What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: borntowatch
I know God fearing Christians who accept evolution, call them brothers in Christ.
If they can be Christians and accept evolution, why would I be any different.

Because they are rational and you are not. I know people from all religions that accept evolution for the fact that it is. They understand that by denying evolution they are limiting god and also understand that the science does not conflict with god in the least, unless you are an irrational biblical literalist. You hate evolution, and it's sad, really. You don't show the same animosity toward other fields of science. It's all double standards. I will always defend science from irrational attacks. I don't care if it comes from religious folks or scientists themselves.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I know God fearing Christians who accept evolution, call them brothers in Christ.
If they can be Christians and accept evolution, why would I be any different.

Your assumptions are based on your own bitterness, sorry.
I dont see enough evidence.

So what you are saying is this:

"I understand what the Theory of Evolution is, and I know there is evidence that purportedly supports the theory, but I simply don't accept that evidence"

That's fine, but can you tell me WHY you don't accept the evidence? An answer of "it just doesn't seem right to me" is not really a good enough reason, because you need to provide a specific reason for not accepting it.

Basically you are saying that you don't believe in it "just because".

Simply saying "I can't believe that mutations and natural selection would cause a species to change over time -- just because" makes it sound as if the problem is with your belief, not a problem with the theory. The theory itself seems sound, and nothing you've said in 45 pages of rhetoric has been a pointed enough rebuttal to cast any doubts on the theory.

You haven't given any logical reason to doubt that the mechanism of Natural selection exists -- and we can see that mechanism at work in short-lived organisms on timescales that are noticeable to humans. It seems to me that given natural selection and hundreds of thousands/millions of years, wholesale changes in organisms could occur, transforming them into new species.

I want you to shake things up a little. Give us reasons to doubt the Theory of Evolution. Do you doubt natural selection? Do you doubt the ability of a mutation to give an organism an advantage in life, however small that advantage may be? Make this an interesting discussion by providing pointed rebuttals against specific principles of the theory -- because at the moment it is not an interesting discussion, and that's due to your lack of specific rebuttal.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: borntowatch

I know God fearing Christians who accept evolution, call them brothers in Christ.
If they can be Christians and accept evolution, why would I be any different.

because at some point, if what you believe is wrong and it is consistently demonstrated, you must either make a compromise or look exponentially more foolish as time goes on.

Oh NO!
I look foolish to a person/s on the internet, woe is me.

Do you really think that I value my self so poorly that yours opinion has any validity in my life.

Wow you are so self important to think that way. Narcissism maybe?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People


I want you to shake things up a little. Give us reasons to doubt the Theory of Evolution. Do you doubt natural selection? Do you doubt the ability of a mutation to give an organism an advantage in life, however small that advantage may be? Make this an interesting discussion by providing pointed rebuttals against specific principles of the theory -- because at the moment it is not an interesting discussion, and that's due to your lack of specific rebuttal.

No, its been done to death, I have listed countless reasons on ats.

Simply, I understand why many hate creation, why do people have to hate creationists.

I know, because people hate God.

a reply to: borntowatch

All of your reasons have been utter bunk, hence you try and fall back on the laughably moronic "They hate god!!" line to rationalize people's attitude to your willfully ignorant beliefs. Tell me, how does one "hate" something they do not believe exists?

a reply to: GetHyped



and thats your opinion and I think thats valid

but seriously do you believe that evolution is at a point it no longer needs to be studied.

Evidently within the field of science, they still have some ways to go, hence all the research

You seem to try sell and push like a tv evangelist

a reply to: borntowatch

Simply, I understand why many hate creation, why do people have to hate creationists.

I know, because people hate God.

no because if creationism was a boat, it would be the titanic.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: borntowatch

I know God fearing Christians who accept evolution, call them brothers in Christ.
If they can be Christians and accept evolution, why would I be any different.

because at some point, if what you believe is wrong and it is consistently demonstrated, you must either make a compromise or look exponentially more foolish as time goes on.

Oh NO!
I look foolish to a person/s on the internet, woe is me.

Do you really think that I value my self so poorly that yours opinion has any validity in my life.

Wow you are so self important to think that way. Narcissism maybe?

attacking the user and not the user's argument. are we at the bottom of the barrel already? huh, 46 pages, i guess it was due sooner or later.

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: GetHyped



and thats your opinion and I think thats valid

but seriously do you believe that evolution is at a point it no longer needs to be studied.

Evidently within the field of science, they still have some ways to go, hence all the research

You seem to try sell and push like a tv evangelist

You don't seem to understand what the scientific method is. One of the fundamental aims of The Scientific Method is to be a perpetually on-going mechanism that continually tries to poke holes in specific aspects of theories in order to improve upon those theories.

No theory is ever really "done". There are always scientists trying to find weaknesses or holes in those theories. However, finding a weakness or hole in a theory and filling it is NOT the same as disproving a theory. That search for weaknesses, and the tweaking of specific aspects of the theory to eliminate those weaknesses, can ultimately make the theory stronger.

So no. They shouldn't stop studying the Theory of Evolution. Even though the Theory of Evolution in general seems to correctly explain how the different organisms we have today came to be what they are, there is always new stuff to learn that can strengthen that theory.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: borntowatch

I know God fearing Christians who accept evolution, call them brothers in Christ.
If they can be Christians and accept evolution, why would I be any different.

because at some point, if what you believe is wrong and it is consistently demonstrated, you must either make a compromise or look exponentially more foolish as time goes on.

Oh NO!
I look foolish to a person/s on the internet, woe is me.

Do you really think that I value my self so poorly that yours opinion has any validity in my life.

Wow you are so self important to think that way. Narcissism maybe?

attacking the user and not the user's argument. are we at the bottom of the barrel already? huh, 46 pages, i guess it was due sooner or later.

You know, comes a time when a simple statement may reveal a truth.

I didnt see it as an attack, a statement.
What drives a person to think that others have no value because of what they choose to believe.
If our friend is like that in his everyday life I dont think pointing out a possible fault is harmful or attacking.

But I guess its all in the context, I assume you would like to see me get bitter and nasty like many others.

Maybe I will, hang around, or not

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
You don't seem to understand what the scientific method is. One of the fundamental aims of The Scientific Method is to be a perpetually on-going mechanism that continually tries to poke holes in specific aspects of theories in order to improve upon those theories.

No theory is ever really "done". There are always scientists trying to find weaknesses or holes in those theories. However, finding a weakness or hole in a theory and filling it is NOT the same as disproving a theory. That search for weaknesses, and the tweaking of specific aspects of the theory to eliminate those weaknesses, can ultimately make the theory stronger.

So no. They shouldn't stop studying the Theory of Evolution. Even though the Theory of Evolution in general seems to correctly explain how the different organisms we have today came to be what they are, there is always new stuff to learn that can strengthen that theory.

I have a feeling a lot of your anti creation friends dont seem to understand the science of evolution, never mind the scientific method, my comment was directed at a person who didnt seem to comprehend some basic information.

Now mine was a question to another member, it was not a statement, thank you.


Interesting you should say the theory needs to be improved upon, please explain why to me?
and look at us creationists, constantly questioning, forcing the theory to be improved. I see lots of weakness and it needs rebuilding, not just tweaking, I am all for seeing the evidence making it stronger, actually I am all for any evidence for it to be founded on.
Got any
Yes creationist question evolution and that makes evolutionists all sad and bitter, yet that is what science is about, not what you want it to be about
I am aware that we shouldnt stop studying evolution, I understand practically it has been used to give us some of our greatest designs in industry and leisure.

Tell me why does science need Hitchenses and Dawkinses when the science is so clear. Why does evolution need its evangelists and thugs if the science the talking so clearly.

So where is the evidence, I would love to see it

originally posted by: borntowatch

I dont see enough evidence.

That's your choice. The evidence is there if you are willing to look.

You aren't. Just admit it. This has nothing to do with "bitterness" and everything to do with frustration because you are not being honest when you claim that there isn't ENOUGH evidence.

There is more than enough evidence or it wouldn't be a scientific theory in the first place. Your refusal to understand or acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

originally posted by: borntowatch
What drives a person to think that others have no value because of what they choose to believe.
If our friend is like that in his everyday life I dont think pointing out a possible fault is harmful or attacking.

Nobody is disagreeing with you or saying you have no value because of what you choose to believe. You have been the only one saying this and you said it in the original post. You keep claiming this when it is blatantly false. They are disagreeing with you and saying that your statements have no value because your statements about science are demonstrably wrong in almost every case. If you want to believe in god or the bible, that is perfectly fine, but you made this thread specifically attacking the concept of evolution using false faulty statements that show a general misunderstanding of how science and those particular fields of science work. THAT is the issue, not your personal beliefs. Science is science, regardless of your beliefs. Stop using your personal beliefs as some kind of shield that protects you from using invalid arguments, saying demonstrably wrong things or using fallacies.

Once you understand that people aren't attacking you or your beliefs, rather they are correcting your blatantly wrong statements about evolution, then maybe you can approach this subject from a logical scientifically valid standpoint. I could say I don't believe in gravity or the moon and claim is just personal opinion, but if that were the case my opinion would be wrong, just like yours is in regards to evolution.

a reply to: borntowatch

Interesting you should say the theory needs to be improved upon, please explain why to me?

All scientific theories should constantly be the subject of research as a means of increasing our understanding of the phenomenon which the theory is describing. Instead of asking why you’d want to refine and improve a scientific theory over time, you should be asking why someone wouldn’t want to.

and look at us creationists, constantly questioning, forcing the theory to be improved.

That’s quite a creationist delusion of grandeur you’ve just expressed. The questions you most commonly see asked by creationists are along the lines of, “If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” Ill-informed questions that exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the science behind the theory aren’t going to help improve the theory. Maybe if creationists started asking honest questions about the theory that were built on having actually taken an interest in and read the current research, you could make claims that you were trying to “force the theory to be improved”.

I see lots of weakness and it needs rebuilding, not just tweaking,

In what way? You’re amazingly thin on specifics of why you feel it’s a weak theory.

I am all for seeing the evidence making it stronger, actually I am all for any evidence for it to be founded on.
Got any

Tons. It’s been presented to you. You did the forum equivalent of shrugging your shoulders and just hand-wavingly declared that it’s not compelling enough for you.

Yes creationist question evolution and that makes evolutionists all sad and bitter,

Do you really not understand the difference between asking, “If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys,” and, “How did cooperation between organisms evolve?” In case you really don’t understand the difference, the former is a question asked out of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. It’s a question that has been answered repeatedly, and asking it over and over again does nothing to help increase our scientific understanding. The latter is an actual area of research in evolutionary biology and one of the major focuses of the FQEB initiative at Harvard.

Tell me why does science need Hitchenses and Dawkinses when the science is so clear. Why does evolution need its evangelists and thugs if the science the talking so clearly.

Because we have a society of people who have been indoctrinated to believe that their immortal soul is in jeopardy if they accept evolution as reality.

So where is the evidence, I would love to see it

Based on your earlier responses in this thread, you really don’t care what evidence is presented. So what we be the point of presenting the same evidence to you over again or presenting even more evidence to you?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I want you to shake things up a little. Give us reasons to doubt the Theory of Evolution.

originally posted by: borntowatch

No, its been done to death, I have listed countless reasons on ats.

Simply, I understand why many hate creation, why do people have to hate creationists.

I know, because people hate God.

First of all, I don't hate creation. I don't believe in it, but I don't hate it, either.
And I don't hate God. I don't necessarily believe that God exists -- BUT I also can't prove that God does not exist. Maybe God exists or maybe not, but I have seen no evidence to prove it either way.

Secondly, you keep saying that you have given specific logical arguments against specific points of the Theory of Evolution, but I can't find them. You HAVE given a lot of "I just simply can't believe that ______ is possible" (fill in the blank with a specific aspect of the theory), but you fail to provide a logical well-thought-out argument as to why you don't believe it.



But enough about that. I have a question for you about the modern elephant:

The idea seems reasonable to me that modern African elephants, modern Asian elephants, wooly mammoths (which are now extinct), and stegadons (which are now extinct) shared common ancestors in the past. All of these more recent creatures share characteristics of a creature known as "paleomastodon" that lived 30 million years ago. The paleomastodon itself shares characteristics with other elephant-ish creatures that lived before that known as Deinotherium and Moeritherium.

The fossil record shows that there were no elephants, mammoths, or stegadons around 30 or 35 million years ago -- just these paleomastodons and moeritherium (which are long-extict) that had elephant-like characteristics. That is to say, these creatures were the most elephant-like creatures living back then...

...So if there were no modern elephants or mammoths during the time of paleomastodon, then that begs the question: Where did elephants and mammoths come from? Also, where did the paleomastodons go?

Why does it seem as if there were creatures who lived in the past (before elephants) that had most -- but not all -- characteristics of modern elephants? And creatures before that who had some, but not all, characteristics of modern elephants, and creatures who lived before that who had just a few characteristics of modern elephants?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
The idea seems reasonable to me that modern African elephants, modern Asian elephants, wooly mammoths (which are now extinct), and stegadons (which are now extinct) shared common ancestors in the past. All of these more recent creatures share characteristics of a creature known as "paleomastodon" that lived 30 million years ago. The paleomastodon itself shares characteristics with other elephant-ish creatures that lived before that known as Deinotherium and Moeritherium.

The fossil record shows that there were no elephants, mammoths, or stegadons around 30 or 35 million years ago -- just these paleomastodons and moeritherium (which are long-extict) that had elephant-like characteristics. That is to say, these creatures were the most elephant-like creatures living back then...

...So if there were no modern elephants or mammoths during the time of paleomastodon, then that begs the question: Where did elephants and mammoths come from? Also, where did the paleomastodons go?

Why does it seem as if there were creatures who lived in the past (before elephants) that had most -- but not all -- characteristics of modern elephants? And creatures before that who had some, but not all, characteristics of modern elephants, and creatures who lived before that who had just a few characteristics of modern elephants?

It does indeed beg the question
and I have no intention of arguing the seeming logic of the issue of evolution.
I have issues with the lack of fossils that should be unearthed over time that links the chain.

The chain that is broken in every specific type of species.

Why elephants, why not any other animals, why the lack of fossils that show the animals evolution.

Irrespective, thats a minor issue.

My interests starts at the big bang, how and why.

It seems that you want to set the agenda, that you want to play this game on your terms. Its not how it works for me.
Logically, I need to know how and why a big bang, how stars evolved, why they came together, why and how planets formed, why did space dust join up, where did gravity come from to form planets, stars.

All I see is a bunch of evolutionists talking about the TOE, I am not really interested in that subject over any other of the evolutions listed.

a reply to: borntowatch

im sure google can tell you.

a reply to: borntowatch

I have issues with the lack of fossils that should be unearthed over time that links the chain.

The chain that is broken in every specific type of species.

Why elephants, why not any other animals, why the lack of fossils that show the animals evolution.

Irrespective, thats a minor issue.

Asking for missing links points to a lack of understanding of what is actually claimed by evolution. The concept of some kind of linear "chain" of species isn't the model used by evolution, and the concept of a "missing link" (which is what you're dancing around asking for in your reply) is a fallacy

Further, it's obviously not a minor issue in your mind, since you spent four sentences asking about it. And it only takes a minor amount of research to understand why fossil formation is rare. If you're expecting a complete catalogue of every species of creature that has ever existed, you're being irrational. This is akin to me claiming that you must not have ever eaten a meal if you can't produce a list of every single meal you have ever eaten since you were born in chronological order.

My interests starts at the big bang, how and why.

Which has nothing to do with the phenomenon of evolution or modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the theory that seeks to explain the phenomenon of evolution. Evolution is, defined in simple terms, a change in allele frequency within a population over successive generations. What, exactly, does the Big Bang have to do with evolution?

It seems that you want to set the agenda, that you want to play this game on your terms. Its not how it works for me.
Logically, I need to know how and why a big bang, how stars evolved, why they came together, why and how planets formed, why did space dust join up, where did gravity come from to form planets, stars.

All I see is a bunch of evolutionists talking about the TOE, I am not really interested in that subject over any other of the evolutions listed.

Then stop calling them evolution in a way that attempts to conflate them with biological evolution. It's a semantic ploy meant to obfuscate, not enlighten.

originally posted by: iterationzero

Then stop calling them evolution in a way that attempts to conflate them with biological evolution. It's a semantic ploy meant to obfuscate, not enlighten.

How would you like me to address them, or should I not