Evolution?

[Only-now]

Well..although evolution SHOULD be treated as a theory..SHOULD be tested, and SHOULD be questioned etc...it is not treated as such even within the scientific community. There is a difference between a theory and a law...and we have both.

Definition:

1) My site: Macroevolution ? The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
Microevolution ? The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.

I must also point out this about Creationism or Evolution even being a theory:

The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

The postulate must be observable.
The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

Another good quote: "As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five!"

So..evolution isn't even a theory as in all three of those must be true before it is even a theory..and no one has observed macroevolution (which is what we are discussing).

There are also many types of evolution...and we are discussing MACRO..which would be species change etc. Your definition sounds more like microevolution to me...expecially with this definition at hand:

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift. (Wikipedia).

Sounds an awful lot like your definition of evolution in general..which is wrong...and isn't even what we are discussing. We are discussing this:

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, over long periods of time, that leads to speciation, in contrast to microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population (Wikipedia)

Now..you can see the difference. How macroevolution is NOT micro..though you are using micro as the definition.

What is funny is that I am using YOUR source for that info..not mine. I am also using scientific facts determined by the same community you support.

Read the area of the paper on genetics and tell me what you think? It doesn't what source we look at on either side...everyone will be untrustworthy.

My paper is sourced..and it does not take things out of context. I think anyone who reads it would think it was very fair and valuable. Now..I haven't taken any classes on evolution..and as I said I USED to have full faith in it...but that has been shaken. So...I am not someone who comes in on one side of the argument the whole time. Also..I have just used everything you gave me to show you that you are using the wrong definition to refute me. The other funny thing is that the article that is supposedly so untrustworthy says that evolutionists will do exactly that.

Why exactly should I be so ready to look at the other side again when everything that I am reading..and looking at seems to be happening as such?

Don't get me wrong..I don't think the idea of evolution is dumb...and I haven't even said that it didn't happen. My whole point here is that it shouldn't be so readily accepted as if it were fact...or as if it were supported enough to even be such? Why is there such a push behind evolution? Because it rules out a God I think....and if you take a look at the lower portion of the site you can see what that can lead to. I am not blaming evolution..but I am saying "Idea's have consequences" and the ones from this are not beneficial to humanity. The more readily we accpet them..the more dangerous it becomes.

I simply want SOMEONE who is agianst me to admit that evolution could be wrong..

But..I have to say too..that I might not post on this thread anymore. Just..because I am getting tired of typing so much..and at the moment I am losing interest..but..I might come back and such later. I just don't feel like reading a lot etc.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now
My paper is sourced..and it does not take things out of context. I think anyone who reads it would think it was very fair and valuable.

To be honest, I would find another source of information to base your claims off of. I was studying the site your article is on and it seems to have a high chance at being biased. I wouldn't use it as a source in any research paper. The site is obviously in support of one particular ideology, it is poorly constructed, and seems to make quite a few typos and grammar/spelling errors. I would find it to be a poor and biased source of information. That does not say the information is wrong, but it does say that the credibility of your source is pretty questionable.

On evolution itself, I don't have enough knowledge to form a solid opinion on this theory at this time. But I agree with Pnt on scientific theories.

[SpiritWolf77]

Alright, I have some time to reply now. Just for the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that Gravity is still classified as a theory. You still seem to be unclear on the definition of a scientific theory. Pnt said it better than I could, including the portion about evolution itself being a provable fact while the idea of evolution being responsible for the progression of life up until now is the "theory" part.

Right off the bat this site improperly defines evolution. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, how the universe came into being, etc. This site claims that evolutionists are referring to all of these things which is not the case. Someone who claims evolution has to do with cosmology doesn't understand what evolution is.

It is also unclear on the acutal definitions of "macro" and "micro" evolution which, by the way, are deceptive to begin with. They're used in debate to clarify things, but any evolutionist will tell you that these terms aren't really good terms to describe evolution, as they are essentially the same thing. Just one is the other on a grander scale. Seperating them into two different terms provides the misconception that they are two different things, or two different types of evolution.

Here is the definition this site provides for macroevolution:

The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.

That is not the definition of macroevolution. Not according to any science text, professor, dictionary, or encyclopedia I have ever read. Macro evolution is simply the term used to refer to evolution above the species level (i.e. dinosaur species to transitional species to bird species), whereas microevolution refers to evolution within a single species (i.e. wolf to domestic dog).

But I stress these are not two seperate processes as this site and you seem to be claiming. There is only one kind of evolution. Microevolution is to macroevolution as centimeters are to meters. Evolution does not work in terms of "Here's a dinosaur population. Poof! The dinosaur population turned into a bird population!" It works as "Here's a dinosaur. The dinosaur population slowly changes over generations due to natural selection. Eventually the "dinosaur" population looks different and would not even be able to produce viable offspring with earlier generations. Since it can no longer reproduce with this species, we need to classify it as a new species."

"Microevolution" is the incremented evolution that makes up the grand scale of "macroevolution." We're probably better off just not using these terms at all because they cause more confusion than anything else.

As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five!

Referring to the four things this site claims make up the theory of evolution. I'm not going to talk about the first three since they are not part of the theory of evolution. I've already been over the mistaken definitions of/distinctions between the last two, but to use the actual definition of "macroevolution" (being the evolution of one species into another), they are wrong. Speciation (the more scientifically accepted term for macroevolution) has been observed. I already said this once but you seemed to ignore that statement so this time I will provide a link as well: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.

Well, this site is correct (although mutations are not solely responsible for genetic changes, just one of the factors involved). That is the definition of evolution, as is supported by the dictionary and encyclopedia links I provided. I will point out that I did not look up the definition of "microevolution." I looked up the definition of evolution. The definitions of evolution that I provided are the ones accepted (and originally proposed) by the scientific community.

Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no ?mutations? in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.

If they are claiming that microevolution occurs mostly due to artificial human influence (I assume so since they use the term "selective breeding") then they are very wrong. Although the last sentence suggests to me that they're simply using the wrong term since they seem to acknowlege the fact that microevolution occurs due to environmental pressures. I'm guessing the term they meant to use was "natural selection." Not really making themselves look very reputable by not even using the correct terminology. I also hope they're not trying to claim mutations simply do not happen, as this is quite obviously false.

This has since been proven to have 'staged' photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks - so much for evolutionists objectivity

Referring to the peppered moth example. Way to not do their background research! I'm well-aware of what they're trying to refer to. Yes, the photographs were staged for the purposes of getting a good photograph (anyone who has tried to photograph a moth or a butterfly in their own backyard knows it is extremely difficult because they won't sit still). The studies conducted were not done based on the photographs. They were done based on observation. The observations of natural occurences in nature support the claims made about the peppered moth population. Photos taken under artificial conditions for press purposes do not invalidate the actual observations. Ex: My dog likes to sleep on pillows. If I am writing an article about this, and he is not sleeping on a pillow at the particular time I wish to take a photograph, and I actively put him on a pillow for the purposes of the photograph, does this invalidate all of my claims? Obviously not. Anyone can spend an extended amount of time around him and see that he'll go sleep on the pillows on his own.

In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, will really cause enough positive changes to move one species to another. Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly. To date no success.

That's funny, seeing as the link I provided with a list of observed speciation events includes the first observed speciation event of the fruit fly and dates it between 1958-1963.

Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success.

Not "much" sucess? Well, I guess at least they're trying to cover their bases here, since if they had said "no sucess" they'd be quite mistakn again.
"12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment." Just one of the many instances of beneficial mutations observed in bacteria, from this site: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

By the way, I just got to the part where they cite a comment on TalkOrigins (since you seemed to indicate there was something in this article that destroyed TalkOrigins' reputability). That was from a debate on the TalkOrigins newsgroup. Not from one of their articles which are written based on scientific sources (journals, articles, texts, etc.) So, don't try to use something some kid shouted angrily in a debate to discredit an entire webpage of source material.

The section on genetics makes a lot of incorrect statements about genetics and evolution (such as: "mutations almost always involve a loss of information"). It looks like they don't really understand what they are talking about.

[SpiritWolf77]

Contiued because it wouldn't fit in a single reply...

Alright, this is taking way too long to go through and refute each section, bit by bit. I've been at this for two hours already and I really do not have the time to devote to this in one large block. I'm going to address specific things you have alread brought up (such as transitional fossils) and leave it at that for now.

They open their argument on transitional fossils with quotes no more recent than 1988. 1-Quoting someone saying, "There aren't very many transitional fossils," doesn't mean there aren't. Regardless of their qualifications. Observation is what is important. Quote mining is a poor argumentation tactic. 2-Quite a few transitional fossil discoveries have been made since those statements were made. 3-Finding transitional fossils depends on their being preserved and accessible, which is not something that happens with astounding frequency, especially considering how old many of the fossils we're searching for would be. You're not exactly going to find ancient fossils just laying around to be picked up like a buffet table.

Nonetheless, transitional fossils have been found.

On the Archaeopteryx: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html

I'm curious, have you ever done any reading on the Tiktaalik, which was discovered last year? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
I'm going to guess the site you're referencing was written before this discovery, since it's claiming such a thing has never been found.

The section about whales just seems to assume land mammal to whale evolution is impossible because the morphology changes required (they specifically mention size and skull structure) couldn't have happened. Well, then the chihuahua must not be related to the wolf afterall, then, if such morphology change is impossible!

On horse evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html

On the several of the hoaxes you mentioned:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC003.html

Of course, this website's only support for the claim that humanoid evolution didn't happen as described is to cite several hoaxes (and make one false claim). They conveniently ignore all the fossils that have been discovered that are not hoaxes. Way to provide a convincing argument! (not)

If you have more specific questions about things this site has to say, feel free to bring them up, but considering I've already pointed out a plethora of false information, poor argumentation tactics, and misassumptions, if I were you, I'd stop considering this site a reputable source and do some actual varied research on the subject.

[Only-now]

I also have a lot to say..and I am doing my own research. I want to say though, that I already have much to say to correct your statements...though it is a lot to type and I would also like to gain more understanding before I do so. I hope no one is ignorant and takes this as me losing this debate. I shall post more information later...I might just link to the sites which list the facts againt what has been stated etc. I also want to refrain from the snotty attitude I am recieving...so I don't feel it would be right to reply at this time.

~Kiva

[Only-now]

Sorry to double post..but I wanted to state a few things to correct them before I go with posting more info:

1) Of course my site is biased..it is AGAINST evolution..it isn't a comparison of the two.

2) Notice that you are using one site in particular as well..and that I also didn't use anything to say that the site "talk-origins" is not reputable. I never stated that..I simply said they mentioned some quotes from the site..I never said that made it less reputable.

3) This site is reputable...and it was actually updated in 2006 as it states on the page. It does list examples from 2002/2003 so it isn't that old. Also..you cannot rule out statements and facts or quotes from before because that doesn't make them any less true. If you want to "play" that way then...then lets not include any of your fossils or any pro-evolution statements...not even Darwin coming up with it since that was "long ago".

4) When it was showing the variety of evolutions...it was not stating that they are all part of the evolutionary theory we are discussing. He is a creationist..I am not...so those other forms of cosmic and steller evolution also come into question for him..that is why they are listed. Those however WOULD be supported by biological evolutionists...and thus that is why he included them. They are not however the topic of THIS discussion.

5) If you were really so informed about this subject..and really were so interested in it..you would be looking at both sides yourself. The truth I have seen however is that you are not interested in any ideas that could be against what you believe to be true. So..you aren't interested in the origins of life..only in proving what you THINK is fact..to be fact. I support this claim also by the snotty attitude I am recieving from you, which is very apparent in your posts. I don't think I have displayed this..and I didn't start talking about this with the intent to get sarcastic etc. I am sure it can happen..I apologize if it did. I just wanted to point some of this out while I do some research and then post either my own speech...of the links. Though..the areas I am reading in are VERY VERY long...so I doubt there would be time to read it all.

Finally just to give one bit of info..I have looked all over google..and I find strong evidence to support the claim that it is very rare that beneficial changes come from mutations..and that there is almost ALWAYS a loss of information. This requires more research..but I can say that your blatant claim that that statement is wrong...is wrong itself. Not to mention, beneficial and positive do not mean the same things.

I also find that you seem to use only specific sources as well. I mean..when I look up things, only talk-origins and that gate site come up to support you...though when I look elsewhere I see mentionings of how those supported ideas are not valid etc. What I am saying is that you seem to just use that site and never question its information. It seems as if the questioning of this is new to you...though there are MANY sites on the net that are reputable in which people argue various aspects of these "theories" with great knowledge of both sides. You seem to have overlooked this however..in that you have not even stated that there is a possibilty that evolution is flawed.

I would also like to state that evolution seems to be in abundance because of the ignorance of many people..and the fact that if evolution is questioned...ridicule and career loss proceed. Not to mention that the scientific community has done a good job of presenting evolution as fact..when it is not. So..it would be easy to find so many articles supporting it with the same, skewed info.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now


1) Of course my site is biased..it is AGAINST evolution..it isn't a comparison of the two.

Well the site being biased has not to do with the information as much as it has to do with the credibility of its source. It is better to back up your position with resources that have more credibility in the topic of which they cover. I did not find much to assume the website of the article you link to has much credibility in this particular topic due to the reasons I pointed out earlier.

[Only-now]

Well, you will find that much of what it lists is cited as coming from various books, articles, and scientific fact..many of which are stated by evolutionists themselves.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
2) Notice that you are using one site in particular as well.

Yes, but I don't link that site and assume everything it has to say is correct just because I like what it has to say. You'll notice that every TalkOrigins article has citations at the end of it. I check the credibility of those citations before assuming what the site has to say is correct. Your site made numerous claims without even bothering to cite sources at all in many instances.

3) This site is reputable...and it was actually updated in 2006 as it states on the page. It does list examples from 2002/2003 so it isn't that old. Also..you cannot rule out statements and facts or quotes from before because that doesn't make them any less true. If you want to "play" that way then...then lets not include any of your fossils or any pro-evolution statements...not even Darwin coming up with it since that was "long ago".

How do you know it's reputable? Being recently updated doesn't make something credible...it just makes it recently updated. You say you're not a Creationist, yet you know this site is arguing from a Creationist perspective. Why do you trust whomever wrote this site to have a better understanding of evolution than actual scientists? And my point about the old quotations was that if someone claims something is lacking evidence, and then several years later, that missing evidence is found, do you just ignore the new evidence because at one point in time someone was quoted as saying it is lacking?

4) When it was showing the variety of evolutions...it was not stating that they are all part of the evolutionary theory we are discussing. He is a creationist..I am not...so those other forms of cosmic and steller evolution also come into question for him..that is why they are listed. Those however WOULD be supported by biological evolutionists...and thus that is why he included them. They are not however the topic of THIS discussion.

He was not just listing them because he wanted to argue against them. He specifically said those were the things evolutionists supposedly mean when they use the term "evolution." He was claiming evolutionists consider those a part of evolutionary theory, and my point was that anyone who actually understands evolution knows that they are not. Either he is unclear on the theory or unclear about the views of his opposition.

5) If you were really so informed about this subject..and really were so interested in it..you would be looking at both sides yourself. The truth I have seen however is that you are not interested in any ideas that could be against what you believe to be true. So..you aren't interested in the origins of life..only in proving what you THINK is fact..to be fact. I support this claim also by the snotty attitude I am recieving from you, which is very apparent in your posts. I don't think I have displayed this..and I didn't start talking about this with the intent to get sarcastic etc. I am sure it can happen..I apologize if it did. I just wanted to point some of this out while I do some research and then post either my own speech...of the links. Though..the areas I am reading in are VERY VERY long...so I doubt there would be time to read it all.

Did you read the post where I said I have researched multiple sides of the argument? I did read that site you sent me, despite my doubts about its credibility. Heck, I've even done extensive reading at AnswersInGenesis.org. If I were really so narrow-minded, why would I bother to do that? I have read the information multiple sides of the argument have presented and I have come to my conclusions based on how well-supported the claims being made are. I have found the scientific community's views on evolution to be the most well-supported, backed by the most evidence.

Ironically, it sounds like you're describing yourself here. I keep providing reasons this site is not reputable. I've pointed out a number of the false claims it makes and misunderstandings it presents. I've provided you with multiple reputable sources, including the dictionary and an encyclopedia entry, which support my claims. But you keep steadfastedly sticking by this single website, despite the fact that it contradicts the views of the entire scientific community and the plentiful observable and testable evidence out there. And you also accuse me of being more concerned with proving that I'm right and being snotty...when a post ago, you're the one saying "I hope no one is ignorant and takes this as me losing this debate."

I don't think I was being "snotty" at all. Do feel free to tell me where I was doing so. I am always open to reading things that might contradict with my views. If I feel they seem well-supported and factual, I won't immediately dismiss them. I'll look into them, and maybe even change my views if they are well-supported enough. My dismissing the site you provided has nothing to do with me being single-minded, it has everything to do with the site not supporting its own claims.

Finally just to give one bit of info..I have looked all over google..and I find strong evidence to support the claim that it is very rare that beneficial changes come from mutations..and that there is almost ALWAYS a loss of information. This requires more research..but I can say that your blatant claim that that statement is wrong...is wrong itself. Not to mention, beneficial and positive do not mean the same things.

Can you provide me with actual sources? Reputable sources? Because I can look all over Google and find dozens of webpages claiming vampires and unicorns are real. The sources I provided on mutations give citations to actual scientific studies.

I also find that you seem to use only specific sources as well. I mean..when I look up things, only talk-origins and that gate site come up to support you...though when I look elsewhere I see mentionings of how those supported ideas are not valid etc. What I am saying is that you seem to just use that site and never question its information. It seems as if the questioning of this is new to you...though there are MANY sites on the net that are reputable in which people argue various aspects of these "theories" with great knowledge of both sides. You seem to have overlooked this however..in that you have not even stated that there is a possibilty that evolution is flawed.

I used several other sites as well actually. I use TalkOrigins mostly because of all the sites I've come across on the subject, it is the most well-organized. It's easy to find information and it provides quick and clear answers, as well as credible citations, usually to actual scientific journals, articles, and studies. Give me a claim and I can cross-check it with other sites as well. The key here is to make sure your sources are reputable. You don't have to have any qualifications to post something on the internet. You need to check where the site is getting its information and make sure it is from qualified sources. I do that. The sites I provide you even have the sources right there on the page for you to check out yourself. Have you done that on the many sites you say refute the claims I've been making?

Questioning of evolution is most certainly not new to me. This is certainly not the first time I've debated the subject. I don't mean to come off as rude here, but the majority of the arguments you're giving me are actually some of the simpler and more common ones I've seen. I've come up against far more challenging arguments to debate against. I don't say this to belittle you, just to point out that I'm not scrambling at straws here because for the first time ever, someone is challenging evolution and my claims about it. This is nothing new to me.

I never said evolution had no flaws. Not once did I say that. I said I believe it to be the best-supported explanation out there for how life developed to the state it's currently in. I said the fact that it happens is a fact. I said that the claims that site is making to refute it are full of holes and do not discredit the theory. But I never once said it's a flawless perfected theory. I imagine there are certainly many more things we have to figure out about it and I imagine we may have gotten some things wrong. I just don't forsee the entire theory itself being tossed out/proven wrong because there's enough evidence supporting it that it must have happened in a rather similar fashion to the way we currently view it.

[Stormfury]

Here's some extra reading material [ http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm .]

[Only-now]

1) I said it was updated because you made the claim it was old and using old information. That is not true, because I can find those same arguments and debates elsewhere on the net...not to mention that it does not matter when a problem has been discovered with the idea...if that problem has still not been solved. The more I look..the more I find that evolution does not have an answer for it..or it is assumed. Not to mention, I don't see why you tend to believe that someone cannot be a scientist and a creationist at the same time? We are all humans..just as capable of understanding science as anyone else. Not to mention, pretty much all of the great scientists responsible for physics, etc etc were religious in nature..and that didn't stop them.

2) The "old" quotes are not only relevant back then..as if the lack of evidence has been gotten rid of these days..and those quotes are obsolete. That isn't the case actually. Many of the same quotes and arguments made back then still hold up today..and they still have the speculative or no answers. In fact..I see it ending with a refutation from the anti-evolution side before I do the evolutionists. What I mean, is that I see the anti-evolutionists say one thing...then the evolutionists respond...and then the anti-evolutionists do and that is where it stops.

3) I believe he is being more general about HIS definition of evolution...but that doesn't make his knowledge..or his statements on biological evolution any less correct. I haven't been using his other arguments in this thread...so I think we can differentiate.

4) I think there is a misunderstanding between us as well. We both think there are flase claims..because when I look at some of te aruguments you give me..and I look at the site I orginally used answer..and then I look elsewhere..I find that same argument. That tells me that this is NOT a false fact..nor is it incorrect because it is actually showing up elsewhere in the same contexts etc. You keep saying you provide me with these links and info that will clear everything up...but I don't TRUST that these things are correct. If I were studying the solar system..I could trust sources from the "scientific community"...yet with this I find more and more people are seeing flaws...saying something..various hoaxes..and the fact that accepting evolution as what happened is not really the best for OTHER reasons. So...when I do look at your sites...and find their arguments...it doesn't change my mind about it. I still feel that there is something wrong..and if I look I find what the problem is many a time. The only bad thing is that since evolution has been held up by the scientific community for so long...and has been so "accepted" without much room for any idea it may be wrong...there is an abundance of topics on how "evolution is right" and only a small emerging number that questions it.

5) Well..one I can find your site on Google..so I don't think that is a bad way to search. Two..of course you have all your links to scientific study..because no one questions it anymore...apparently it is fact. So..you have other people..who DO know what they are talking about just as much as any evolutionist (such as yourself) who question it and bring up valuable ideas...but until anyone in the scientific community is "brave" enough to actually point out this etc...we will have no "studies" etc etc. The thing is though, is that the information is scientific fact gathered by the same community you are using..so though people make mistakes..to question all of it because of no link..when you can find those same ideas ALL throughout the scientific community would be wrong. I too would LOVE to find plenty of great websites that list out all the problems etc and have links. I suppose the best I can do is post quotes and excerpts from scientists, Scientific American, various evolution books, that show what even the evolutionary community admits to...and says about its own theory.

6) I would have to disagree..that I do believe a theory can be tossed out..and I believe this one might undergo that treatment if enough people realize that it to has plenty of holes and flaws at the moment. The problem is that instead of admitting that...and saying that it is just a theory...we think it might be right..but we are open to question etc...it is NOT treated like that by the majority of people nor the majority of scientists. Apparently there is no room for question anymore...people lose their jobs because they question it, and people teach it as fact..when it should not be considered as such. I find that THIS is the problem..because I too never said EVERYTHING was wrong with evolution...that is didnt happen, or that it is a dumb idea. I feel..and have stated many a time that it is not being treated the right way..and is instead being preached as more of a religion than a theory. As far as I have seen..the scientific community hasn't given any room to any other ideas...nor do they want to. It is funny because scientists were SO opposed to evolution in the beginning.

7) I didn't think this was your first time arguing it..and I am sure that you have had tougher arguments. The more abstract I can get..the harder it will be for you to give me facts that prove something like that wrong. That is why you cannot disprove religion..no matter what you come up with. Faith is stronger than fact I'm afraid..and that is apparent with evolutionists as well. I hope that as I read more and such I will be able to challenge you more..but I am new to this...and apparently you have taken you college class etc.

~Kiva

[Lamby]

Just for interest sakes I found a list of well known scientists that did not support evolution

Sir Isaac Newton
Michael Faraday
James Clerk Maxwell
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin
Robert Boyle
John Dalton
Sir William Ramsay
John Ray
Carolus Linnaeus
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
Rudolf Virchow
Louis Agassiz
Nicolas Steno
Nicolaus Copernicus
Galileo Galilei
Johannes Kepler
Blaise Pascal
Sir Frederick William Herschel
Leonhard Euler

These were all very smart guys. I mean Isaac Newton for one has many LAWS to his name, compared to Darwin who has a theory. Even though Isaac Newton was before the theory of evolution was put forward he certainly wasnt restricted to the beliefs at that time. He came up with new ideas himself, a fair few of them. So if he did see any evidence or even thought about the possibility of creatures evolving etc. he would've mentioned it. And same goes for most of those I have listed above.

Anyway just a different perspective on things :Psst:

[Nephilim]

Lamby, your example is kind of moot, seeing as Newton was a physicist, not a biologist, so he studied a completely different field.

[Only-now]

That doesn't change the fact that he was a creationist..which reagradless of whether evolution was around or not shows that creationism is NOT for the "dumb" as many evolutionists would put off. You can be a great scientist and believe in God and that He created Earth and us at the same time. If it was such a dumb idea, then I suppose that many of those scientists would have looked to something else for beliefs...yet they didn't.

There are also many scientists alive today...reputable ones with academic backgrounds that also don't agree with evolution for many reasons...mostly scientific.

~Kiva

[Darkslash]

Oh, the good old days, during the scientific revolution and before, when real science was done...

[SpiritWolf77]

Not to mention the time periods when all of those people lived...

Y'know during Copernicus' era, the scientific community found his heliocentric views to be questionable and blasphemous.

Saying "The famous historical scientists didn't believe in evolution, even though many of them died before evolution was even proposed!" is a really really poor argument, sorry.

I'm sure you could find plenty of scientists today that are creationists as well, but you then have to ask what their qualifications are...unless they're well-educated biologists, or have studied evolution, I wouldn't necessarily take their word for it that evolution but be false, because they're scientists and they say so.

I'm an artist, specifically an illustrator. Does this mean I am qualified to discuss sculpture? Of course not! I learned the basic principles, but it's not my field of study so I don't know very much about it. A mathemetician or a physicist is no more qualified to discuss evolution based solely on their credentials than I am to discuss sculpture based on mine.

Furthermore, if your argument is, "Look at ALL these scientists that don't/didn't support evolution!" then couldn't I just come back and say, "Look at all these hundreds more scientists that DO!" You're only looking at half the picture here. You can't use the belief of the minority as proof that the majority is wrong. That's faulty logic.

And, I have never heard a solid scientific argument against evolution. Only-now, can you provide some examples of the scientific arguments that reputable, qualified scientists have against evolution?

[Only-now]

Alright..I just typed a whole long response and it got deleted somehow..so now I have to type up a short one.

1) We are not trying to disprove your theory with that list. We are simply showing that although many evolutionists would like to believe that only misinformed/unintelligent people and "FAKE" scientists would believe in creationism..it just isn't the case. That list shows that many great, REAL scientists...who were very intelligent chose to believe in a God and a creation. You might try and say that is because evolution wasn't around..but that isn't a cause. Creationism has been the same since it began...and if those men were so intelligent..they might have chose NOT to believe in it if it were such an impossible idea. There were atheists and people looking for ways to disprove God back then as well...but they chose to still believe. That shows that a real scientist CAN believe in a God and creation at the same time. Evolutionists would like everyone to believe that any scientist who believe in creationism can't possibly be reputable..or have the right education or credentials. That is simply untrue...but you can see how Spirit stated that: "you then have to ask what their qualifications are...unless they're well-educated biologists, or have studied evolution, I wouldn't necessarily take their word for it that evolution but be false, because they're scientists and they say so."

Now..the funny thing about that is..that I guess we cannot beleive what YOU have to say then. You aren't a scientist..you only read about it and took a class. That isn't enough to prove what you are saying to be true...so how can we take your word for it? Do you consider a highschool teacher who teaches evolution a scientist that can be trusted? Many of them have tried to bring up the holes in evolution and were fired for it. The scientific community says they aren't real scientists. Well, if that is the case..then all those who do teach evolution and agree with it don't know what they are talking about either! By your logic...your own teachers of your theory can't be trusted to be telling us the truth..and the fact is that those teachers and your scientific community ISN'T telling us the truth. You either accept that those who believe in creationism or don't agree with evolution are real scientists..and have a valid argument..and are just as intelligent as any evolutionists....or your very theory falls into a bunch of lies and bad info told to our children by "NON-SCIENTISTS". Either way you lose some ground...

Once again..no one is using this as evidence against evolution being possible or true. Of course you believe that that is the only way to attack it. It also ruins morals, causes deaths and atrocities, and changes the way society works. There are MANY levels on which evolution can be argued.

Anyways..that is all from me for now.

~Kiva

[Malicious]

Hmmm...meh. I could go on and make myself a long and well thought out reply to all of this, you know...with 10$ scientific words, sources, and what-not, but I must digress from debating(arguing, striving, etc.). I'll just say this much, I do believe in Creationism and Evolution. You see, one came before the other, which therefore allowed the other one to exist.
Now I'm sure some of you will be saying to yourself(or maybe even me!), "Now John, where is the logic in and proof in that response?"
Well my friends, the proof is in the pudding...wait, that saying probably doesn't fit very well here in this discussion. Oh well. Anyway, that's my thoughts on this, and I am sticking to them. Hopefully none of you will come and bring your 'unsticking solution' and try to separate us. It's my opinion, and you can't have it! (+
Trying to un-glue me from it is sort of like trying to take the cake from the fat kid. And all know how dangerous and tricky a situation like that can become. :E

[Lamby]

Ditto to Only-Now

I didnt post that list to disprove evolution but simply to say that just because you dont believe in evolution doesnt mean you are misinformed when it comes to science

Lamby, your example is kind of moot, seeing as Newton was a physicist, not a biologist, so he studied a completely different field.

Thank-you but I already knew Isaac Newton was a Physicist however I did also list a number of Biologists who were also very intelligent. Only-Now also pointed out why i still listed Newton and the others who werent direct biologists.

Saying "The famous historical scientists didn't believe in evolution, even though many of them died before evolution was even proposed!" is a really really poor argument, sorry.

Im sorry SpiritWolf77 arguing wasnt my intention, I found this list and thought it was interesting so I decided to show it to you all
I am not naive enough to think that posting a few famous names is going to change your mind. I thought that since you were all so interested in evolution etc you might want to do some extra research.

But anyway that is me :fini:

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
Alright..I just typed a whole long response and it got deleted somehow..so now I have to type up a short one.

1) We are not trying to disprove your theory with that list. We are simply showing that although many evolutionists would like to believe that only misinformed/unintelligent people and "FAKE" scientists would believe in creationism..it just isn't the case. That list shows that many great, REAL scientists...who were very intelligent chose to believe in a God and a creation. You might try and say that is because evolution wasn't around..but that isn't a cause. Creationism has been the same since it began...and if those men were so intelligent..they might have chose NOT to believe in it if it were such an impossible idea. There were atheists and people looking for ways to disprove God back then as well...but they chose to still believe. That shows that a real scientist CAN believe in a God and creation at the same time. Evolutionists would like everyone to believe that any scientist who believe in creationism can't possibly be reputable..or have the right education or credentials. That is simply untrue...but you can see how Spirit stated that: "you then have to ask what their qualifications are...unless they're well-educated biologists, or have studied evolution, I wouldn't necessarily take their word for it that evolution but be false, because they're scientists and they say so."

Precisely, Creationism is the same since it began. Religion is not science. It does not come to conclusions based on observation and correct and update itself when the evidence suggests otherwise. It steadfastedly sticks with a single idea, unchanging, regardless of any opposing evidence. Religion is not science. It never will be. Don't try to suggest it is.

And I never once said these people were unintelligent. I simply said they didn't necessarily know what they were talking about. You can't very well make a claim that something is true or untrue if you've barely studied it at all.

Once again, I remind you, that there were many (primarily religious) naysayers about heliocentricm. They made precisely the same sorts of arguments against that, claiming those progressive scientists were jumping to conclusions about the evidence, claiming the Bible says otherwise and should be trusted, claiming that many intelligent educated people believed the sun orbited the Earth.

You can't simply ignore evidence because it makes you more comfortable, or because the truth frightens you, or because you feel it contradicts with your religious beliefs. And you can't claim that a well-supported theory is entirely false because a few intelligent people (who may or may not even be qualified to speak on the subject) disagree.

Now..the funny thing about that is..that I guess we cannot beleive what YOU have to say then. You aren't a scientist..you only read about it and took a class. That isn't enough to prove what you are saying to be true...so how can we take your word for it? Do you consider a highschool teacher who teaches evolution a scientist that can be trusted? Many of them have tried to bring up the holes in evolution and were fired for it. The scientific community says they aren't real scientists. Well, if that is the case..then all those who do teach evolution and agree with it don't know what they are talking about either! By your logic...your own teachers of your theory can't be trusted to be telling us the truth..and the fact is that those teachers and your scientific community ISN'T telling us the truth. You either accept that those who believe in creationism or don't agree with evolution are real scientists..and have a valid argument..and are just as intelligent as any evolutionists....or your very theory falls into a bunch of lies and bad info told to our children by "NON-SCIENTISTS". Either way you lose some ground...

And congratulations, you have just destroyed your entire argument. No, I'm not a scientist. But neither are you. Neither was the person that wrote that webpage you linked. So if my views are to be discredited by lack of scientific qualifications, then so are yours and his and anyone other than the actual scientific community. And the majority of the scientific community considers evolution obviously observable and a very well-supported theory which explains the history of life on Earth.

Here's what I do: I read scientific journals, I look at the facts, I educate myself using a variety of sources, look at all sides of the argument, and come to conclusions based on what I've seen and what seems to make the most sense to me. I am certainly by no means an authority on evolution. I am not here to say, "I am an expert on evolution so what I say must be true." All I'm trying to do is provide the actual FACTS in the hope people will come to the same obvious conclusions as I have, instead of blatently ignoring the evidence and trusting misinformed propaganda (i.e. that increadibly erroneous website you touted as a valid argument against evolution). It just really saddens me to see people whom I am sure are intelligent individuals instantly latching on to something like that and instantly believing it to be truth without even bothering to cross check the facts, look at the qualifications of the author, and even look at the argumentation tactics and apriori knowledge of the author (the man...or woman...can't even manage to use the correct terms to describe things, so if I'm not a qualified source, then that author most certainly is not. At least I've made sure I actually know what I'm talking about).

Once again..no one is using this as evidence against evolution being possible or true. Of course you believe that that is the only way to attack it. It also ruins morals, causes deaths and atrocities, and changes the way society works. There are MANY levels on which evolution can be argued.

Anyways..that is all from me for now.

~Kiva

Ruins morals eh? Do tell...wait, let me guess...you're going to use the social Darwinism argument? Evolution must be scientifically wrong because it's immoral because it was part of the reasoning behind Hitler's halocaust? Yes, I've heard that argument before and I saw the portion of that webpage which discussed it.

Last I checked, one of the primary motivation for Hitler's atrocities...aside from probable insanity, were that he considered the Jews to be an inferior people. If you're going to point fingers and blame evolution for that, then I can just as easily point fingers and blame Christianity for that. Seeing as Hitler was a Christian...

That is, of course, obviously absurd...to blame an entire religion for the faults of a single sick and twisted man. Should Christianity itself be held accountable for all the murder and atrocities commited in its name? Those far outweigh anything commited in the name of evolution. If I'm not mistaken, very few, if practically NO atrocities have ever actually been committed in the name of evolution, simply used similar ideas.

Knocking someone off of a cliff is using gravity to the attacker's advantage. The people who attacked the World Trade Center used physics and chemistry to their advantage. Should we attack all the natural laws and theories of life since, really, each one of them could be "blamed" for some atrocity that has been commited?

Natural laws and theories cannot be immoral. Gravity cannot be immoral. The theory of relativity cannot be immoral. Actions, thoughts, or feelings by living beings can be immoral, but simple properties of nature cannot.

I'm sorry, but, trying to say evolution must not exist in the natural world because it's immoral is totally and utterly absurd.