How can you not believe in evolution?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH


To me thats a reversal of what I meant earlier. I dont believe in evolution, but I do understand it as a scientific theory. I dont believe in creation (at all).

In your comparison I would say that I believe in relativity since I dont truly understand it as a scientific theory (at least not in the way I understand the theory of evolution) but I do accept that experts do understand it. Voodoo is anoda ting man! I dont believe in Voodoo. Tis real! (Just not magic).

So if you don't feel you understand a theory you will take it on the word of experts that it is true, but if you feel you do understand a theory you won't believe it, even if the vast majority of experts accept it as true? Man, that seems so backwards to me...

[loinburger]

I assume he means that he won't believe a theory that he understands, because he knows that the theory is valid (or invalid, in the case of a lousy theory like Creationism). If I "know" something, then I don't need to "believe" in it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So if you don't feel you understand a theory you will take it on the word of experts that it is true,

Thats belief isnt it?

but if you feel you do understand a theory you won't believe it, even if the vast majority of experts accept it as true? Man, that seems so backwards to me...

If I accept it as 'true', then I dont have to believe (in) it.

I'm just a backward sort of person I guess.

[ayronis]

I'm with Boris on this one. There is undeniable evidence that it has occured. Natural Selection and Survival of the fittest are a part of reality - accept it. As to this being the origin of the species? That we cannot be absolutely sure of. That is why it is only a theory.

[Boris Godunov]

Isn't accepting something is true the same as believing it to be true? Symantics, I suppose!

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by loinburger
As opposed to, say, Creationism, which has oodles of evidence that supports it.

For all you random probablility fanatics out there, do some research on Biblical prophecy and tell me what you think. Biblical record of God's creation is evidence enough.

A scientific theory, like evolution, has supporting evidence and can be used to make predictions. When evidence contrary to the theory is presented, then the theory is modified or replaced by a theory that better fits the evidence. Creationism has a dearth of supporting evidence and cannot be used to make predictions, and in fact there exists a great deal of evidence that directly contradicts Creationism (particularly the more fundamentalist varieties of it).

Claiming that evolution is wrong "because it's just a theory" merely demonstrates that the person making the claim doesn't understand the scientific process. Gravity is "just a theory," fer cryin out loud.

The phenomenon of gravitational attraction can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Name one scientific experiment that reproduces an evolutionary event.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by ayronis

I'm with Boris on this one. There is undeniable evidence that it has occured. Natural Selection and Survival of the fittest are a part of reality - accept it. As to this being the origin of the species? That we cannot be absolutely sure of. That is why it is only a theory.

Even evolutionists can't agree on natural selection and survival of the fittest. And we have plenty of "unfit" life forms still roaming about today.

The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. There has been no scientific recording of one species evolving into another. Until then, it remains a theory - consult the scientific method if you disagree.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by FNBrown
For all you random probablility fanatics out there, do some research on Biblical prophecy and tell me what you think. Biblical record of God's creation is evidence enough.

Numerous Biblical errors and contradictions are evidence enough that the Bible isn't infallible (or even particularly reliable), and that it therefore does not supercede scientific evidence.

The phenomenon of gravitational attraction can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Name one scientific experiment that reproduces an evolutionary event.

You first -- name one scientific experiment that reproduces a Creation event. If you're going to reject evolution based on this criteria, you're also going to have to reject Creationism.

[Aeson]

Do you dispute micro evolution FNBrown?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by FNBrown


Even evolutionists can't agree on natural selection and survival of the fittest. And we have plenty of "unfit" life forms still roaming about today.

Yes they do. And what "unfit" life forms. They are obviously successful at what they are doing, whether in the case of the humans you are referring to 'sponging off the state'...we live in a more nurture-based society now.

The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. There has been no scientific recording of one species evolving into another. Until then, it remains a theory - consult the scientific method if you disagree.

You have just proven your gross ignorance. One species does not 'evolve' to another, it is a far more gradual and punctuated process. Evolution is a long, slow process.

But this aside, what do you make of the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by bacteria? This is a major survival characteristic developed in response to environmental pressure. What is your take on this?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by FNBrown
Even evolutionists can't agree on natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Creationists can't even agree on the age of the earth.

And we have plenty of "unfit" life forms still roaming about today.

Define "unfit," and provide an example of an unfit life form. Or continue to make bald assertions, if you prefer.

[Jac de Molay]

The fossil record doesn't need to prove evolution. We can observe instances of natural selection on a smaller scale among resistant viruses and bacteria.

These smaller instances are proof that the environment influences the traits among groups of organisms. Same with Darwin's birds.

An isolated area(Galapagos) with a relatively homogenous population still had various traits that appeared in response to long-term environmental pressures. Can we directly observe them? No.

However, because they were still relatively similar overall, one can attribute their "branching" to genetic diversity in the face of environmental and other pressure.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
However, because they were still relatively similar overall, one can attribute their "branching" to genetic diversity in the face of environmental and other pressure.

No no no, the Lord High Magic Poo-bah did it.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by loinburger


Numerous Biblical errors and contradictions are evidence enough that the Bible isn't infallible (or even particularly reliable), and that it therefore does not supercede scientific evidence.

Name one contradiction.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Yes they do. And what "unfit" life forms. They are obviously successful at what they are doing, whether in the case of the humans you are referring to 'sponging off the state'...we live in a more nurture-based society now.



You have just proven your gross ignorance. One species does not 'evolve' to another, it is a far more gradual and punctuated process. Evolution is a long, slow process.

But this aside, what do you make of the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by bacteria? This is a major survival characteristic developed in response to environmental pressure. What is your take on this?

Antibiotic resistance isn't evolution.