OT- Evolution

[Fusilier]

Evolution is just a theory. Speculation and hypothesis based upon assumptions, and some known facts (that are occasionally updated when new info is discovered). We have not been around long enough to really notice any major evolution.

Gravity is just a theory. As I mentioned earlier, a theory is not speculation or hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of facts. To put it in another way - in science a theory is the HIGHEST level of understanding we can have for something. Even if all of the knowledge about evolution was gained, it would still remain classified as a theory. Theories do not get promoted to the next level of understanding because there is none.

Wrong. We have seen several occasions of evolution occurring.

If man descended from apes why are apes still around Do things evolve

As I mentioned earlier, again, evolutionary paths are not linear. You don't outgrow your species. A population within a species diverges.

Second. Man IS an ape. Humans are homo sapiens. Homo Sapiens are a subset of great apes along with the chimpanzee and 3 others. Like it or not, you are an ape.

As far as the Big Bang theory well if you want me to believe that something came from nothing, that sounds like quite a leap of faith to me :P

Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss the big bang then start a new thread like we started one for evolution.

Evolution - biology
Big Bang - cosmology

They have nothing to do with each other at all.

Leap of faith Check on the activity at CERN. Something from nothing does not need faith.

Is there a god or divine being or lots of them, don't hurt to pray and believe they might be right. And if they are wrong then just consider it a bit of oddly directed time that may or may not have been put to better use.

Pascal's Wager.

Evolution and Creationism are both Theories in that they require some belief in that not all the facts are known or proven.

Wrong. Evolution is a theory because it explains facts that are observed, predicted, and replicated. Creation has no facts so it doesn't get the honor of being a theory. Like I mentioned, even if 100% of evolution was proven, it would still be classified as theory.



SUMMARY: In science a theory is the highest level of understanding we have for a chosen topic.

[Fusilier]

Each person's belief is exactly that. That belief belongs to that person.

I have my own series of beliefs. They belong to me. Right or wrong as others may interpret them, they are mine. I am not going to get into my beliefs, because that would be adding fuel to the fire that is this thread.

So, please, no more. Let's get back to T2K. That is a universe we all have agreed to inhabit in one way or another.

Faith is belief. And by that everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

Science on the other hand is not a belief system anymore than math is.

Therefore this topic should be able to be discussed (civilly) without involving people's beliefs. As Raellus mentioned, one can accept the reality of science and still enjoy whatever divine beliefs you might have by separating the two. I invite you to stay and not feel that this is an attack on your beliefs.

[Fusilier]

No not serious, just stirring the pot.

Blah... after I just wrote a response too. I guess its my fault for not reading all of the posts first.

[Targan]

Man IS an ape. Humans are homo sapiens. Homo Sapiens are a subset of great apes along with the chimpanzee and 3 others. Like it or not, you are an ape.

Yes. A world of yes. Many people probably think I'm pedantic but it really, really irks me when ignorant people refer to various Great Apes as 'monkeys'. Do you see a tail anywhere No Then it's probably NOT A MONKEY (yes, I know not all monkeys have tails but it's a broadly useful rule of thumb).

Calling apes monkeys is insulting, both to the ape in question but also to US. Because WE ARE APES.

I have a fantastic head and shoulders photo on my harddrive of a male Bonobo. That little guy is quite clearly a thinking creature. He has a very alien outlook on life compared to me, sure, but IMO the great apes deserve far more recognition. If it was up to me I'd recognise them as (non-human) people and grant them land rights.

[Webstral]

Its a shame that the collision of faith and science often becomes an either/or prospect. The Jesuits are a great example of the fusion of inquiry and faith. While Genesis is a story that has outlived its shelf life, theres no compelling reason to put God and evolution in separate bins. Unfortunately, Marxs observation about the way the masses use faith is too often true. Human beings are anxious creatures. Faiths offer fixed answers to those who crave them, whereas the scientific narrative is by its nature under constant challenge. The real conflict seems to be between people who want a fixed, immovable universe and those who see a mobile universe, not between people of faith and people of science. Heck, the two terms themselves are hardly mutually exclusive.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Gravity is just a theory. As I mentioned earlier, a theory is not speculation or hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of facts. To put it in another way - in science a theory is the HIGHEST level of understanding we can have for something. Even if all of the knowledge about evolution was gained, it would still remain classified as a theory. Theories do not get promoted to the next level of understanding because there is none.

Wrong. We have seen several occasions of evolution occurring.



As I mentioned earlier, again, evolutionary paths are not linear. You don't outgrow your species. A population within a species diverges.

Second. Man IS an ape. Humans are homo sapiens. Homo Sapiens are a subset of great apes along with the chimpanzee and 3 others. Like it or not, you are an ape.



Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss the big bang then start a new thread like we started one for evolution.

Evolution - biology
Big Bang - cosmology

They have nothing to do with each other at all.

Leap of faith Check on the activity at CERN. Something from nothing does not need faith.



Pascal's Wager.



Wrong. Evolution is a theory because it explains facts that are observed, predicted, and replicated. Creation has no facts so it doesn't get the honor of being a theory. Like I mentioned, even if 100% of evolution was proven, it would still be classified as theory.



SUMMARY: In science a theory is the highest level of understanding we have for a chosen topic.

At CERN they did something and had a reaction. They were not just standing around and doing nothing to create the reaction.

the.o.ry Noun/ˈTHēərē/
1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".
2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based

I am on topic, the theory of evolution vs creation. The Big bang is a theory much like evolution is it not So they do have allot to do with each other as far as both being theories and that is what is root of this discussion.

We see evolution on a very basic scale with simple forms and have not to my knowledge know of any advanced creature evolving. Then again I could be wrong.

But I am willing to believe that some times shit just happens. Could care less how or why it happens most of the time. Some times though its pretty interesting.


100% proven, wouldn't that be a theorem, law, or fact

"God is, or He is not"

I am not an ape I am a man, besides I hate bananas. ;P

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Its a shame that the collision of faith and science often becomes an either/or prospect. The Jesuits are a great example of the fusion of inquiry and faith. While Genesis is a story that has outlived its shelf life, theres no compelling reason to put God and evolution in separate bins. Unfortunately, Marxs observation about the way the masses use faith is too often true. Human beings are anxious creatures. Faiths offer fixed answers to those who crave them, whereas the scientific narrative is by its nature under constant challenge. The real conflict seems to be between people who want a fixed, immovable universe and those who see a mobile universe, not between people of faith and people of science. Heck, the two terms themselves are hardly mutually exclusive.

Hmm guess I am allot more on the same thought path as the Jesuits.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Blah... after I just wrote a response too. I guess its my fault for not reading all of the posts first.

;D we all do that,

[Targan]

I am not an ape I am a man, besides I hate bananas. ;P

You don't have to like it but you are an ape. It is just part of taxonomy, not a personal judgement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

[Legbreaker]

The Big bang is a theory much like evolution is it not

True, there isn't a lot of hard evidence for the big bang, but it is the most logical conclusion drawn based on that which is available.
Ignoring the evidence for a moment though, the difference between creation and the big bang (or evolution for that matter) is that nobody gets all uptight when the established "facts" of the big bang/evolution are challenged or altered. Try doing that with a religion and you'll see the start of a holy war....

[95th Rifleman]

Allot of the problem is narrowminded attitudes on both sides of the divide. Check out Richard dawkins for an example of a Atheistic fundie.

The whole refusing to admit Humans are apes for instance. Humanity has a pretty arrogant view of itself and in general we consider ourselves superior and outside of otherlife on the planet. It's hard for us to acknowledge the idea that we are superior because we got lucky a million years ago when we evolved opposable thumbs.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

You don't have to like it but you are an ape. It is just part of taxonomy, not a personal judgement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

"Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was one of the primatologists who developed the idea that there were "trends" in primate evolution and that the living members of the order could be arranged in a series, leading through "monkeys" and "apes" to humans. Within this tradition, "ape" refers to all the members of the superfamily Hominoidea, except humans.[3] Thus "apes" are a paraphyletic group, meaning that although all the species of apes descend from a common ancestor, the group does not include all the descendants of that ancestor, because humans are excluded.[9] The diagram below shows the currently accepted evolutionary relationships of the Hominoidea,[2] with the apes marked by a bracket." (sorry the bracketed chart does not show up.)

But we are not Apes. We may have descended from a common ancestor. And some people in their opinion classified us as apes. They are the closest Animal on the Planet to us. Some lump us into the Greater Apes.

I like Sir Wilfrid's thoughts on this subject. I do not know for sure, but then again I could be wrong. Though I don't think I am.

Do the other "apes" think about this, or try to explain it too each other Do they try to change their environment by building cities and roads Do they establish scientific theories, or religions

Some if not most Scientists seam to lump us in with the apes because its the closest critter left.

Why are we not monkeys, oh yeah no tail, but wait we have a vestigial tail that is at the end of our spine, but not grown out. ( The coccyx bone is the tailbone at the end of the spine)

Either way, I still hate nanners. (bananas)

[Legbreaker]

Humans are animals, plain and simple. Anyone who excludes even one small species is doing science and their own credibility a grave disservice.

[atiff]

Humans are animals, plain and simple.

True - we all do it like they do on the Discovery Channel (or something like that)

[ShadoWarrior]

True, there isn't a lot of hard evidence for the big bang, but it is the most logical conclusion drawn based on that which is available.

The cosmic microwave background is 'hard' evidence. It's the "proof" of the big bang. What is not well understood is the cause of the bang, not it's existence.

But that subject is cosmology, not evolution.