Not Just A Theory

[BeerBastard]

Please lock this uselessness.

I agree with Rocinante.

We are trying to have a good debate/discussion, gtfo Helix

[BeerBastard]

Yay for blatant trolling!
I Have just this to say: The theory of Evolution is just that: a THEORY.
You are assuming that just because microevolution can and does occur, that that is how everything must have started. There is still no solid proof for evolution.

No solid proof?

What about the ERV?
And finding that 2 of our chromosomes are fused, which is why we have 46(23 pairs) instead of 48.

All well documented science. All addressed in my brothers essay, which now I know you didn't read.  Saying there is no solid proof of evolution is laughable.

[KillerWhale]

Spork, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "Theory".

To many people, the word theory is a synonym for hypothesis.
A theory is far from a hypothesis, just like a cow is far from cream pie.
There is a lot of work to make a theory.

To an extent, everything is a theory.
Even good ol' gravity is a theory. Why? We don't know EVERYTHING about gravity.
It's impossible to know everything about something, making everything a theory.

Please, I do also implore you to read Beerbitch's essay and my own posts, if just to know where we're arguing from.

To anyone:
If you do not understand something that we are talking about, please, give us a quote with what you do not understand, and we will try to explain what we mean and clarify our wording.

[Jedarus]

Beerbitch, why post about this when you knew it was going to be contentious? As long as free will and thought exists, the theory of evolution will remain just that: a theory (yes, I know, I'm repeating what Whales said). Even if the evidence for it is 'astronomical' as you say, that doesn't stop people from thinking up far-fetched ideas of alien scientists spreading the seeds of life on Earth, or something like that.

Oh, and I thought you and Beerbastard were Christian? The only reason I know that, though, is because I like to trawl through old topics and read them - hey, I don't like to post that much.

But even if you are still Christian, "fundamental atheists" like Richard Dawkins would be much happier

[your face]

it's alot easier to believe in an Intelligent Designer, than to believe from the zoo, to the goo, to you.

[Kaine]

Wait wait wait, I thought it was goo first, then zoo, then you!

[beerbitch]

Abiogenesis != Evolution

Catholics accept evolution, what does Christianity have anything to do with it ?

And yes, I knew it would be contentious, I love the debate and I always learn something new from somebody posting on the subject.

If you are offended, don't participate. I believe all ideas are debatable.

 

[beerbitch]

Lets say, hypothetically that an intelligent designer started life on this planet.

Let say, that this designer used the laws of evolution as part of his toolkit to get things going.

Even if I concede those two things, you still have to explain to me how there is no evidence for evolution, or that the Earth is only 6-10k years old.

* beerbitch still has to read up on centrifugal force and the planet shape but thinks it might not be much of a revelation.

[Grape]

The banana fits perfectly in our hand. God obviously made the banana that way. So of course evolution isn't true. Here's some proof retards!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

[Jedarus]

Sorry, the stereotype of all American Christians being ID supporters popped into my head when I posted that, whereas you two seem to be firmly in the evolution camp. Excuse my ignorance.

Don't worry, I'm not offended, just interested as to where this whole debate will go.

@Grape: Lol, nice example.

[tuple]

Too many people worship the false god of the gaps

[A Spork]

Abiogenesis != Evolution

Catholics accept evolution, what does Christianity have anything to do with it ?

And yes, I knew it would be contentious, I love the debate and I always learn something new from somebody posting on the subject.

If you are offended, don't participate. I believe all ideas are debatable.

 

Excuse me? If you have read your bible AT ALL you should know how it begins: "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". I have yet to meet a real(Not E&C) Roman Catholic who believes in Evolution, not Creationism.

Also, @KillerWhale: The Definition of Theory From Wikitionary:

theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)

   1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.

[Jedarus]

Excuse me? If you have read your bible AT ALL you should know how it begins: "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". I have yet to meet a real(Not E&C) Roman Catholic who believes in Evolution, not Creationism.

Also, @KillerWhale: The Definition of Theory From Wikitionary:

theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)

   1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.

Well, maybe Beerbitch and Beerbastard are exceptions to the rule! From my point of view, I think that it wouldn't hurt to have more people who are progressive Christians like those two.

And I guess the word theory is ambiguous anyway. A theory is true until disproven, after all.

[mooseberry]

Also, @KillerWhale: The Definition of Theory From Wikitionary:

theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)

   1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.

Actually no... the definition actually means what whales said. Here are 5 links to prove it, including merriam webster and a google link to hundreds of sites.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS333US333&defl=en&q=define:theory&ei=mjixSsK1FInWtgOK7Y3HCw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

And... wait for it... here is the same site you quoted from:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

You'll notice that I, unlike you posted the link, instead of just copying a single line from the source.

Here is number 3 from your link:

(countable) (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.

Maybe you will also notice that number 3 has the word "(sciences)" in the beginning, unlike number 1, your link, which does not mention science, which is, after all, what we are discussing.

You do yourself more hurt than credit when you try to use a single line from 1 source to support yourself and exclude everything else.

EDIT: @Grape, the obvious conclusion is that men (or ape like beings, earlier forms of humans) who were born with hands that perfectly formed to rap around a banana had more fun in life, and quickly became more interested in sex. Because of this intrest in sex stemming from being able to hold a banana comfortably in their hand, these humans quickly had more sex than the other men who could not so perfectly hold a banana, and just as quickly gained much more experience in sex and in attracting females. Because of this expertise in attracting mates, the men who could hold a banana perfectly had many, many more children than their counterparts who were sadly unable to weild a firm grasp on a banana, and thus the evolution begins, and the banana holder's children were also born with this trait, spreading through the world until all humans were thankfully able to achive such a feat. (Except people from Sweeden, but really, they're screwed in many ways besides that.)

[beerbitch]

The banana fits perfectly in our hand. God obviously made the banana that way. So of course evolution isn't true. Here's some proof retards!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

<irony> the banana was domesticated by humans into the form we eat today, before you had to COOK it or it was not edible. </irony>

I'm guessing this is your point ?   

[beerbitch]

Abiogenesis != Evolution

Catholics accept evolution, what does Christianity have anything to do with it ?

And yes, I knew it would be contentious, I love the debate and I always learn something new from somebody posting on the subject.

If you are offended, don't participate. I believe all ideas are debatable.

 

Excuse me? If you have read your bible AT ALL you should know how it begins: "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". I have yet to meet a real(Not E&C) Roman Catholic who believes in Evolution, not Creationism.

Also, @KillerWhale: The Definition of Theory From Wikitionary:

theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)

   1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.

Quote mining, the Creationist best friend.

In regard to Catholics and evolution, you only have to read what the Pope himself has said - http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm

"'Humani Generis'," he stated, "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. ... Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

[gimhael]

* beerbitch still has to read up on centrifugal force and the planet shape but thinks it might not be much of a revelation.

Centrifugal force doesn't exist.

[BeerBastard]

Me personally I am atheist. I don't believe in god because I have seen no proof.  I have (probably false)hopes of an afterlife of some sort. I don't believe there is one because I have seen no proof.
Hope and believe are 2 different things.

Don't argue that I can't be moral because I don't have the fear of god, or that life means less. Life means more if you believe this is it.(check out milgrims experiments on morality)


I can't disprove a diastic god.(hands off initial creator)

You can't prove a god.

We can prove and disprove theories. Evolution is one of those theories that has yet to be disproved.(every decade it gains more supporting evidence, recently with genetics)

Creationists radiometric dating attacks/the earth is slowing down are unproven pseudoscience to give people on the edge something to latch onto. They do this in hopes that someone on the edge would keep their faith because they don't bother to investigate further. Some religions make it against the "rules" to read certain books by atheists.

Why would a religion be against you reading a book? They preach and preach to read the bible. Why so scared of Dawkins books etc, if they have no truths in them?


+Where god could fit in+
If you accept evolution, and still wish to believe in god. Right now you could believe he made the rules, and made the first organism and stepped back and let things roll. You can believe that right now because we have yet to be able to take nothing, and make something(even a single celled organism).

If that is what you believe, Then fine. You would get to the afterlife and god would say "You were exactly right, u accepted my laws of the universe and still believed in me, etc etc"
If you don't believe in god but accept evolution, the diastic god should be ok with that too. "You discovered my laws of the universe, but you didn't believe in me. This is ok because I didn't leave you a reason to believe in me"

[BeerBastard]

Let me fix my bros post.

centripetal force*

common mispronunciation. Thanks done

[beerbitch]

Let me fix my bros post.

centripetal force*

common mispronunciation. Thanks done

Beerbitch spellchecker FAIL!

Thank you.

[beerbitch]

Everywhere I see this topic referenced, its calling it centrifugal force.

The Claim -

EARTH'S ROTATION
    The spin rate of the earth is slowing one second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it  is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

This rate of slowing is inaccurate. Its source is Phoenix creationist Walter Brown, who assumed that because a leap second is added to atomic clocks every year or so, that this must be because of slowing in the earth's rotation.  This was discussed in talk.origins, and is also discussed in Strahler, 1987, pp. 146-148.

Brown has admitted that he was wrong, and removed this point from his book of alleged evidence against evolution.

I am still trying to find a source link for Strahler, 1987, pp. 146-148 so I can get more detail on this....

Anyway, Gim is correct, centrifugal force does not exist.

[BeerBastard]

That goo zoo you thing, is from this dork. Yes I mean idiot in every sense of the word.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x60y5i_proof-evolution-is-an-evil-lie-from_webcam

Everything he says is so backwards, he doesn't even grasp the concept of evolution.(We are cousins, we don't come from monkeys.)

At the end of the video he posts pictures of giant man fossils(all hoaxes, quick google search shows that)

Cows didn't evolve from whales(like he says).

Whales and Wolves have a common ancestor.

All his videos are picked apart very effectively by others. I won't continue. He had to leave youtube a year because he filed false copyright claims, and the guy he did it against had mercy and didn't get him a life long youtube ban.

[BeerBastard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrhsBcpYr4


That is all that needs to be done about this idiot. /end debate

[your face]

Wait wait wait, I thought it was goo first, then zoo, then you!

oh rite, oops

even it was from a "dork," it's basically what evolutionists believe.

[beerbitch]

That goo zoo you thing, is from this dork. Yes I mean idiot in every sense of the word.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x60y5i_proof-evolution-is-an-evil-lie-from_webcam

Everything he says is so backwards, he doesn't even grasp the concept of evolution.(We are cousins, we don't come from monkeys.)

At the end of the video he posts pictures of giant man fossils(all hoaxes, quick google search shows that)

Cows didn't evolve from whales(like he says).

Whales and Wolves have a common ancestor.

All his videos are picked apart very effectively by others. I won't continue. He had to leave youtube a year because he filed false copyright claims, and the guy he did it against had mercy and didn't get him a life long youtube ban.

Watching vids with that guy can be endlessly entertaining.  

The best part of that vid you are linking to is 2 minutes in he is already comparing evolutionists to Hitler.  

[beerbitch]

Wait wait wait, I thought it was goo first, then zoo, then you!

oh rite, oops

even it was from a "dork," it's basically what evolutionists believe.

Abiogenesis != Evolution

*sigh* always the topic gets derailed into this stuff.....

* beerbitch thinks its only a matter of time before somebody busts out with the morality argument.....

[Plague Bringer]

Absolute and objective morality is stupid.

Just throwin' that out there.

[player1]

I thought that this was a pretty interesting quote, from the link in tuple's post:

"... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

[Winnie the Pooh]

And you have no evidence for this "intelligent designer", therefore it isn't science. Something looking like it could be "intelligent" isn't prove of intelligence. You have just stated your belief, a belief without evidence, which means based on faith. Faith means you believe in it in absence of proof.

You are assuming the Moon has always been there.

Hey, do you believe that the theory of evolution is true? YOU DO? But do you have absolute proof? YOU DON'T?

Wait wait wait..

isn't that..

..faith?

So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence.

HOWEVER, Christians like myself try to associate things like this with the Bible instead of trying to conjugate a guess from what we see now. So you see, we do have an idea of what we believe and we don't have "blind faith" in the Bible. God doesn't ask that much of us and anyway, it's irrational.

And I also haven't said a single word about "intelligent design". Rather I said that I believe the moon (not to mention the entire universe) was put into motion by an intelligent being, which is perfectly acceptable.

Edit:

Also, Beerb!itch, you have yet to explain the moon evidence.

[beerbitch]

And you have no evidence for this "intelligent designer", therefore it isn't science. Something looking like it could be "intelligent" isn't prove of intelligence. You have just stated your belief, a belief without evidence, which means based on faith. Faith means you believe in it in absence of proof.

You are assuming the Moon has always been there.

Hey, do you believe that the theory of evolution is true? YOU DO? But do you have absolute proof? YOU DON'T?

Wait wait wait..

isn't that..

..faith?

So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence.

HOWEVER, Christians like myself try to associate things like this with the Bible instead of trying to conjugate a guess from what we see now. So you see, we do have an idea of what we believe and we don't have "blind faith" in the Bible. God doesn't ask that much of us and anyway, it's irrational.

And I also haven't said a single word about "intelligent design". Rather I said that I believe the moon (not to mention the entire universe) was put into motion by an intelligent being, which is perfectly acceptable.

Lets see....

Winnie the Pooh has -

1 ) A book
2 ) A jar of honey given to him by his friend Piglet

Scientists have -

1 ) Fossils
2 ) Anatomy
3 ) Paleontology
4 ) Geology
5 ) Geochronology
6 ) Genetics
7 ) Radiocarbon dating
8 ) Phylogenetics
9 ) Probably more overlapping life science disciplines with evidence I can't think of at this moment

"So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence."

We're winning the race, Pooh. Or rather, there isn't a race, your side has not even gotten into the car yet.

"And I also haven't said a single word about "intelligent design". Rather I said that I believe the moon (not to mention the entire universe) was put into motion by an intelligent being, which is perfectly acceptable."

Indeed it is acceptable, but not scientifically. Until there is scientific evidence (along the lines of God's signature on a molecule saying 'Here I Am') ID should not be treated as if its science, especially in light of the fact that science has not yet needed to include ID as an explanation, and continues to find natural explanations when exploring what we don't know. What we don't know yet should not automatically equal GODDIDIT !

Thats all I ask when debating this topic, focus on the evidence gathered by the scientific process.