TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- how would someon that doesn't believe in evolution explain why children aren't...
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

how would someon that doesn't believe in evolution explain why children aren't...

clones of their parents? (a son looking exactly like the father or a daughter like the mother.=) in other words how would they explain why children look different than their parents? do they argue that there is no change at all, and that they look the same? do even acknowledge change in the physical attributes from generation to generation?

God did it!

if that's the case, then a belief in "god" and evolution (the theory of natural selection vis a vis adaptation) can co-exists (there is no conflict.)

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange if that's the case, then a belief in "god" and evolution (the theory of natural selection vis a vis adaptation) can co-exists (there is no conflict.)

Yes, they can co-exist. My father, for example, is both theist and believes in evolution.

Some people need the figure of a God, even if it does less and less as time goes by

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Some people need the figure of a God, even if it does less and less as time goes by

Do you really have such a low opinion of people who believe in religion/God?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange if that's the case, then a belief in "god" and evolution (the theory of natural selection vis a vis adaptation) can co-exists (there is no conflict.)

In case you haven't noticed, my religious views don't affect my belief in evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Do you really have such a low opinion of people who believe in religion/God?

No, I don't, and sorry if I came across as someone who does

It's just that, in my father's case, it's quite weird: He accepts the Big Bang Theory, for example, along with evolution and all, and has is highly skeptical about most of the "unknown".

However, he really seems to "need" a God, even if he's able to "explain" the world without it. That's what I meant by that. Evolution, Big Bang, Sociology... they don't necessarily refuse the existence of a God (even if it means creationism and young earth are false), in cases such as my father's.

quote:

I just don't understand this "God" concept! Even though, I think it's a more primitive explaination for our origins, I have yet to understand it!

quote:

Originally posted by Temperate

They believe exactly what they want to believe, because no matter how intelligent you or I become, people are still, at base level...

Animals.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby They believe exactly what they want to believe, because no matter how intelligent you or I become, people are still, at base level... Animals.

And yet evolution is still a theory full of holes.

quote:

Originally posted by jdat And yet evolution is still a theory full of holes.

Im a firm believer in evolution.

What "holes in evolution" have been discovered..

quote:

Originally posted by jdat And yet evolution is still a theory full of holes.

Would you care to elaborate?

And by the way, this topic has been discussed at length here ad nauseum. But I'm always game for clarification.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira No, I don't, and sorry if I came across as someone who does It's just that, in my father's case, it's quite weird: He accepts the Big Bang Theory, for example, along with evolution and all, and has is highly skeptical about most of the "unknown". However, he really seems to "need" a God, even if he's able to "explain" the world without it. That's what I meant by that. Evolution, Big Bang, Sociology... they don't necessarily refuse the existence of a God (even if it means creationism and young earth are false), in cases such as my father's.

I don't see what's weird about that. BTW, what fundamentalist christians believe about the origin of man/evolution/creation/the origin of the universe/big bang/etc doesn't extend to all religions. I find it highly irritating when people make such ridiculous assumptions. It smacks of ignorance. I also don't understand why people have to assume all science and religion are in direct oppostion to one another.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I don't see what's weird about that. BTW, what fundamentalist christians believe about the origin of man/evolution/creation/the origin of the universe/big bang/etc doesn't extend to all religions. I find it highly irritating when people make such ridiculous assumptions. It smacks of ignorance. I also don't understand why people have to assume all science and religion are in direct oppostion to one another.

Get out of me head Z!! thats what I was thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I don't see what's weird about that. BTW, what fundamentalist christians believe about the origin of man/evolution/creation/the origin of the universe/big bang/etc doesn't extend to all religions. I find it highly irritating when people make such ridiculous assumptions. It smacks of ignorance.

I know it doesn't extend to all religions. The religion I studied the most so far (Buddhism), doesn't even touch the origin of the universe (which has a direct influence to its atheist approach to the world), although Siddharta did say something that resembled the theory of evolution.

Like I said in the first post, I'm talking about my father.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I also don't understand why people have to assume all science and religion are in direct oppostion to one another.

They aren't in direct opposition, they just aren't the same thing, nor they have the same methodology and objectives.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I know it doesn't extend to all religions. The religion I studied the most so far (Buddhism), doesn't even touch the origin of the universe (which has a direct influence to its atheist approach to the world), although Siddharta did say something that resembled the theory of evolution. Like I said in the first post, I'm talking about my father. They aren't in direct opposition, they just aren't the same thing, nor they have the same methodology and objectives.

Ok, that's cool. You're choice of words may have thrown me off I guess. Alot of posters here make some pretty ignorant comments when it comes to this subject and over generalize way too much.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Would you care to elaborate? And by the way, this topic has been discussed at length here ad nauseum. But I'm always game for clarification.

Evolution regardless if you believe in it or not is and remains a THEORY.

People need to stop believing it is a fact as it is not.


End of discussion.

( And I don't wish to start up another debate as really who can prove me otherwise??? It is only a theory, there's no argueing possible there. )

quote:

Originally posted by jdat Evolution regardless if you believe in it or not is and remains a THEORY. People need to stop believing it is a fact as it is not. End of discussion. ( And I don't wish to start up another debate as really who can prove me otherwise??? It is only a theory, there's no argueing possible there. )

Much like the theory of gravity right? Please don't tell me you can't distinguish the differences between the layman's concept of theory and scientific theory ... at least within the bounds of concepts such as evolution or gravity.

Oh shit I forgot you said end of discussion

/end of discussion ... woohoo I guess I win without giving others a chance to address my arguments!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Ok, that's cool. You're choice of words may have thrown me off I guess. Alot of posters here make some pretty ignorant comments when it comes to this subject and over generalize way too much.

I understand, and I agree with you.

But don't worry, I consider fundamentalist atheism often as negative as fundamentalim in religion.

quote:

Originally posted by jdat And yet evolution is still a theory full of holes.

I never said I "believed" anything in my post (which coincidentally may have been describing you?)

I think your concept of what science is based around is completely erroneous, probably due to miseducation and lack of desire to acquire the knowledge necessary to know which tools can further your progress and which can stifle it.

Yes, I'm referring to religion vs science.

There is no "religion vs science", first off.

You "believe" in religion. You do not "believe" in science.

Full of holes? Everything can be said to be full of holes. What's your point?

Are you trying to disprove, based on your misunderstanding of how theories work and science in general, the evidence, data, and painstaking ideas that have been given birth and made so many things possible?

If you want to disprove a scientific theory, you can. Theories are built upon observation, and often stand upon the shoulders of giants.

You want to disprove evolution? Then you better get cracking and get some evidence, cause "It's full of holes" and the especially ignorant "it's a THEORY" aren't cutting it.

They're just making you look uneducated and maybe even fundamentalist (crazy).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby ....

Way to go .

I didn't even voice my opinion on my belief or disbelief on either end of the evolutionary versus pro-creation debate.

It is and shall remain for the time being a theory ( or imperfect fact if you prefer to call it like that ) as there is insufficient evidence to firmly state that evolution is a fact.

In no way did I permit myself to pass judgement on another persons beliefs but you on the other hand aren't hesitant in the least bit to jump to conclusions about me, my educational background and my beliefs.....

quote:

Originally posted by jdat Evolution regardless if you believe in it or not is and remains a THEORY. People need to stop believing it is a fact as it is not. End of discussion. ( And I don't wish to start up another debate as really who can prove me otherwise??? It is only a theory, there's no argueing possible there. )

I hate to break the news to you bub, but the notion that "it is just a theory" is not one that weakens the argument in any manner.

Would you like to know another "theory", one that has a wealth of support behind it but is still a "theory" by any and all science books?

Gravity.

And to boot, evolutionary theory actually has a leg up on gravity in that it has a known mechanism: random mutation and natural selection. Gravity actually does not have a known mechanism of action, yet we know pretty well it exists and utilize it for a myriad of astronomical events.

Theories are merely the best explanations of any given events supported by the evidence that we have so far. By all instances the semantical versions of "hypothesis, theory, and law" is a horribly dated term that has no step-ladder meaning in actual research. It was a step-up series I had learned myself in junior high that should not have been presented as such.

Any and all science can be grounded in firmly supported theories like quantum, gravity, or evolution. The data and research alone on evolution is so thick in which we utilize to predict future findings and phenomena so successfully that in many respects it dwarfs the other two aforementioned theories. And again the interesting aspect of evolution itself is it has a known mechanism of action based on factual phenomena: random mutation + natural selection. The theory aspect is merely the best explanation that explains this mechanism and how it creates species diversity over time, and that is supported in turn by a sickly amount of evidence itself.

Gould might help clarify this better:

quote:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"�part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science�that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory�natural selection�to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned. Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is�and how else can I say it?�most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand. http://members.cox.net/smrose7/goul...and-theory.html

Don't get so tripped up on the word "theory" itself. As Indigo would say on the Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

And if you do not wish to further this discussion, why are you even here in the discussion/debate forum in the first place? You would be much better suited throwing out such baseless statements in COR rather than here if you do not wish to debate.

And if you haven't known, I've debated evolutionary theory for many years now and am myself a member and advocate of Kansas Citizens for Science since 1999 when my wingnut religious extremist State Board of Education attempted to rewrite our science standards. I have discussed for in forums and in person with some of the most ardent creationists/Intelligent Designers and their supporters. It would be no problem for me at all to help clarify any further misunderstandings on your part if you wish, starting with your first basic difficulty with the "it's just a theory!!!" notion.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 As Indigo would say on the Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

Sorry for the jacking but, great movie!

my friend and I must mention this line every other week

MisterOpus1 and others, I guess it's impossible to voice an opinion on this matter without single-handedly being classified as for or against the concept of evolution ( and subsequently a religious fanatic if you believe in procreation ).

By my comment "It's just a theory" I was not trying to disqualify any possibilities of it being valid or not but I was simply pointing out that there is still much research to be done on the subject before the scientific community, and the rest of the world can fully understand and guarantee the validity of the concept.

Lastly I can't help but point out the ironical behavior of the biological evolutionary community being firm in stating their belief is a fact as a proof that religious groups views simply aren't ( facts ).

Isn't science there to help and solve problems and conduct full research?
Isn't it there to question, prove and dispell common misconceptions?

The tools needed to be able to come to a full consensus on this aren't available yet ( such as showing the significance of the genes shared between human and animal species ).


Tomorrow and the day after might just tell us the truth


Ps: I'm not against the idea of debating evolution ( altough I honestly don't care that much for it ) but on the matter of it being a theory I can't see how it can be named otherwise when you yourselves call it that

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.