is field of scientific study. It is a continued investigation. Therefore, I skeptically consider evolutionary theory conservatively because it is a field of study that might undergo change in the next 10, 20, 30 years. I keep my ears open, but try to remain objective about it.

I agree.

 

[mecca]

AND... look at the FETUS during gestation! We have tails that are reabsorbed! The genesis into human form shows evolution in plain sight. That doesn't mean God isn't real! Evolution was part of God/Creator's plan from the beginning..... it takes TIME....millions of years for the DNA coding to become higher evolved.....we are STILL in evolution. Science just measures and shows patterns in the reality of the Universe that was created by God's Thought Seed.

Makes sense.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I studied Biology and Biochemistry to degree level and specialised in Evolution - one of the many intellectually dishonest parts of the way the theory is presented is to present micro evolution as de-facto evidence for macro evolution.

This is like proving you can jump a stream, so therefore, you can jump the Grand Canyon. Certainly some jumps are possible, but in my studies, not one professor was able to provide anything like a scientific answer to the question of 'irreducable complexity', i.e. a system that required a complete and finished state to work, towards which intermediates were of no use. There are a lot of 'grand canyons' in nature. This took a Magnum and blew the brains out if the theory for me.

I got a double first at the module and having satisfied myself I had understood their arguments as well as I could, I told course leader that I rejected the theory and was a biblical Creationist (and still am 20 years later).

 

[Aero]

It doesn't offend me if people believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. But there is just so much evidence that proves it's way older than that. And I tend to agree, God didn't make us that much more special than any other creature. Except for maybe the ability to contemplate the existence of God itself, even if it might only be a fairy tale programmed into our DNA.

Sometimes I wonder if it can't be argued consciousness is a curse more than a gift. Doesn't instinct and the subconscious seem to dominate everything anyway? The human thought process is kind of a constant loop of bullshit. Maybe not having it doesn't diminish the experience of life, but makes it better. Personally I might rather be able to fly

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

It doesn't offend me if people believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. But there is just so much evidence that proves it's way older than that. And I tend to agree, God didn't make us that much more special than any other creature. Except for maybe the ability to contemplate the existence of God itself, even if it might only be a fairy tale programmed into our DNA.

Sometimes I wonder if it can't be argued consciousness is a curse more than a gift. Doesn't instinct and the subconscious seem to dominate everything anyway? The human thought process is kind of a constant loop of bullshit. Maybe not having it doesn't diminish the experience of life, but makes it better. Personally I might rather be able to fly

As a scientific process, I recommend taking each pillar of Evolutionary thought and investigating sources in support of and arguing against. Create a file if you like. I had the luxury of the time to find perspectives from both sides if the debate.

Imagine yourself like a juror carefully weighing evidence in a civil trial. Don't rush to a conclusion, check your sources out.

As both Creation and Evolution are metaphysical, untestable and unprovable, look for 'balance of probability' as your test for truth.

 

[UnderAlienControl]

<warps in ~~~~Throws Fuel On The Fire ~~~~ warps out>

{{CAUTION ~~ EXPLICIT CONTENT ~~ CAUTION}}

 

[Aero]

As a scientific process, I recommend taking each pillar of Evolutionary thought and investigating sources in support of and arguing against. Create a file if you like. I had the luxury of the time to find perspectives from both sides if the debate.

Imagine yourself like a juror carefully weighing evidence in a civil trial. Don't rush to a conclusion, check your sources out.

As both Creation and Evolution are metaphysical, untestable and unprovable, look for 'balance of probability' as your test for truth.

Well the age of the Earth isn't Evolution in the biological sense. It's the study of rocks, dirt and water. I don't know what the Bible has as a counter to the whole erosion factor. We can literally see with our own eyes just how much of a battering Earth has taken. And it's way more than a thousand years worth.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Well the age of the Earth isn't Evolution in the biological sense. It's the study of rocks, dirt and water. I don't know what the Bible has as a counter to the whole erosion factor. We can literally see with our own eyes just how much of a battering Earth has taken. And it's way more than a thousand years worth.

Perhaps that should be the first question for your 'file' then? I can let you know some of the things I found out or you can research for yourself... I don't get any 'air miles' for persuading you one way or the other ;-)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Depending on what you mean by that they don't, but complex systems manifest within those boundaries consistently all throughout nature; systems which grow increasingly complex the more closely you look at them. 'DNA', while indeed an extremely complex system, doesn't necessarily require a guy scratching his chin, going 'HmMMm', and then scribbling it all down, just as the exceedingly complex structure of a unique snowflake doesn't require a designer with a blue-print and a ruler to plot it all out. These things can manifest by themselves, simply because they're possible within the parameters available.

I think there needs to be a distinction made between things that have the appearance of design, but are actually a property of natural laws already set in motion (e.g. your snowflake) and things that represent something more equating to computer coding (though Dawkins would dispute this violently).

Does that make sense?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Well the age of the Earth isn't Evolution in the biological sense. It's the study of rocks, dirt and water. I don't know what the Bible has as a counter to the whole erosion factor. We can literally see with our own eyes just how much of a battering Earth has taken. And it's way more than a thousand years worth.

I think the debate here is around uniformitarianism vs catastrophism. Both processes take place. Charles Lyell was committed to explaining everything around the idea that "The present is the key to the past'. Simply put, he makes the logical fallacy by adding 'always the key' in the approach to geology...

 

[Paranoia Daily]

I think it's a lie but I can't really prove it

Gawk at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org

 

[Paranoia Daily]

Y'all sound like some ancient Greek philosophers staring at their thumbs and saying "... And you see, my dear Etaglocius, this is why obviously the universe must be shaped like my thumb". All I've learned from this thread is that no one here has really bothered to research this issue. I would bet $100 that no one who has posted here has even read Evolution's wikipedia article, much less On the Origin of Species or any other books on evolution or any books arguing against evolution. Y'all are just pulling inane arguments out of thin air to defend what your third grade science teacher told you. I'm coming at this from an angle that I'm pretty sure none of you are familiar with. But I'm not going to discuss or defend my position until I've done my research. That's the difference between us.

No they are not pulling inane arguments....You don't believe it yet you post a one liner with no basis in fact other than your belief.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Gawk at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org

Adding Pandasthumb is worth including in any weighing process... What I recommend is the reverse of the 'Scopes Trial' - look at both sides of the evidence, expect 'advocacy' and bias, and separate that out using your understanding of science rather than being swept along by the power of a particular narrative line or persuasive individual...

It might be worth adding in www.icr.org, www.answersingenesis.org and www.creation.mobi into the mix. I used to take a page and make a note of arguments for and against. On both sides, use the source proposing it, not what the side you agree with says about that source. Try to be scientific and objective on the question.

That won't happen in a forum full of conflicting views and you won't find answers that satisfy you either way overnight.

Ps I loved this advert - it's about making your own mind up...

 

[Aero]

Perhaps that should be the first question for your 'file' then? I can let you know some of the things I found out or you can research for yourself... I don't get any 'air miles' for persuading you one way or the other ;-)

I don't think the Bible has a counter to Geology. Every time the waves crash against rocks, every time it rains, and snows. Erosion is taking place. And these are things that can be measured, and it takes a lot of time. Maybe it's like 1 centimeter of coastline gets worn down every year.

If the Bible were exactly true. Mountains would melt away every rainstorm. The coastline would crumble after every wave. Because according to the Bible the Earth can change forms within years, instead of millions of years.