Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

[Sky Dancer]

The human genome has been mapped. We know exactly what we are and what we came from. Creation theories are fine as religion, but they aren't science.

Any statement such as the above is "religion bashing" to the overly sensitive.

 

[Sunni Man]

The human genome has been mapped. We know exactly what we are and what we came from. Creation theories are fine as religion, but they aren't science.

Yes, the human genome has been mapped.

But, it in no way does it tell us where we came from.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who is to say that Einsteins theory (you call it mere unscientific opinion) that there is some intelligent creative force behind all that is the universe or interwoven into it will never be measured?

Well, I'm confident it won't be, but that confidence is not itself based on science. It's a spiritual awareness thing. So, speaking scientifically, there is no way to be sure that we won't discover such an intelligence eventually. The fact remains that at this time, there's no evidence for it, and no reason to include it in any evolutionary models.

And that still brings us back to what existed before the big bang? How did it get there? What caused it to become the phenomenon that we call the 'big bang'? And who is to say that whatever forces existed then have no bearing on what exists now? Or that such questions are not within the realm of science?

As I said, the Big Bang was the start of time, not just space, matter, and energy; there was no such thing as "before" the big bang.

We can play around with ideas like that all we like. The fact remains that there is no evidence in support of them.

In fact, I'll give you a perfectly sound speculative concept of intelligent design if you like. What if the universe itself, as a whole, is intelligent, and has the ability to alter the probabilities of indeterminate events? (There is evidence, although not conclusive evidence, for the existence of such a probability-shifting quasi-force in the study of psi phenomena.) What if the universe has a purpose in the evolution of intelligent life, and adjusts the probabilities of indeterminate evens such as the emergence of life and the course of evolution on planets throughout its cosmic body? The process of evolution would then be exactly as biology describes it -- mutation shaped by natural selection over the generations -- but its indeterminate course would be shaped by the mind of the cosmos through shifts in the probabilities themselves.

Is there anything wrong with this idea? On the face of it, no -- but neither is there any real objective evidence in favor of it, and so there is no reason to include it in any scientific theories. It remains speculative only.

The problem with ID as a scientific claim is not the claim that it COULD be true, but rather the bogus claim that, due to flaws in evolution theory it MUST be true. That's simply not so.

Let me ask you a very simple question on logic.

Is it more logical to believe that life creates life or that non-living matter creates life ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The human genome has been mapped. We know exactly what we are and what we came from. Creation theories are fine as religion, but they aren't science.

Any statement such as the above is "religion bashing" to the overly sensitive.

No we don't if that was the case they could tell us how life began.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who is to say that Einsteins theory (you call it mere unscientific opinion) that there is some intelligent creative force behind all that is the universe or interwoven into it will never be measured?

Well, I'm confident it won't be, but that confidence is not itself based on science. It's a spiritual awareness thing. So, speaking scientifically, there is no way to be sure that we won't discover such an intelligence eventually. The fact remains that at this time, there's no evidence for it, and no reason to include it in any evolutionary models.

And that still brings us back to what existed before the big bang? How did it get there? What caused it to become the phenomenon that we call the 'big bang'? And who is to say that whatever forces existed then have no bearing on what exists now? Or that such questions are not within the realm of science?

As I said, the Big Bang was the start of time, not just space, matter, and energy; there was no such thing as "before" the big bang.

We can play around with ideas like that all we like. The fact remains that there is no evidence in support of them.

In fact, I'll give you a perfectly sound speculative concept of intelligent design if you like. What if the universe itself, as a whole, is intelligent, and has the ability to alter the probabilities of indeterminate events? (There is evidence, although not conclusive evidence, for the existence of such a probability-shifting quasi-force in the study of psi phenomena.) What if the universe has a purpose in the evolution of intelligent life, and adjusts the probabilities of indeterminate evens such as the emergence of life and the course of evolution on planets throughout its cosmic body? The process of evolution would then be exactly as biology describes it -- mutation shaped by natural selection over the generations -- but its indeterminate course would be shaped by the mind of the cosmos through shifts in the probabilities themselves.

Is there anything wrong with this idea? On the face of it, no -- but neither is there any real objective evidence in favor of it, and so there is no reason to include it in any scientific theories. It remains speculative only.

The problem with ID as a scientific claim is not the claim that it COULD be true, but rather the bogus claim that, due to flaws in evolution theory it MUST be true. That's simply not so.

Let me ask you a very simple question on logic.

Is it more logical to believe that life creates life or that non-living matter creates life ?

About as logical as believing that some supreme being created something out of nothing?

 

[Baron]

..........................It's a science:
t.

So-called "Evolution" is a Big Lie!

 

[Cammmpbell]

Look, nobody has been talking about a "God" except you. If that is what you wanted to talk about instead of evolution being a theory or not, why didn't you be honest and up front and just put that in the OP? It would have saved a lot of us a lot of wasted time because I wouldn't have bothered subscribing to the thread.

If you want to discuss evolution as theory or not, then let's discuss that.

Hey..,.the way I read it this category is entitled, "Religion and Ethics"

Do yourself a favor and believe that my post didn't have a damn thing to do with ethics.

Sorry, but I didn't see anything in the rather rude, offensive OP other than the declaration of evolution being a science. Not a peep or the slightest hint of religion or ethics there.

If you want this to be just another God/religion bashing thread, it's your thread and that's your prerogative and so be it. I've got plenty of other things to do.

Evidently not.

 

[koshergrl]

The human genome has been mapped. We know exactly what we are and what we came from. Creation theories are fine as religion, but they aren't science.

Yes, the human genome has been mapped.

But, it in no way does it tell us where we came from.

In fact, those responsible for its mapping are devout Christians.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, I'm confident it won't be, but that confidence is not itself based on science. It's a spiritual awareness thing. So, speaking scientifically, there is no way to be sure that we won't discover such an intelligence eventually. The fact remains that at this time, there's no evidence for it, and no reason to include it in any evolutionary models.



As I said, the Big Bang was the start of time, not just space, matter, and energy; there was no such thing as "before" the big bang.

We can play around with ideas like that all we like. The fact remains that there is no evidence in support of them.

In fact, I'll give you a perfectly sound speculative concept of intelligent design if you like. What if the universe itself, as a whole, is intelligent, and has the ability to alter the probabilities of indeterminate events? (There is evidence, although not conclusive evidence, for the existence of such a probability-shifting quasi-force in the study of psi phenomena.) What if the universe has a purpose in the evolution of intelligent life, and adjusts the probabilities of indeterminate evens such as the emergence of life and the course of evolution on planets throughout its cosmic body? The process of evolution would then be exactly as biology describes it -- mutation shaped by natural selection over the generations -- but its indeterminate course would be shaped by the mind of the cosmos through shifts in the probabilities themselves.

Is there anything wrong with this idea? On the face of it, no -- but neither is there any real objective evidence in favor of it, and so there is no reason to include it in any scientific theories. It remains speculative only.

The problem with ID as a scientific claim is not the claim that it COULD be true, but rather the bogus claim that, due to flaws in evolution theory it MUST be true. That's simply not so.

Let me ask you a very simple question on logic.

Is it more logical to believe that life creates life or that non-living matter creates life ?

About as logical as believing that some supreme being created something out of nothing?

You would not make much of a scientist if you buy what you just presented as a rebuttal.

Scientist have no answer how life could have began on it's own,but there is plenty of evidence proving life creates life.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Let me ask you a very simple question on logic.

Is it more logical to believe that life creates life or that non-living matter creates life ?

About as logical as believing that some supreme being created something out of nothing?

You would not make much of a scientist if you buy what you just presented as a rebuttal.

Scientist have no answer how life could have began on it's own,but there is plenty of evidence proving life creates life.

If that's your analytical conclusion you need some help.

 

[Toro]

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. We've created evolution in the Petrie dish.

Evolution explained as the origins of life is a theory, however.

 

[Sunni Man]

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. We've created evolution in the Petrie dish.

Please provide a Link to your assertion

 

[editec]

..........................It's a science:

A million life forms have a skelton, mouth at the top or front, a rectum at the bottom or end, a brain, lungs, a heart, a digestive system, genitals within centimeters of the rectum...they are born or hatched, grow to fruition, reproduce and slowly die. Humans are just one species. If one doesn't eat and shit every few days they die.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that.

It's a scientific theory.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that

 

[Youwerecreated]

About as logical as believing that some supreme being created something out of nothing?

You would not make much of a scientist if you buy what you just presented as a rebuttal.

Scientist have no answer how life could have began on it's own,but there is plenty of evidence proving life creates life.

If that's your analytical conclusion you need some help.

Really,because all the evidence we see say's life creates life not non-living matter creating living life. I need help I thought a person of science follows the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. We've created evolution in the Petrie dish.

Evolution explained as the origins of life is a theory, however.

The only evolution proven and there is no doubt that it happens is micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations,that is a very long jump to go from that to macro-evolution.

Sorry that many of you have been poorly educated as to not knowing the difference between the two.

 

[007]

..........................It's a science:

A million life forms have a skelton, mouth at the top or front, a rectum at the bottom or end, a brain, lungs, a heart, a digestive system, genitals within centimeters of the rectum...they are born or hatched, grow to fruition, reproduce and slowly die. Humans are just one species. If one doesn't eat and shit every few days they die.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that.

QUICK... you better present this revelation to the world scientific community! They'll be ECSTATIC to see that someone can FINALLY PROVE evolution is nothing more than a THEORY.

You CAN prove it... right? You're not just giving us your OPINION here... right?

Let's see your proof. I'd LOVE to share in any MONEY and AWARDS for this...

 

[007]

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. We've created evolution in the Petrie dish.

Evolution explained as the origins of life is a theory, however.

The only evolution proven and there is no doubt that it happens is micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations,that is a very long jump to go from that to macro-evolution.

Sorry that many of you have been poorly educated as to not knowing the difference between the two.

No, there's no proof that's evolution either. You're making the mistake of passing off mutation as evolution.

 

[Dragon]

Let me ask you a very simple question on logic.

Is it more logical to believe that life creates life or that non-living matter creates life ?

Neither of those is more "logical" than the other.

What fits the observed reality, which is the better question, is that both are true.

 

[Dragon]

[
The only evolution proven and there is no doubt that it happens is micro-evolution

There is no such thing as "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution." These are creationist terms; they have no meaning in biology. Evolution is evolution.

In fact, you might want to acquaint yourself with what biologists mean by the word "species." A species is not an ironclad, absolute category. It's a division of life such that, normally, plants or animals from two different species have trouble cross-fertilizing and producing a hybrid; however, even that is not absolutely impossible between two closely related species -- note the mule, a crossbreed between horses and donkeys. (Although of course mules are sterile.)

You acknowledge that mutations occur, and that some mutations are viable. This means that descendants can be genetically different from their ancestors, containing genetic information that was not passed down but novel.

Now consider this process extended over many generations, one beneficial mutation after another. Consider, for example, two populations of -- let's say bird. Crows. A mated crow pair flies out and nests on an island away from the other crows. Their chicks create a separate population of crows on the island. Over time, both the mainland population of crows and the ones on the island evolve. That is to say, beneficial mutations show up in both populations and produce changes, what you are calling "micro-evolution." After a long time, say a few million years, a crow flies back to the mainland from the island or out to the island from the mainland. The transplant crow finds a mate, but the mating produces no viable eggs. The two populations of crow have become too different -- they are now two different species of bird.

Micro-evolution implies macro-evolution. If the one is possible, so is the other. It's inevitable, because "species" is just a tag for categorization; it's not some kind of hard-and-fast cosmic wall.

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet you are still left with the problem that the big bang probably happened and happened spontaneously and miraculously and has evolved into the consistent, incredibly complex and diverse universe with incredible beauty in its symmetry, all observable, and say there is no scientific evidence for any form of intelligence, however that intelligence is defined, being behind all that.

That isn't a problem at all. Note that saying "there is no scientific evidence for any form of intelligence behind all that" is not the same as saying, "there is no intelligence behind all that." Do you see the distinction? As I explained above, I am personally convinced that there are mysteries to the cosmos that science cannot touch. But I come to that realization through a process other than science, and recognize that within the rules of science it has no place.

What incredible faith it must take to believe that 'nothing existed before the big bang' but it just somehow miraculously happened out of nothing and all that we can see and observe and know is the result?

Einstein disagreed with you. So do I.

Einstein actually didn't disagree with me, and in fact neither do you, not about anything important. You don't understand what I'm saying, is what it is.

It doesn't take faith to believe that nothing existed before the big bang. It takes a twisted mind, capable of encompassing the idea that time had a beginning, and that the universe need not have a cause separate from itself but can simply be.

I think a large part of the problem that religious people have when approaching science is that they have at once too little and too much reverence for it. They expect science to answer questions that are beyond its scope and compass, and because it can't, come to hold its methods in contempt. Science is actually a very limited and specific tool, although extremely useful for what it does. There are truths that it cannot touch, but by the same token, those truths don't touch it, either.

God is too big to fit in a doctrine.

I have not been discussing God, nor doctrines, or any form of dogma. Nor have I made any post that even questions, much less denies, any of the conventionally accepted scientific 'doctrine' re the big bang, evolution, or any other theories that have become the current accepted conventional scientific wisdom. I strongly support teaching all those theories in school. And maybe nobody has less expectation for science to answer the unanswerable more than I do. At least unanswerable at this time.

But too little or too much reverence for science? I prefer to think of it as keeping an open mind of all possibilities. Science would not be much advanced if the true scientist--that is the one who refuses to be confined by the current accepted conventional wisdom--had not refused to accept that there is no way to explore questions that are currently beyond its scope and compass.

A good start would be considering that much science begins with observation and then exploring why things are the way they are or why they behave as they behave. And that could easily conclude leaving the door open for the possibility of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process as Spinoza and Einstein (and others) believed.