We've been kind of dancing around this topic in other places, so I thought it would be appropriate to start an entire thread dedicated to it.

It's the simple question of: is it real? Why or why not?

Let me go ahead and get my two cents in so I can get my beating... but, I'm a creationist.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

This site has some interesting facts

I came from people, not monkeys, and not something nasty that crawled out of the muck.

Ok go ahead and let me have it!

On this matter I say Evolution is not fact.
Adaptation, is common in both man and beast. A cat will grow a heavier coat in colder climate. A human Should put a coat on.
Survival of the fittest, Has some merit. It does exist,but is to me conditional and valid only intra species. then moreso in animals than man. A quick example : the 300 spartans. Quite fit yet overrun.
Fossil record, Still no more fact or improvement in 150 years of research by many scientists. Hence still a wild guess or Theory. It is the Theory of Evolution not the Fact of evolution. So by it's own name that is the most accurate assumtion of it.

You're absolutely right, it is only a theory, not fact.
However, there is some compelling evidence.

I watched a Discovery show on the Galapagos Islands. There are creatures on that little island that aren't found anywhere else in the world (birds and aquatic creatures). Funnily enough, although they are completely unique, they do share some common characteristics with other specific animals in the world. To those that studied, and do study those creatures, it is found to be more and more likely that birds and fish migrated to that island, and through the process of survival of the fittest, they adapted into competely different creatures.

I looked at that website Vicki, and I am really not trying to attack you, but it was probably one of the most biased sources I have ever seen. Yes, there may be gaps in the evidence, but it is difficult to come up with irrefutable proof of a process that is supposed to take millions of years. And they have found plenty of evidence, just not all.

I just think it's so ironic that creationist believers so quickly cite the lack of evidence for evolution. Evolution has some evidence. How much evidence does creationism have? (Sorry if you see this as a beating, Vicky. )

*crawls back into the muck*


Uh, I ain't sayin' nothin'!



Oh, OK, maybe I will -

The Theory of Evolution is substantiated somewhat by a number of facts, making it much likely to be more correct than anything else suggested by science.

This post has been edited by JohnWho: Jan 23 2008, 03:38 PM

Evolution is as "real" as is the periodic table of elements.

I would suggest that using "real" to describe a scientific theory is as misleading as to ask if one "believes" in Evolution. We are not, after all, discussing the tooth fairy.

Either one accepts scientific methodology, its coherent view of nature, and its verifiable public explanation of the natural world or one doesn't. The alternatives, however, seem far more problematical and far more dependent on extraneous, a priori postulates which themselves are open to serious confusion.

Z

I have no problem with adaptation, that we see everyday around us, but I have yet to see one thing become another. If the second law of thermodynamics states that everything goes from order to disorder, how can things 'evolve' to a higher state of being? We can breed certain characteristics into and animal but never has anyone been able to make a cat into a dog, or a grasshopper into a bird.

I don't know why we look down on bugs and animals, we are no more morally superior than they. We all have one main common purpose; the need to procreate.

I think there is nothing more 'logical/evidential' which explains the origin of the human than the theory of evolution.

This post has been edited by My Invisible Thoughts: Jan 25 2008, 03:52 AM

!990 - Mary Schweitzer found a T-Rex fossel in the Hell's Creek Formation in Montana. What makes this discovery notable is the fact that soft tissue remained. This has caused some issues, with the accepted dating methods. It is commonly agreed withiin the scientific community, that bones of this age should not have any soft tissue remaining at all. MSNBC Article and Alpha and Omega Institute
I added a main stream article on the subject so no one can say its just the religious nuts saying this.

Looks like the website supports my opinion more than yours...




Also, it seems as if it might not be so unusual.

This post has been edited by Sphinx: Jan 25 2008, 03:14 PM

A question regarding the use of radiocarbon dating to determine the age of an item, including the earth, was raised in another thread and is being continued here.

This Wikipedia article - "Radiocarbon dating" might be helpful.

Please note that carbon dating is only used for items that may be less than 60,000 years old and the current methology gives an accuracy of approximately plus or minus 15 to over plus or minus 163 years in the most recent 26,000 years (unless I'm reading that wrong). Other methods are used to estimate items that may be much older than 60,000 years.

Vicki -

I don't see where the Theory of Evolution ever is saying that it makes "a cat into a dog, or a grasshopper into a bird."

What it says is that some creature many millions of years ago gradually changed into other creatures which ultimately became our current cat, dog, grasshopper, or bird.

Not being willing to accept the concept of evolution because it "doesn't make sense" is one thing. Not willing to accept it because it appears to conflict with ones religious beliefs is something quite different.

I believe I said before somewhere on the board that evolution does not conflict with religion at all - except in the minds of those who choose to cling to a specific interpretation of a translation of their religions writings.

Nothing that comes from "science" that I've ever read conclusively prooves that a "supreme being" either does not or can not exist, nor does it show that this supreme being couldn't have created the universe with it's physical laws.

"Radioisotope dating has problems. In grand Canyon ther is a sill, Bass sill, in the
bottom of that canyon that evolutionist say is old. yet there are lava flow's on the rim
and spilling into the canyon with radioisotope dates older than the bass sill. So
according to evolutionist, the Grand Canyon formed upside down!"
Dr. Gary Parker-ICR-Institute of Creation Research

Even if one were to accept the esteemed Dr. Parker's statement and allowed it to imply that radiocarbon dating should not be used, since it only is used to date items in the last 60,000 years, what he is suggesting still doesn't negate the Evolution Theory at all.

That's if one were to accept the esteemed Dr. Parker's analysis and conclusion.

I suspect more folks accept the analysis and conclusions of the majority of the esteemed scientific community, which is reflected in the Wikipedia article.

The best defense is a good offense, isn't that right Mr. Who. You don't have an answer so you divert.

I'm shocked right down the [liberal] middle!!