Can Evolution be proven? or is it just a theory/religion?

Originally posted by expert999
maybe some of you evolutionists dont know all of what you believe, so im going to show you.
ourworld.compuserve.com...

That's not what I believe. Here is a list of that person's sources:

See G. de Purucker, Fountain-Source of Occultism, TUP, 1974, pp. 74-8.
See G. de Purucker, Occult Glossary, TUP, 2nd ed., 1996, pp. 165-6.
See Fountain-Source of Occultism, pp. 65-9.
H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, TUP, 1977 (1888), 1:252.
Fountain-Source of Occultism, pp. 79-80; G. de Purucker, Esoteric Teachings, PLP, 1987, 3:30-1.
Nick Herbert, Elemental Mind, Dutton, 1993, p. 50.
The Secret Doctrine, 1:39, 295-6.
See Occult Glossary, pp. 147-8.
See ibid., pp. 1-2; G. de Purucker, Studies in Occult Philosophy, TUP, 1945, pp. 463-4, 498-9, 517-22.
G. de Purucker, Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy, TUP, 2nd ed., 1979, p. 241.
Ibid., pp. 425-6.

life had to evolve from non-living material if evolution is true. that plays a part in evolution. in order to get the rest of the universe, the rest of the universe has to evolve, you cant just skip all of those steps.

Refer to Nygdan's index thread, please. Maybe reading that will get you to stop saying the phrase "if evolution is true." Evolution IS true. What YOU perhaps disagree with is evolutionary theory. If you disagree with evolution itself, that is kind of like saying "I disagree with puberty."

Zip

Evolution IS true

how is this so true? the only form of evolution that is scientific, is micro evolution. and all that is, is a variation within the kind of organism (plant or animal).

so like I said in the very first post of this thread, there are six different forms of evolution and only one is scientific.

and the evolution theory is based off of all of these forms. but only one is presented. and that is the scientific one (micro evolution)

While there are different types of evolution, there are only two categories - micro and macro. Everything else you listed on the first page is not part of evolutionary theory, it's part of Expert999's Own Uninformed Theory.

Divergent Evolution
When people hear the word "evolution," they most commonly think of divergent evolution, the evolutionary pattern in which two species gradually become increasingly different. This type of evolution often occurs when closely related species diversify to new habitats. On a large scale, divergent evolution is responsible for the creation of the current diversity of life on earth from the first living cells. On a smaller scale, it is responsible for the evolution of humans and apes from a common primate ancestor.

Convergent Evolution
Convergent evolution causes difficulties in fields of study such as comparative anatomy. Convergent evolution takes place when species of different ancestry begin to share analogous traits because of a shared environment or other selection pressure. For example, whales and fish have some similar characteristics since both had to evolve methods of moving through the same medium: water.

Parallel Evolution
Parallel evolution occurs when two species evolve independently of each other, maintaining the same level of similarity. Parallel evolution usually occurs between unrelated species that do not occupy the same or similar niches in a given habitat.

Everything else you listed on the first page, while it may be related to science and perhaps even evolution in some ways, is not part of evolutionary theory.

Period.

Become more familiar with evolutionary theory and perhaps you will understand it better.

Zip

Curiously, everytime I point you at an article or a post, you never refer to it. One question - are you reading the things I've shown you?

Have you read Nygdan's index post as I suggested?

Your questions are answered in several places.

Zip

EDIT: Expert keeps talking about Cosmic Evolution and the like, grouping it with biological evolution. While Christian apologetic sites use the naming conventions on page 1 for the VAST array of science that they cover and categorize them all as "facets of evolution," in Real Science, each of the theories presented to show how we got here from the Big Bang are individual entities, not specifically relying on the causes for each other (though often relying on their conclusions - i.e., we are carbon life forms because carbon exists).

So, Expert, in order to reduce confusion, I ask that you cite the scientific theory that you are talking about, each time you change topics. If you are speaking about biological evolution, please say so, and "cosmic evolution," as well. Please don't just call them all "evolution" or "evolution theory" because when you do that, we all assume that you're speaking about biological evolution.

[edit on 6/28/2005 by Zipdot]

The point is that expert999 is NOT bothering to read any opposing arguments, nor is he bothering to actually research the topic that he so fervently attacks and yet continuosly refuses to acknowledge valid scientific research regarding the topic at hand. His original post, in its very nature, is ignorant of the definitions of "Religion" and "Theory."

Religion:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Expert999 has obviously never bothered to even look up the definitions of these two words, otherwise he would have realized that his original post is completely counter-intuitive to the definitions of the very words he proposes to combine.

As he obviously chose to ignore it before, I again post my earlier statements and challenge him to quote and answer, In Context, the statements I presented, rather than choosing out-of-context statements to attack as he sees fit. I suggest that he purchase a book with "Webster's" or "Oxford's" across the cover (comonly known as a Dictionary) before he makes future presumptuous and invalid statements regarding a topic where he obviously does not perform enough research on before commenting. Oh, and by the way, Research is:

Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry.

When researching anything, the sources that one chooses to utilize need to befall the same scrutiny as the research topic itself. If you bother to research the Theory of Evolution in it's current state, you will obviously come across the very same items that other posters have mentioned to you that you have consistently chosen to ignore.

Originally posted by SimonColynAdrian
There seems to be a lacking of knowledge in this post, and in all posts related to evolution, that causes all of this Bible vs Evolution nonsense.

A Theory is:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

First, a statement for the Bible Quoters:

A Theory is not a fact, it is a supposition.

However, the difference between a theory and your faith is that while the teachings and explanations in the Bible may be considered completely true to you, they must be accepted as fact based on your faith in their accuracy.

Second, a statement for the Bible Quoters:

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

In other words, while a Theory is not a fact, it has been studied to a point where the vast majority can accept the theory as being truthful because it has been researched, experimented upon, and shown to fit the defining points of the Theory. Religion, of any sort, cannot provide the same level of accuracy or scrutiny. You either believe, or you do not. You cannot prove God. You cannot prove creationism. While you cannot prove evolution entirely, you can use statements from the Evolution Theory, conduct experiments, and predict the results of the experiment accurately using the theory's defining factors, which is something that religion and faith cannot do.

Third, a statement for The Evolution Theorists:

STOP arguing with the Bible-thumping Creationists! It is a waste of time. I personally believe there is room in the Bible for evolution (IMO). When a child asks you, "Why is the sky blue," do you really provide the entire explanation of the way the light refracts through our atmosphere, or do you tell them "That's the way God made it," or "That's the way it is?" In the same strain of thought, do you think if God was asked "How did we get here?" by a human being, He would truly explain the wonders of the powers He has? Of course not, He'd give us an easy, understandable explanation along the lines of "Well, it took me 6 days, I made, light, the stars, the earth, the animals, the plants, man , and then woman. Then I took a break on the 7th day."

Creationism is not an acceptable argument in the scientific community, not becuase the scientific community doesn't believe in God, necessarily, but because the Creationist belief cannot be defined as a theory using the scientific method. Anyone who seriously wants to discuss the Theory of Evolution should never, ever, acknowledge the religious naysayers based on these simple facts. Responding to them in any manner other than to explain the scientific basis behind the theory is unacceptable. If they choose to not accept your explanation, then that does not make them right or wrong, merely a differing, unsupported belief. However, until anyone who believes in Creationism can follow the scientific method and develop a workable theory, the idea is unacceptable in a scientific discussion, regardless of your personal beliefs. No offense meant to the believers out there, however while science can quote many experiments, many books, and vast research, Creationism constantly uses 1 book to define it's explanations. Nobody experiments to determine whether or not the ideas in the Bible can be proven. Creationism is NOT a theory, as it does not fit the definition of theory. Period.

I hope this clears up a few things, both to the Evolutionists and the Creationists. Stop wasting each others' time. Post a thread about Creationism, Evolutionists keep out. Post a thread about Evolution, Creationists keep out. Any other attempt to argue the two factors is merely that... An attempt by one side or the other to argue two completely different ideas simply for the sake of argument. Don't be a troll, It's counterproductive to a goal.

Originally posted by expert999
read a little harder and read the KJV. its more accurate.

So what you are saying is that the KJV is the best translation of the bible despite the time it took to translate it and the many versions before?

Don't you think that it is a little arogant to say "I think what god meant to say..."?

Let me ask you a couple of questions -

1. Do you think the bible is the exact word of god? Did god write the bible?

If so then why does he contradict himself on many occasions?

2. Not sure if you have been asked this yet but here it is. Who/what created god? What did s/he do before those 7 days? An eternity of nothing? refuring back to my original post in this thread (found on page 10), which you never addressed. How much time was there before god created time? Did god wake up on the first day for the first time?

And here is the one that I really had a problem with when I was younger -

3. Does God know how s/he came to be? Does s/he ponder why s/he exists and where s/he came from?

If our existence is God's divine plan, then what is his/hers? If we were created, what was god? Did s/he evolve, or was s/he created, or something else maybe?

I feel your answers will be the same as the ones I got from my christian teachers (only god knows that, etc) when I was young, the ones that made me decide the whole bible was a fairy tale. Oh and so you know, I HAVE read the bible and despite the poor writing/translation (I think that is intentional so preachers can say "what god is saying here") I found the appaling nature of it's teachings quite horrific. If anyone read the bible without a preachers instructions of what it meant, they would be appaled at it's view of the world. It is far from the peace/compassion of Jesus that we are sold (sure he promoted that in parts but to amplify them and ignore the others is simple intentional ignorance).

I have strong feeling expert999 is not reading half the stuff we are posting but scanning for small parts he can make a counter point to, most fundamentalists ignore evidence that they can't disprove.

"don't bother me with facts, my minds made up"

Do you know upside down you have the number of the beast in your name expert, or should I call you 666trepxe!?!?!



[edit on 29-6-2005 by parabolee]

[edit on 29-6-2005 by parabolee]

whoever is accusing me that I dont read their links, is wrong, some of the information I get from some of your links supports me. maybe thats why you think im not reading, I would read your references.

for the last person who posted...
if you would like to put it that way,

I believe "in the beginning GOD"

and you believe "in the beginning dirt or all the matter in the universe"

and all the types of evolution that I mentioned are all a part of the same process. cosmic evolution is a religious belief. in ties in with atheism.
the whole spill about the big bang theory and how it was the origin of time space and matter thus creating everything in the universe today is all religious. no one knows if that ever happened.
asnd you cant have any of the other processes of evolution such as chemical evolution unless you have coasmic evolution first.

you all dont seem to get it. you have to have the big bang first (part of cosmic evolution) as a step to getting to the other forms or types of evolution. you cant just skip the other phases of steps to evolution.

so when I point out that the evolution theory is a religion, I am not wrong. you dont know it happened. and if you did believe that it happened, you must believe that there is no God. and what religion associates themselves with the evolution theory?

thats right its atheists. and they believe that there is no God and so do evolutionists. and if you tell me that you do believe in God I am going to ask you.... which god? and how did he come to be? and if atheism is a religion, then how is it that evolution is not? the definition you gave me earlier is from the dictionary, but its not the entire answer if atheism is considered a religion and theyt nothin to do with any kind of god whatsoever.

nad how have I been switching subjects? just because I point out that you cant have something without the other piece does not mean that I have been switching subjects. I am simply pointing out your whole belief system instead of you trying to give me selected parts of your belief system.

your theory states there was a big bang. tell me how do you know this? I can tell you that no one in the world will be able to tell you how it happened, just as I dont have an explanation of where God came from. God said that he is eternal. that meaning means that he has no beginning or an end.
kinda like a circle. you will never find the beginning and you will never find the end. make sense?

kinda like the universe, its like a circle, it goes on forever. but you will never find the end, actually if you think about it. if you went out into space, and kept on going, you would probably end up back at earth. im saying that I know that. just something to think about being that someone had the idea of the universe might use a fourth demension to make it seem eternal.

but anyways. you all dont know what happened and how we got here, you assume that life had to generate from non-living material. and you assume the big bang happened. you dont know that. you assume that light travels at the same rate through all space and time, they proved that light's speed can be effected, either by being sped up or slowed down. at harvard university they speed light up 300 times past the speed of light.

there is a link on google. I dont have it at this moment, but if you want, I will find it or you can look for it yourself.

Originally posted by expert999
I believe "in the beginning GOD"

and you believe "in the beginning dirt or all the matter in the universe"

No I do not, that is very presumptious of you. You claim to have been reading our posts but I think you skipped mine completely. Please go back to page 10 and read my post. I made a whole post on the whole beginning/end time problem. I do not believe in a beginning of anything.

so when I point out that the evolution theory is a religion, I am not wrong. you dont know it happened. and if you did believe that it happened, you must believe that there is no God. and what religion associates themselves with the evolution theory?

Yes you are VERY wrong. For a start we don't know it happened BUT we can observe imperical evidence that supports the theory! Also religious belief has nothing to do with evoloution, I do believe in evolution but see no reason why that means I can't believe in god. To believe in evolution only requires that you don't believe in the bibles version of creation, that is all. Oh and what religion associates itself with evolution? Drumroll............. a secular one! That's right I reserve the right to make my own mind up on things of a spiritual nature! And that includes having a deep spiritual belief (not a "faith" because it is based on experience and imperical evidence). "Well you just made your own religion up then didn't you" I can hear you say, but no my belief is based around many religious texts, most of them Buddhist.

“If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” Albert Einstein

your theory states there was a big bang. tell me how do you know this? I can tell you that no one in the world will be able to tell you how it happened, just as I dont have an explanation of where God came from. God said that he is eternal. that meaning means that he has no beginning or an end.
kinda like a circle. you will never find the beginning and you will never find the end. make sense?

I can tell you that many people (scientists/philosophers) have a very goood idea "how". But that is beside the point, "the big bang" is one of the most misunderstood theory's ever. Because it is a metophoric instant. Einstein nevr said it was the "begining of time", as he said that time/space is one, and (and this is most important part -

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

kinda like the universe, its like a circle, it goes on forever. but you will never find the end, actually if you think about it. if you went out into space, and kept on going, you would probably end up back at earth.

Nope a circle has a boundry, a perimiter. Therfore it has an outside of it. Unlike the universe. And it is infinite, you will go forever and NEVER reach earth again (you would however eventualy find a place that seems identical since there is a finite possibility that you would).

but anyways. you all dont know what happened and how we got here, you assume that life had to generate from non-living material. and you assume the big bang happened. you dont know that. you assume that light travels at the same rate through all space and time

Who assumes that? Some of us may but how can you make such a sweeping statement to all of us? I assume nothing of the sort. You clearly do not understand secular beliefs. I personally do not believe that -

life had to generate from non-living material.
the big bang "happened" (note quotation marks).
that light travels at the same rate through all space and time.

Like many fundamentalists you believe there are two black and white apposing views here and that to disagree with you means that we believe a whole different set of dogma's. That is not the case, we all find creationism incorrect and/or silly. And most of us believe in evolution, but we probably (almost impossible) don't all agree on the way it works.

I ask you kindly to read this in full and my previous post and then respond. I am very happy to debate and discuss this but please consider my opinions before you state your own again.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by parabolee]

[edit on 29-6-2005 by parabolee]

[edit on 29-6-2005 by parabolee]

Theory? Gravity is a theory, so is us revolving around that giant ball of gas called the sun. Many things are theories because we don't understand all sides of it. Physics? More theory then law, like the whole remains in motin until acted upon. Light remains in motion, but it can go through things, how is this? Light should be stopped if it hits a winodw, but it magically goes through it. A baseball shatters it, water bounces off, but light goes right through like nothing was there. How is this possible? Light photons make the laws of physics a theory, for ypu can act upon light and it won't stop/slow down.

Other cases it does, but shouldn't. Like gravity. From what I read from links posted light has no mass, which may explain why it can do things against the laws of physics since it doesn't have mass. Anyways, but all the good(smart people/non-religous dogma) sites said same thing, light is affected by gravity, but shouldn't be, for no mass. One site has an explanation about a rubber mat and bowling balls and golf balls rolling around, didn't understand it.

Also, why are some theories evil and others accepted? Also, the church said micro evolution was real, but I reead the bible, no where does it say God created everything, then used micro evolution. No, it says he ,made everything, was happy with it and rested. So, was god not happy and the bible is wrong, or was he happy and the church is wrong.

ok explain to me what exactly what you believem because obviously I am not getting it. but dont make it too long because if you havent noticed, IU dont really like reading. so if you give me a long post. im not going to read it in detail I will simply skim through it and pick at it.

so tell me me your version of how everything came to be.
because obviously your version of evolution is very different from the theory thats taught in school to be a fact.
I and my friends and cousins that live in america across the country, learned about evolution in the public school. and apparently its different from you version. so tell me you version...

Originally posted by Jestaman
Also, why are some theories evil and others accepted? Also, the church said micro evolution was real, but I reead the bible, no where does it say God created everything, then used micro evolution. No, it says he ,made everything, was happy with it and rested. So, was god not happy and the bible is wrong, or was he happy and the church is wrong.

Well, there's also Genesis 2, which does not state that God rested, nor does it state that he thought his creations were good, and indeed, he created woman as quite an afterthought, as opposed to Genesis 1, wherein he created male and female at the same time. In any case, there are several ways of reading the Bible, and like clouds in the sky, you can illustrate almost anything by interpreting certain passages in a certain way.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does allow for massive sectarian rifts, as if the split between Judaism and Christianity wasn't enough...

Here is a website that dissects the Bible, verse by verse, and categorizes the topics into these areas:

Injustice
Absurdity
Cruelty and Violence
Intolerance
Contradictions
Family Values
Women Good Stuff
Science and History
Prophecy
Sex
Language
Interpretation
Homosexuality

Here is a rebuttal site, but I don't think anything is actually available for free... Might have to buy the book. In turn, that book is rebutted by this site.

Zip

Expert999, you may find value in this take on Genesis:

Does the Bible teach evolution?
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. -- Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:24

Notice that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.

But both Luther and Calvin rejected any non-literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

Zip

ok zip. I dont see where you are going with this argument. there are no contradictions in the bible. if you want. give me them one by one and I will explain to you what they mean, and why they seem to be contradictive.

there is no proof the the universe is billions of years old, and there is no proof of stars forming. the only evidence that they have on stars forming, is crab nebula. and all they really see is a spot getting brighter. they havent proved the formation of one star. boils gas laws (i think its these laws) that contradict the theory of stars forming.

but go ahead and give me what you believe is a contradiction of incorrect, and I will show you how is it not what you think is it.

Originally posted by expert999
ok zip. I dont see where you are going with this argument. there are no contradictions in the bible. if you want. give me them one by one and I will explain to you what they mean, and why they seem to be contradictive.

there is no proof the the universe is billions of years old, and there is no proof of stars forming. the only evidence that they have on stars forming, is crab nebula. and all they really see is a spot getting brighter. they havent proved the formation of one star. boils gas laws (i think its these laws) that contradict the theory of stars forming.

but go ahead and give me what you believe is a contradiction of incorrect, and I will show you how is it not what you think is it.

Here, this page lists 339 contradictions in the Bible.

You can attempt to rebut, explain, or excuse them, but you won't be the first, and that won't change the fact they still exist in the Bible.

EDIT: And thats just 339 by topic - each topic may have multiple contradictions within it.

Zip

EDIT 2: Expert999, here's a good starter-question for Bible contradictions: how many people are described as being "perfect" in the Bible?

Please don't let this question sidetrack you too much - I really want you to look at that page I linked.

[edit on 6/29/2005 by Zipdot]

ok, how about YOU give them to me one by one.

I didnt ask for you to direct me to a website that is all about finding cantrdictions that if understood are not contradictions.

and when you ask how namy people are mentioned in the bible. there is only one person who was without sin, and that was Jesus Christ.

If you don't click on that page, then our conversation has come to an end.

I cannot quote the page because it is almost as long as a book.

If you will not even take a cursory glance at that page, then why should I or anyone else continue to discuss such things with you?

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
Here, this page lists 339 contradictions in the Bible.

You can attempt to rebut, explain, or excuse them, but you won't be the first, and that won't change the fact they still exist in the Bible.

What a bogus website. Do you think the webmaster is an objective interpreter or does he have an agenda? Good grief everything is taken out of context in order to prove the bible wrong. If you don’t believe in Jesus you don’t need to find your support in the Bible. While some things are difficult to understand you must read the Bible in context to get anything from it. You need to look a little deeper.

I did click on it, and I looked at some, but are these ones that you are concerned about? probably not... unless you now every single one on that site. now how about you give me these so called contradictions and I will help you to understand.

I mean you can even make this an opporunity to learn something new.

Is wonderland real? Is the matrix real? Is evolution real?
How about trolls and goblins?? VAMPIRES!!! ALIENS--OMG....

Or maybe people were high and made up stories like evolution and alice in wonderland and fairies... and you people believe them

like this one time aliens were abducting and vampires were sucking blood while orcs tried to kill me!!

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Wisdumb]

thanks kill lizard, I agree.

people often take the bible out of context. and then come to the wrong conclusion. and thats why they think that the bible is wrong.

you know if you read the first couple of chapters of the bible really well, and read it a few times. you would understand why the earth is the was it is now. and you would also understand how the universe was made. and you would also understand how the flood occured, and you would understand how there was a canopy of water above that atmosphere, probably suspended by the magnetic field by what is called the meisner effect. supercold water is magnetic.

this would block all the radiation except for visible light. and it would also compress the air to a higher density and the oxygen level would be higher. basically, you would have hyperbaric conditions.

if you had hyperbaric conditions, you would get dinosaurs.

im telling you, if you read the first few chapters of Genesis, you would understand a lot of things. be sure that you understand it though...