I am not sure if this has been done before so sorry if it has

Do you believe in science (evolution, the big bang etc.) or religion (that god created the earth etc)?

I am not religious myself and know very little about religion other than Christianity, (forgive my ignorance)

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 36 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Science Vs Religion (36 votes.)

Science Vs Religion (Choose 1)
* Science - 89% (32)
* Religion - 11% (4)

Some might say that the two arent mutually exclusive. I am not sure that I agree, atleast in some instances there is a clash. Can a religion that adapts itself to new scientific knowledge and incorperates it truly be thought of to be the eternal truth?

I believe that science provides the basis for how the universe works. I do not, however, discount the possibility that some intelligent being (call it a god if you wish) set the wheels in motion. I do not believe in the creationist version of the universe or in the idea of a god which watches over us.

Science and religion are completly neutral versus eachother in principle. Science is a bunch of workable assumptions, religion is preoccupation with transcendal things. Science helps to better organize or build things better. Indeed, religion usually absorbs the fruits of science, as a phone helps to better organize churches and greek philosophy made the whole thing deeper. The existence or non-existence of a telephone does not interferre with transcendal things. Nor does ones profession as theoretical phycisician exclude being deeply religious or that one findings would contradict with beliefs, they would only make them more clear. Anyway, judge the book by its cover and read what you want, words are patient and there potential meaning is indefinite.

False dichotomy, kiddos.

Science explains how the material world works. Religion explains how the spiritual world works and why there is a material world and science. Why would anyone choose to ignore one or the other? Even the holiest monk does not reject science.

Edit: Please cue Joacqin to make false assertions (the Bible and science differ) and silly claims about religion (you have to say it's all metaphors) because it gets in his way when chasing tail.

[ December 05, 2003, 17:59: Message edited by: Shralp ]

If we look at creationism and evolution. if you look at the bible it pretty clearly states how everything was created and how man and animals were created just as they are. While science on the other hand has a pretty well based explanation that differs from that. Here there should be a clash and indeed there is for some people who believe whole heartedly in the bible. My point was that many christian denominations incorparates the scientific theory and explains the bible as a bunch of metaphors and the like. Thus they have changed their religion and their faith to better fit with the modern world. I just dont see how that can hold any credibility as to be the holders of any eternal truth.
If you are going to be a christian for example then you better believe in anything in your holy book or you might as well create a whole new religion that better fits with the knowledge of this day and age.

I am strongly disappoving of any organized religions,as I believe they are one big hoax. People ae allowed to have their own opinions, and I won't try to influence anyone, in any way, if they just act the same, towards me...

And the reason I dislike religion? I believe the reason for existence and life at all, is chaos. I can find any understandable reason, proof or whatnot, therefor, it must be chaos...

There are two creation stories in the Bible. The Adam and Eve and the 7 day one. If there are two different creation stories, which one do you choose? They both can't be true. . .

I can't vote in your poll because both answers are incorrect. The scientist who disregards religion is merely a well educated fool, the theologian who ingores scientific fact has lost a tenuous grasp of truth.

As Shralp has indicated, the two are mutually exclusive branches of thought that grow off the same human tree. Both bear leaves to nurture the entire being, and to remove one or the other is to do significant damage to the organism as a whole.

On the questions regarding the Creation story as presented in the Bible...one must first ask themselves what kind of literature are you reading? If you were to pick up a fantasy novel and expect to find an accurate history of Texas, you would be sorely disappointed. If you read a structural mechanics text and hope to enjoy a rousing tale about Dark Elves, you are again in the wrong place.

Come to terms with what kind of literature that we encounter in the book of Genesis, and your understanding of what you read will benefit. Is it a history? Is it a scientific treatise? Is it a fable? Is it a uniquely ancient Hebrew writing...that seeks not to reveal a rigid methodology of creation, but rather the place of God, of Man, and of all Creation in an eternal plan?

One of the most dangerous objects in the world is an ignorant person with a Bible in their hand!

Shralp, that was uncalled for. You've been registered longer than I have and should know better.

Confine your opinions to the subject matter of Joacqin's comments, and avoid the subject of Joacqin himself.

I have heard many christians talking about Genesis as a collection of metaphors, about one godly day to be millions of years, that is the stuff I was talking about. Nor can you claim that the creation of all creatures as they are today, among them man, not differs from the theory of evolution.
My point being that atleast the fundamental fanatics who believe every letter of the bible and dont try to explain stuff away can atleast be said to truly believe in an ancient religion that may have been inspired by a divine being while all those people who change their faith and religion to keep up with what the scientific community says is no different from if I should start my own little religion with my vacuum cleaner as God.

But upon what authority do you accept the fact that a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct? How do you know that a literal interpretation is the oldest or most original? What if a symbolic understanding to elements of Genesis can be proven to exist in the earliest accounts of Judaism and Christianity...are not then the "Literalists" the ones who no longer cling to truth?

One can study Christianity and not see the espousing of a literal creation story by theologians until the birth of Fundamentalism, which has occurred in the last 250 years. Just because an interpretation of scripture is the most literal or simple, it does not make it the oldest or most true.

BTW, tell me more about your vacuum cleaner, we may be on to a real moneymaking scam!

Can a symbolic meaning be proven in the most ancient texts? The biblical story of the creation of the universe is not where the most obvious clash is since even today thats almost as good an explanation as anything science has to offer. An obvious clash is instead in the story about paradise and the creation of Adam and Eve and the rest of the animals, that goes quite obvious against the bible "and god created man in his image", I am sure some people can manage to incorporate that passage to fit with the theory of evolution but that is stretching things quite a bit. Just look at all the hubbubb Darwin caused when he first published his work.

Off topic: I have a very old brown vacuum cleaner who is so ancient as to predecess many of todays religions, I think it would be a good deity for a new religion. The holy vacuum cleaner, keeper of the ancient secrets. ;)

Allow me to clarify because I voted with Religion. I believe in evolution and I don't beleive that God only spent 7 days creating the ENTIRE Universe. But I also believe that as God is outside of time it doesn't matter. However, I do beleive in God and I don't believe in "the big bang" to me the idea of a God is more plausible. But I'm not one of those crazy Christians who beleives that evolution never happened and that God just created everything as it is now. (Hello? How do you explain dogs and wolves? Yellow roses??) I mostly agree with Hacken Slash and I think that science is an accurate way of describing HOW God works and religion attempts to explain the Why.

Please, the Bible was not written by 21th century Westerner couch potatoes who think they know everything that there is to know. The Bible was written in ancient East and in Semite cultures at that (Amorites and later Babylonians were also a Semite tribe). The purpose of Genesis was not to convey scientifically proven facts, but to put stress on creation. The number of seven and days are figures. It could as well be any multiplication of seven, and months, years, centuries, eras. From the point of view of religion, it's not important what and how many time units it actually was. BTW, note that the sequence is more or less correct - plants, animals, humans - not any other way round. And for eternal God, does it make any difference if it's a day or a millennium?

Evolutionism and creationism aren't mutually exclusive. The former isn't really full-fledged by the time being, and the latter is subject to various interpretations. Just as creationists go by their hearts' whims, evolutionists make more or less educated guesses - both often making conclusions first and only then seeking the fitting premise. There are bound to be differences and tensions.

What Silverwolf and Chev is saying here is exactly what I am speaking about. The adaptation of their religion to modern perception, I am baffled that they cant see the blow to the credibility of their faith.

You're making the mistake joacqin of misinterpreting the original meanings of these things, and accepting the mistakes of both some scientists and some christians alike as the truth. Science has it wrong on some things - and these are proved or disproved every day. Some religions, or sects of religions, also have it wrong - the thing is they cannot be proved or disproved if they are unwilling to bend. The same really applies to scientists. A religion is merely a philosophy of life, in this, science is a religion like everything else. It describes a moral philosophy, an ontology, and a cosmogony. This is what describes a religion. Scientists too, can be very unbending in their points of view, and the current dominantly accepted theory will brush of "anomalies" such as the flaw with Dark Matter, until the burden is too great too bear and it buckles under new evidence, and a new doctrine of the scientific faith.

Now Hacken Slash, chevalier, and Shralp have allready made it clear that your interpretation of what is the original or true story in the bible may be flawed, just as there is no reason why scienec and religion must be at odds at one another any more than scientists who hold opposing theories are at odds with one-another, and there are many.

I read a year ago part of a works which was written in the 17 or 1800's. Now this work aimed to clarify the meaning in various holy texts which had been publicly misconstrued, while collaborating from far older texts, and, lo and behold, they all said the same thing, only in different ways. They also agreed with many philosophical ideaologies, though of course their are many with which they did not, and with the scientific discoveries of the time. The only argument was what these discoveries meant. Now I cannot remember exact examples, and the text was not focused on such so they are not indexed either, but it said where many of the scientists had gone on an incorrect tangent, what the evidence meant, and what science would discover about their theories, and new evidence. Of course, I was not reading it in the 18th or 19th century, so I knew that what this author was saying was absolutely correct (especially as she worked mostly with physics) The incorrect theories were shortly disproved (though in some situations other incorrect theories took their places) and evidence was soon discovered, and is still being uncovered today, that entirely re-inforces the claims she made, as she said it would. It is my own, and many others, steadfast belief that some day soon a scientist will receive the highest accolades and awards in his profession for bringing to light what has been known by the ancient world, initiates of the mysteries, mystics, and students of occultism for many many years.

Neither religion nor science is in itself false nor contardictory, it is only our interpretations and applications of such which lead to confusion. My own faith does not adapt to science, nor must science adapt to it. These modern discoveries of science and belief alike merely reinforce what I allready hold as true.

The final point to consider is this. No set of totally beliefs is pure, none is equivocably beyond doubt to each and every member of the human race. Their tenets may indeed be right, their cosomology true, but what this means to you may be not, for once any thought is held by a man or woman it ceases to become what it was and vbecomes something new. There is an undeniable universal truth out there, but it is beyond our approach. The lesson is not to find a series of beliefs and stick with it, but to come to your own conclusions, to draw your own faith, your own beliefs from your own lessons and experiences, and understand that while you may indeed disagree with some, that this is all to be expected, and forms a part of many doctrines; that each one believes their own thoughts for some purpose, for some reason, and to some end- and that in the end, each thing comes back to itself, that all are indeed the same. I am forever amused to hear the arguments of some, and myself included, knowing either at present or in foresight, that they, or we, are arguing the same thing, only in different words.

These men, all men, must adapt their faith, and to their faith, just as science must adapt it's own, for how else would we learn from our mistakes and better ourselves? This does not mean there is a flaw in either belief, but only in our interpretations of such. The meaning of such works as the bible, or any other, may indeed be beyond doubt, beyond reproach, absolute, with no doubt, but remember that we may not always know what that meaning is, nor may all the ones who wrote it, for no-one has written a thing in it's entirety, and every copy of such. Nor has a singular mortal mind (and daresnt I say any other, for what is truly absolute has no mind with which to grasp. No, I daresnt not, for that would invite trouble- I am sure many such divine minds have come so close so as there to make no differnce) contained all those thoughts in a solid co-hesion. Everything changes with each mind that grasps it- this is entirely the point.

Remember, that we are a far cry today from what we once were, what was once taught, and even then only to the select few. You cannot expect someone to spell everything out to you, you must do that for yourself. You have. You will.

It's not about bending my religious views or making concessions. Adapting - perhaps yes. The message of the Bible was adapted to match the understanding capabilities of ancient Eastern Semite tribes. Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Edomites - all those folk that had contact with ancient Hebrew beliefs. However, the message is no less relevant in times present. The Law is subservient to the message. Depictions are further subordinate. Historical relations are somewhere in the end of importance hierarchy. As relations, they're subject to the limitations of beholder - an ancient Semite, man of the East. Exceptional in his intellect, perhaps, but more in wisdom. More concerned with eternity than with the current turmoils. In the East, facts serve to illustrate principles, not the other way round.

It helps to try to think and feel like a man of the East and an ancient one if someone wants to dabble with the intricacies of Biblical symbolics.

There are bits we don't understand. There are bits that seemingly contradict one another. Yes. Well, aren't we limited, anyway? It appears that some humility is in order. Also, it's necessary to bear in mind what is really important. Certainly it's not exact dates, timespans, kinship degrees and the like.

@Firestorm...
Does that mean you're a nihilist?

Anyway, I live in a home where Christian views are accepted and believed in by most of my family. I certainly believe in God because my father is extremely spiritual and has told me how he has performed "exorcisms" where the people hiss and slither on the ground like snakes. He's witnessed some truly supernatural things that can only be explained by demons and malevolant spirits.

I also live in a society that accepts the Origin of Species. I KNOW evolution exists. There is physical evidence. For instance, a type of salamander who lives in a cave where no light reaches evolves and end up having no eyes at all. But I think that scientists have it wrong with the evolution of humans. There's so many questions that can't be answered. (Or at least I've never encountered the answer.) Why are there apes today? Why did we lose all our body hair? How is it possible that our brains developed to such a complex stage?

Could it be that we didn't evolve from apes, we just evolved to walk more upright, be taller, etc.?

I certainly don't discount most science, but there are theories that are impossible to prove but scientist accept them readily and profess them as absolute truths.

I think that scientists have it wrong with the evolution of humans. There's so many questions that can't be answered. (Or at least I've never encountered the answer.) Why are there apes today? Why did we lose all our body hair? How is it possible that our brains developed to such a complex stage?Why are there apes today? I really, really, really, hope you don't think evolution is a "progression" from monkey to ape to human. Chimps and humans share a *common ancestor*. Humans did not evolve from chimps or gorillas . That is a key point (and it is one of the biggest and persistent myths about evolution). There are apes today because a number of ape lineages have survived... I don't see what the problem is. Chimps and humans come from the same stock population. The population split and our line became adapted to one environment and the chimp line became adapted to another. Was that ancestral population a group of chimps? No. Was it more chimp-like than human-like? Yes. Humans are a very derived species.

This point can't be emphasised enough so I'll explain it again. The evolutionary history of humans and chimps was identical for billions of years. Only in the last 5-8 million years did our groups split and go on their own evolutionary paths. Apes are still around because they evolved to fill certain niches. It is not the fate of apes to evolve into humans (is that what you were implying?).

By the way, humans are apes. Humans are more closely related to chimps than chimps are related to gorillas. Therefore when dealing with clades (family trees, sort of) of animals if we call gorillas and chimps "apes", we must call humans apes as well because they are nested in the clade. As an aside you might find it cool that chimps and humans share over 98% of their DNA.

A number of hypotheses have been put forth to explain hair loss in humans. The most accepted view is that Homo ergaster was probably the first hairless hominid. If an animal is to stay active during midday in a hot, dry environment (such as the African savannah where ergaster lived) then sweating would be a necessary mechanism to cool the body. Sweating is much more effective when a body is hairless. The concern is that body and brain temperature could reach critical levels (brain hypothermia is a major concern and could of been an agent of selection).

So now you're wondering why baboons and other savannah animals are hairy, aren't you? Well, let's remember that human bipedality exposes a greater amount of the body's surface area than a quarupedal body form (therefore there is a greater heat intake when compared to quadrupeds) As such, hominids living on the savannah had to adapt by losing hair. I can't say for certain but I'm pretty sure that baboons have sparse hair relative to other primates. I'm not sure if they are active during midday.

Many hypotheses have been raised to explain brain expansion. One is that with increasing group size brain size must of increased in order to decrease conflicts and increase group stability. (There is a correlation between encephilization quotients [relative brain size] and group size in Primate species).

Tool use also could have spurred evolution of larger brains. In Homo habilis the first area of the brain to expand is the parietal region. Perhaps it is not surprising that PET scans show increased activity in parietal regions when humans use oldowan-style tools in studies. As soon as we see tools emerge we see brain size increase (2.5 million years ago). Were tools simply the result of larger brain size, or were larger brains selected for because they could make better tools? Your guess is as good as mine. :)

And, of course, anthropologists throw in sexual selection as a possible mechanism as well.


Could it be that we didn't evolve from apes, we just evolved to walk more upright, be taller, etc.? Humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. This is indisputable. The hominid fossil record is one of the most complete and seamless records of evolution one could hope for.

Sahelanthropsis tchadensis -->
Ardpithecus ramidus -->
Australopithecus anamensis -->
Australopithecus afarensis -->
Republicans -->
Australopithecus africanus -->
Homo habilis/rudolfensis -->
Homo ergaster/erectus -->
Homo hiedelbergensis -->
Homo sapiens -->

The progression is somewhat debatable but generally accepted (that is not the case with the newer stuff, which is well accepted).
Admittedly, the exact place of the real old stuff (anamesis and older) is still sketchy, but there is no doubt that humans evolved from an ape-like common ancestor. But from ergaster on, the number of skeletons we have is absolutely ridiculous. Many of them fall inbetween the arbitrary catagories I listed above (I say that just to show you that the picture of later hominid evolution is continuous and well-understood).

"Lucy" (the real famous skeleton) was a member of A. afarensis and was essentially a walking ape (by ape I mean how the term is traditionally used).

Furthermore, there were a number of "offshoots" such as the neanderthals and the "robust" australopithecines whose lines went extinct. There were times during 'human' prehistory where there were four (or maybe even more) types of "human" species living together.

I hope what you get from my message is that evolution is not a progression. I think that is what you were implying in your post. Once you get over that hump evolution is much more easily understood.

[ December 09, 2003, 10:43: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

Australopithecus afarensis -->
Republicans -->
Australopithecus africanus --> :lol: :lol: :lol:


Admittedly, it has been a while since my anthro classes in college, but I don't remember anyone saying that Bush and Co. were the missing link.

Are the "science" guys happy enough now with the human "family tree" or is there still a "missing link." InquisitorX, you sound like you know what you are talking about.

Are the "science" guys happy enough now with the human "family tree" or is there still a "missing link." Like I said, the old stuff is sketchy.

Two finds, Sahelanthropis tchadensis and Orroin tugenesis, could be the last common ancestor of humans and chimps (or "missing link" as you put it). Little is known about both, but they are candidates. Orroin was probably a biped, so it may of been an early offshoot hominid (bipedalism is what makes humans human and defines our lineage, not increased brain size). Obviously the ancestral population would not have been bipedal.

As for Sahelanthropus, we have a skull. It could be from, or very close to, the original ancestral population. We'd need postcrania to be sure.

Here is a picture of Sahel:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html

I usually recommend not getting information on evolution from websites (basically because any idiot can post whatever they want on the web) and sticking to peer reviewed scholarly journals. But I'm pretty sure talkorigins has a good reputation.

They also have a rundown of the species I posted, with a small description. They included many offshoots like I mentioned in my 1st post.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#tugenensis

InquisitorX, you sound like you know what you are talking about Thanks... Hopefully at the end of this year I will have a degree in Biology. :thumb:

[ December 09, 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

Was it Lucy that really messed with thier heads because she was too evolved for how old they dated her?

I don't have a degree in Biology so forgive my ignorance. I sort of knew that it wasn't the destiny of apes to become future humans, but I always thought that the strongest apes evolved into Homo Erectus, then the strongest Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapien - or am I seriously out to lunch. Could you recommend some reading (in lamen terms please) that could inform me of some of my misinformation?

Also, do you believe that we evolved from single cell orginisms? That seems so far fetched because of our highly (well, most of us) developed brains.

Was it Lucy that really messed with thier heads because she was too evolved for how old they dated her?No. 'Lucy' was a great find because it was the most complete skeleton of an Australopithecus we could hope to get. I'm not sure about the historical context of the Lucy find, but she fits in perfectly with the other evidence we have now.

The most controversial "fossil" that messed things up was the Piltdown man fossil. Piltdown showed that brain size came before bipedalism (all the other evidence argued it the other way around). It was very perplexing to anthropologists. It turns out that piltdown was a hoax. Once that was determined it cleared up our view of human evolution.

Sadly, some creationists pathetically point to piltdown man as proof that evolution is not true, because it was a hoax. They fail to understand or acknowledge that piltdown man is completely irrelevant because of that fact.


I don't have a degree in Biology so forgive my ignorance. I sort of knew that it wasn't the destiny of apes to become future humans, but I always thought that the strongest apes evolved into Homo Erectus, then the strongest Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapien - or am I seriously out to lunch. Could you recommend some reading (in lamen terms please) that could inform me of some of my misinformation?
You're out to lunch :p
Kidding. You're are sort of on the right track.

Now remember what I said before, humans are a type of ape. About 5-8 million years ago an ancestral population of apes (that was probably chimp-like) split into 2 different populations. One of the populations would go on its own unique evolutionary course and become what today we call chimpazees. The other lineage would lead to modern day humans.

You're sort of right with your assertion that "the strongest Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapien." First understand its not "the strongest" who evolve into new species.

The best adapted members of a species who leave the most offspring drive evolutionary change.

Members of Homo ergaster(erectus) who had larger brains than their peers left more offspring because large brains were selected for (there was an advantage to having a large brain). This led to a gradual transition from smaller to larger brains.

Again I refer you to the website I posted before if you want to learn about evolution. The site is very comprehensive and clearly written. Everything I have read on the site (which isn't much) is well accepted and clearly articulated.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Also, do you believe that we evolved from single cell orginisms? That seems so far fetched because of our highly (well, most of us) developed brains. Honestly, before my research in the topic the assertion we evolved from single-celled organisms did seem far-fetched. I know enough now to know that we did evolve from single-celled organisms.

@InquisitorX

I would like to make one edit to your last statement
I know enough now to know that we did evolve from single-celled organisms. and change it to "I know enough now to believe that we did evolve from single-celled organisms"

Regardless of how you present it, the Theory of Macroevolution (Evolutionary theory as you speak of it) is still nevertheless a Theory , with enough difficulties and disagreements within the field to require as great a leap of faith as belief in staunch Creationism. No, wait, perhaps even greater.

You do the same dis-service to society that all scientists do, when they present theory as fact. No doubt, if you are still in school then you are being taught that theory is fact, so I certainly do not blame you. I am not even criticizing what you believe, only ask that you retain a skepticism toward what you are presented. I don't have the answers as to exactly how we got here, but I can gurantee you this, no scientist does either. In 50 years they will mock what is being taught now.

I love the Evolutionists claim that we share 98% DNA with a Chimp...I have a news flash, we share 91% DNA with a Sea Cucumber. Macroevolution requires so much faith in the postulations that it's adherents require, it in iself approaches the realm of religion.

I am not an ignorant "Bible Thumper", they tend to trash me too. I just have found the more sure someone is of the answer they trumpet, the more you had better regard them with absolute caution, and Evolutionary scientists approach the question of our existence with more arrogance than could be mustered by 10 Creationists. The entire theory is built upon a card-house of theories, and if any one of them fail, the entire answer implodes. You have a responsibility, as one who is receiving a scientific education, to inform all who you instruct that what you speak is merely the current theory purported by a segment of the scientific community.

Best to you and your studies.

Inquisitor X, while you certainly seem to know what you are talking about, and while I am in no way going to argue against what you have said, or the theory of evolution in itself, and while, until a few years ago, I was one of its most steadfast supporters, you must agknowledge (well, you don't have to, but I'm asking you too, pretty please ;) :D ) that as it applies to humans it seems a little odd.

What I'm talking about can be summed up in just a few points.

Firstly, this is all conjecture and theory, even with fossil remains. There is no way to be certain that the dating is precise (I tell you it isn't, at least, not as old as millions of yaers in every case) and those said remains could come about in other manners (One of the theories as to the fall of Atlantis and Lemura was just this, genetical modification and inter-breeding (not literally) of our human ancestors and apes, there are stories of this happening between the demi-human ancestors of the Lemurians as well, and in this case it was interbreeding (I could go into an account of what I have learned of our ancestors, but I am not sure how well it will be taken by biologists, simply put, they -the biolgists- don't think of humans as ethereal, or in any other form than mammalian). It could also be simply from an extinct species, not necessarily one which grew into a human. Honestly, apes, and the steps inbetween, could all be throw-backs from us or another species. What I'm trying to say is by scientific method you cannot put this forward as fact, only (a very likely in your belief) supposition. Be careful when you speak of evidence, evidence does not prove anything, it can only support a theory designed to encompass it, and it can support all such theories. I've no doubt that we were at one time ape-men. I just don't think that that species physically evolved into another.

Now, humans are the only species that are spoken of of evolving in such a manner in present time. I am aware of the reptile-bird conversion and other such leaps (and even this to me is dubious), but those are said to be from a period of time far further back than us, and did not drastically change the basic nature of the animal, nor in such a short period of time. If you had a better understanding of the inner workings of animals this would be clearer. I am not saying we are any better per se, only different, and further along. I respect all life equally, but this doesn't mean I think all life is the same. Also, I am aware that apes and chimps are very intelligent, can even understand human language- but intelligence is not what I am talking about, and there are many other ways to account for this, let alone the fact that they may just be really smart animals- not necessarily related to us in such a manner.

Also, there are many many fossil records that show species have not evolved, over even longer periods of time than we talk about with others, which means to me that evolution (in a biological sense) concerns only refinement of a species, not drastic changes, at least, not in the manner you have proposed.

This said, again, I am not arguing the theory of evolution in itself, only the application of such. I have no doubt that every species has evolved (biologically) to be better than it originally was, humans included, and in this I agree that the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive. But what I mean here is slight changes; gaining a foot of height in average size over a few thousand years, not a totally new spinal column. [Edit: yes, I am arguing against macroevolution, it is the lesser bilogical evolution of which I was speaking in support of] I do not debate the human-ape link, the ape-men as a species which we once were, nor the common ancestor (we all have a common ancestor), nor the demi or cross-forms, only that one biologically evolved into the other (and in that manner, the origin of the species as it pertains to single cell organisms as well. I believe we evolved from such a singular entity, but in a different manner than do you).

I think I beleive in evolution more than most, and in a sense stronger than most. Reptiles, apes, trees, rocks, water -they all share our heritage, and one grows into the other. But the change is not biological, how could it be?

Ok Inquistor X, you may set loose your denouncements and cries of crackpot and moron now if you wish; but I stand by what I have said, and I will still respect you entirely if you stand by what you have said, there is no reason why you should change your mind at this point in time.

Edit: I just saw Hacken Slash's post, and would like to agree with everything he said, if it wasn't allready clear that I was trying to say the same thing, it seems, again, I have a harder time making myself clear than do most, I get confused halfway through what I am saying and start talkining about something else entirely.

[ December 10, 2003, 02:33: Message edited by: Manus ]

I think Inquisitor X can 'know' that we evolved from single cell organisms so long as it is true, he believes it, and his belief is justified. He believes it, sounds like he knows enough to justify his belief, so, as long as it is true, I'd say he knows it.

There is a difference in knowing something and knowing that you know it ad infinitum. Knowledge requires the first and not the latter. But this descends into epistemology which is another subject.

Edit - didn't see Manus and haven't read it yet. I meant to add though that fact =!= knowledge.

I'm sure some people would be shocked to know that we probably evolved from bi-lipid membraned vesicles before the single cell stage.

There are flaws in every scientific theory, however the job of a scientist involves backing up their theories with strong evidence. Any theory that doesn't stand up to criticism will get trashed. Theories are made stronger if they withstand years of criticism and are still around, as a result becoming less hypothetical and more factual as the evidence builds up.

I'm going to cower behind Manus and Hacken Slash and say that it seems unlikely that humans are the only species to evolve so completely. I mean, look at the difference between an ape and a human. There's a distinct comparison, but we look totally different.

Besides, is it possible for something to evolve worse than when it started. Chimps and apes have an incredible strength to body wieght ratio. Humans have a lousy one - even someone who is very fit.

Also, there's things that just aren't explained through evolution, like Quantum Physics.

Is it possible that evolution is just a lousy attempt to explain the unexplainable?

@ Laches I think Inquisitor X can 'know' that we evolved from single cell organisms so long as it is true, he believes it, and his belief is justified. He believes it, sounds like he knows enough to justify his belief, so, as long as it is true, I'd say he knows it.
Wasn't this covered in another thread? :D

I didn't mean to challenge the beliefs of InquisitorX. I am certain that what he accepts as reality becomes reality for him...that is not the issue.

I could perhaps be described as a "Person of Faith" (I have been called many other things, but in the interest of PG-13 rating, I won't recount them here). As a Person of Faith, I exercise a significantly higher level of restraint in how I answer the questions of those who do not believe as I do. I am aware that it is not my place to make a reality for them. Evolutionary Scientist do no such thing. They speak as though what they purport is fact, when sadly it is not. It is only the latest theory of a human society attempting to answer the question of existence without the aknowlegement of a higher being. All too often it is presented as fact, and I only challenged him to discern the difference.

Haha, Tassadar, you're abviously not a physicist, my god, they'll make up anything as long as they think it'll support the theory they like rather than admit they're wrong, or consider something else, despite the fact that they are surounded by flaws and fallacies. Me? Bitter? Never! ;)

Truly, this (what you have stated) is sometimes how science works, but more often than not people will blindly stick to their beliefs as long as they can. The progression you speak of only takes place of several, if not many, generations. As HS said, fifty years and they'll think every scientist today was crazy. 2 years? Not a chance.

Edit: directed this to Tassadar as originally intended. I'm going to have to learn to type faster.

Yes, HS, I've laughed out loud upon hearing staunch materialists and would-be scientists argue another would-be scientist that he could not believe in the 'supernatural' as he termed it because there was no proof, and where did he get off trying to say that we had to believe something because he said so. Never ceases to amaze me. As it turns out, I've (in the past) alieneted both sides, hell, every side, of the fence on this one, but at least they can all agree on something ;)

@Mystra's Chosen...

Aren't you too big to cower behind Manus and I?

Hacken Slash-

You misinterpret the meaning of the word "theory" in the "Theory of Evolution."

"Evolutionary Theory" is not a theory in the sense that "yeah I got a theory that stuff changes over time."

Allele frequencies change over time. That is a fact. All Evolution is is a change in allele frequencies over time.

"Evolutionary Theory" is a theory in the same sense that "Atomic Theory" is a theory. It is a vast collection of ideas, theories, tests, and empirical evidence that serve to explain phenotypic and genotypic differences between species. It also serves to explains ecological relationships and behavioral characteristics of species.

with enough difficulties and disagreements within the field to require as great a leap of faith as belief in staunch Creationism. No, wait, perhaps even greater.
There are 2 different takes on macroevolution: phyletic gradualism and puntucated equilibrium. They are certainly not mutually exclusively as you erroneously claimed in your post. Fossil evidence shows that both theories have merit. Both mechanisms seem to have a place in evolutionary theory.

Punctuated equilbrium seems, in my view, to reasonably explain situations where change in environment is fast and violent. And phyletic gradualism explains situations where change in environment is more mild.

I love the Evolutionists claim that we share 98% DNA with a Chimp...I have a news flash, we share 91% DNA with a Sea Cucumber. This is irrelevant. I said "as an aside" you might find that interesting. I in no way used that to back my claims. Even so, no animal shares more genetic similarity to humans than chimps.

Macroevolution requires so much faith in the postulations that it's adherents require, it in iself approaches the realm of religion.Baseless rhetoric. The vast majority of the 'postualtions' of macroevolution are extremely logical are require little to no faith to accept.

Your argument would be strengthened if you were to post some examples. Which I would be glad to refute and/or explain.

Evolutionary scientists approach the question of our existence with more arrogance than could be mustered by 10 Creationists. The entire theory is built upon a card-house of theories, and if any one of them fail, the entire answer implodes. That is empty rhetoric as well. Our views of evolution change everyday. Theories are constantly being replaced and revised. It is that skepticism that has strengthened evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is stronger now than it ever was.

The infrastructure of evolutionary theory is more akin to the metaphor of a building than a cardhouse. Sometimes we add a room, sometimes we remove a room. Other times we decided a part needs to be remodeled. The renovations we have made over the past century and a half have only strengthened the infrastructure of our building.

-Manis

Firstly, this is all conjecture and theory, even with fossil remains. There is no way to be certain that the dating is precise Some methods of dating are incredibly precise. Others aren't. Due to the sheer number of dates and the way different dating methods corrobate with one another it is an extremely unlikely that these dates give completely false information (there is of course a measure of error, but typically it is small).

Now, humans are the only species that are spoken of of evolving in such a manner in present time. Humans evolve in the same way any other species does. The 'great changes' from ape to human are largely comsetic. We are bipedal, hairless, and have large brains. Beyond that we extremely closely related to other living apes in a phenotypic sense. Our metabolic processes are virtually identical and our body structure is extremely similar (we share the "brachiation complex" with other apes)

Also, there are many many fossil records that show species have not evolved, over even longer periods of time than we talk about with others, which means to me that evolution (in a biological sense) concerns only refinement of a species, not drastic changes, at least, not in the manner you have proposed Evolution is a response to ADAPT to an environment. It is NOT constant and it has NO direction. If something is perfectly adapted to an environment why should it change? Evolution is the change of allele frequencies over time. If a species is optimially adapted to an environment we wouldn not expect it to change allele freqencies (the shark is the ideal example).

This said, again, I am not arguing the theory of evolution in itself, only the application of such. I have no doubt that every species has evolved (biologically) to be better than it originally was, Whoa, whoa, whoa. Species do not evolve to be "better." They evolve to be "better adapted" via differential selection. Let's not forget evolution is not-predetermined. Manus, say it with me: "Evolution is not pre-determined." That is a key point I keep trying to emphasis but for some reason ends up being ignored.

Manus, I hope I cleared somethings up for you. Honestly, I had no idea what you were talking about in half your post. But, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

M Chosen-

I'm going to cower behind Manus and Hacken Slash and say that it seems unlikely that humans are the only species to evolve so completely. I mean, look at the difference between an ape and a human. There's a distinct comparison, but we look totally different. "Looks" can be decieving. As I said before we are highly dervied. The changes in our line most likely came about a response to a violent changes in environment. (Like the shift from forest to savannah lifestyles). And we aren't the only Primate species to be so derived. The aye-aye is the perfect example. It looks just like a rat, but it is a Primate!

Besides, is it possible for something to evolve worse than when it started. Chimps and apes have an incredible strength to body wieght ratio. Humans have a lousy one - even someone who is very fit.Why have something you don't need? With the development of tool cultures there was no need for large muscles. Having large muscles would be a disadvantage because you would require more food for the sole purpose of maintaining a worthless trait. Furthermore, with brain expansion your body would require much more energy. A way to balance this out would be to reduce muscle mass.

[ December 10, 2003, 03:46: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

@IquisitorX
I do not misconstrue the meaning of theory. I have a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Civil Engineering, with a little luck will have a Doctorate in another technical field in about a year.

I understand what Theory means, and also understand what the limitations of the Scientific designation of fact are. Every statement you make is based upon the assumption that another statement is "fact". I am not looking to engage in an arguement, only sought to challenge you to observe all that you are told is "fact".

It is incontrovertible that if we seek to follow the path of DNA, then the trail of human life is indiscernable from other life. If we, as fallible, transitory beings, chose to cling to the ideas of other fallible transitory beings, the depths of our wisdom will be swamped by the greater depths of what we can not answer.

This is the wrong forum for a debate point by point of the validity of Evolutionary Theory, only an appeal to retain an autonomy from the machine.

Inquisitor X, if it was so logical and required so little faith to accept why are we all arguing against you? ;)

Seriously though, you're likening humans and chimps together only by internal biology, and, internally and biologically, most things are almost identical, if not very similar. These are not the changes that most of us would consider noteworthy. There are huge insurmountable differences which biology doesn't even take into consideratin.

All I was trying to point out by the fossil remains example is you don't know anything for certain, I mean, many people still think the moon was spun off from the Earth, which even the scientific and mathematic evidence don't support, but that's beside the point. I've no doubt the evidence is corroborative, but I think that all of those dating techniques are somewhat misleading, so it doesn't matter if they all say the same thing.

You comments on adaptation is exactly what we have all been talking about. It seems apes are far more adapted to a jungle environment (which Africa used to be a well) than are we. We can survive better, but it takes a lot more effort, and if we didn't exist then there would be nor eason that something would have to adapt better so as to compete with such a species, let alone the fact that while many species are now extinct, many forms of apes are not. Seems to me they adapted pretty well.

So I think that humans adapt to become better humans, (or at least in theory, sometimes with our modern lifestyles we are genetically handi-capping ourselves) but this is genetics, which is what I think biological evolution is, I don't accept the other types of evolution, or at least, I hold my self reserved on all others to decide on a later date, and do not accept the theory as it pertains to humans.

As to the pre-determination aspect, well, that's what I'm trying to say. The evolution that I'm speaking of is pre-determined, before we even existed. Whether you accept that such evolution exists is up to you, but for me, there is no greater purpose. Having people I know remember past lives helps, because it (while not proving) lends weight to my belief. Hearing people speak of mysticism and a greater understanding of the minds and lives around them, not just restricted to humans or even animate objects for that manner, lends further weight. To have the masters throughout history say such things almost convinces me, they have no reason to lie nor to be mistaken. I come from the same viewpoint as you, it's just that I have different experiences, or evidence if you like, to base my descisions upon, thus those descisions will no doubt be different.

That's all we have, we each are basing what we say upon our experiences up to this point. I'm sorry if what I said was unclear, but I am no more (or less either really) citing a simple opinion than are you.

Edit: Once more to direct the post, once more to throw my lot in in agreement with HS. If this keeps up, I fear we shall never bicker again. Perhaps I should change my stance just for the sake of an arument. ;) He's right though, Inquisitor X, we are aware that you believe in the scientific theory of evolution, but is it to the exclusion of all else, or are you agnostic? I know I speak for more than myself, and I hope that this should be clear by now, that one can be a scientist, be scientific, and not exclude all faith. Indeed, it seems that the atheist or materialist has as much faith in their doctrine as does any other devout (or not, as the case may be) follower in theirs. Are not these too, a type of religion (and an organised one at that)!

[ December 10, 2003, 03:57: Message edited by: Manus ]

Hacken Slash-

I understand what you are saying.

I realize the limitations of human perception on reality. The only things I consider 'facts' are what I deem irrefutable; it is quite possible another person may find what I find irrefutable, refutable.

By taking an objective look at the evidence provided I deem evolution an irrefutable fact. Almost every concievable question you could think up about organisms and their ecology can be adequately explained using the logic that is embedded into evolutionary theory.

Explained using a theory based upon a theory, IquisitorX, that is all I seek to say.

Again, I hope you do well in your studies. Where are you going to school?

EDIT: Let me add, that I have felt exactly how you have felt. It was only when I began to seek answers "outside" the box, that I began to realize the limitations to Evolutionary theory. I concede, that there is no theory that can be proposed by Man that can satisfy the question of existence of Man as well as evolutionary theory. I only ask that you leave yourself open to doubt, to the power of intangible magick, and not blindly accept theory as fact.

[ December 10, 2003, 04:11: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

The University of California.

Manus-

I am an agnostic. I have not accumulated enough evidence to convince me of whether or not supernatural forces exist, and I never will.

I think that perhaps my last post was missed in the change of page, and it brings up some points which may interest you (Inquisitor X, hehe, no edit this time) based upon what you have last said, for while evolution may explain some things, it does not explain everything, and all of these things can be explained in many different ways. It is finding something which conclusively explains everything which is the trick, and, I fear, beyond our abilities. But if I start with supposing X=Y because Z, than anything that is the Theory of Y will have to prove Z, because it is fundamental to X's understanding of it.

Anyway, I am curious to your views on the topic question not pertaining to evolution. ;)

Edit: My apologies, looks like I was too slow once more :) but yes, an agnostic seems the most sensible viewpoint for one who has not had experience with these things, but when any of us tell you that we have, what does that make you think?

I guess this says it all
I have not accumulated enough evidence to convince me of whether or not supernatural forces exist, and I never will . There is no point in further discussion.

Welcome to the Machine.

Hacken Slash-

That was a tounge-in-cheek comment playing off our entire conversation. I expected more from you. :p

Manus-

I think that perhaps my last post was missed in the change of page, and it brings up some points which may interest you (Inquisitor X, hehe, no edit this time) based upon what you have last said, for while evolution may explain some things, it does not explain everything, and all of these things can be explained in many different ways. It is finding something which conclusively explains everything which is the trick, and, I fear, beyond our abilities. But if I start with supposing X=Y because Z, than anything that is the Theory of Y will have to prove Z, because it is fundamental to X's understanding of it.My view is that while evolutionary theory is not perfect, it adequately explains a large amount of phenomena that it is expected to explain. It's not a perfect theory and it can't be a perfect theory. Many natural phenomena can be explained to come about in multiple ways (bipedalism in humans in a great example).

The best we can do is continue to use the scientific method and strengthen the theory as much as possible. All the while realizing that the theory has limitations.


Anyway, I am curious to your views on the topic question not pertaining to evolution. My life philosophy is very simple. When looking at pretty much any issue I do so in a pragmatic, objective manner looking at all the evidence available to me. I base my judgments and conclusions on the most rational and logical reasoning I am capable of.

As such, I find the notion of explaining natural phenomena via religious texts absurd to the highest degree. I do not see how the Bible is any more suited to explaining natural phenomena than Grimm's Fairy Tales.

[ December 10, 2003, 05:36: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

Science is a tool. It is a very useful tool, but can be abused (and often is) by certain scientists more interested in publishing papers than establishing any kind of sound foundation for their theories.

Sometimes (well, often) experiments cannot be done to prove/disprove certain theories because of reasons of practicality and this is where the assumptions and deductions come in. Without doing the experiment you can't show anything. Science is based entirely on evidence, and we are taught that way from when we're little snotlings, but a lot of scientists tend to think too far ahead and start formulating wild ideas without first proving old ones. I know I've occassionally been guilty of that.

With regard to evolution, the only way to prove it is to observe, over a few million years, what happens to every known species. While there is a substantial body of evidence for evolution, and the theories are very good, the reason it can't be proven is because no one can do the experiment. People sometimes tend to forget that we've only been around for 125,000 or so years (is that right, InquisitorX?) and evolution is not exactly the quickest thing. So to perform such an experiment would require a time compressor of some kind and some very patient scientists.

@manus-
i've heard about the physicists, let me assure you the biologists can be like that sometimes! :)

I do not see how the Bible is any more suited to explaining natural phenomena than Grimm's Fairy Tales.I might agree with you, but I think I put a great deal, far far more, faith in Grimm's fairy tales than do you! ;)

The truth, the answers to anything can be found anywhere if you look hard enough, and if you are aware of the question. With Grimm's fairy tales you don't have to look quite so hard and they can be very revealing at times. They were of course written (and not by the Brothers Grimm) usually for this express purpose.

Meaning can be gleaned from any source. One world of thoughts is no different to our own.

As such, I find the notion of explaining natural phenomena via religious texts absurd to the highest degree.Credo quia absurdum. But perhaps these things will not always seem so absurd to you, and you will not have to rely on trust. Nevertheless in any case, natural phenomena is not what they have been set out to explain.

Sorry to take your tongue in cheek remark so serious, mate.

I've been so cranky lately, must be the Holidays.

Who says science and religion can't both be true?

In the Bible it says that God created the world in 7 days. But those 7 days may not be the same length as 7 days our time. It also says that God created animals before man. So who's to say that God didn't mold humans from the closest creatures to? And how about that evolution was a process that was set into motion by God, to create Man?

I understand why some believe that the Creation story is pretty cracked (the thread seemed to concentrate on the Christian story) because I mean, just look at it. If you take it literally then this big guy made the universe in a day, made the earth, made the plants, made the animals, made Adam, then took a breather after he said: "it is good." Adam got lonely and God stole on of his ribs (probably while he was sleeping... sneaky God) and volia! a new hot babe for Adam (not to mention a new species).

Of course, when taken literally any story sounds cracked - well a lot of stories sound cracked. You've got to dig a little, or a lot, deeper to get closer to the true meaning. God is outside of our definition of Time. A day is ten thousand years and vice versa. Evolving from apes could be the way we appeared, but that could've been directed by God too. I kinda chuckled to myself when InquisitorX said he was agnostic, but also believes evolution, because it's far from proven. I wouldn't consider myself gullible, but I can tell you practically countless stories of supernatural occurances that are completely obvious (I'm not talking about a spooky wisp in a photo here) of evil intervention.

I've also looked into the eyes of someone who's so dead inside that there was no hope of coming up. Then a few months later I see them again and they are so trancendent... because they've become Christians. I've never seen that in the eyes of someone who's read "The Origin of Species".

I kinda chuckled to myself when InquisitorX said he was agnostic, but also believes evolution, because it's far from proven.Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, making statements like evolution is "far from proven" seems incredibly irresponsible considering your knowledge of the subject. You could spend an entire lifetime reading all the literature you could about evolution and you would not finish it all. I suggest you read at least some of it before making personal judgments about its validity.

There is no ambiguity relating to my positions of evolution and agnosticism. The evidence suggests that evolution occurs. And I have no evidence to either confirm or deny the existence of a supereme being. I fail to see what is chuckle-worthy beyond your uninformed statement that evolution is "far from proven."

I've also looked into the eyes of someone who's so dead inside that there was no hope of coming up. Then a few months later I see them again and they are so trancendent... because they've become Christians. I've never seen that in the eyes of someone who's read "The Origin of Species".I'm not exactly what point your trying to prove here. Surely you couldn't be arguing for the validity of the Bible based on the fact that it reinvigorates people. Could you?

As for your comment on "Origin," Darwin's work is a historic relic and the only people who benefit from reading it are scholars. You would learn a hundred times more about evolution reading a contemporary textbook in place of Darwin's tome. The importance of "Origin" was its idea that challenged the status quo and has changed the way the world is viewed.

making statements like evolution is "far from proven" seems incredibly irresponsible Making statements like that is incredibly irresponsible considering it is far from proven. Are you saying that evolution is a fact that can't be disputed? If so, then you, my friend, are religious (Church of Latter Day Evolutionist).

BTW, when I say evolution I mean human from ape, not a fish in the see that developes another fin.

Evolutionists violate one of the basic precepts held by all scientists, and that is the confusion of "Theory" and "Law". We still call the venerable principle of Relativity a "Theory" because as scientists we are unable to use standard scientific method to verify it's validity. Even some of the modern Lepto-quarkists have posed some interesting challenges to the universality of the theory.

Microevolution (the genetic changes within a species due to mutation, natural selection, or other causes) can be observed and proven. Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution (the generation of entirely new species due to the above mentioned effects) can only be supported by dubious fossil record and hypothesis. In fact Macroevolutionists have a nasty habit of sifting through all of the fossil record data until they find what supports a pre-supposed theory...what does not support is ignored. The fact of the matter, for every one piece of fossil evidence that is used to support this religion, there are at least 10 items that do not fit the desired mold and are thus ignored.

I view the blind adherents to Macroevolution, who do not even aknowlege the highly theoretical nature of their faith, in the same group as those who burn piles of books.

Macroevolution (the generation of entirely new species due to the above mentioned effects) can only be supported by dubious fossil record and hypothesis.That is simply not true. There are many observed instances of speciation, both in the laboratory and in the wild.

It is also not true that all macroevolutionary evidence is gleaned solely from the fossil record. Obviously to see gross changes in morphology one needs wider spans of time and thus the fossil record is useful, but evolution is supported by observations from many different scientific fields, not just paleontology.

On the topic, in my mind science differs from religion in that it provides a framework for prediction in the universe around us. Scientific theories, even if they're not perfect, tell you what you can expect to find when you go out and look at nature. The interesting thing in science is when you actually go out and look, and see something that was not expected; that's when all the excitement occurs. :)

Like I said before, we have only been here a few thousand years. There has been no extreme environmental selection pressure thus far requiring us to grow wings or fins. Evolution takes time, and more so with complex multi-cellular organisms.

Mystra's Chosen -

You're clearly in over your head in this debate. I will not denigrate myself further by arguing with you. I only hope you follow my suggestion and read some of the literature on the subject.


Hacken Slash -

You seem to be making a habit of making sweeping generalizations based on misconceptions.

Microevolution (the genetic changes within a species due to mutation, natural selection, or other causes) can be observed and proven. Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution (the generation of entirely new species due to the above mentioned effects) can only be supported by dubious fossil record and hypothesis.You say that macroevolution, the generation of a new species, "can only be supported by dubious fossil record and hypothesis." Hacken Slash, when was the last time you saw a poodle in the wild? In 20,000 years (an incredibly short amount of time) man has somehow got a poodle from a wolf.

You claimed the distinction that made macroevolution different from microevolution was speciation. Clearly, poodles and wolves are different species. Your criteria for macroevolution have been met. Obviously, there are better examples, but domestication seems to be a particularly useful for a number of obvious reasons.

In fact Macroevolutionists have a nasty habit of sifting through all of the fossil record data until they find what supports a pre-supposed theory...what does not support is ignored. No.

Many scientists noticed the disjunct nature of the fossil record and decided that phyletic gradualism did not adequately explain it so the idea of punctuated equilbrium was introduced. Others feel phyletic gradualism adequately explains the fossil record. The theories are not mutally exclusive and both deserve a place in evolutionary theory.

You make it sound like the fossil record is vast and the scientists are "sifting" through it picking and choosing the fossils they like to support their theories.

The picture you paint is the exact opposite of reality. The fossilization of skeletal material is incredibly rare and the fossil record is biased to the extreme. Some animals are a hundred times more likely to fossilize than others and some other species may have never fossilized once.

Furthermore, the nature of geologic deposition must be considered. Thanks to erosion or depositional processes it is known that certain areas will not leave strata of certain time periods due to geology.

Ask yourself what part of a species should speciate? Is it the large core population that has a healthy amount of gene flow between the various communities or the small isolated peripheral population that has been exposed to a new environment? Yes, the peripheral population. Now which one is much more likely to fossilize? Yes, the core population.

The fact of the matter, for every one piece of fossil evidence that is used to support this religion, there are at least 10 items that do not fit the desired mold and are thus ignored. "The fact of the matter" is that that's not true. Again, you making these outrageous assertions based on no evidence beyond the misconceptions that reside in your mind. And, personally, I have no idea what the hell you are even talking about.

I'll tell you what you, list off every fossil find used to support macroevolution, then list of ten times the "items" that do not fit the mold and you'll have an argument. Until then you just have baseless rhetoric.

@Myastra's Chosen
Don't feel snubbed chum, InquisitorX is talking to us all like a true scientist.

@BTA
Perhaps I should have been more careful to differentiate sub-speciation or varietization from the huge leaps to Order or Family required for macroevolution. I have no argument with you that these changes can be observed and documented, but they are still not the macroevolution required to answer the question as to the origin and differentiation of life. Microevolution comprises onle a portion of the mechanism required for macroevolution. Furthermore, you have notably used the word "theory". I only have a beef with those who purport the current presentation of evolutionary theory as "fact". I can somehow see them in another time insisting the world was flat.

@IquisitorX
I never generalize, but sometimes for the sake of brevity I will capsulize what I know . Are you insinuating that all varieties of dog are descended from wolves? Baseless rhetoric? I will admit that I have a penchant for rhetoric, but it is rarely baseless, just misunderstood. For a period of time, I worked for a rather small museum with an non-descript paleontology department. (I had to leave the research field and go back to work at something that would pay the bills) I was not part of the paleontology department, but I have seen firsthand, in that small facility, the large number of uncattegorized fossil materials. They are classified as such usually for one of two reasons:
1. They were found in a geological strata that does not support the previously determined age of such a specimen.
2. The actual dating of the specimen (or discovered area) itself is not concurrent with the previously determined "age" of such a specimen.

It is a fact. They do exist, and when you complete your schooling and enter into the workforce (if you pursue a career in that field), you will have to make the decision yourself if you will join with those who ignore the existence of these items, or insist that all finds be answerable to accepted theory.

Oddly, I have never once said that I don't agree with the theory of evolution...I have only said that I disagree with the preaching of it as an incontrovertible fact. I think that any neutral reader will be able to tell who is the one committed to a blind faith in a religous sect. Agent Mulder said it best..."Trust no one" (Gad, I miss that show)

You, as a scientist, have the responsibility first to accept that there is far more that you don't know than you ever will know, then responsibly present your knowlege to the world with the humility that comes by necessity. We have far too many educated minds that speak of theory as fact, they hardly need you to join them. Keep an open mind, question what you are taught, and don't let go of the truth that the sum total of all of your learning amounts to a big, fat diddly squat. Then you will be qualified to relay your lessons to a waiting populace.

[ December 16, 2003, 02:18: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

@Hacken Slash...

Well, to be fair to InquisitorX, I am an idiot. :p

How about I end on this: Niether religion or evolution dispute the existance of the other. It is very possible that both can co-exist. It could be that God used evolution for his divine will (I'm not saying he did, I'm not saying he didn't).

I appreciate Hacken Slash's agurments. They are all well thought out. I also appreciate that InquisitorX truly believes what he believes, which is more than can be said for most of us. He also knows what he's talking about, which (apparantly) is much more than can be said for me. :)

So, I guess kudos are in order. Way t' believe InquisitorX!

@Mystra...you show incredible wisdom in proclaiming yourself an idiot. I only wish that our scientific community had a portion of that humility.

Hell, I wish I had. ;)

Don't let anyone ever make you think that you are an idiot for knowing what you believe. It is far more stable ground than believing what you know.

This whole discussion has gotten rather ugly. Why don't we just go and talk about the merits of thongs again :D .

InquisitorX, this has gone on for long enough I feel. You seem like an intelligent man, but you also seem to blatantly ignore everything that is being said. It would be understandable to be angry when your convictions are slighted, but I think this has gone too far.

I know now that I am at least speaking for both Hacken Slash and myself when I say we have read the literature, be it scientific journals or contemporary works, and we have had experience with this field, that is to say, we are not basing it solely upon our choice to believe it just because we want to.

I am an agnostic. I have not accumulated enough evidence to convince me of whether or not supernatural forces exist, and I never will.This is not agnosticism, it is not even aethism, as your belief is not solely restricted to a supreme being as it is here;

And I have no evidence to either confirm or deny the existence of a supereme being.But to all things which you deem supernatural. Thus, while accusing others of things which are incorrect, you are doing those very same things yourself.

Have you read anyting, seriously, on occultism, mysticism, theology, or philosophy? Have you read any scientific studies on uses of psi phenomena or unexplained events which are not accounted for by modern science? Have you ever attempted to unveil the symbolism within religious texts and mythologies? have you ever had any first, second or third hand experience with anyone who ever has done any of those things?

Now, to observe a poodle, and say 'it must have come from a wolf' is baseless, as there is nothing to prove such a claim, and even if there were, you have not even attempted to provide any, or even explain what such evidence may be. It is a theory, however likely or un-likely, and just like your other theories, there are many other possible explanations. I previously listed many accounts for the existenec of ape-men and our previous ancestors, which you totally ignored saying you didn't understand what I meant, and the same has happened with other posts by other authors as well. That's fine, it only proves the point that you only know one side of the argument here, having little experience with what the rest of us are discussing. This is not a fault in itself, how could it be? But to accuse us of ignorance when you are unwilling to turn that statement around can be faulted.

This aside, according to the scientific method, nothing can actually be proven. Nothing. All that you can say is that you have not deemed any of the evidence to the contrary as toatlly disproving your theory. That's fine, you may hold whatever opinion you wish. But keep in mind that if you are going to quote scientific theories then they are just that. Theories. It is impossible for you yourself to observe the evolution of a species, only infer. Until you have experienced everything on the matter, I would be very hesitant to say what is a fact, especially when others provide personal accounts which disagree. You are being more dogmatic here than anyone.

I have agreed with what you have said in other posts more than once, so it surprises me that you can continue to keep ignoring what we are saying, and indeed, what you yourself are saying, simply becasue you want to believe what you want to believe.

Well, I ask you to believe me when I say that I once thought as you did, but have since furthered my areas of knowledge, and learnt things, and experienced things, which changed my mind.

Please, before you reply to this I ask you to re-read the pervious discussion and notice we are not critisising evolution, science, or yourself, only trying to approach all areas with reason.

Again, this is not a personal attack, I am simply trying to state clearly what has been said, as it seems there is an on-going mis-understanding here.

[ December 16, 2003, 03:45: Message edited by: Manus ]

1. They were found in a geological strata that does not support the previously determined age of such a specimen.
2. The actual dating of the specimen (or discovered area) itself is not concurrent with the previously determined "age" of such a specimen.
I fail to see how that "evidence" argues for or against anything.

There is no reason a species can persist longer than previously thought. I don't see how extending the temporal range pertaining to a species' persistence argues against anything beyond the initial beliefs about temporal range.

And, clearly, you couldn't be more vague with your data. You're bascially saying "yeah I have proof, but I won't give you any real specifics. Some job I worked at had fossils they didn't identify."

Seriously, how do expect someone to respond to that?

Hacken Slash, you're entitled to believe whatever you want. I have enjoyed talking with you; however, it is clear that you have already settled on your position, so it is quite pointless for us to continue.

If you're frustrated because you can't change his mind, then you must get frustrated a lot. I mean, how often do you actually change someones mind completely through argument? It's exceedingly hard for someone to change their stance, because that means that for however long they've believed whatever, it was wrong. In case you haven't noticed, people don't like to be wrong.

Hacken Slash and Manus are obviously both intelligent and well-read individuals, while you obviously are too, and there's obviously something to religion and evolution both considering many intelligent people believe each (or both) side. (BTW, I'm not saying Hacken Slash and Manus are for the Creationist side.)

I have one beef with you InquisitorX. You tell me I'm way in over my head, and that evolution is not far from proven (or that's what I percieved from your post at least), but you don't give any reason why you say that? My reply was partially in jest, partially in frustration because what you did was basically a schoolyard name-calling. (Meaning no reason for the insult was given.) I'm not an "ignorant Bible-Thumper" (a la Hacken Slash) and I consider myself able to take constructive - or even destructive to a point - critisism.

What did I say wrong?

Never was a big fan of high school debating competitions, a tad boring and all ...

What I can say for them is that arguments were to be confined to the subject matter of the debate itself, and not to address the debators themselves personally.

Hint, hint ...