Evolution is Fact

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by goku

no it ant!

if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough the people will believe it
-hitler

That sounds like what the creationists are trying to do. They lie goku, they lie to influence the weak mined into giving them money so they can lie to other people to get more money to do the same over and over again. Their only product is lies and the money they get for lies. When was the last time religion produced anything but Talk and more talk, nothing but hot air to empty the pockets of the faithful.

[goku]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

That sounds like what the creationists are trying to do. They lie goku, they lie to influence the weak mined into giving them money so they can lie to other people to get more money to do the same over and over again. Their only product is lies and the money they get for lies. When was the last time religion produced anything but Talk and more talk, nothing but hot air to empty the pockets of the faithful.

i agree, there are many lies out there. false prophets, so called churches and it's only going to get worse.

i think most people here can spot a fake, i hope and trust that God will show you the truth.

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by christian_george

I strongly disbelieve in evolution. I am a Roman Catholic and I staunchly believe that God is the person behind all this things in the world. Evolution cannot even explain why the organisms we see in microscope move!

as a note, evelotion by definition shouldn't explain why things move, nor how they move, those are other diciplihnes of science.

in a nutshell, evolution is all about culling the weak so the strong become stronger.

[CraigD]

I think this thread is a standout example of how ineffective a debate can be if its proposition (In this thread, “Evolution is fact”, or “Evolution is true”) lacks a definition agreed upon by all parties. This observation is not intended as a criticism of the thread or any of its contributors, but as an opportunity to contribute something of value to it.

Unqualified, the term “evolution” is usually considered by scientists to mean “biological evolution”, and defined

In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

- wikipedia article “Evolution” [1]

It is commonly used more broadly to refer to orderly, predictable (or at least postdictable) change in any system, eg: “stellar evolution” to refer to changes over time in stars or “the evolution of computer technology” to refer to changes in computer hardware, software, marketing and use. [2]

When used among creationists, “evolution” is usually considered to refer to a much larger collection of assertions. The following, by creationist “ Kent Hovind is, I think, reasonably representative:

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

- Creation Science Evangelism ”Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer” [3]

I suspect that disagreement such as that shown by these two posts is due to the use of different, incompatible definitions of “evolution”:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

As much as that thing below your fingertips is a keyboard or mouse, evolution is fact.

Originally Posted by goku

no it ant! [ain’t]

InfiniteNow’s post appears to be referring to definition [1], while goku’s, I think, refers to [3].

If more explicit definitions of the terms of this thread’s debate were used, I think there would be less outright disagreement.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The argument is not evolution, per se, but how things evolved. The existing scenario doesn't sit quite right with a wide range of people. ...The bottom line is all statistical based theory is not fully rational, but is an approximation for reason, when one is not able to provide reason. This means there is still some room to be rational. ...This starts to look like a form of religion. ....

The existing scenario doesn't sit quite right with a very narrow and uninformed range of people. In academia, where this subject is taught, scrutinized, criticized and discussed (by informed people), evolution is accepted as fact.

Statisitical based theory is as rational as any other. You are Waaaayyyyy out in left field on this one. Thermodynamics is based upon statistical analysis of large populations of identical "atoms" in an enclosed volume. ALL the laws of thermo, and all the "properties", such as temperature, entropy, conductance, etc, are ALL derived from statistics. Even the existence of the atom itself, was derived from a statistical proof.

You use "looks like a religion" as a vulgar and obscene insult.
A very petty action coming from someone who purports to praise the "rational".

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by goku

...i think most people here can spot a fake, i hope and trust that God will show you the truth.

People must be educated if they are to spot most fakes.
Good luck with your trust in God, but if he hasn't shown YOU the truth, why are you so confident he'll show US?

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by GAHD

as a note, evelotion by definition shouldn't explain why things move, nor how they move, those are other diciplihnes of science.

in a nutshell, evolution is all about culling the weak so the strong become stronger.

"stronger" is not really the best term to use any longer. The dino's were strong, had big teeth and were tough, but the lowly flower and the insect changed the face of the planet though cooperative relationships, laying the foundation for creatures that could fill in symbiotic linkages. Today in economics it is this strategy that wins out over any other in a complex system. Hitler failed in his bid use the paradigm of survival of the fittest. Cooperative relationships won that war. Bush assumed he could have his way in Iraq simply by using force before building a cooperative network. Its an outdated paradigm in biology, economics, and in politics, Bush should have read Sun Sue's The Art Of War he would of understood the nature of "strength" is adaptability, information, and cooperation.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by CraigD

When used among creationists, “evolution” is usually considered to refer to a much larger collection of assertions. The following, by creationist “ Kent Hovind is, I think, reasonably representative:

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

- Creation Science Evangelism ”Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer” [3]

You raise an interesting point, Craig, but no matter how you slice this they are still wrong.

They rely on so many logical fallacies and non-sequiturs that it's nauseating. However, when we demonstrate that the approach they use is based on faulty logic it tends to fall on deaf ears and blind eyes, and I'm led to believe that these sheeple are incapable of understanding what a logical fallacy is.

If they grasped the basics of these issues, then they would never believe the ridiculous arguments being made in the first place.


Watch the below. I don't know about you, but that's enough to convince me that god did it.

YouTube - The Origin of the Solar System

[REASON]

It is staggering the amount of misinformation, distortions, presuppositions, fallacies, and outright lies that are contained in that video, INow.

What's also staggering is the blatent immorality displayed by it's producers in the form of willful deceit, as they purposefully distort information relating to the sciences of evolution, cosmology, and astrophysics in order to manipulate the minds and the beliefs of the viewers, all while supposedly in the defense of a just and noble god.

The utter hypocrisy is undeniable.

This effort to "dumb down" the American public will only serve to set us further behind among other industrialized nations in science education and advancement, making it more difficult for us to compete on a global level.

This is no noble endeavor.

[maikeru]

Originally Posted by GAHD

in a nutshell, evolution is all about culling the weak so the strong become stronger.

If you don't mind me changing a few words, I'd put evolution in a nutshell this way: "Evolution is all about (natural selection) culling the unfit so the fit become fitter (by inheriting traits that make the resulting progeny better adapted, thanks to their progenitors' greater reproductive success)."