What is evolution, not what some think

Somehow I got the full site to come up. Here is just a very small section but it outlines what I mean by "simplicity" in scientific theories.
www.iep.utm.edu...

1. The Role of Simplicity in Science

There are many ways in which simplicity might be regarded as a desirable feature of scientific theories. Simpler theories are frequently said to be more “beautiful” or more “elegant” than their rivals; they might also be easier to understand and to work with. However, according to many scientists and philosophers, simplicity is not something that is merely to be hoped for in theories; nor is it something that we should only strive for after we have already selected a theory that we believe to be on the right track (for example, by trying to find a simpler formulation of an accepted theory). Rather, the claim is that simplicity should actually be one of the key criteria that we use to evaluate which of a set of rival theories is, in fact, the best theory, given the available evidence: other things being equal, the simplest theory consistent with the data is the best one.

This view has a long and illustrious history. Though it is now most commonly associated with the 14th century philosopher, William of Ockham (also spelt “Occam”), whose name is attached to the famous methodological maxim known as “Ockham’s razor”, which is often interpreted as enjoining us to prefer the simplest theory consistent with the available evidence, it can be traced at least as far back as Aristotle. In his Posterior Analytics, Aristotle argued that nothing in nature was done in vain and nothing was superfluous, so our theories of nature should be as simple as possible. Several centuries later, at the beginning of the modern scientific revolution, Galileo espoused a similar view, holding that, “[n]ature does not multiply things unnecessarily; that she makes use of the easiest and simplest means for producing her effects” (Galilei, 1962, p396). Similarly, at beginning of the third book of the Principia, Isaac Newton included the following principle among his “rules for the study of natural philosophy”:[\ex]

a reply to: Quadrivium

Okay, you are quoting from the encyclopedia of philosophy. It doesn't say anywhere in there that scientific theories that increase in complexity are less reliable. Sure of course, people PREFER them to be simple, because it's easier to understand, especially when you are first developing a hypothesis, but the universe is complex and you do not always have that luxury. Simplicity has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of a scientific theory. Nothing at all. Just because something is not simple, doesn't make it wrong. You are totally misunderstanding the purpose.

the claim is that simplicity should actually be one of the key criteria that we use to evaluate which of a set of rival theories is, in fact, the best theory, given the available evidence: other things being equal, the simplest theory consistent with the data is the best one.

Read this part, note the bold. Do you have a simpler theory about the diversity of life on earth consistent with the data? Genetic mutations and natural selection is pretty simple and it's consistent with the evidence. Basically simplicity is about not over complicating things when you first develop a hypothesis or theory. When you deny evolution or invoke a creator it goes against the simplicity because you don't have to add in all these guess based factors to make the theory fit. THAT is the role of simplicity in science. To avoid those leaps in logic.

Simplicity only matters in the very early stages of developing a hypothesis or theory. It isn't the hallmark of a good theory as you claimed. That notion is absurd and you should also know that the theory of evolution started very simple. Darwin didn't know anything about DNA and we hadn't discovered half the fossils we have now. Evolution started simple and increased its complexity as we learned more about it, just like pretty much all scientific theories.

You should also note that philosophy is hypothetical. It doesn't prove anything nor is it on the same level as science.

Otherwise atomic theory must be way off!

Howdy,
Boy this thread is getting heated... losing focus... can't respond in time. lol
Anyway, a good scientific theory is based in simplicity. By which I mean simplicity in assumptions. The larger the number of unsound assumptions made, the worse the theory. I assume this is what Quad means. He isn't wrong. But I see a darker road to this, so I'm going to try and shine some light here... What constitutes as an unsound theory? Well, if you believe in evolution, like me, and believe that naturalistic processes can account for it, like I do, then an unsound assumption would be to add the Christian God of the bible into the mix and say he is responsible. Why would I make my theory less simple by adding an extra piece with the prior evidence not supporting this extra claim? I wouldn't. However, if new evidence, even evidence based on an assumption such as uniformitarianism, can demonstrably increase the theory's/model's ability to accurately make predictions, then it is sound to add complexity to the theory by including new data. Sometimes, simplicity is just easier to model, though. No modern biologist believes that competition for resources alone is the cause for natural selection... But that's a lot easier to model than, say, environmental changes... So, the fewer unsound assumptions, the better. But simplicity in theory is not better, as it lessens overall predictive capabilities and accuracy/precision. I think in the future, as our abilities to model more complex systems better develop (technology...) we will see a rise in complexity with these models, further alienating non-scientists/non-specialists in a field. This is partly why am I afraid that people might not get proper educations on science.
So, good point, Quad. I don't usually like philosophy, but as science was founded as Natural Philosophy, you get an A here...
But we've already discussed fossilization... It is a rare process, selectively preserving organisms that live in sediment/have hard parts/ and/or are rapidly buried under sediments. I do believe I've discussed this previously in this thread, so forgive me for not repeating myself. Instead, allow me to address the issues I might not have covered. (Why there are marine fossils on land and the evidence supporting non-complex origins of life before the Cambrian explosion. )
So, marine fossils on Mt. Everest? Sure are. How'd they get there? Well, it's not like brachiopods lived on mountain tops... No, we need an understanding of general geology here. First, how do we get a rock? You need sediment. Where does the sediment come from? Often, it comes from the weathering and erosion of nearby mountains, which often are igneous andesites/granites/and possibly basalts... The minerals that make up these rocks are demonstrably recognized in sedimentary rocks (with some being altered...) with the tougher mineral constituents making having a large proportion. (So usually high proportion of quartz.) Now, sediments are carried by wind or water, with the majority of sediments being carried by water on Earth (demonstrable by angle of repose in most crossbedded sandstones).
So, sediments are deposited by water, creating layers of mud. Organisms die, fall with the sediment. If there are hard parts, slow sediment accumulation can still fossilize the hard parts (common with sea shells of bivalves and brachiopods). Great, so now we have a layer of sediment with organisms, how do we turn that into a rock? You need heat and pressure to lithify rocks. In basins, the drastic amount of sediment deposition is often enough to provide the pressure, while the increase in mass will isostatically sink the crust deeper into the mantle, providing the heat. (Isostatic readjustment is a complicated theory, and one which might seem counterintuitive, as rocks don't usually act like liquids, so do look it up if you are confused. As there is a lot left unknown by the public when it comes to rocks, which can flow under sufficient heat with sufficient time. Look up "rheology" for some extra info on this neat topic.)
Anyway, now you have a rock with fossils (I skipped the chemical processes, as there are plenty to describe. Wikipedia has an excellent list, and my previous post talks a bit about it.). So how do you make mountains? You have two plates collide, most often. (Appalachian mountains are a bit different from the Himalayas, so not always... although there was collision in both, the Appalachians are the weathered by-product of what once where mountains.)
So, collision of two continental plates of similar density will not result in subduction, but rather compression. Compression folds and bends rocks, with the intense heat and pressure allowing them to often bend without fracture, although the pressence of fractures indicates lower heat/pressure and nearer surface conditions, so they exist too. How do we know this? Fossils. Fossils are not always preserved beautifully, alas, my poor collection contains broken/fractured/bend bits. When unequal forces act upon a rock, you can see that in the fossils, which will often be skewed, bent, and represent the flow of the rocks themselves. The amount and direction of strain is quantifiable, and most often crinoid stems (which are nearly perfect circles) are used to do so. So, there you go...
To preemptively state why this is the only theory that works... No, the sediment could not be folded before lithification and show these strains in the fossils. Why? If you fold the mud, you will not fold something hard inside of it. A seashell will not fold in mud, the mud will flow around the shell, and would record in something like a strain shadow around a mineral in thin section. (Rock/mineral material can flow around minerals resistant to stress/strain and this is recorded as mineral flow around these minerals in the rocks...).
Whoo... Boy, that was a lot to address. Intro to geology/paleobiology/and some geophysics in a quick few paragraphs.
Anyway, moving on to pre-Cambrian life... Well, the best example would be the dominance of stromatolites, which would be akin to a sticky bacterial/algal film that would get stuck to sediment and grow overtop of itself... Still some today in Australia, where the water is saline enough as to protect them from grazers, such as snails. It's the evolution, or appearance, of grazers such as snails that scientists use to explain the sudden decrease of these stromatolites in the fossil record...
en.wikipedia.org...
Of note, look at how long they've been dated to be around. The most reliable is 3.5 billion years... And even if you disagree with absolute dating, they appear in the oldest relatively dated rocks.
Okay, direct evidence over... What now? How about some geochemistry?
BIF (banded iron formations) are inter-bedded rocks that contain chert and hematite/magnetite layers. Now, these represent an abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere, which indicates photosynthetic life. They do not exist in the earliest rocks, but do exist after photosynthetic organisms are theorized to exist (where else would you get the oxygen.) Now, not all BIF's represent this scenario, but after organisms began using oxygen, BIF's disappeared for a while, returning later owing to some unique conditions... Wikipedia has a good explanation here...
en.wikipedia.org...
Cheers
(Sorry for the long post...)

a reply to: hydeman11
Thank you hydeman,
You, out of all, have tried to look at both sides while staying true to your own. I respect and appreciate that.
This will be my last post in this thread. I find it to be a huge debacle. If we were all like you, we may make headway. ......but it's not meant to be.
I would like to mention that in the post about the C.E. I was actually talking about fossils from that time period being found all over the globe. I know that life was created in oceans to begin with (it's biblical after all :lol.
Because you are in college I would like to ask a couple of questions.
Are you taught the problems in the theory of evolution?
When I made the comment about "simplicity" I was referring to the fact that evolution has actually grown too big to fail. We never hear the negative parts. Are they even being taught?
The "species problem"? The 26 species concepts? That many times the morphological concept is used when classifying fossils?
I asked Barcs about the complex meaning of "species", he came back with the simple biological meaning. Either he was being coy or he has never learned of these problems.
These are just a few of the problems with the term species. There ars many more problems to see for anyone who has enough courage to ask questions and look.
I believe in God. I do not require the same beliefs from others, but I do appreciate honesty.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Howdy,
A good scientist must try to be impartial, led only by the evidence at hand.
I cannot speak for all people in every university, but I can certainly try to answer your questions with my own experiences. I do warn you that my experiences may differ from many others. But before I do that, please allow me to answer your question about why we see the fossils indicative of the C.E. over a vast geographic range.
Now, the Cambrian age strata are, using relative dating techniques as well as absolute dating, some of the oldest strata to contain signs of life. These layers show a variety of organisms, the first evidence of hard mineralization. The precipitation of carbonate/chitin/phosphate hard parts gave these organisms a defense from decay, giving them the adequate time to be covered by sediment. We don't often find full organisms fossilized, it is rare to, and we instead (especially in my case) find disarticulated pieces. Certainly, this doesn't answer your question on its own...
We need to involve the theory of plate tectonics. Now, using fossil and rock similarities (age dating/mineral assemblages/paleogeographic indicators) geologists can find preserved sections of Cambrian rocks and orient them into the positions they likely once had on Earth. They can essentially make a map. Here is one such map of the Precambrian.
jan.ucc.nau.edu...
Notice how all of the landmass is close together. Life at this point would likely thrive in the warm, shallow seas where photosynthetic cyanobacteria/algal mats (like stromatolites) would form the base of the food chain. Life would likely be similar, as life would be isolated to the same areas... Although not identical, and probably speciated, we cannot tell without more fossils of soft bodied organism. In the Cambrian, the oceans opened up... Allowing for isolation and speciation.
jan.ucc.nau.edu...
jan.ucc.nau.edu...
Now, it is true that most of the life on Earth has it's roots in the Cambrian Explosion. Our ancestors, if evolution is true, were mostly born out of the speciation that follows the Cambrian. I know there are some higher taxa of life that develop slightly later, but I cannot place it currently... (not chordates, so humanity's ancestors would theoretically be with the Cambrian life...). This is interesting, and important. It marks the first well recorded speciation in the fossil record. Because of this, it is perhaps the second most "studied" period in paleontology. (Of course the most studied is the Cretaceous, specifically around 65.5 mya... Everybody loves the dinosaurs...)
Now, to answer your specific questions... Allow me to start at my earliest point of education relevant to the topic, and please bear with me as I digress a bit...
I'm relatively young, the fact that I'm a rising senior in college should indicate how recently I graduated high school. My first biology course was in 9th grade, standard bio with an older teacher(in a rural football high school, underfunded in sciences), one with a doctorate in biology. The class was anatomy intensive, focusing on graded lab dissections. I learned a lot, but my teacher refused to teach evolution. Not so much a mention of it other than that he didn't believe it. He saw the complexity as too great to be anything but created. So, I started from a position of academia disinclined toward evolution and instead focused on anatomy.
That teacher retired, so by the time I took AP bio in my senior year, I had a new, younger teacher with a masters in biology and chemistry. She believed in evolution... She taught it for a few days one week, but mostly the class was based upon cellular structures... Fewer dissections, but still a few... Honestly, the class revolved more around drawing anatomical structures, the pathways for energy production... ATP, phospholipid bilayers, chloroplasts, chromotography... It was a jumbled mess compared to my first course in bio, but I left it with a more complete understanding of the relatedness of life.
By the time I came to college, I had a strong feeling that evolution was indeed supported, but I had no sufficient evidence to support my claims. I had seen Dawkins's Waking Up in The Universe series, trying to wrap my mind around the biology, the complexity, and said... "Nah... Geology will be easier."
Up until this point, your questions woulda been lost on me... I'd have no clue what you were talking about.
So, in college, I had the amazing good fortune to go to a liberal arts college (where we are required to take a large proportion of courses outside of our field and a large number of electives in the broader sections of our fields.) which was small enough to get to talk to the professors freely. My paleontology professor openly discusses his belief in God and evolution. I liked the way he taught one of my courses, so I took a course called "Paleobiology of Marine Invertebrates." This course more than any other addressed your questions.
Yes, he discussed the difficulty for discussing taxonomy of fossil organisms, the definition of a morphospecies vs. an actual biological species... The existence of cryptospecies(/cryptic species)... The importance of cladistics to the future of paleontology... He, like all my other professors, have taught the limitations of every single method they have shown. How you cannot use "this" because "that." Cryptospecies are a big problem, yes. How do you know whether a population of two morphologically dissimilar organisms is not in fact a population of young and old of the same organism? He showed us statistical means to help figure it out, but I can't remember it... I never planned on using it again. >.> Boy do I look silly. To answer simply, yes. It is taught, sometimes, some places.
The problem arises when one becomes limited to their field of study, specialization. A biologist has no need for the other meanings of species. A geologist has no need for any meaning, really... But a paleontologist is like the link between the two groups. They need to know all definitions of species. They need to know how environments can change the morphology of the exact same coral or bryozoan group. They need to be able to statistically predict what a biologist can often directly observe. Why don't more people learn this, then?
How well does paleontology pay? How many jobs are there for paleontologists that aren't academic? Why step outside of your field of study for no reason? The one downfall of science is its ever-growing complexity... Scientists alienate average citizens, yes, but they also alienate each other...
Regards,
Hydeman.

double post
Sorry

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: hydeman11

I am with Quad on this Hydeman
It has been a pleasure talking to you, learned, genuine, reasoned and extremely courteous.
If only everyone could take a leaf out of your book.

Anyway this thread has turned in to a battleground, never my intentions, it was only the last few pages that made me realise that there really is no common ground.
That truly is a shame

Lets hope the animosity ends, at least on this thread, here as well

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: hydeman11
Thank you hydeman,
You, out of all, have tried to look at both sides while staying true to your own. I respect and appreciate that.
This will be my last post in this thread. I find it to be a huge debacle. If we were all like you, we may make headway. ......but it's not meant to be.
I would like to mention that in the post about the C.E. I was actually talking about fossils from that time period being found all over the globe. I know that life was created in oceans to begin with (it's biblical after all :lol

.
Because you are in college I would like to ask a couple of questions.
Are you taught the problems in the theory of evolution?
When I made the comment about "simplicity" I was referring to the fact that evolution has actually grown too big to fail. We never hear the negative parts. Are they even being taught?
The "species problem"? The 26 species concepts? That many times the morphological concept is used when classifying fossils?
I asked Barcs about the complex meaning of "species", he came back with the simple biological meaning. Either he was being coy or he has never learned of these problems.
These are just a few of the problems with the term species. There ars many more problems to see for anyone who has enough courage to ask questions and look.
I believe in God. I do not require the same beliefs from others, but I do appreciate honesty.

I don't know what to tell you, Quad. You came into the thread and made several wrong claims that I corrected. You asked about species and I explained it. It isn't my fault you didn't follow back up or respond to what I said, and instead keep changing the subject. You claim Hyde is the only one that looks at both sides, but do you? Does Borntowach? The only side I'm hearing from both of you is nitpicking generalities about evolution, that aren't even problems. If you could be kind enough to explain the problem in detail, that would be great. You said that the hallmark of a good theory is simplicity, another concept you misunderstood or misrepresented to try and suggest that evolutionary theory is not reliable because it is complex. In advanced evolutionary biology I'm sure they talk about all kinds of details that are currently being debated amongst the scientific community, but there is NO problem with evolutionary theory that could currently falsify it, at least not one backed by evidence that I am aware of. You continue to bring up problems that YOU PERCEIVE with evolution, but won't explain yourself or back anything up. Scientists don't view those as problems with the theory. If you believe in god that's cool, but it doesn't explain your beef with evolution, or the several things you have brought up that were blatantly false like life being all over the globe when the Cambrian period started. They say the devil is in the details, right? What's the point of trying to debate or deny evolution when you won't listen to any counterpoints or evidence? What are you trying to accomplish? It seems to me that you just want evolution to be wrong, but aren't willing to even try to understand it yourself. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you can't post evidence or explain your position thoroughly, there's really nothing else I can do.

I don't sugar coat things, I get right to the point. If this bothers you, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let somebody post a bunch of false statements and claims without correcting them or explaining my perspective. I always try to address the claims directly and I always respond directly to any counterpoints. You & Borntowach do not. You guys bring up a claim. I address it in detail with evidence. The evidence is then denied and the original claim is repeated, and I am accused of attacking because I'm relentless and address every point. This is a pattern that has been going on in this section for years on this site. I applaud Hyde for going into detail and backing up everything with links, while also being very patient and respectful. He's doing the right thing. For me, personally, I've debunked most of this claims so many times that I'm almost on auto pilot and will flat out say when something or someone is wrong. I'm not going to walk on egg shells to try to be nice. I used to be just like that, but you can only debunk the same claims made by the same people so many times before it gets old.

Anyway this thread has turned in to a battleground, never my intentions, it was only the last few pages that made me realise that there really is no common ground.

The possibility of god creating evolution or using it as a tool is not common ground? What do you honestly expect to meet in the middle on? Your intentions were to preach against evolution and you won't concede a single point, despite being provided with tons of links and evidence. How can you accuse science savy folks of not trying to find common ground, when you will not even budge on your position?

Lets hope the animosity ends, at least on this thread, here as well

You call it animosity, I call it stating the facts. You started the thread as a direct attack on evolution, not merely an opinion that you don't like it. You asked folks to address your OP, and most people did many times over, but you just deny it all. Yeah, I know. The nerve of me for stating facts or asking you to back up your position with facts and details. I'm such a meanie.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I am with Quad on this Hydeman
It has been a pleasure talking to you, learned, genuine, reasoned and extremely courteous.
If only everyone could take a leaf out of your book.

Not surprised that you would feel better if everyone thinks the same as you... Wonder what have you learned tho, care to point to that part?

originally posted by: borntowatch
Anyway this thread has turned in to a battleground, never my intentions, it was only the last few pages that made me realise that there really is no common ground.

There was never common ground between science and religion. More you learn, higher your education gets, less you believe in fairy tales...

originally posted by: borntowatch
That truly is a shame

Lets hope the animosity ends, at least on this thread, here as well

Ohhh, us trying to provide you with explanation and help you with all your misconceptions is now animosity? Really, because we are destroying your wishful thinking? LoL

I guess the common ground I meant was accepting each others views, right or wrong, with out the bitterness so obvious around here.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I guess the common ground I meant was accepting each others views, right or wrong, with out the bitterness so obvious around here.

People could accept the fact that other people may have other views, but that's different than accepting each other views. Other people may accept the fact you have other views, but they still have the right to tell you if they think your views are incorrect or misguided.

Not everyone is going to agree on everything. For example, you don't seem to be very accepting of the idea many people have that animal species can change over very long periods of time due to evolution.

It sounds to me that you don't accept that view, which is fine.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I guess the common ground I meant was accepting each others views, right or wrong, with out the bitterness so obvious around here.

Evolution isn't a personal opinion or world view. It's not like we're debating the best color to have on a car, something that is completely based on opinion. That's where you can give your opinion but also accept the other person's viewpoint. It doesn't mean that you have to agree, however. Evolution is a scientifically proven theory. I don't see you accepting that, so how can you possibly accuse us of not accepting your view that evolution is a religion? Yeah, I accept that that is your view, but it's completely wrong. You are just trying to set a semantics trap and get one of us to say that we believe it or that it is our personal view, when it's not. I've seen your posts on here for while, this is nothing new.

a reply to: Barcs
Barcs,
You and I have had civil discussions about evolution in the past. For this reason I will try once again.
First, I made a mistake when I first started posting in this thread, I found a paper on the web and when I went to the sources I copied the link provided. I posted it but come to find out it linked back to the discover institute. This was a mistake on my part because I try very hard NOT to use ID or Creation sites.
I do this so that I might better understand the opposing argument and it gives credibility to my argument.

Second, I did not misrepresent or not understand when I said that "simplicity" was the hallmark of a good theory. It should be. Scientist should strive for their theories to be as clean and precise as possible. Many thought that I was making the argument up. I think krazyshot even said that philosophy has no place in science. That view point is absolutely wrong in my opinion. Philosophy actually helps one perform "good science".

Third, I did not suggest that the theory of evolution was "unreliable because it was too complex" what I actually said was "In my honest OPINION that, as a whole, the theory has become bloated and no longer constitutes a 'good' theory". That is my honest opinion. As we learn more, it does not become any clearer. In most cases the opposite is true. I gave, as an example, the term species and how it is has many different meanings now. You gave the simple biological definition, yet even that is not so simple depending on how the organism reproduce.

Fourth, Let's look at L.A.C. again or the lack there of. You stated in one of your post to me something like "Quad, we are talking almost 600 million years here". This is my point in a nut shell. How can we possibly know what happened 600 MILLION years ago. Cladistic classification has helped figure out what fossils go where but what is Cladistic? In layman's terms, it's a guess. They form a hypothesis on comparison. Even so they still have not pinpointed ONE L.A.C. of any species in any genus.
What do we use to explain how most every phylum of animal shows up in a geological flash during the Cambrian yet new phylum since then are pretty much nonexistent even after "five major extinction events".
Does Punctuated Equilibrium explain it? Nope.

Fifth, believe it or not I do look at both sides. I have to. I have a curious mind. It may surprise you that I actually agree with many parts of the theory. It is when speculations and assumptions get passed off as "good science" that I have a problem.
As stated, I believe in God. I will admit that He may have used evolution after Creation. I even see hints to it in the first two chapters of the Bible.
I question what I am told and I wish more people would do the same.
Science is there to answer the "hows", religion and philosophy to answer the "whys".
I come into these types of threads looking for answers on the "hows" not the "whys". You say that "there are no problems with the theory of evolution". I see a lot of problems. I have listed just a few for your consideration.
You have also stated that I need to be more clear.......I am not sure how. Hydeman seemed understand each of my arguments so far except for the one where I misspoke about the life from the Cambrian being found all over the globe. What I meant is that we find fossils from the early Cambrian all over the globe. We do not see where life generated in one specific area and dispersed. Does that mean that all the soft bodied life, in the ocean(s) of that period, all started branching off and evolving hard bodies at precisely the same time? How? Just pondering.
Quad

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: borntowatch
I guess the common ground I meant was accepting each others views, right or wrong, with out the bitterness so obvious around here.

Evolution isn't a personal opinion or world view. It's not like we're debating the best color to have on a car, something that is completely based on opinion. That's where you can give your opinion but also accept the other person's viewpoint. It doesn't mean that you have to agree, however. Evolution is a scientifically proven theory. I don't see you accepting that, so how can you possibly accuse us of not accepting your view that evolution is a religion? Yeah, I accept that that is your view, but it's completely wrong. You are just trying to set a semantics trap and get one of us to say that we believe it or that it is our personal view, when it's not. I've seen your posts on here for while, this is nothing new.

Seconded. Loudly. With cheering.

I completely agree with Barcs' last post. Well said!


Quadrivium, this is part that for me looks like you are just a bit confused...

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Fifth, believe it or not I do look at both sides. I have to. I have a curious mind. It may surprise you that I actually agree with many parts of the theory. It is when speculations and assumptions get passed off as "good science" that I have a problem.

First of all, there are no two SIDES. There is a science and scientific theories based on evidence. Religion is not another side of the same coin.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
As stated, I believe in God. I will admit that He may have used evolution after Creation. I even see hints to it in the first two chapters of the Bible.

Really, how do you know it's your god, not Zeus or Amon Ra? Do you also still believe in Easter Bunny,n St. Nicholas and Fairies?
Is your first chapter in bible, Genesis where is stated that God created 2 great lights, Sun and Moon - and Moon is not really light, just reflection of sun?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
I question what I am told and I wish more people would do the same.
Science is there to answer the "hows", religion and philosophy to answer the "whys".
I come into these types of threads looking for answers on the "hows" not the "whys". You say that "there are no problems with the theory of evolution". I see a lot of problems. I have listed just a few for your consideration.
You have also stated that I need to be more clear.......I am not sure how. Hydeman seemed understand each of my arguments so far except for the one where I misspoke about the life from the Cambrian being found all over the globe. What I meant is that we find fossils from the early Cambrian all over the globe. We do not see where life generated in one specific area and dispersed. Does that mean that all the soft bodied life, in the ocean(s) of that period, all started branching off and evolving hard bodies at precisely the same time? How? Just pondering.
Quad

Why there has to be 'why' and how in the world 2,000 years old book was able to to answer that for you?

For you to believe in the theory of evolution, as a whole, takes more faith than for me to believe in God.
And do you really think we should not be asking 'why' anymore? I believe many people actually think the way you do. It would explain why some no longer question what they are told.
Man is fallible, we make mistakes. Of course we should still be asking 'why', right along with who, what, how, when and where.
I was not brought up in a religious home. I was in my late twenties when I got saved.
I question my religious views often and find my faith strengthened because of it.

Most times there are two sides to it, don't believe me though. Just go back and read your last post to me. That's all the evidence you need.
Quad

First sentence is just wishful thinking... hope to say. I don't believe in ToE, I know it happened, its happening. There is no question if ToE is correct and there are no holes in it as you wishfully think.

I see that part with 'why' you misunderstood, and you failed to explain how does 2k year old book answers that for you. Let me guess, stars, planets, water, unfriendly universe and everything around us exist just because of us and because someone created it? Isn't that what Genesis tells you?

Why we are on earth has nothing to do with religion or god and religion just gives you FALSE reason why everything around you exist.

Your faith is based on fairy tales, book that supports slavery, killings, intolerance and discrimination... sorry...

a reply to: SuperFrog
See, I told you there were two sides

originally posted by: Quadrivium

For you to believe in the theory of evolution, as a whole, takes more faith than for me to believe in God.
And do you really think we should not be asking 'why' anymore? I believe many people actually think the way you do. It would explain why some no longer question what they are told.
Man is fallible, we make mistakes. Of course we should still be asking 'why', right along with who, what, how, when and where.
I was not brought up in a religious home. I was in my late twenties when I got saved.
I question my religious views often and find my faith strengthened because of it.

Most times there are two sides to it, don't believe me though. Just go back and read your last post to me. That's all the evidence you need.
Quad

Then you're admitting you are not here to learn anything because evolution does not require faith. If you where here to actually learn something about evolution then you would see that your ideas have been proven demonstrably wrong. It is obvious, theology holds your faith hostage to those ideas, actually learning the truth would amount to spiritual suicide. This I can understand whether you admit it or not.

I understand because I was once in your position and I know in order to keep the faith safe, it must be shielded by the armor of ignorance and vigilance to maintaining that ignorance.
All creationists must be able to maintain their protective ignorance, but many creationists will not succeed, because they will actually believe it and will not know when to look away and when to keep themselves from understanding. The figures we see from the evangelical community itself is that 65% to 80% of those raised in the faith will leave it.
If creationist continue down the path of science denial it will lead to their extinction.

In order to make their case, the creationist needs to learn everything they can about evolution, biology, geology and the physics involved. But by learning these things, they often find that the case they are trying to make is unsupported, illogical and just plain wrong.

The creationist is walking that tightrope between "The Messenger and The Destroyer."
I do not at all envy the position you willfully place yourselves into.