Evolution Is A Theory On Which You Base A Religion

[klassenkid]

Not even the church will come out and use the word FACT when it comes to their own doctrine.

Adhering to a BELIEF not based on fact and then ranting that because science doesn't throw the word FACT around like a teenager at a mosh party, is the zenith of hypocrisy.

Do i have to fight all of you? COME ON! you should know that fact is thrown around in science all the time. The word "fact" is what makes science so trustworthy, so truthful, so stable. They said "FACT" about the whole thing that we as mammals all look the same when first in the womb and it was proven wrong because they jumped the gun it using the word "fact"

 

[klassenkid]

ADD ON. And thats what bothers me is that macro is not a fact but yet is claimed time after time as being one. UGH

 

[mared juwan]

???? You dont know about the fruit fly that changed its pigmintation of a circular part of its wing? DID YOU READ IT?

Oh I see what you are saying. That is the only evidence mentioned in that particular article which was more intended for the OP but if you want to nitpick with this micro/macro stuff here's something else.

Start at Chapter 10

http://books.google.com/books?id=i8jx-ZyRRkkC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=micro+macro+evolution&source=bl&ots=4b-LGuOxtn&sig=p6_6_2GP0f1aGq13E6xuqS6cq-Q&hl=en&ei=L_mjSr-aPNPYnAf5tZG5BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=micro%20macro%20evolution&f=false

 

[CrackerJax]

Science has a very very strict methodology of discovery, testing, publishing, and retesting. Like sharpening any blade, it takes many strokes, over and over again to make the blade cut truly well.

Religion uses no such methodology...... and to compare the two as somehow equals, frankly is an insult to Man.

 

[hanimmal]

Why is there even a dispute about this, I read through only half of this forum and already got lost in hope of a good argument. Both sides have a lot of misguided information right from the get go.

I love science and right now im just going to bring up a little part of this thread that pissed me off. Micro and macro evolution are NOT THE SAME!! When someone says that they are revealing how uneducated they really are in Evolution. Or science in general. Micro is what is a proven FACT by our actual experiments and observations. It is when our genes are altered for its environment but only limited to what is already in our genes. Macro is putting a whole new piece into our genes and is where the whole believing in Evolution comes to play because they may say it happens but there is no facts other than saying thats the only explanation to our variety of species.

Is this not just the study of evolution that is micro and macro? You are getting pretty worked up over the timelines people study. It does not make it different processes. Macro is the study after the branch. So say you study human genetics and how we changed once we became modern humans. So how we moved from africa to today. Where Micro just continues to follow those changes all the way back.

The process is not changing, just when you chose to look at it.

IT IS NOT MICRO BUT IN A LARGER TIME SCALE, thats like me going saying Im going to put this nail in a coke bottle, couple days its going to be rusted away (FACT). Now lets let it sit for oh another million years and it will turn to aluminum. WHAT?! where would that come from? there isn't the right ionized elements in that bottle to create aluminum <-- there's your macro evolution. Its not proven but just a theory. Many literature even says its a fact which makes me want to run my nails on a chalkboard.

Yeah! You are almost there. The fact that the nail corrodes is indeed a fact. But the theory is why it does that. We can back that theory up with all kinds of facts, but in the end it is still the Basic Corrosion Theory.

That is the same with evolution. The fact is that these changes take place. But the name of it that is using all the facts is the theory of evolution.

There is no facts to back up one specie evolving to another, oh except there couple skeletons that have been resurrected from an area of 100m^2, Why? Is there so little skeletons to back a time zone that is in the millions. There should be thousands if not more of the "missing link" found and the "links" that supposedly have been found should have been replaced with a couple new fossils that maybe had all the bones in one burial area. The links are mutated chimps.

The problem is where we evolved from. In the jungles skeletons do not last long. It takes a very special set of circumstances to keep fossils intact for more than 10,000 years, much less the 5 million years it would need to see these transitional bones. Bone diagenesis happens and then you will not find them. Then you have the fact that they would not have burried the dead, so animals would have eaten the bones. It is very difficult to find them because of this.

Published online 31 August 2005


First chimp fossil unearthed

500,000-year-old teeth shed light on evolutionary split between humans and chimps.
Michael Hopkin



Palaeontologists digging in the dusty wastelands of East Africa have discovered the first known chimpanzee fossil. The modest haul of just three teeth is the first hard evidence of the evolutionary path that led to today's chimpanzees.

Here they are:

 

[zorkan]

Science has a very very strict methodology of discovery, testing, publishing, and retesting. Like sharpening any blade, it takes many strokes, over and over again to make the blade cut truly well.

Religion uses no such methodology...... and to compare the two as somehow equals, frankly is an insult to Man.

why do science change so much If the method is so strict they should get it right the first time

 

[CrackerJax]

Because we are learning and HONING the tested ideas of what has already been learned. there is no magical answer book (like the Bible) in the real world. Science is the only TRUE method of distilling the truth of the big questions....and the small.

If science was like religion, and didn't change, we'd all still be believing that the sun revolves around the earth.... which for CENTURIES was the position of the CHURCH.

 

[hanimmal]

I don't understand, why do people think science is like religion? It is a process. You use all the information that is there and use it to make the most plausable and provable theory. If something comes up that completely destroys a theory then you have to start over with all the information.

If you think about all the technological advances the couple hundred years (computers for math, radioactive dating, better micro scopes, and telescopes, sonar, deep sea vessels, better digging methods, helicopters that allow for more remote science to take place, on and on) we have a much better understanding than we have at any point in history. That is why.

Everytime we are able to find new things, we are forced to change what we know. It is like reading a book and asking why you did not know everything in it by chapter one.

 

[klassenkid]

Oh I see what you are saying. That is the only evidence mentioned in that particular article which was more intended for the OP but if you want to nitpick with this micro/macro stuff here's something else.

Start at Chapter 10

http://books.google.com/books?id=i8...m=9#v=onepage&q=micro macro evolution&f=false

You clearly dont read what you put down as references and dont seem to know what your talking about because all your argument is, is just a bunch of links. People read the skim of things and take it as there knowledge, its what bad about the literature with modern science. Its like the old days bible that only the preists could read and understand. There are so many redundant sentences and overly complicated terms in evolution books that make it impossible for regular joes to read.

 

[CrackerJax]

If you want redundancy and simplicity....stick with the Bible. The real world is a bit more complicated.

 

[hanimmal]

You clearly dont read what you put down as references and dont seem to know what your talking about because all your argument is, is just a bunch of links. People read the skim of things and take it as there knowledge, its what bad about the literature with modern science. Its like the old days bible that only the preists could read and understand. There are so many redundant sentences and overly complicated terms in evolution books that make it impossible for regular joes to read.

100% agree.

Scientists need to learn that they need to be able to talk with the common people that don't understand the scientific terms. I try to tell my fiance' this all the time.

 

[fish601]

Because we are learning and HONING the tested ideas of what has already been learned. there is no magical answer book (like the Bible) in the real world. Science is the only TRUE method of distilling the truth of the big questions....and the small.

If science was like religion, and didn't change, we'd all still be believing that the sun revolves around the earth.... which for CENTURIES was the position of the CHURCH.

because we are learning & HONING is it possible that one day scientist could have it all wrong about evolution and dating methods?

the scientist taught the sun revolves around the earth...
are you suggesting since the church was wrong about the sun the whole religion is fake?
I know of things today that "the chruch" is wrong about but that doesnt change who God is

 

[klassenkid]

I don't understand, why do people think science is like religion? It is a process. You use all the information that is there and use it to make the most plausable and provable theory. If something comes up that completely destroys a theory then you have to start over with all the information.

If you think about all the technological advances the couple hundred years (computers for math, radioactive dating, better micro scopes, and telescopes, sonar, deep sea vessels, better digging methods, helicopters that allow for more remote science to take place, on and on) we have a much better understanding than we have at any point in history. That is why.

Everytime we are able to find new things, we are forced to change what we know. It is like reading a book and asking why you did not know everything in it by chapter one.

No one said science is a religion and if they did there stupid, evolution is the thing thats sometimes stated a religion because of a lot of believing is involved because of the amount of black holes there is in its theories.

 

[CrackerJax]

No, if the methodology of time dating were incorrect, it would have shown itself already. There is no doubt that science has an accurate way to measure the ages of the Earth.... the sharpening will only enhance the accuracy.

 

[hanimmal]

because we are learning & HONING is it possible that one day scientist could have it all wrong about evolution and dating methods?

the scientist taught the sun revolves around the earth...
are you suggesting since the church was wrong about the sun the whole religion is fake?
I know of things today that "the chruch" is wrong about but that doesnt change who God is

It is like Klass nail analogy Fish. The evidence or 'facts' that these changes took place is already there. So even if evolution as it stands is not right, and the timelone is way off due to dating methods being found fraudulent in the future. The new theory would have to work in all the bone evidence, and dna mapping, on and on, to work the new method.

See people like to talk about the times when people thought that the sun revolved around the earth. When new evidence shattered that theory, it did not mean that the sun was not there anymore.

That is what happens here. Those bones and dna don't just disappear, they are the facts that the theory has to incorporate. So it is not going to go away.

No one said science is a religion and if they did there stupid, evolution is the thing thats sometimes stated a religion because how much black holes there in its theories.

I agree, they do talk about science like it is a religion, I have seen people type 'your god science' a lot.

Evolution is just like the theory of corrosion. It is using the facts of evidence. The reason why people get so worked up is that they cannot bring their speech to the level of getting others that don't know the science to understand it. And it gets to almost a religious talk because it is not able to be understood by the other side. Things like 'it just is!' does not get the point across, and is akin to 'God's will'.

 

[klassenkid]

Is this not just the study of evolution that is micro and macro? You are getting pretty worked up over the timelines people study. It does not make it different processes. Macro is the study after the branch. So say you study human genetics and how we changed once we became modern humans. So how we moved from africa to today. Where Micro just continues to follow those changes all the way back.

The process is not changing, just when you chose to look at it.

Yeah! You are almost there. The fact that the nail corrodes is indeed a fact. But the theory is why it does that. We can back that theory up with all kinds of facts, but in the end it is still the Basic Corrosion Theory.

That is the same with evolution. The fact is that these changes take place. But the name of it that is using all the facts is the theory of evolution.



The problem is where we evolved from. In the jungles skeletons do not last long. It takes a very special set of circumstances to keep fossils intact for more than 10,000 years, much less the 5 million years it would need to see these transitional bones. Bone diagenesis happens and then you will not find them. Then you have the fact that they would not have burried the dead, so animals would have eaten the bones. It is very difficult to find them because of this.



Here they are:

This one of weakest arguments i have yet seen. You just revealed macro evolutions biggest gap hole CONGRATUALTIONS!

No fossil proof, that picture also proves just a little they have on the whole topic.

HARD TO GET FOSSILS AT THAT AGE YOU SAY!?
dinosaur fossils are found so easly though?'

Did you know that when an animal eats another they leave the bones, the main ones anyway so no sorry they should have some. At least some that had died from a flood or mud slide or something that give us some preserved fossils. Every other animal in there time zone has them. (Burial site doesnt have to mean barried by another but just where they died).

 

[hanimmal]

This one of weakest arguments i have yet seen. You just revealed macro evolutions biggest gap hole CONGRATUALTIONS!

No fossil proof, that picture also proves just a little they have on the whole topic.

HARD TO GET FOSSILS AT THAT AGE YOU SAY!?
dinosaur fossils are found so easly though?'

Did you know that when an animal eats another they leave the bones, the main ones anyway so no sorry they should have some. At least some that had died from a flood or mud slide or something that give us some preserved fossils. Every other animal in there time zone has them. (Burial site doesnt have to mean barried by another but just where they died).

We only have a few thousand dinosaur skeletons. And those are of the largest land animals ever. And all of those come from things like oil pits that they wandered into.

You just don't want to see it.

Humans and chimps are a very social and intelligent animal. So we do not stray haphazzardly into these traps that the dinosaurs did. And again just because there are not a ton of bones does not mean that there are none.

Here is a good link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27225171

Just for pics though.

The evidence is there, I was saying that the fact we evolved from the jungle is a large part of why we don't have more from the changes. Bones are not something that is easy to find.

 

[klassenkid]

If you want redundancy and simplicity....stick with the Bible. The real world is a bit more complicated.

im gona have to say you never have read the bible. Its very complex and has some pretty long words and awkward words in there, thats why if it is all a hoax has been so successful. It has some how covered many topics and events we see today and was written thousands of years ago.

AND dont give me the bullshit anyways about the bible, when you get shit on something you defend you quickly point at something else

 

[klassenkid]

We only have a few thousand dinosaur skeletons. And those are of the largest land animals ever. And all of those come from things like oil pits that they wandered into.

You just don't want to see it.

Humans and chimps are a very social and intelligent animal. So we do not stray haphazzardly into these traps that the dinosaurs did. And again just because there are not a ton of bones does not mean that there are none.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27225171

Just for pics though.

The evidence is there, I was saying that the fact we evolved from the jungle is a large part of why we don't have more from the changes. Bones are not something that is easy to find.

stop putting those pics up, i think everyone has seen them. The missing links that connect us to chimpanzee is where theres so few, just that one spot oddly.

MY point is with so little bones to go by it could be easy to say that it can mean also just a mutation. Just like Mutations we have today that never progress.

 

[fish601]

If you want redundancy and simplicity....stick with the Bible. The real world is a bit more complicated.

The reason ppl don't read the Bible is because it is mostly unintelligible.

this the real world your talking about