evolution

[General Wang]

ok im ready for a serios debate now

what do you think?

[Kronos]

A serios debate?

I think it's hilarious that people look at Evolution as a religion. This is the religion forum, right?

[devincf]

A religion, like other religious concepts as gravity, relativity and dinosaurs.

[Nelson]

General Wang:
ok im ready for a serios debate now

what do you think?Serio...spanish for serious.

Evolution, unlike Creationism, is a theory. Creationism is a belief.

[Kronos]

The Lord God:
A religion, like other religious concepts as gravity, relativity and dinosaurs.Finally, someone who agrees with me on this! I tried to put forth this idea for some time now and have gotten nothing but grief. Yes, if you believe in evolution it's as much a religious* belief as any diety-based religion.

*When defined literally, not just in the popular vernacular.

[devincf]

I was being sarcastic.

Science is based on observation and proof, two things that are anathema to religion.

[DaveB]

It's easy to mistake what some people might have turned evolution into with what it actually is.

Some may treat it like a belief (i.e. accept it without question, refuse to acknowledge any other theories). But it is, in itself, a theory - as subject to scientific analysis as anything.

A belief in God, on the other hand, is not subject to scientific analysis. Since creationism (in the traditional sense, at least - I'm not talking aliens) is tied into the idea of God, and the idea of God is entirely belief-based, it can't really be proven with science.

A mistake some might make is that if a theory of evolution were to be proven absolutely false that this would be a "win" for religious creationists. This is silly, as one theory disproven does not prove something else by default.

[Geoff Foster]

The Lord God:
I was being sarcastic.

Science is based on observation and proof, two things that are anathema to religion.Not strictly true, several (early) religions were (to some extent) science based, most notably Egyptian.

Of course, this all went out of the window when the religious crusades (euphemism for racism, rape, theft and murder) came along.

[Kronos]

nelson:
General Wang:
ok im ready for a serios debate now

what do you think?Serio...spanish for serious.

Evolution, unlike Creationism, is a theory. Creationism is a belief.Until there's PROOF of either it takes AS MUCH FAITH to believe either.

Faaaascinating...it's just a word -religious- that people are so frightened of.

[Kronos]

And if evolution doesn't require ultimately as much blind faith as belief in a diety, why is this thread in the religion forum?

Or is the thread starter just ignorant of the name of the forum...Religion A-Z...since Evolution -many of you contend- isn't a religion?

And if that's the case, posting a thread about Evolution in a Religion forum is as wrong as posting a topic about a TV series in the upcoming movies forums such as The Sewer.

Or again, is this just meant to bait people who believe in God/s? If so, that's a troll.

[DaveB]

Because, the poster, like many others, probably buys into the fallacy that the eternal debate must be evolution vs. Christian notions of creationism. Thus religion, in its traditional 'belief in something greater' sense, is involved. And, knowing the way these topics usually go, he's probably correct in posting it in this forum, as God will likely come up.

Really, the question should be "Evolution or something else?" rather than "Evolution or were we created in God's image?", but that's not how most look at it, unfortunately.

[Geoff Foster]

If, in some crazy half-baked parallel universe, one were pulled from the school curriculum in favour of the other - then I would say that it is entirely relevant.

Of course, this isn't likely to happen - is it?

[Burke]

The Lord God:
I was being sarcastic.

Science is based on observation and proof, two things that are anathema to religion.Most religions are based on observation and proof by their very nature... that is; humans trying to make sense of/understand the world they live in. They may be incorrect observations and bad proofs... just as your observation was incorrect and then proven wrong. :p

[devincf]

Seeing that the volcano spits fire does not count as OBSERVATION AND PROOF when you assume a diety resides in there. It's superstition.

At any rate, the word religious is a bad word, kronos - it is a word that connotates a heavy, unchanging, dogmatic belief, which SHOULD be the opposite of science.

And to say that evolution requires a lot of faith seems to be your way of saying you have not read up on it.

[Jack Szagreus]

Read Paul Feyerabend.

[Geoff Foster]

Jack Szagreus:
Read Paul Feyerabend.Yours

Paul Feyerabend

[Burke]

SHILL!

[Kronos]

The Lord God:
Seeing that the volcano spits fire does not count as OBSERVATION AND PROOF when you assume a diety resides in there. It's superstition.

At any rate, the word religious is a bad word, kronos - it is a word that connotates a heavy, unchanging, dogmatic belief, which SHOULD be the opposite of science.

And to say that evolution requires a lot of faith seems to be your way of saying you have not read up on it.I always adore it when you tell me what I don't know. Thank you so much.

[Adam Price-qatsi]

Evolution, unlike Creationism, is a theory. Creationism is a belief.</strong>

I believe in metaphors.

[piranhapictures]

What I always find weird is you find hardly anyone who think both can be true, with one not discounting the other.

[Kronos]

piranhapictures:
What I always find weird is you find hardly anyone who think both can be true, with one not discounting the other.*AHEM*

[piranhapictures]

Does that mean you agree? I looked over your posts, but I'm not sure where you stand exactly.

[Kronos]

As it should be.

[Burke]

piranhapictures:
What I always find weird is you find hardly anyone who think both can be true, with one not discounting the other.C. S. Lewis

[piranhapictures]

Where did he write that? I've never read any of his stuff beyond of course the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

[imported_Adam Warren]

To equate science with religion on the premise of belief is utterly daft. Science observes. Religion speculates.

[Kronos]

Adam Warren:
To equate science with religion on the premise of belief is utterly daft. Science observes. Religion speculates.Hence the reason this thread is in the wrong forum.

Otherwise it's simply placed here to A) Bait believers and B) Bash their faith,

[imported_Adam Warren]

I think it was intended bash the English Language.

[Nelson]

The Lord God:

And to say that evolution requires a lot of faith seems to be your way of saying you have not read up on it.So how do you explain the fact that no scientist has been able to find not one trace of the transition spieces?

you're right, faith is not applicable. it requires some more than faith.

[Kronos]

Adam Warren:
I think it was intended bash the English Language.That's a given amongst our latest crop of newbies.

[devincf]

nelson:
The Lord God:

And to say that evolution requires a lot of faith seems to be your way of saying you have not read up on it.So how do you explain the fact that no scientist has been able to find not one trace of the transition spieces?

you're right, faith is not applicable. it requires some more than faith.Recent fossils in China show transition between dinosaurs and birds.

[Nelson]

The Lord God:
nelson:
The Lord God:

And to say that evolution requires a lot of faith seems to be your way of saying you have not read up on it.So how do you explain the fact that no scientist has been able to find not one trace of the transition spieces?

you're right, faith is not applicable. it requires some more than faith.Recent fossils in China show transition between dinosaurs and birds.And they addressed those findings as "likely." Not as a matter of fact. And evolutinist are still split 50/50 on this. it would be interesting if they could find the absolute real deal.

[devincf]

It takes a long time to figure that stuff out. We just recently rewrote our ideas on how dinosaurs even walked.

This is excellent evidence.

At any rate, evolution is a FACT - it goes on all around us every day. You seem to have no problem accepting that bacteria and virii adapt to beat our meds.

[Kronos]

By what experimentation does Evolution reveal itself as fact? One of the hallmarks of science is that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable.

If so, let's do the experiment where we can take lifeless molecules and create a single-celled organism. Is this even possible? Obviously it must be.

Well, in the absence of an experiment -which as we all know is the foundation of the Scientific Method- let's look for all the individual steps which life took in order to go from lifeless molecules to simple single-celled organisms.

Oh, haven't found that linkage yet, you say? Millions of years between lifeless molecules and a bacteria you say?

Somehow the Angler Fish developed the little rod and lure on his forehead to bait his prey...yet we've not seen fossils of varying stages of angler-hood.

Oh, but it goes in spurts, you say? Well, we can thank our old deceased friend Steven Jay Gould for the term punctuated equilibrium, which basically says evolution goes in spurts.

And what of the biological processes that go into the makeup of a living being? A hundred years ago, hell even 50 years ago, knowledge about biological processes was limited enough that evolutionists could ignore the problem. The problem? How could anything evolve that doesn't make biological sense when incomplete?

I've seen the "experiments" where they've taken a vessel full of speculated primal atmospheric gases, placed a high electric charge into the vessel, then a couple hours later the vessel is coated with some nasty goo. This goo contains one component of an amino acid. Only one component...of an amino acid.

A far cry from an entire DNA molecule. Check your biology, DNA has quite a few complex amino acids.

Make all the guesses you want in between goo and the DNA molecule, then from a DNA molecule to perhaps a bacteria, then perhaps from a bacteria to a single-celled organism, then a colony, and so on...

Without a proven regimen of repeatable experimentation, evolutionary theory should not be considered a science so much as a study in Natural History. And history, we all know, changes with the perspective of those who are studying it.

There's probably so much more, but since I obviously have read very little I'm not qualified to comment further.

Oh, and I'm not a creationist either. I'm looking for a third alternative somewhere.

[devincf]

Waiting for the link to pop up in a fossil may mean you wait a LONG time. Do you think that the fossils we find represent ANY significant percentage of what once lived?

And again, you aren't arguing against evolution. You are taking the discussion to the origins of organic life, which is not what the subject is about.

[Kronos]

But that's the essential question: From where did it all begin? If organic life sprung up without any outside intervention -somehow- then there really should be some sort of evidence.

If you can't find the evidence it doesn't mean your theory is invalid. But the very first species should be determined before the branching ones can be studied. Yet we can't even find the first specie. There's as much religious speculation as to the first specie as there is in "On the first day God created..."

Quite frankly, neither makes any sense to me. Yes, things change over time. We've seen some interesting changes just in the past hundred years. None can be logically or scientifically extended back several million years.

Once again, it's all a leap of faith.

For the evolutionists, keep trying. But don't operate under the assumption that your opponents are Bible-thumping hicks. Because questioning evolution is not tantamount to questioning the value and validity of science.

This isn't a moderating view, it's simply one of complete objectivity. You see, I don't know either way. And my pretty good guess would be neither do you.

[devincf]

Actually, by tracing evolution back we might be able to figure out where it all came from.

By the way - how do anti-evolutionists explain how close our DNA is to certain monkeys? They're 99% identical.

[imported_Adam Warren]

nelson:
So how do you explain the fact that no scientist has been able to find not one trace of the transition spieces? you're right, faith is not applicable. it requires some more than faith.A list of many <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">transitional fossils</a>. You're operating on a 120 year-old assumption.

[Kronos]

Sure, 99%. But what of the 1%?

But when you look at protein structures and functions you find that fish are very similar to humans too. What does this tell us? That we share much of the same building blocks.

99% doesn't mean Jane Goodall's apes are evolving into humans. It means they are a distinctly different specie...with many similarities.

[imported_Adam Warren]

Genitically modifying tomatoes gives credence to evolution. As for Abiogenesis, I've been through THAT with Burke. People should try UNDERSTANDING scientific principles before dismissing them with pet theories and religious hokum. Do some RESEARCH. Evolution is the stuff of science; computers, rockets, chemistry, antibiotics, EVOLUTION. As a concept, evolution is no more perfect than a car engine, but like the engine, it is composed of observable parts. Thus, it is scientific.

[Kronos]

Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs: I love the way these scientists use the word "believe" so much.

Faaaascinating...

[Kronos]

Adam Warren:
Genitically modifying tomatoes gives credence to evolution. As for Abiogenesis, I've been through THAT with Burke. People should try UNDERSTANDING scientific principles before dismissing them with pet theories and religious hokum. Do some RESEARCH. Evolution is the stuff of science; computers, rockets, chemistry, antibiotics, EVOLUTION. As a concept, evolution is no more perfect than a car engine, but like the engine, it is composed of observable parts. Thus, it is scientific.Show me ONE repeatable evolution experiment.

[imported_Adam Warren]

Klonos:
Sure, 99%. But what of the 1%?

But when you look at protein structures and functions you find that fish are very similar to humans too. What does this tell us? That we share much of the same building blocks.

99% doesn't mean Jane Goodall's apes are evolving into humans. It means they are a distinctly different specie...with many similarities.This is fallacious. We didn't evolve from apes and other primates, we evolved with them, from prosimians. And to suggest evolution implies that Apes are(or could) evolve into humans is demonstrative of a profound Ignorance on the entire matter.

I will provide a lengthly discourse should anyone be interested in how this came about.

[Kronos]

And to suggest evolution implies that Apes are(or could) evolve into humans is demonstrative of a profound Ignorance on the entire matter.

Man, you can't read too well...I said immediately after that the two are entirely different species. I never implied anything. And you simply didn't read anything I said prior.

You seem to want to draw me into a fight here where a really nice and civil discussion was going on.

Peace out...

[imported_Adam Warren]

I love the way these scientists use the word "believe" so much.

Faaaascinating...[QUOTE]

Penetrating. Your ignorance is showing.

[QUOTE]Show me repeatable evolution experiment.Evolution experiment?

[Kronos]

Do I EVER point at you and use the word "ignorant"?

So since you've never actually met me in person you think it's quite alright to go ahead and call me ignorant.

Fine.

Now Mr Scientist, use the scientific method and show us all a repeatable, controllable experiment in evolution -since you insist it's a science.

[devincf]

Is astrophysics not a science since we can't blow up a star in the lab?

[piranhapictures]

Even though we have a bunch of transitional fossils, we may never be able to close every gap. Even now, I think we only have something like 20 Tyrannosaur skeletons, and 3-6 complete skulls. That's not a lot of skeletons.

[imported_Adam Warren]

Klonos:
And to suggest evolution implies that Apes are(or could) evolve into humans is demonstrative of a profound Ignorance on the entire matter.

Man, you can't read too well...I said immediately after that the two are entirely different species. I never implied anything. And you simply didn't read anything I said prior.

You seem to want to draw me into a fight here where a really nice and civil discussion was going on.

Peace out...Get off your righteousness pedestal, Kronos. Devin asked how one can explain the genetic(and physical) similarity between primates while dismissing evolution, you said:

Sure, 99%. But what of the 1%?

Obviously, we are different species.

But when you look at protein structures and functions you find that fish are very similar to humans too.

And cats, but we're looking at a consistent genetic make-up shared by all primates. A similarity not between two seperate species, but with the primate family.

What does this tell us? That we share much of the same building blocks.

Absolutely.

99% doesn't mean Jane Goodall's apes are evolving into humans.

Why this then, it's utterly baseless. There are enough people would happily believe that this is what evolution is all about.

It means they are a distinctly different specie...with many similarities.

Again, the similarity is within the family, as in, all primates share similar genetic make-up.

What does this mean? That we might share a common ancestor(Lemurs, as it turns out).

Is this genetic evidence circumstantial? Absolutely when taken on its own, but when it is combined with fossil records it becomes substantial. The fact that similar processes are observable in other groups, such as fish, gives credence to the whole notion.

[imported_Adam Warren]

piranhapictures:
Even though we have a bunch of transitional fossils, we may never be able to close every gap. Even now, I think we only have something like 20 Tyrannosaur skeletons, and 3-6 complete skulls. That's not a lot of skeletons.What does T-rex have to with this?

[Kronos]

There's entirely more experimentation possible in the here-and-now real world of physics. The physical properties of the universe are established principles and facts/laws. There's a mathematical fundamental to the universe.

Life itself is a tenuous x-factor in the whole thing.

Evolution isn't a science in the classical sense because it's not provable. No more than creation by intelligent design. Both require a leap at the very core of the argument. One of those leaps is at which point is lifeless matter endowed with the spark of life?

[piranhapictures]

Kronos was asking for fossil links. Fossils are hard to come by, even for creatures that we know exist. T-Rex is only an illistration of how hard they are to come by.

[devincf]

Evolution is observable in teh world around us. I am positive I mentioned the adaptation of bacteria and viruses to our meds in this thread.

[Kronos]

Adam, your adament belief in evolution is proof enough that this is your religion...don't you see that?

One doesn't have to believe in a science, it simply exists. Evolution requires faith. Because even creationists live in a World of natural laws such as gravity. They or you don't have a choice to believe or not to believe in gravity.

But the way you try to convince people of the righteousness of your evolutionary cause is almost...evangelical.

[devincf]

You're really stretching with this evolution=religion nonsense. Is gravity religion as well? I would argue strongly against any knucklehead who denied that it existed.

And you keep ignoring my very easy to understand example of evolution.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

"You're really stretching with this evolution=religion nonsense."

Indeed. The connection altogether escapes me.

[imported_Adam Warren]

Do I EVER point at you and use the word "ignorant"?

Do I ever use the word faaaaaascinating next to an out of context quote? You're smug and I'm an asshole.

So since you've never actually met me in person you think it's quite alright to go ahead and call me ignorant.

Ignorance means lack of knowledge. I'm stating that you demonstrate a lack of knowledge on this particular topic. I'd love for you to prove me wrong, but most of what we've gone over here can be circumvented by reading the first chapter of a biology text.

Fine.

Indeed.

Now Mr Scientist, use the scientific method and show us all a repeatable, controllable experiment in evolution -since you insist it's a science.

Science isn't all bearded virgins in lab coats tinkering with test-tubes and masturbating over the latest article Physics Weekly.

Evolution, like plate techtonics is not a repeatable phenomenon. You can't run newts through a 'Natural Selection Box' and get chickens every time. And like Nuclear Fission, we know it exists, but the sheer scope of running it through lab beyond present ability.

Here's a more learned person with the answer you seek(the premise that ecolution isn't falsifiable, hence unscientific):

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/</a>

[imported_Adam Warren]

Klonos:
Adam, your adament belief in evolution is proof enough that this is your religion...don't you see that?

One doesn't have to believe in a science, it simply exists. Evolution requires faith. Because even creationists live in a World of natural laws such as gravity. They or you don't have a choice to believe or not to believe in gravity.

But the way you try to convince people of the righteousness of your evolutionary cause is almost...evangelical.This is a straw man. You could say I'm being evangelical every time I try and prove a point.. My belief in evolution is aking to a mechanic's belief that car engines don't run on fire demons. And to a person who'd never seen a car engine, or taken an engine apart, those fire demons would be an acceptable answer. For all I know, my homunculous could be doing all the thinking here.

My adamant belief that fibre-optic cables carry the bits of information which define this post to CHUD servers is evangelical.

I know that evolution is a valid scientific concept. This does not mean I believe in a Helmholtzian universe.

[imported_Adam Warren]

And I can assure you that my homunculous is doing all the speeling and grammar work here.

[Burke]

In case anyone missed the last discussion of this topic:

<a href="http://chud.nexcess.net/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000020&p=" target="_blank">http://chud.nexcess.net/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000020&p=</a>

Adam, Devin, et al.

Is there not even the slightest possibility in your minds that there may be more beyond what our senses can perceive? Are you so arrogant as to presume that you are the masters of your world, that your knowledge is at least "good enough" and that there isn't any more that could possibly be learned? "Is this all there is? Is there nothing more?"

If we don't know how life began to evolve (as Adam admitted in the previous thread), doesn't science give way to philosophy and religion? What was "the first cause?" Everything has one.

You may not like my religion. You may not like any religion. But you cannot dismiss the possibility that there is a creator/energy source/God in or beyond our universe.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Is there not even the slightest possibility in your minds that there may be more beyond what our senses can perceive?If our senses can't perceive it, how do others come know about it?

THEY INVENT IT.

We've been over this before. Maybe someone did pull the trigger on the universe. We cannot tell. What this unmoved mover has to do with religions and their myths (burning bushes? little boats with lots of livestock? Elephants and turtles supporting the Earth?) also escapes me.

[Nelson]

The Lord God:
Actually, by tracing evolution back we might be able to figure out where it all came from.
That would answer everything. Well, almost everything.

Where did the human soul come from?

[Jacob Singer]

nelson:
Where did the human soul come from?Where is it now?

[Kronos]

THEY INVENT IT. In much the same way evolution was invented.

[Richard Dickson]

Klonos:
THEY INVENT IT. In much the same way evolution was invented.Darwin travelling for months, studying animals and their adaptations to their environment, forumulating a thesis based on his actual observations.

Believing everything that is written in supposedly 2000 year-old-book that has stacks of apocrypha hidden away by the very organization that supports it.

Which one is the "invention" again?

[Kronos]

Both. Because neither has been proven.

[Richard Dickson]

Just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it was simply fabricated from thin air.

Read Darwin's Origin of Species and tell me he's simply pulling this stuff out of his ass.

[piranhapictures]

Refrozen Seabass:
[QUOTE]
We've been over this before. Maybe someone did pull the trigger on the universe. We cannot tell. What this unmoved mover has to do with religions and their myths (burning bushes? little boats with lots of livestock? Elephants and turtles supporting the Earth?) also escapes me.The two are tied together by the fact that many religions believe that the God they worship created the world and the universe.

If suddenly aliens showed up and showed that they created humans, well, there goes Christianity.

[Nelson]

Refrozen Seabass
[QBIf our senses can't perceive it, how do others come know about it?
[QB]Ok, let's start on step 1.

-where does the "concept" of perfection come from?
How do you know what's perfect. Very simple question.

[Kronos]

Poxy Von Sinister:
Just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it was simply fabricated from thin air.
Interesting. So you believe something that isn't proven. People who believe in God are also believing in something that's not proven.

You're both taking comfort in little less than a myth supported by whatever "facts" you can put together to make it more convenient.

So what makes one religious belief superior to the other?

[Richard Dickson]

I've never argued evolution isn't anything but a theory.

But there's a lot more evidence to back it up than there is that I somehow descended from someone's rib.

[Kronos]

And I must reiterate: This thread is in the wrong place if A) Evolution is not a religion, and B) It was designed to bait for purposes of trolling.

After all...where's the original poster?

[Nelson]

Poxy Von Sinister:
Just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it was simply fabricated from thin air.

Read Darwin's Origin of Species and tell me he's simply pulling this stuff out of his ass.after all, he was a theologian, and they do pull rabbits out of hats. just go and sit down and listen to your local chuch sermon.

:D

btw, he never said he didn't beleive in God.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Evolution wasn't invented, Kronos. it was discovered. It was going on long before Darwin came along.

nelson: what are you talking about?

[Kronos]

Still, this thread is in the wrong place.

[DaveB]

Klonos:
After all...where's the original poster?Guess he wasn't as ready for a "serios" debate as he thought.

[devincf]

This thread has gotten really dopey.

I can't see a tachyon, but believe they are there. Is that my RELIGION?

I found a neat Evolution FAQ last night that pointed out one important distinction - that the meaning of theory is different to a scientist than to a layman.

Frankly, anyone who does not believe in evolution, which is a fact and not a theory, is a dope at this point. If you want to get on about the origin of life, go crazy - that has NOTHING to do with evolution.

As for souls - until you can get me some evidence they exist, I don't care where they came from.

And by the way, just because we don't know the ultimate origin of life does not mean GOD DID IT. See, that's SUPERSTITION. It's why primitive people worshipped the sun - they didn't know what the fuck it was.

So is the sun God? Millions of people once thought so. Just because science does not have the answers yet does not mean we should fall right back on superstition. That's the hallmark of an unthinking mind.

[Adverb]

I'm very late to the party, but I still want to dance...

Anti-evolution religious people seem to suffer from three things, a general lack of scientific knowledge, the false belief that evolution proponents seek to nullify their religion, and the belief that evolution is irreconcilable with the idea of a deity creating life (or to my way of thinking, the universe).

So first off, Devin brought up a good point in the last post. Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory isn't wild conjecture and ideas thrown about willy-nilly. A scientific theory is a hair shy of fact. It's never been contradicted. There is no evidence that it is not true (though it may need minor adjustments.) The only reason it is not referred to as a Law is that it hasn't been on the books long enough.

It's like the Theory of Relativity. We know that were a person to travel at relativistic speeds they would perceive time differently. Similarly we know from the fossil record, and from experiments with bacteria and viruses, that species will change slowly over time and eventually become a similar yet separate and distinct species. So to be clear, within the lexicon of scientists, theory = fact. Law = fact established a long time ago (but still open to adjustment!)

Kronos: One doesn't have to believe in a science, it simply exists. Evolution requires faith. Because even creationists live in a World of natural laws such as gravity. They or you don't have a choice to believe or not to believe in gravity. Science doesn't simply exist. Science is system of thought that methodically comes to conclusions about our natural world. Nature simply exists. Evolution is a result of natural laws. Everything eventually breaks down to the physics and chemistry. And people DO have to believe in scientific explanations. To his dying day Einstein never believed in quantum mechanics ("God doesn't play dice"). . . but you couldn't find a reputable scientist on the face of the earth who doesn't believe in it today.

The other mistaken notion - that evolution proponents seek to destroy relgion and prove the belief in a higher power wrong - is on a whole silly. While certainly some individuals do not believe in God and believe that those who do are fools, there are many scientists who believe in evolution, the big bang theory, etc who in fact believe in God because of the beautiful complexity of the natural world.

Finally, evolution and the belief in God can go hand-in-hand (unless you truly believe the world is less than 6000 years old or take the creation of the Earth in six days literally). Is it not possible that God would set ground rules (the laws of nature) that would allow for the birth of the universe, the formation of atoms, the formation of stars and planets, and eventually the birth of life?

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Adverb
I'm very late to the party, but I still want to dance...

Me too!

Anti-evolution religious people seem to suffer from three things, a general lack of scientific knowledge, the false belief that evolution proponents seek to nullify their religion, and the belief that evolution is irreconcilable with the idea of a deity creating life (or to my way of thinking, the universe).

While not "anti-evolution" (I don't believe it sufficiently explains how we evolved from single-celled organisms), I am religious. I have slightly better than a layman's understanding of science, some evolutionists are atheists and do wish to "nullify my religion, and I believe that evolution is irreconcilable with my view how hos the universe got here or more importantly how we did.

So first off, Devin brought up a good point in the last post. Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory isn't wild conjecture and ideas thrown about willy-nilly. A scientific theory is a hair shy of fact. It's never been contradicted. There is no evidence that it is not true (though it may need minor adjustments.) The only reason it is not referred to as a Law is that it hasn't been on the books long enough.

Evolution is a theory and no, scientific theories are certainly not conjecture. I would definitely hesitate to say that in this instance the theory of evolution is a hair shy of fact. And that last sentence makes an excellent point. This theory is still very young and while I know that most people reject Behe's work he raises some good questions. How did the eye "evolve". And what about the bodies ability to process sugar. Very complex things that if you remove one subtle component cease to work at all.

It's like the Theory of Relativity. We know that were a person to travel at relativistic speeds they would perceive time differently. Similarly we know from the fossil record, and from experiments with bacteria and viruses, that species will change slowly over time and eventually become a similar yet separate and distinct species. So to be clear, within the lexicon of scientists, theory = fact. Law = fact established a long time ago (but still open to adjustment!)

Shaky comparison. With the Theory of Relativity no one hs been near light speed so we don't know anything. I do believe that evolution occurs on some level, just not on the scale of amoeba to human. In my lexicon facts do not change. And probably in the scientists as well which is why they don't use that word much. This seems like a good definition (from <a href="http://www.wilstar.net/theories.htm)" target="_blank">http://www.wilstar.net/theories.htm)</a> "The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. "
He also says tht Laws have "always been observed to be true" like the Law of Gravity. Theories on the other hand are "verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers" How has evolution on the scale you would have me believe been verified?

Science doesn't simply exist. Science is system of thought that methodically comes to conclusions about our natural world. Nature simply exists. Evolution is a result of natural laws.

Theoretically.

Everything eventually breaks down to the physics and chemistry. And people DO have to believe in scientific explanations.

No we don't.

To his dying day Einstein never believed in quantum mechanics ("God doesn't play dice"). . . but you couldn't find a reputable scientist on the face of the earth who doesn't believe in it today.

Your point?

The other mistaken notion - that evolution proponents seek to destroy relgion and prove the belief in a higher power wrong - is on a whole silly. While certainly some individuals do not believe in God and believe that those who do are fools, there are many scientists who believe in evolution, the big bang theory, etc who in fact believe in God because of the beautiful complexity of the natural world.

True enough.

Finally, evolution and the belief in God can go hand-in-hand (unless you truly believe the world is less than 6000 years old or take the creation of the Earth in six days literally). Is it not possible that God would set ground rules (the laws of nature) that would allow for the birth of the universe, the formation of atoms, the formation of stars and planets, and eventually the birth of life?

I do not believe in the 6000 year age of the earth. I am something of an old Earth creationist. I necessarily don't believe therefor in the six day creation story as being literal. What you say is possible, is possible but not proven to me

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Refrozen Seabass:
Evolution wasn't invented, Kronos. it was discovered. It was going on long before Darwin came along.

nelson: what are you talking about?Evolution wasn't "discovered" any more than the cause of gravity or the Theory of relativity. They were postulated.

[otisthecat]

Since I don't care either way, anyone care to enlighten me on the begining of things? If a god of sorts started it all, where did he come from, you can't just always have been and you can't just pop out of nowhere, same on the evolution spectrum, even if life started from the most miniscule particals imaginable, where did the first one come from? Nothing can start from nothing, and nothing can always be so it seems to be a mute point on either side.

riddle me this and it's worth a shiny new quarter to ya wink

[otisthecat]

mute = moot
and if there is a god, i wish to shit he would give me my edit function back

[Adverb]

Anti-evolution religious people seem to suffer from three things, a general lack of scientific knowledge, the false belief that evolution proponents seek to nullify their religion, and the belief that evolution is irreconcilable with the idea of a deity creating life (or to my way of thinking, the universe).

While not "anti-evolution" (I don't believe it sufficiently explains how we evolved from single-celled organisms), I am religious. I have slightly better than a layman's understanding of science, some evolutionists are atheists and do wish to "nullify my religion, and I believe that evolution is irreconcilable with my view how hos the universe got here or more importantly how we did.Some of your statements below bring your understanding of evolution into question. Many of those that you feel are attacking religions are merely responding to the bizarre idea of teaching “creation science," but there are indeed some people who feel the need to mock people's faith. Evolution does NOT need to be seen as irreconcilable with the belief in a higher power, but if you can't believe both there's nothing I or anybody can do about it.

So first off, Devin brought up a good point in the last post. Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory isn't wild conjecture and ideas thrown about willy-nilly. A scientific theory is a hair shy of fact. It's never been contradicted. There is no evidence that it is not true (though it may need minor adjustments.) The only reason it is not referred to as a Law is that it hasn't been on the books long enough.

Evolution is a theory and no, scientific theories are certainly not conjecture. I would definitely hesitate to say that in this instance the theory of evolution is a hair shy of fact. And that last sentence makes an excellent point. This theory is still very young and while I know that most people reject Behe's work he raises some good questions. How did the eye "evolve". And what about the bodies ability to process sugar. Very complex things that if you remove one subtle component cease to work at all. The idea of time evolving (ha!) a theory into a law is merely that after an enough time scientist begin to accept certain things as unassailable fact - but the great thing about science is that nothing is safe from being revised,or proven wrong. The laws that deal with motion are in fact not strictly true, but that is not noticable unless you look at very small objects.

Behe’s objections have been addressed a million times over, and really just reveal his ignorance. It’s not like half an eye suddenly appeared. Instead eye-like cells, which responded to light, may have evolved over time. Slowly, over EONS of time these structures become more and more complex. They are never half-functional. They do whatever job they do, they may not even be that useful. They are not structures waiting to become something else, or structures with a memory of some past function. They just exist at that moment in time . . . if they are useful or not harmful they will persist. Slowly over time such cells can become increasingly specialized. Whatever chemical makes them sensitive to light may become more concentrated…nerve fibers may become more robust, capable of carrying more information, etc. Just realize that life has evolved over Billions of Years.

It's like the Theory of Relativity. We know that were a person to travel at relativistic speeds they would perceive time differently. Similarly we know from the fossil record, and from experiments with bacteria and viruses, that species will change slowly over time and eventually become a similar yet separate and distinct species. So to be clear, within the lexicon of scientists, theory = fact. Law = fact established a long time ago (but still open to adjustment!)

Shaky comparison. With the Theory of Relativity no one hs been near light speed so we don't know anything.Good point! No one has traveled at relativistic speeds…BUT, the mathematics that make up the theory of relativity have been tested countless times…these abstract numbers give results that agree very well with what physicists have observed. Indirect observations lend weight to the Theory of Relativity, as they do to the Theory of Evolution.

I do believe that evolution occurs on some level, just not on the scale of amoeba to human. In my lexicon facts do not change. And probably in the scientists as well which is why they don't use that word much.Actually facts do change. Everyone once KNEW the world was flat. Grog the caveman knew that FIRE was contained within wood, and all he needed was a spark to release it.

This seems like a good definition (from <a href="http://www.wilstar.net/theories.htm)" target="_blank">http://www.wilstar.net/theories.htm)</a> "The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. "
He also says tht Laws have "always been observed to be true" like the Law of Gravity. Theories on the other hand are "verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers"So therefore theories have “always been observed to be true” as well. That is not a particularly good definition of law or theory. The Conservation of Energy is a law that has broad repercussions throughout physics and chemistry (and therefore…everything else). It would fit better under his definition of a theory, but it is a law.

How has evolution on the scale you would have me believe been verified?By the observation of the fossil record. By investigation of DNA from countless species. By experiments with bacteria. It is the only thing that can scientifically explain the observations made.

Science doesn't simply exist. Science is system of thought that methodically comes to conclusions about our natural world. Nature simply exists. Evolution is a result of natural laws.

Theoretically.Yup.

Everything eventually breaks down to the physics and chemistry. And people DO have to believe in scientific explanations.
No we don't.YOU certainly don’t. . .
To his dying day Einstein never believed in quantum mechanics ("God doesn't play dice"). . . but you couldn't find a reputable scientist on the face of the earth who doesn't believe in it today.

Your point?. . but scientists certainly have to believe in them. If no one believes in them they will lack proponents. Schrodinger and Heisenberg and Plank believed in quantum mechanics while many of their contemporaries (including Einstein) didn’t.

The other mistaken notion - that evolution proponents seek to destroy relgion and prove the belief in a higher power wrong - is on a whole silly. While certainly some individuals do not believe in God and believe that those who do are fools, there are many scientists who believe in evolution, the big bang theory, etc who in fact believe in God because of the beautiful complexity of the natural world.

True enough.

Finally, evolution and the belief in God can go hand-in-hand (unless you truly believe the world is less than 6000 years old or take the creation of the Earth in six days literally). Is it not possible that God would set ground rules (the laws of nature) that would allow for the birth of the universe, the formation of atoms, the formation of stars and planets, and eventually the birth of life?

I do not believe in the 6000 year age of the earth. I am something of an old Earth creationist. I necessarily don't believe therefor in the six day creation story as being literal. What you say is possible, is possible but not proven to meWell then I guess you’ll just need to educate yourself more in the sciences . . . or take it on faith! :D

[Adverb]

otisthecat:
Since I don't care either way, anyone care to enlighten me on the begining of things? If a god of sorts started it all, where did he come from, you can't just always have been and you can't just pop out of nowhere, same on the evolution spectrum, even if life started from the most miniscule particals imaginable, where did the first one come from? Nothing can start from nothing, and nothing can always be so it seems to be a mute point on either side.
Just because its hard for people to comprehend of something coming from nothing doesn't mean it can't happen.

Life probably didn't just *POOF* into existance one day. Tuesday there was only water and carbon and some other chemicals, Wednesday there were chickens. It most likely depends on where you draw the line that says that This is Life, That is Not Life. Chemicals can be made to form themselves in labs, to array themselves, to - in essence - reproduce...but no one would call that life. Most likely chemicals arrayed themselves into ever more complex groupings, creating reproductions of themselves, until one day they ended up firmly in the "This is Life" area.

[sidey22]

otisthecat:
Since I don't care either way, anyone care to enlighten me on the begining of things? If a god of sorts started it all, where did he come from, you can't just always have been and you can't just pop out of nowhere, same on the evolution spectrum, even if life started from the most miniscule particals imaginable, where did the first one come from? Nothing can start from nothing, and nothing can always be so it seems to be a mute point on either side.

riddle me this and it's worth a shiny new quarter to ya wink Otis: about the best I can do with this one is say.. we discuss evolution in terms of time and space because that's what we understand in this universe. I believe in God and believe that God exsists outside of this time and space universe. So in that way He was, is, and will be. I think it's very telling that God refers to Himself in the Bible as "I AM"

So anyway.. until we can understand what it's like outside of this time and space dimension, it's gonna be tough to answer your question.

[Kronos]

I was hoping this pointless discussion was gone...and my much earlier point is still valid: This is in the wrong forum unless Evolution is considered a Religion.

[Adverb]

Don't be dense.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Behe’s objections have been addressed a million times over, and really just reveal his ignorance. It’s not like half an eye suddenly appeared. Instead eye-like cells, which responded to light, may have evolved over time. Slowly, over EONS of time these structures become more and more complex. They are never half-functional. They do whatever job they do, they may not even be that useful. They are not structures waiting to become something else, or structures with a memory of some past function. They just exist at that moment in time . . . if they are useful or not harmful they will persist. Slowly over time such cells can become increasingly specialized. Whatever chemical makes them sensitive to light may become more concentrated…nerve fibers may become more robust, capable of carrying more information, etc. Just realize that life has evolved over Billions of Years.

I realize objections to his objections have been raised and "explain away" his theories. I believe I even said as much. In any event while I don't believe that evolution is impossible (it does happen on some scale as I believe I also said) and I don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old, I also have yet to see sufficient proof that the Earth is as old as you believe it to be.

Actually facts do change. Everyone once KNEW the world was flat. Grog the caveman knew that FIRE was contained within wood, and all he needed was a spark to release it.

But the FACT is that the Earth is spheroid and the FACT is that fire is not contained in wood. Facts and truth never change just our perception of them.

How has evolution on the scale you would have me believe been verified?By the observation of the fossil record. By investigation of DNA from countless species. By experiments with bacteria. It is the only thing that can scientifically explain the observations made.

The evidence of the fossil records I have seen are not complete enough for me to believe that I evolved from a Lemur-like creature. Evolution happens but again I don't believe it happens on the scale that you believe it does.

Everything eventually breaks down to the physics and chemistry. And people DO have to believe in scientific explanations.
No we don't.YOU certainly don’t. . .

No one has to it is not required. Not all science is good science. Good science as you have admitted constantly revises itself. This is a necessary part of hypothesis, experimentation, etc. I don't have to swallow everything it teaches any more than I have to swallow everything a particular religion teaches.

. . but scientists certainly have to believe in them. If no one believes in them they will lack proponents. Schrodinger and Heisenberg and Plank believed in quantum mechanics while many of their contemporaries (including Einstein) didn’t.

So not all scientists believe in them. What is your definition of scientist?

I do not believe in the 6000 year age of the earth. I am something of an old Earth creationist. I necessarily don't believe therefor in the six day creation story as being literal. What you say is possible, is possible but not proven to meWell then I guess you’ll just need to educate yourself more in the sciences . . . or take it on faith! :D

So because I don't agree with you or what "science" presently says is true I must either become more educated or accept it on faith? Sounds like the Catholic Church to me! wink

[Kronos]

Adverb:
Don't be dense.Bravo! Bravo! Such witty reparte is just what the religion of evolution is all about, eh?

Oh, I'm sorry..."evolution isn't a religion", you say?

THEN WHY IS IT IN THIS FORUM!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And here come the replies...

[DaveB]

Because some guy posted the topic here then took off never to post again...

I don't see what's so significant in its placement here, Kronos. It's not like we all voted to put it here and blindly accept it as a "religion." But there is the fact that whenever evolution comes up, the idea of Christian creationism (which is, by all definitions, a religious topic) does, as well.

I would think this forum is the place for many topics that are likely to touch on religion and spirituality without being about subjects that are inherently religious in and of themselves. I sort of wondered why the "Demons" and "I Hate Jesus Freaks" topics ended up in Culture, actually.

[Kronos]

Bashing is a culture in and of itself.
Demons thread was a grey area at best, admittedly.

If you asked Nick why a thread about Keanu Reeves buying a million dollar car would be moved from the Sewer he'd tell you it's not movie-related. If you asked him why a thread about a TV show was moved from the Sewer he'd tell you it's not movie-related.

If you ask anyone who knows, evolution is not a religion. This is the religion forum...please do the math.

I'm following a pattern and rule set down by the owner/administrator/benevolent dictator of this site. If this were in the "culture" or "facts" forums I wouldn't have one thing to say. Actually, I think if the original poster wasn't trolling this thread wouldn't have been created.

[Kronos]

The first and second posts... General Wang
We run like Mays, but we hit like shit.
Member # 3374

Rate Member posted 06-26-2002 02:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok im ready for a serios debate now

what do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

KRONIN
The Jake Taylors
Member # 409

posted 06-26-2002 10:27 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A serios debate?

I think it's hilarious that people look at Evolution as a religion. This is the religion forum, right?

--------------------
KRONOS
--There are FOUR lights...at CHUDWEST '02!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 9551 | From: The Capitol of Gettin' Down!, CA | Registered: Jun 2000 | IP: Logged

[Kronos]

A new poster comes along, violates the protocol, everybody accepts it. Why? Because it's cool to troll in a religious forum.

Prove me wrong.

[otisthecat]

Not trying to violate protocol by posting here Kronos, just happens to be where the thread is, it probably should be moved but until it is are we just supposed to ignore it? It's an intersting topic, can actually spark some interesting discussion get it moved if you want but don't get mad that people are posting.

[Adverb]

Again, stop being dense.

The guy posted to start a discussion about Evolution, a topic that IS related to religion in that many religious people oppose it and because some desire to teach religion based "creation science" in public schools. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, that fine. Just don't post to it.

[Kronos]

Yet nobody will ever answer the question:

Is evolution a religion?

[Kronos]

Besides, nobody seems to care about the core of the issue. That would be that you're all accepting of the fact that someone considers evolution a religion. The original poster said they were ready for a serious debate. My angle of debate was and is right from the very start; Evolution is not a religion.

Dense? Who's being dense again?

The poster simply said: Evolution...debate.

I retort with: Evolution...not a religion.

The closest I got to debate on that level was Devin...

[otisthecat]

KRONIN:
Yet nobody will ever answer the question:

Is evolution a religion?No, I don't believe that in and of itself it is a religion. It is however part of other religions such as atheism.

[Kronos]

Now you're talking to me!

I would agree that Atheism is indeed a religion and that evolution is a chief tenet of said religion.

[DaveB]

KRONIN:
Yet nobody will ever answer the question:

Is evolution a religion?In the sense that football, movies, and rock'n'roll are, yes.

Definition 2 for religion in the American Heritage Dictionary:

"A cause or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

However, I think this forum was intended for those things that fall under definition 1, which means deity(ies) and supernatural occurrences are involved. Thus we don't see any threads here about football, movies, or rock'n'roll.

But, as stated above, evolution as a scientific theory has an impact on many religious (def. 1) beliefs, thus there's a pretty strong argument for it to be in this forum, as well.

[Kronos]

So does dietary considerations of certain cultures.

A thread about kosher food would be inappropriate here.

[DaveB]

KRONIN:
Now you're talking to me!

I would agree that Atheism is indeed a religion and that evolution is a chief tenet of said religion.I'd say it's fully possible to be an atheist and not buy evolution, just as it's possible to buy evolution and be a devout Christian.

And to say "atheism" is a religion is, again, like saying football, movies, and rock'n'roll can be religions.

[Kronos]

*whispers*
I'm just here to make you think. I don't really care one way or another unless it effects the site as a whole -which chaos would, but nobody seems to notice way down here.

And believe it or not, I'm a lot less dense than one person seems to gauge.

[Kronos]

I'd say it's fully possible to be an atheist and not buy evolution, just as it's possible to buy evolution and be a devout Christian.

Oh yeah, this is true.

[DaveB]

KRONIN:
A thread about kosher food would be inappropriate here.I disagree.

If the thread were about the preparation process, background, and ethics and such of kosher food (rather than "I love pastrami!!!"), or, for that matter, the practice of Lent, or the religious and cultural implications of circumcision, I don't see a problem with them being in a religious thread.

[Kronos]

Fascinating. On that you might get agreement with me...

[DaveB]

KRONIN:
*whispers*
I'm just here to make you think. I don't really care one way or another unless it effects the site as a whole -which chaos would, but nobody seems to notice way down here.

And believe it or not, I'm a lot less dense than one person seems to gauge.I know. I find your devil's advocacy...

Faaaaascinating...
:D

[Kronos]

Heh heh...

Damn, they've got me!

[otisthecat]

Just because Atheist don't have meetings doesn't discount the fact that it is a belief system.

[Kronos]

otisthecat:
Just because Atheist don't have meetings doesn't discount the fact that it is a belief system.On this I am in wholehearted agreement. There are others though -certain atheists- who would vehemently disagree.

[otisthecat]

I love pastrami!!!

[Kronos]

JEW!

[DaveB]

As I've said before, with some atheists, it's a religious-style belief system, with some, it's a lack of a religious-style belief system.

It comes down to this:

If you claim there is no possible way God could exist, and, perhaps, support this belief with what you accept as facts, then I'll gladly admit it's a religious style belief system, at least in its fervor if not strictly by definition (which calls for deities, spirituality and the like).

If you're perfectly willing to accept that there MAY be a God and there may NOT be a God, but we don't have the information at hand to know, then, while it may be a "belief system," it is not a religious-style belief system.

The only belief on hand is that "we cannot know." It cannot be backed up by facts and its practitioners will not claim to be able to back themselves up with facts. All it can be used for is asking questions.

Not all belief systems are, by default, religions. You may believe in love at first sight. You may believe in herbal remedies. In a sense, these may be belief systems, but they are certainly not religious-style belief systems in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and, yes, maybe even the hard-core "There Definitely Is No God" version of Atheism are.

[DaveB]

otisthecat:
I love pastrami!!!Alright, get out.

I mean it.

:D

[Kronos]

Resolved:
Evolution is to Atheism as Kosher is to Judaism.

[DaveB]

KRONIN:
Resolved:
Evolution is to Atheism as Kosher is to Judaism.I'll buy that.

Although I bet you'll find a lot more adherents to evolution outside of atheism than you will adherents to strict Kosher diets outside of Judaism. :)

[Adverb]

I realize objections to his objections have been raised and "explain away" his theories. I believe I even said as much. In any event while I don't believe that evolution is impossible (it does happen on some scale as I believe I also said) and I don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old, I also have yet to see sufficient proof that the Earth is as old as you believe it to be.What evidence have you seen that points to the earth being less than 4 billion years old?

The evidence of the fossil records I have seen are not complete enough for me to believe that I evolved from a Lemur-like creature. Evolution happens but again I don't believe it happens on the scale that you believe it does.Well I don't know how hard you've looked. If you look at the earliest hominids from roughly 5 million years ago they display certain features. You look at the first appearance of modern humans 100,000 years ago you see other features. If evolution is true one should see a steady progression of archaic features becoming modern features (which IS seen). Also, modern humans aren't found in the fossil record before roughly 100,000 years ago. Similarly, particular species aren't seen appearing at separate times in the fossil record (ie we don't see saber tooth tigers appear 65 million years ago, exist for a time, become extinct...and then become extant again).


No one has to it is not required. Not all science is good science. Good science as you have admitted constantly revises itself. This is a necessary part of hypothesis, experimentation, etc. I don't have to swallow everything it teaches any more than I have to swallow everything a particular religion teaches.For a particular scientific idea to be advanced scientists have to believe it...or it won't ever be accepted. You certainly don't have to believe anything you don't want to. But if you insist on scrunching up your eyes and ignoring evidence, on not seeking out information on the subject, your opinion is rather meaningless to anyone but yourself. I have to admit I've never seen any real proof that the earth is round. I've never been in orbit, it's always looked pretty flat to me. But all evidence suggests to me that it is indeed round.

So not all scientists believe in them. What is your definition of scientist?Huh? I'm not sure what your point/question really is here.

So because I don't agree with you or what "science" presently says is true I must either become more educated or accept it on faith? Sounds like the Catholic Church to me! wink No, you said evolution was possible, but remains unproven to you. The fact is that the proof is readily available and undeniable.

Anyway, really . . . what specifically do you not find convincing about evolution?

[Adverb]

KRONIN:
And believe it or not, I'm a lot less dense than one person seems to gauge.You're quite gifted at hiding it!