Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, PROVE it, like global warming. Makes it easier to say that, than have to change your ideas, I imagine. You do realize that you don't PROVE anything in the sciences, outside of mathematics, right? That's not how things are done.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Yes and evolution almost always results in a lesser quality or a breakdown of what was already there, not an improvement.<< That's exactly what Dr. Zeus tried to tell Taylor.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad jonvn, you are merely presenting your opinion, no facts. And as for your picking on the evolution as a breakdown, consider this, evolution is a mutation, a genetic change. A great example would be one that you would have been privy to had you studied this... sickle cell anemia, yeah it makes people in the jungle resist disease, so I guess that would be a plus, but it eventually kills you, so maybe that one is a tie. There I gave you something, you give me something back...something more than an opinion.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad As we do the inevitable...we spiral downward into the arguments for and against The Theory of Evolution. Few have answered the original poster's question. I would in fact vote for someone who does not believe in The Theory of Evolution and I would also vote for someone who does. There are far more qualifying factors than this ridiculous circular argument. No one is going to win...surely we all see that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "jonvn, you are merely presenting your opinion, no facts." Well, no. You don't PROVE things outside of mathematics. So your demand is impossible to fufill. As I said, evolution is the fundamental underpinning of biological science. Next time you take an antibiotic, you might wish to consider that.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That's exactly what Dr. Zeus tried to tell Taylor.<< <<<<<<Hear's the theme song from the broadway musical "Stop the Planet of the Apes I want to Get Off" from the Simpsons.
Originally Posted By u k fan To weigh in on this issue (and then beat a hasty retreat), I see no reason why the Theory of Evolution and The Creation as described in Genesis can't go hand in hand. Evolution could simply be God's way of creating the animals. Nowhere, to the best of my knowledge, does it say how he made them. And just because he made the animals in one "day" doesn't mean that it all happened in 24 hours. He made the dinosaurs at "Midday", but they'd died out by "4pm", he made man etc. after that. Man or Humans, to not be sexist(!), is where things get trickier. If we believe that God made man in "His own image" than we cannot have evolved from another creature. That still does not discount the fact that we share genetic make up with other creatures or even that the various stages of prehistoric man weren't part of God's method of creation. Don't we share more genes with banana plants than apes anyway? As for where my vote would go, I seriously doubt that this would make much difference. Whether the candidate I voted for personally believed one way or the other s/he would get my vote by being open minded enough to admit that they would be willing to listen to both sides, respect both sides and change his/her view if evidence proved to the contrary. That way I know that they will listen to all of the people they represent, not just the ones they personally agree with!!!
Originally Posted By jonvn "Evolution could simply be God's way of creating the animals." In my opinion, this is the only way to faithfully and honestly still subscribe to religion. You have to adapt your beliefs to what science tells us. "If we believe that God made man in "His own image" than we cannot have evolved from another creature." Sure we could. Again, the process is what you are talking about. HOW did he go about doing this? "Don't we share more genes with banana plants than apes anyway?" No...
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>If we believe that God made man in "His own image" than we cannot have evolved from another creature.<< Doesn't the Bible say man was created from dust or clay, or somesuch? Why couldn't the "clay" (raw material) he used be other animals? And by "breathing the breath of life" into what he created, gave them spirit that the other animals lacked?
Originally Posted By jonvn See, it's all how you want to interpret it! You have choices. You can interpret it to mean PRECISELY what it says, which I think is the most ridiculous way, because so much of it is metaphor and parable, or you can interpret. The fact is that EVERYONE interprets, even if you interpret it to be literal. That's a literal interpretation. So, once you start trying to understand what it says and how, then you need to reconcile it with what we know to be true. Unless you do that, and keep your beliefs current with scientific knowledge, your religion becomes irrelevent to the facts and falls by the wayside.
Originally Posted By u k fan I'm not really agreeing/disagreeing with any of the points raised from my post, but it does seem to be one of the main stumbling blocks that many religions have when it comes to the Theory of Evolution. To play devil's advocate, if we say chimps for example were one of the stages in God's method for creating humans, then why did they survive when prehistoric man didn't. If we say it's survival of the fittest and they adapted and survived at what point was that? If we evolved on why did one group stay as chimps? I'm not discounting any of the answers to these questions and I'm not saying they can't be reconciled with religion, but simply saying that the answer is that we evolved from another animal raises just as many questions as it answers. <<<Unless you do that, and keep your beliefs current with scientific knowledge, your religion becomes irrelevent to the facts and falls by the wayside.>>> I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's not what this topic is about and it's strayed far enough already!!!
Originally Posted By jonvn "If we evolved on why did one group stay as chimps?" All animals evolved to a certain point where they needed to survive in their environment. We did not evolve from modern chimps, but we do have a common ancestor. But why did we survive and the older versions did not? Over many millions of years, certain traits became more useful to survive and so they survived more than those who didn't. It takes a long time, in terms of how people see things anyway. "I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's not what this topic is about and it's strayed far enough already!!!" Gee...seems on topic to me! Well, sort of I guess. The answer to the question in the topic is basically, NO. Because if you flat out reject basic science, it exposes a lack of critical thinking abilities.
Originally Posted By u k fan <<<The answer to the question in the topic is basically, NO. Because if you flat out reject basic science, it exposes a lack of critical thinking abilities.>>> To me that cuts both ways. If the question was "Would you vote for someone who rejects a persons religious beliefs?" my answer would be "No" as I'm sure it would be for many others, religious or otherwise!!!
Originally Posted By jonvn EVERYONE reject's somebody's religious belief. Do you reject the teachings of the church of satan? Or do you accept it? See, that is not really a good test.
Originally Posted By u k fan My original reply was going to use "religion" instead of a persons religious beliefs, but I realized that the original question was regarding one particular aspect of science not science as a whole so that wouldn't be fair. Perhaps I could have picked, for example, The Catholic Faith. But plenty of people have looked into Catholicism and decided that it's not for them so that doesn't work either. However, by the same token plenty of people have looked at The Theory of Evolution and rejected that also so there is a Ying to the Yang of the original question. It's just how it's worded. It's late here (or early depending on how you look at it) so I'm not sure I have enough wits about me to find the right words, but they do exist! Of course it could also have been a badly worded question in the first place!!!
Originally Posted By jonvn But evolution is not a religion, and as I was saying, can fully co-exist with it.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<As I said, evolution is the fundamental underpinning of biological science. Next time you take an antibiotic, you might wish to consider that.>>> This is not the definition of evolution as intended by Darwin, and anitbiotics have nothing to do with it. I think I need a refresher course in Logic because I am having a hard time following you Jonvn.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad ^ ^ ^ Oh wait, are you talking about the ability for fast mutation of some forms of bacteria? Yeah I'll agree, that is certainly evolution.
