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

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The word Evolution actually has 6 meanings here they are:

1. Cosmic Evolution – The origin with time space and matter (religious)
2. Stellar Evolution – The forming of the starts (religious) stars cannot form according to boyles gas laws
3. Chemical Evolution – the forming of all the elements (religious) fusion works, but you cant fuse past iron
4. Organic Evolution – The origin of life (religious) life begets life. With or without oxygen, life cannot form from non-living material
5. Macro Evolution – changing from a kind of animal or plant to a different animal or plant (religious) no one has ever seen this happen
6. Micro Evolution – variety in the kind (scientific) variation in the kind of animal has been scientificallty proven.




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I dont think evolution can be "proven" but a very strong case can be made for it with the help of Evolutionary theories and observed evidance to support it. FOr some this evidance is enough to prove it, while others need a bit more convinceing



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
How is does scientific theory equate to a religion? I see no connection between the two ideas.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Just curious, but why the religious/scientific denotations? From what I've seen, all of those are, in some form or other, described by both.

Also, on a point by point basis:


2. Stellar Evolution – The forming of the starts (religious) stars cannot form according to boyles gas laws


Why does Boyle's Gas Law prevent this? All it states is that, under constant temperature, the volume of a gas is (inversely) proportional to the pressure applied.



3. Chemical Evolution – the forming of all the elements (religious) fusion works, but you cant fuse past iron

Where did you get that information? Technically speaking, I think right now we can't even fuse past helium (I could be wrong), but in theory we could fuse new elements never before seen or considered. It'd be pretty difficult, and pretty much impossible with today's technology, but eventually it may be plausible.



4. Organic Evolution – The origin of life (religious) life begets life. With or without oxygen, life cannot form from non-living material

Actually, we are made of non-living material, the same sub-atomic particles that comprise everything around us. Why some combinations of these particles create what we call "life" and some don't is something that philosophers and scientists have tried to determine since time began. Religious followers took one possible solution and won't allow for anything to the contrary.



5. Macro Evolution – changing from a kind of animal or plant to a different animal or plant (religious) no one has ever seen this happen

There's a lot of things that no one has seen, that doesn't mean they don't exist/happen. I highly doubt anyone has ever seen 300 million tons of uranium in one spot; that doesn't mean you couldn't get that much uranium in one spot.

Aside from that, there is fossil records of transitional species. Not many, and not something that could be considered positively definitive--there's always an argument for everything--but they have been found.

In answer to the subject line, "proof" is whatever one accepts. As Jehosephat pointed out, there is some evidence that some people take as enough proof for evolution. There are some people who will never believe in it no matter how much "proof" is there.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
In its truest form, yes, Evolution can be proven, and has been, repeatedly, and continues to be proven with each successive generation of experimentation on things like fruit flies, mice, and so forth.

1.) Critters exposed to new environments or circumstances outside of their current parameters either adapt, or die.

2.) Those that do not die, will pass this trait to their young, either as a learned ability, or an instinct, until such time as the subtleties of genetics allow for a physical modification.

3.) If the physical modification does not inhibit reproduction, the young have a steadily increasing chance of carrying this trait from birth.

4.) Thus, a new type of gene is born/activated or an older gene is removed/deactivated.

5.) When a viable genepool of critters carrying the new trait becomes large enough to propagate it's own indefinitely, it creates a new species that evolved from the previous species.

That is "real" evolution. It is a fact, not a theory. It has been proven time and time again with everything from plants to animals. We can observe it in the world around us easily.

Now, what -is- "theory" is whether or not mankind is descended from apes. It is a logical conclusion to arrive at, but remains an unproven (if well evident) theory.

What really grasps my grunion, though, is when allegedly religious people fail to acknowledge even true evolution, as if their god was too stupid to have planned for its creation to be able to adapt and evolve in order to ensure the survival of their wards. I certainly would give the creator of the Earth AT LEAST that much credit.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   


How is does scientific theory equate to a religion? I see no connection between the two ideas.


well science is seeing, observing, testing and receiving results.

the evolution theory is based on things that support the theory but have been proven wrong years ago.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
what is there to prove from the fossil record? just because a human gets burried on top of a hamster does not mean it evolved from a hamster to a human.

may I point out. the only thing that you can observe froma fossil is that it died. you cant tell if it had any kids that lived. the the geologic collumn does not exist anywhere in the world, expect for in the textbooks. there is not proof that we evolved from anything lower than us, because we are by far the most intelligent beings on this earth. we dont make intelligent decisions, but we are the most intelligent.

are you going to tell me that by natural selection, humans came to be. if that is true, that means that my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandpa was either a monkey or something else. like a bacteria in the organic soup.

and actually, no scientist has ever created life in the lab. they got some amino acids but along with that they got many toxic chemicals like tar and other stuff. and they dont tell they excluded oxygen, if there was no oxygen on the earth when life formed it would have has to form either under ground or in the water. becasue water blocks UV light and UV light breaks down living matter.

cells are alive. yes the are comprised of non living material. but you are missing the point here. cells are alive. you cannot make a cell in the lab from non living material. like I said before, life begets life.

what are these missing links that you are talking about, because half of the things that people think are missing links, are actually hoax or fraud. they do it on purpose and make things fit together to make this theory sound like its a fact.

my information comes from many things that I read and many articles and many seminars. I do not have a list of sites or references, but if you want for me to name one reference ill give you Dr Kent Hovind. ]

many people call him a liar, but the fact actually is, ,they cant take that he can prove them wrong and they cant do anything about it but cry about it and say bad things about him. I mean if they dont like it, they dont have to believe it, but why would they start bulding websites downplaying him? they want their theory brought out and sold. because if their theory is correct, there is no purpose to life. and there really is no right and wrong, and if there theory is right,..... who cares about what other people think I can be my own god and decide what is right and wrong. and that is a bad, this is a dangerous way to live, if we are all "gods" we would all just determine what is right from wrong and do what we want. what I am sayign is that there would be no standard.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Evolution in it's truest form is fact, no amount of circular reasoning will disprove that to anyone but those who don't want to believe it in the first place.
I would advise against keeping this thread going though, posting in reply to "expert", as this was an obvious attempt to start another religion vs evolution war by someone who has obvious problems accepting facts.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
what exactly is evolution is its true form? what do you mean? define it for me...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
thelibra already did a wonderful job at that, if you read it. So no explanation is needed from me.
Now I'm done with this thread, and feel sorry for anyone else who gets wound up in it.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
what is there to prove from the fossil record? just because a human gets burried on top of a hamster does not mean it evolved from a hamster to a human.


That's not the point of the fossil record at all--at least not the way I've heard it. You're right, one fossil lying on top of another means absolutely nothing. But if you find a fossil that has some characteristics of a hamster, and some characteristics of a human, then you can make a half-way logical assumption that there was chain between the two. If you find one a little further down that has more hamster characteristics than human, and then another with more human characteristics above the first one, then you have more evidence to a chain.



may I point out. the only thing that you can observe froma fossil is that it died. you cant tell if it had any kids that lived.


No, you can't tell if it had any kids that lived. But you can tell that a female has had children--they do that all the time, even in forensic analysis--and if there's no baby skeleton nearby then the odds are greater that it lived through adulthood.



the the geologic collumn does not exist anywhere in the world, expect for in the textbooks.


So does all proof against evolution. Well, it doesn't exist in a text book, but still just in a book.



there is not proof that we evolved from anything lower than us, because we are by far the most intelligent beings on this earth. we dont make intelligent decisions, but we are the most intelligent.

are you going to tell me that by natural selection, humans came to be. if that is true, that means that my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandpa was either a monkey or something else. like a bacteria in the organic soup.


Yeah, I am. Your ancestor, my ancestor, everyone reading this post. Why is that so unimaginable? Are people just that arrogant to think that we can't be, in any way, shape or form, related to a different species? What makes us so special? Oh, we can make tools. Whoopie. What do we use these tools for? Destroying every thing around us, killing off our own species, and wasting our own time fighting about whether or not we evolved from a lower life form.

It doesn't matter what we came from, we're here as we are now. If you can prove to me that it matters otherwise, then by all means do so. No God I'd ever believe in would think less of me because I wasn't created out of some magic pixie dust.



and actually, no scientist has ever created life in the lab. they got some amino acids but along with that they got many toxic chemicals like tar and other stuff. and they dont tell they excluded oxygen, if there was no oxygen on the earth when life formed it would have has to form either under ground or in the water. becasue water blocks UV light and UV light breaks down living matter.

cells are alive. yes the are comprised of non living material. but you are missing the point here. cells are alive. you cannot make a cell in the lab from non living material. like I said before, life begets life.


I never said anything about us creating life. But, for arguments sake, let's say that life can only be borne of life--life begets life. So where did it start? Is God "alive" as we know it? I think that'd be a very arrogant assumption to limit God to our terms. What exactly is your definition of life? Maybe then we can figure this mess out.



what are these missing links that you are talking about, because half of the things that people think are missing links, are actually hoax or fraud. they do it on purpose and make things fit together to make this theory sound like its a fact.


Yes, there are a lot of hoaxes and frauds. To my knowledge, no one has come up with a proven missing link for the Homo Sapien tree. I'm not aware of anyone hoaxing a link to prove evolution; most people who pull hoaxes want money and/or attention. But, what are the other half that you speak of, that aren't hoaxes or frauds? Please enlighten me.



my information comes from many things that I read and many articles and many seminars. I do not have a list of sites or references, but if you want for me to name one reference ill give you Dr Kent Hovind.

many people call him a liar, but the fact actually is, ,they cant take that he can prove them wrong and they cant do anything about it but cry about it and say bad things about him. I mean if they dont like it, they dont have to believe it, but why would they start bulding websites downplaying him?


I for one have never heard of him, and I don't have time to look him up right now, so I'm not going to say he's fake or not. Give me a link and I'll check it out, but I'm not going to try and sift through Google or an ATS search right now.

It's easy to "prove" anyone wrong in one's own mind. It's extremely difficult, especially with a subject like this, to change someone else's opinion. Who are these people that call him a liar, and in what way is he proving them wrong?



they want their theory brought out and sold. because if their theory is correct, there is no purpose to life. and there really is no right and wrong, and if there theory is right,..... who cares about what other people think I can be my own god and decide what is right and wrong. and that is a bad, this is a dangerous way to live, if we are all "gods" we would all just determine what is right from wrong and do what we want. what I am sayign is that there would be no standard.


That's a very poor outlook to have. You need a God to determine what's right and wrong for you? You need a God to give you a purpose in life? Well, we have that. We have lots of those. "Gods" are a dime a dozen, and the price is dropping with each passing day the internet allows free press.

The "standard" is what everyone has chosen to believe. There's no reason for anyone to follow that standard, other than wanting to be able to get along in society.

Evolution does not make all of us "Gods," and it does not give us reason to think we are. Evolution theory is merely what happened when a bunch of people who have studied life saw a pattern of some kind. They used that pattern to form some predictions, and those predictions held true. That's it. The theory does not have anything to do with Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Big Dave of Planet 3CV, whomever your God may be.

It has been proven that humans are capable of holding many beliefs, even those that may seem otherwise contradictory. Look at the Christian church for example. A lot of the Christian Conservatives have the mindset of "Love thy neighbor, but only if he's straight/white/capitalist/otherwise like you." Me personally, I follow the Ten Commandments as best as I can, but my perception of God is a lot different than what's in the Bible.

I personally believe in evolution, and while I have created my own opinion of what's right or wrong, I'm pretty sure it's not that different from the next guy's. I don't think I'm a God of any kind, and I think I have a lot of purpose in my life.

EDIT: formatting

[edit on 6/21/2005 by MCory1]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Why did you insert the words 'religious' and 'scientific' into some of those common definitions, and, if you're title is 'can it be proven', why don't you say something about that?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Expert, your questions are, in my view, disingenuous, and personally (speaking as a Born-Again Christian) outright annoying. However, what can I do but forgive you? LOL!

If you choose to use your God-given intellect, you may set it to use rationalizing anything you choose. I take comfort that Salvation (which is obviously of prime importance to me) does not require that I believe in the literal-ness of Scripture, although your particular flavor of Christianity may require you to believe in both the inerrancy and literal-ness of the Old Testament (or New Testament, Popul Vuh, Bhagavad-Gita, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or whatever scripture(s) you read).

I personally see no problem at all between acceptance of a 16-plus GYA universe emanating from the "big bang"; a solar system forming from an accretion disk 4.6 GYA; plate tectonics; the earth passing through Archaeozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras and all their manifold sub-eras and associated critters; micro- and macro-evolution; an expanding Universe; the possibility of other life on other places; and a breakthrough by the Mediterranean through what's now the Bosporus to fill up what is now the Black Sea in a year or so as giving rise to both the Gilgamesh and Noah mythos ...

... And the belief of the Great Program Manager, beyond any comprehension of such worms as you and I; Who designed and implemented the Grandest Project ever; Whose schedule is accurate to the nanosecond; Whose oversight methodology was so complete that not even a sparrow should fall; Whose Management Style combines ultimate purpose with ultimate understanding of all the billions of bureaucrats who report to Him (and ultimate mercy to them); and Whose budget was so exquisitely designed and implemented that He maintined sufficient Management Reserve to send His only Son to die for our sins and rise again for our justification.

And He also gave me the mind to know the first and the heart to know the second.

I don't want to tell you how to think, Bud, but, dang!! I can't help thinking you and all the biblical literalists must be having almost a tough a time as the poor atheists who have nothing at all!

Good luck to you.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
the evolution theory is based on things that support the theory but have been proven wrong years ago.

I think we've already established that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to some of these things. So instead of saying 'oh its all B/S', you need to explain how its B/S, show how it was disproven, and the like.


the the geologic collumn does not exist anywhere in the world, expect for in the textbooks

This is completely incorrect. It, in fact, exists in several places.
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html]link

  1. the Bonaparte Basin of Australia
  2. the Williston Basin of North Dakota

Are two of the places it exists.


no scientist has ever created life in the lab

Researchers at SUNY Stonybrook built from non-living materials a smallpox virus. Theologians have never reproduced god in a church either, so whats it supposed to prove?

what are these missing links that you are talking about, because half of the things that people think are missing links, are actually hoax or fraud

While 'Piltdown Man' was a hoax, it was a hoax detected by the scientific community and accounted for. THe other 'missing links', have never been shown to be frauds of anykind.

but if you want for me to name one reference ill give you Dr Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind is a liar and either a fraud or a moron. His site is composed of completely baseless statements and fallacies. He's so incorrect that even AIG insists that people not use the incorrect and false arguements he uses.

they cant take that he can prove them wrong

He has not refuted anything in evolutionary science.

and they cant do anything about it but cry about it and say bad things about him

Why not say bad things about a bad person? Besides, whats it matter, his 'theories' are completely bunk.

I mean if they dont like it, they dont have to believe it, but why would they start bulding websites downplaying him?

Because they want to prevent people from beign decieved by a deciver and charlatan.

and there really is no right and wrong,

Ethics and morality are completely independant of evolutionary biology.

what I am sayign is that there would be no standard.

We do not need the bible nor a creationism in order to be moral, its preposterous to suggest that we do.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
ok let me ask you this... if evolution is true, what caused the big bang? time, space and matter must come into existance simultaneously, even the evolution experts know this....



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok let me ask you this... if evolution is true, what caused the big bang? time, space and matter must come into existance simultaneously, even the evolution experts know this....


Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. The big bang has nothing to do with natural selection, or genetic mutations, or whatever. Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmic/astronomical theory. Unless there's something I missed--wouldn't be the first time--the only time I've ever seen "cosmic" and "evolution" related in the same sentence was in your original post.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
see, you dont even know what you believe in. you think that you can just skip the other steps? well you cant. because everything has to evolve if evolution is true... I told you it was a flawed logic



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
see, you dont even know what you believe in. you think that you can just skip the other steps? well you cant. because everything has to evolve if evolution is true... I told you it was a flawed logic


Ah, everything has to evolve? Man, and all this time I took Origin of Species literally. I didn't realize it didn't have to be something that was classified as a species in order to fall under Darwin's theory.


So, by this same logic, if one were to believe in creationism, then they must believe that God directly created everything, right? So who created the creator?

And on what grounds do you say I don't know what I believe in? I know exactly what I believe in, whether its congruent with what others have believed in or not.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
no one created God becuase by definition that God gives. he is infinite, not limited by anything including time space and matter. so nothing had to create God. but see you cant understand that because since man is the best thing to you and there is no higher power, you have set in your mind that physical limits apply to everything and everyone.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
no one created God becuase by definition that God gives. he is infinite, not limited by anything including time space and matter.


I understand that, and I believe that too. However, that's also a pretty good cop-out argument.



so nothing had to create God.


If nothing had to create God, then why does there have to be an initial point for evolution to begin as well? Who's to say God didn't set off the big bang, then put all the chemicals in motion to see what happens? What if we're not even the main part of the experiment? Maybe God just wanted to throw some rock around in space, and we're the moss equivalent that collected on them?



but see you cant understand that because since man is the best thing to you and there is no higher power, you have set in your mind that physical limits apply to everything and everyone.


First off, that's pure crap. Man is by all means NOT the best thing, and I DO believe there's a higher power. What I don't believe in is that some magical being waved his fingers and Poof! we were here. And even then, I dont' believe it because there is nothing based in any experimentation that lends any credence to such a theory. Something may well come along tomorrow and change that, but it'll have to be a lot stronger than someone throwing around quotes from a 2000 year old book written by people who didn't understand hardly anything about "modern" biology, geology, astronomy or physics.

If you--or anyone for that matter, open invitation here--give me one reason to believe that the Bible's interpretation of how the universe was formed is anything other than man's attempt to explain things then I will firmly take it into consideration. Give me proof that creation happened. And give me honest proof, not just finding problems with other theories that are out there, and preferably not using a religious text. Then I'll look into it. Until then, don't tell me what I believe in or don't believe in, and don't tell me what I think the "best" thing is.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join