Environmentalists And Big Bangers; Educate Me

[Abiyoyo]

Evolution is a theory. Big Bang is a theory. To those here that don't believe there is a God, based mainly around science; those that believe religion is just made up fiction and is absent of evidence to Gods being, authenticity of scripture, all notions of the Bible stance in history as void.

 

Why choose science's unprovable over religions unprovable? We both believe in something unprovable; in which to some here would define themselves, by their own words, as 'delusional, uneducated, blinded, brainwashed, etc'

[florduh]

Please read this before continuing.

 

Thank you.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Jubilant]

YoYo...I am one of the least scientific Ex-Christians on this site and even I know the difference between those theories and the theory of the Christian God...various evidence leads to the theories and the *theories* can change based on new found evidence or even older evidence in which something was missed. Science continually has invented new and greater mechanisms that allow them to see things more clearly now than they ever have before. The better the equipment becomes the deeper the understanding.

[Grandpa Harley]

Seems he's too crippled to use google but not too crippled to type dumb crud here... Ho hum...

[Abiyoyo]

Please read this before continuing.

 

Thank you.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

What defines the defined in factual evolution to be it 'fact'? My basic knowledge of science was that to prove something as a fact it must first be a hypothesis, researched, tested a certain amount of time, be reviewed upon reviewed by other scientists, then it becomes a proof or fact.

 

Is that right?

[Grandpa Harley]

No... try google

[Ouroboros]

What defines the defined in factual evolution to be it 'fact'? My basic knowledge of science was that to prove something as a fact it must first be a hypothesis, researched, tested a certain amount of time, be reviewed upon reviewed by other scientists, then it becomes a proof or fact.

 

Is that right?

you mean something like this? Like a proof that humans are evolving right now?

 

Humans are evolving to resist disease: Telegraph article 2008-02-05

A major genetic survey shows how we are changing, reports Roger Highfield

 

Evidence that humans will evolve to shrug off diseases such as type 2 diabetes and obesity has emerged.

# Humans 'evolving to have children later'

# Dmanisi fossil sheds new light on human evolution

# Language development mirrors species evolution

 

A survey of the human genetic code has shown that our resistance to malaria, diabetes and other diseases is changing in response to our environment.

 

Dr Lluís Quintana-Murci of the Institut Pasteur, Paris, and colleagues analysed more than 2.8 million single letter spelling mistakes in the human genetic code to distinguish the usual random changes over the last 60,000 years from those that seem to be occurring in response to the environment, when a genetic mutation gives people an advantage over their peers.

...

[Abiyoyo]

Seems he's too crippled to use google but not too crippled to type dumb crud here... Ho hum...

 

Its called open minded thinking Grandpa Harley......who lies behind jokes, whims of cruelty, and belittlement of anyone who doesn't conform to Grandpaharlist thought.

 

CONFORM TO MY WAYS YOUNG GRASSHOPPER!!------gRANDPA hARLEM

[Ouroboros]

Hey! Both of you. Stop personal attacks. This is Science v Religion section, and we'll try to keep it clean here. Okay?

 

 

(In the future I might start deleting posts that step outside the purpose of this particular section or is unprofessional.)

[Grandpa Harley]

Yes Massa Hans

 

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

 

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

[Abiyoyo]

What defines the defined in factual evolution to be it 'fact'? My basic knowledge of science was that to prove something as a fact it must first be a hypothesis, researched, tested a certain amount of time, be reviewed upon reviewed by other scientists, then it becomes a proof or fact.

 

Is that right?

you mean something like this? Like a proof that humans are evolving right now?

 

Humans are evolving to resist disease: Telegraph article 2008-02-05

A major genetic survey shows how we are changing, reports Roger Highfield

 

Evidence that humans will evolve to shrug off diseases such as type 2 diabetes and obesity has emerged.

# Humans 'evolving to have children later'

# Dmanisi fossil sheds new light on human evolution

# Language development mirrors species evolution

 

A survey of the human genetic code has shown that our resistance to malaria, diabetes and other diseases is changing in response to our environment.

 

Dr Lluís Quintana-Murci of the Institut Pasteur, Paris, and colleagues analysed more than 2.8 million single letter spelling mistakes in the human genetic code to distinguish the usual random changes over the last 60,000 years from those that seem to be occurring in response to the environment, when a genetic mutation gives people an advantage over their peers.

...

 

Hans. Not really that step into evolution; but the we came from tiny bacteria, to creatures of some sort, to apelike beings, to caveman, to humans. That part of evolution fact.

[Asimov]

Evolution is a theory. Big Bang is a theory.

 

Yes, but the context of theory as it relates to science is a well-supported explanation for any given phenomena. It has to have made testable predictions, repeatable experiments and be peer-reviewed in science journals.

 

You need to understand that very important concept. Common language definitions do not fit with scientific language definitions.

 

To those here that don't believe there is a God, based mainly around science; those that believe religion is just made up fiction and is absent of evidence to Gods being, authenticity of scripture, all notions of the Bible stance in history as void.

 

No, that is not entirely true. The historical content of the Bible isn't either/or. Some of it is historically accurate and verifiable, some of it isn't. When it comes to the supernatural, science has no say, because it is inherently meaningless.

 

Why choose science's unprovable over religions unprovable?

 

Evidential support. Just because an explanation is unproven deductively doesn't mean it hasn't been proven inductively to make testable predictions and be applicable in the real world.

 

We both believe in something unprovable; in which to some here would define themselves, by their own words, as 'delusional, uneducated, blinded, brainwashed, etc'

 

Except that you believe in something that has no evidence.

[Asimov]

Hans. Not really that step into evolution; but the we came from tiny bacteria, to creatures of some sort, to apelike beings, to caveman, to humans. That part of evolution fact.

 

That's a gross misrepresentation of human evolution. Try learning the basics of anthropology before churning out regurgitated misinformation.

 

It is well supported that life shares common ancestry. Denying that is denying that we can show you're related to your mother.

[florduh]

How many times must evolution be explained to someone who does not wish to understand? The facts are widely available and anyone who doesn't understand at least the basic idea of it is simply ignoring it because it refutes what he only wishes to be true.

 

In other words, if it ain't in the Bible, he ain't gonna believe it even if it bites him in the ass.

[Abiyoyo]

Hans. Not really that step into evolution; but the we came from tiny bacteria, to creatures of some sort, to apelike beings, to caveman, to humans. That part of evolution fact.

 

That's a gross misrepresentation of human evolution. Try learning the basics of anthropology before churning out regurgitated misinformation.

 

It is well supported that life shares common ancestry. Denying that is denying that we can show you're related to your mother.

 

 

I understand your point. I am interested in the direct factual part of evolution from the period of unhuman form to human form; at least in physical appearance, to clarify.

[Grandpa Harley]

Pardon?

[Abiyoyo]

Pardon?

 

What are the 'facts' underlining; from man before he evolved legs and arms, mouth, ears, penis, vagina etc, to man in that described form. Was that clearer?

[florduh]

What about the environmentalists?

[SWIM]

Pardon?

 

What are the 'facts' underlining; from man before he evolved legs and arms, mouth, ears, penis, vagina etc, to man in that described form. Was that clearer?

 

 

So, you are saying you would like members here to explain evolution to you?

 

Ok google.com

one word search

EVOLUTION

 

first hit

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

 

Start there. Then, the specifics you need, ask away or *gasp* search some more.

 

A *theory* is not an opinion. Believing the bible is an *opinion*. Theories are based on facts. All the bible is based on is the competency of unknown authors from many different points in time, with sometimes contradictory viewpoints.

 

Creationism is an opinion and a guess, and amounts to little more then wishful thinking. It is not a *true* theory.

[florduh]

Environmentalists And Big Bangers; Educate Me, Whats the difference?

 

Environmentalists are interested in preserving our planet's ecosystem, big bangers are abnormally large breasts.

[Abiyoyo]

What about the environmentalists?

 

 

Environmentalists And Big Bangers; Educate Me, Whats the difference?

 

Environmentalists are interested in preserving our planet's ecosystem, big bangers are abnormally large breasts.

 

Man ole man. I must be tired. I meant Evolutionists.

 

Wow! Sorry all. Evolutionists and Big Bang theory advocates. Whats the difference?

 

 

Anyhow. If anyone can get past my error of topic discussion; my question was, What are the direct 'facts' that led scientists to believe organisms formed into human beings?

[Manditag in AK]

I couldn't help but to respond to this....per the evolutionists mindset, how do you think ANY changes happen? I think you're imagining magic spells or something that make apes wake up one day and go 'oh no, what happened? my muscles and hair are gone! I better go invent clothes!'

 

The whole entire theory behind ANY evolution is that it is SMALL changes, developing SLOWLY. Over time, big things can happen. Just like all those inspirational sayings you hear about how you can change the world doing little things for people every day.

 

It's taken us, what, 50 years just to gain a little resistance to some diseases? So over 1000 years, why is it so improbable that we might lose some hair as our brains grow and we start acting in ways unlike many of the other animals we see today? I don't know, I theorize that part of the reason humans are so smart is because we're puny compared to the predators around us. That was our adaption to continued survival.

 

So sure, I agree with you, if I was going to cram the universe into a 6000 year time frame, I would laugh at evolution. But as it is, I don't see the impossibility of cells multiplying. and getting bigger. And turning into something new. We see how amazing cell expansion is everytime we see a fetus. so what's wrong with those same cells growing from something small, and over time getting bigger, until a small monkey is formed, then as time passes that same form continues until it's in the form we see today? I admit I don't know the entire mechanics of evolution, but that doesn't mean many other people who have studied and tested it don't.

 

Also, you asked what makes science's unprovable claim better than the bible's unprovable claim. Looking at cold, hard facts, the bible has a bunch of old dead guys speaking varyingly thoughtprovoking words and outside of the bible just various coincidences to prove that it's right. For example, I remember when I thought finally checking the mail and getting the check I'd been waiting for was a sign from God. If I am forgetting anything that you think is valid, please let me know, it's close to dinner and I may not be thinking correctly.

 

I will also admit, you are right, even scientists hold that evolution is a theory. However, the concepts of gravity and electricity in scientific communities are also considered mere theories. So I think we need to tread carefully with our definitions here, as I doubt you believe there is no such thing as gravity. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Additionally, I must ask, if you hold that the bible is true over science, then you also believe that the earth is flat, held up by 4 pillars, and from the right height you can see the entire planet? Do you also believe that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it? If you do, do you recall that the rotation of the planets is due to gravitational pull, back again to that silly theory?

 

However, if you are laughing at me now because you know better, that must mean you deny things the bible insists are true. So if the bible is wrong on those counts, why does a biblical creation have to be correct?

 

Moving to the side of science, there IS evidence that evolution happened. There is the geology of our planet, the fossil record, carbon dating, half lifes of elements, and the fact that in known history we have seen species evolve. I remember reading in high school about the industrial evolution, and how within the span of a few years all the white moths died in droves because the pollution from factories made them easy to spot and eat against the darker trees, and then how the rest turned brown as a survival mechanism.

 

To our general knowledge the laws of nature don't change, so if evolution has happened in our known history, it would follow that nothing changed in the universe significantly and evolution has been happening from day one.

 

That I think is why so many of us discount creation in favor of evolution.....we can see evolution happening around us, but we don't see anything divinely randomly springing to life.

 

 

 

 

Edit: wow I took so long to post this a lot happened in between. sorry if I'm a bit out of date.

[florduh]

You say "educate me" but you resist education in a subject that goes against your preconceived belief.

 

Evolution is a fact. The Big Bang is the most accepted theory (educated guesswork) on the beginning of our universe. At this point we have fewer facts available to be sure about the origin of the universe than we do about the history of life on Earth.

 

There is so much scientific information available it is absurd to even start the education you don't really even want on this forum. As has already been said, look it up. There are volumes of information available.

 

But you won't believe any of it.

[Guest Net Eng]

Evolution is a theory. Big Bang is a theory. To those here that don't believe there is a God, based mainly around science; those that believe religion is just made up fiction and is absent of evidence to Gods being, authenticity of scripture, all notions of the Bible stance in history as void.

 

Why choose science's unprovable over religions unprovable? We both believe in something unprovable; in which to some here would define themselves, by their own words, as 'delusional, uneducated, blinded, brainwashed, etc'

 

Evolution and the Big Bang were derived using the Scientific Method not because some old book says so. Science is not infallible but it is self correcting. I'll take that any day over religion.

[Ouroboros]

Anyhow. If anyone can get past my error of topic discussion; my question was, What are the direct 'facts' that led scientists to believe organisms formed into human beings?

Here's a list of the main contributors to the theory, besides Charles Darwin: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evothought.html

 

Take a look at Charles grandfather: Erasmus Darwin.

 

Here's a link to more details about the history: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/s...php?topic_id=48

 

I hope you understand that the idea of Evolution existed before Charles Darwin. CD's greatest contribution was the theory of natural selection, not the evolutionary part of change. That was already known, but no one had a good idea of how or why. Here's an interesting side to it too, that some of these guys believed in a God and a creator.

 

The earliest thinker that can to some degree be part of the group of contributors is James Burnett: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnett...ionary_theorist, since Erasmus Darwin was somewhat influenced by him, and later Charles Darwin was influenced by his grandfather.

 

And these are not the only ones. There were plenty of scientists, philosophers, thinkers. The biggest contributor before Charles wasn't anyone of these, but it was Jean Baptist Lamarck. That's when the battle between religion and science of Evolution started to get heated. Because Lamarck was (I think) one of the first ones to suggest a non-deity involved in evolution. (And still, this is before Charles Darwin...)

 

So you see, it's older than you think, and many were part of figure it out, but not until today with DNA and the strong similarities between humans and chimps in particular (not all apes and monkeys are alike. Our genome is extremely similar to chimps specifically. So God didn't take an ape DNA to make an ape, but he made human and chimpanzees almost genetic brothers.)

 

Btw, spend some time on the Berkley website about evolution, the main page is this one: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

There's a lot of very interesting articles. It takes you through the concepts, the theories, the foundations, the how and why and what.