Evolution

[PutridLily]

Originally Posted by Onetwothree

To some extent we have proof? What about the irrefutable fossil record, microbiology, the variation in species, etc?

Exactly, that is the 'extent' to which we have proof.

[Onetwothree]

I just said it. There is not an extent, but an overwhelming--no--indomitable amount of proof; there is so much that evolution is a fact.

[Circle V]

Even among evolutionists there is dispute between advocates of gradual and punctuated speciation.

[PutridLily]

I'm not against evolution. I'm not shure if you missed my point:

Originally Posted by PutridLily

However, something evolving does not explain the reason for the existence of it.

[Circle V]

There's no reason to believe that there must be reason behind existence. It seems almost discriminatory against the nonliving (rocks and such) to assume that we are so special that we must have a reason to live, despite the fact that we react to our environment just as inanimate objects do-- albeit more quickly, less predictably, and in a more complex manner.

[Onetwothree]

Originally Posted by Circle V

Even among evolutionists there is dispute between advocates of gradual and punctuated speciation.

But no dispute about if it happened. I still think it was gradual, albeit there are evidences of some 'punctuated' as you put it.

[Circle V]

I don't recall exactly how it worked, but I remember learning that fossil record supports punctuated evolution (there are countless "missing links") and that theory and observations support gradual speciation.

[Onetwothree]

Missing links do not mean a rapid evolution. It just means a gap.

[PutridLily]

Originally Posted by Circle V

There's no reason to believe that there must be reason behind existence. It seems almost discriminatory against the nonliving (rocks and such) to assume that we are so special that we must have a reason to live, despite the fact that we react to our environment just as inanimate objects do-- albeit more quickly, less predictably, and in a more complex manner.

Oh, it seems I did not explain myself clearly. When I said ‘reason’ I meant the ‘cause’ of existence, not purpose.
Something evolving does not explain the ‘cause’ of the existence of it.

[Drake Dun]

It explains the proximate cause. The rest is a question of cosmology.

Drake

[Circle V]

Originally Posted by PutridLily

Oh, it seems I did not explain myself clearly. When I said ‘reason’ I meant the ‘cause’ of existence, not purpose.
Something evolving does not explain the ‘cause’ of the existence of it.

Seems to me that the beginning of everything cannot have a cause-- the beginning couldn't have been preceded by anything.

Are you talking about the Big Bang or the creation of life? The latter is a lot easier to explain.

[Circle V]

Originally Posted by Onetwothree

Missing links do not mean a rapid evolution. It just means a gap.

True, but there are enough gaps to suggest that punctuated equilibrium has almost certainly played a large role in evolution.

[biohazard]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

See, that's what a lot of people do. They say "a day might have been a million years, what's a day to God?" But the problem is, then you're choosing the believe the bible isn't literal. So which parts of the bible are literal, and which aren't? I think you have to take it all or nothing.

The bible is very hard to interpret for someone like myself. I would have to take nothing, because taking all would be absurd. I am still supporting that a day is not 24 hours, that it is far longer than that, maybe billions of centuries. If the theory of the Big Bang is correct, then it must have taken billions of centuries to have completed the cycle. It is not possible for the universe to be created in 6 24-hour days.

[biohazard]

Originally Posted by Onetwothree

Humans didn't evolve from apes, the word used in the bible was yom for day, and the word is used throughout, thus it really was a literal DAY. That God is known to be disproven because it makes no sense. Judeo-Christian God is b.s. in a hand basket.

I support the theory of evolution for the rise of humans. If the universe was created in 6 24 hour days, then it goes against all of the theories created by scientists througout the years. I would then conclude that if the the universe was created in just a week that it is untrue and absurd.
So in part, I agree with you. But you are not 100% sure that the days mentioned are actually 24-hour days.

[Circle V]

It's a bit presumptuous to say that the universe is "completed" once the conditions for life are met. The universe is still changing.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by biohazard

The bible is very hard to interpret for someone like myself. I would have to take nothing, because taking all would be absurd.

Taking nothing sounds like a way to go.

Why do people bend over backwards to save religious texsts from their own absurdities?

Drake

[PutridLily]

Originally Posted by Circle V

Seems to me that the beginning of everything cannot have a cause-- the beginning couldn't have been preceded by anything.

Are you talking about the Big Bang or the creation of life? The latter is a lot easier to explain.

I was talking about existence.

Evolution is concerned with changes in genetic material not how life or the universe began; it is inadequate to explain existence. Evolution is an adaption of something which already exists.

And good point.

[KontanKarite]

I would still have to say that for creationism to be feasable, you'd have to take away your preconceived ideas on what a god should be.

Just because something supposedly more powerful than you, made you, doesn't mean you can't rise above it.

[Circle V]

Evidence for creationism appeared long after the concept became commonly accepted. The concept of evolution was developed based on evidence.

If an impartial scientist concluded, based on concrete evidence, that something akin to creationism occurred-- and this scientist had no prior knowledge of creationism-- I would be willing to accept it as a legitimate theory. Whenever evidence is drawn to support a theory, rather than the other way around, something is wrong.

[biohazard]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Energy and matter IS the same thing. As for recent, it depends on your definition of recent. Einstein was the one that discovered this, and that's old science.

If Einstein said this, I agree with it. In school, I was always taught that energy and matter are the main things that exist in the world. But I was never taught the possibility of both things being the same thing.

[Circle V]

Einstein also said that "God does not play dice," but more and more evidence suggests that He does.

There was quote from a computer game called Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri:

"Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded."

It appeared when the technology "Probability Mechanics" was discovered, I believe.

By the way, it's one of the most impressive games in existence. Play it.

[Onetwothree]

Originally Posted by biohazard

If Einstein said this, I agree with it. In school, I was always taught that energy and matter are the main things that exist in the world. But I was never taught the possibility of both things being the same thing.

Duh? What do you think E=MC^2 means?

Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light, squared.

[Onetwothree]

Originally Posted by Circle V

Einstein also said that "God does not play dice," but more and more evidence suggests that He does.

There was quote from a computer game called Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri:

"Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded."

It appeared when the technology "Probability Mechanics" was discovered, I believe.

By the way, it's one of the most impressive games in existence. Play it.

Please, don't start people up on the whole, "EINSTEIN BELIEVES IN GOD" kick, because he was patently an atheist. He was using God as a metaphor.

Circle, you really should have used a spoiler on that.

[KontanKarite]

LoL!!! Ironic.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Onetwothree

Please, don't start people up on the whole, "EINSTEIN BELIEVES IN GOD" kick, because he was patently an atheist..

He called himself an agnostic, and said his god is Spinoza's god. Let's leave him as an agnostic then.