So, what's the general consensus here on evolution?

[texasmade]

http://explorations.ucsd.edu/Archive...Earth_V3n2.pdf

http://www.livescience.com/environme...ide_earth.html


missing timelines in the fossils can be(in theory) explained by the above two (and numerous other articles found on the web)

the crust is recycled in the mantle and continually replaced, so some areas that would have had fossils deep down underground could have been "recycled" don't take my word for it because i'm no where near a scientist, but it seems like it could be a possibility.

[Darwin]

texasmade you have it precisely. The solid granite cores of continents are igneous in origin so do not bear fossils, and are not sub-ducted significantly, but they can be buried in deep sediments which are then raised up in mountain building events only to be worn back down by erosion so goodbye fossils. Ocean bottoms are always on the move and the entirety of that floor gets completely recycled every three to four hundred million years. What's left are the fossil bearing sediments that have not been disturbed in many many millions of years and those are relatively uncommon. We're very lucky to have the fossil record we do but it is more than sufficient to support the main tenets of evolution.

[shikitohno]

Why do christians always go back to that one? Does saying that somehow validate your own argument?

I've always heard it followed up with something like "See, you're a hypocrite. You say our theory relies on faith, but so does yours, and yours is like the religion of evolution." They seem oblivious to the definition of faith. Faith is belief in something despite lack of evidence, or contrary to evidence. Believing something to be true that is backed up with a large body of evidence has nothing to do with faith.

[Fury]

I support evolution, even though I don't belive it happend the way Mrs. Garrison explained it.

[danielan]

LOL - I'm starting to like the space sperm idea even more.

[texasmade]

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

[Joe234]

Natural Selection

Darwin

Makes sense to me

[WickedKitchen]

Not sure.

It makes sense (with all I've read) that evolution is the more correct path. Weather our planet was seeded with life intentionally or not cannot be now determined, but it seems very plausible that this could occur randomly. I also think that through natural selection we have evolved into present day. Intentional seeding does raise some concerns. It might be true based on human behavior with the building of many ancient structures and their knowledge of astronomy. Again, this could all be left up to interpretation, but it seems that there's a good bit of evidence supporting it. I think science has proven that life can be created with a few mere atoms and electricity...given the large numbers (time, elements, chance, etc.) anything is possible. Species do adapt and evolve and that can be proven. I also think that we are not alone. Other intelligent life might not appear to be like us but I think it's out there...somewhere. I also hope that we find it before it finds us.

I stand on the side of science because of my religious beliefs, or lack thereof. IMO organized religion is set up to provide comfort and quasi-answers to things that we know not about, namely death. I will not discount a creator theory totally but I certainly don't buy in hook, line, and sinker to the Roman Catholic story. I was raised Roman Catholic and as I grew older it made less and less sense to me. Maybe it's not supposed to make sense and just be blind faith.

[tom502]

I see everything as the progressive manifestation of "God", in that everything is "God" moving to reveal it's "Godness". If "God" is absolute, then "creator" and "created" are non-different.

[NonServiam]

What we believe becomes our perception, our reality. If some guy wants to believe that a 5 headed 1000 legged sea-dragon is the ultimate cosmic force, then to him that is his reality, and his sub-conscious will create that reality. His sea-dragon will not exist to us unless we will it. And I am fine with him believing in this sea-dragon, as long as the believer does not condemn my beliefs and attempt to convert me to his perception via force and/or fear. Which is exactly what occurred during the crusades and now is attempting to gain momentum with Islam.

I support science and I support the theory of evolution. I don't support the theory of intelligent design, not because I think the idea of a designer is illogical, but because of the christian ideology which is woven into it. I do believe in the theory of the watch-maker though.

But I am not one to try to sway you to my beliefs. It is all about what we choose as an individual to enlighten our lives. We make conclusions on our surroundings based on only five things. Our senses. We already know that their is some sound waves we cannot hear, and some wavelengths of light we cannot see. They are there, but not detectable by us. I don't believe in anthropomorphic beings in the sky literally. I feel all deities that have ever been conceived are archetypes. The only way that our developed, yet still instinctual minds can begin to grasp a divine energy is to put it into terms of something we can grasp.

I believe that the archetypal god of monotheistic religion is a god of enslavement. I choose to pursue enlightenment, spiritual growth, and individuality. I believe the ultimate cosmic force is not concerned in our trivial earthly matters, nor with us bowing to it. Reverence is one thing, bowing down is another. We are but a speck of dust. Like a single white blood cell traveling through your veins. To that blood cell, it makes the best sense of it's surroundings given what perception or instilled survival instincts guide it. Yet, it has absolutely no sense of the so much larger world which it is a part of. If it were possible to convey to that blood cell the reality which truly exists outside of it, the blood cell would find it unfathomable...illogical. Just as if you were to tell people from thousands of years ago that the earth was round, or about the existence of electro-magnetic waves, to them that was illogical. I'm sure some of you will disagree with me, and I am okay with that, as I am okay with how you have chosen to make sense of the mysteries of the universe. Mysteries which we will never be able to solve, nor are we intended to.

[Darwin]

There are no "mysteries" of the universe that we are not "intended" to ultimately know. There may be any number of those mysteries that we will never know but there is no cosmic censor out there that has installed mental software that misdirects us when we get close to those mysteries. It might be true that our mental capacities are not up to the job at some deep level of complexity but the idea that there is some ultimately impenetrable wall of knowledge zealously guarded by some cosmic omnipotence is nothing more than human neurotic fearfulness.

[Snusdog]

Ok amid this somewhat banal discussion I will ask a simple question to both sides (or rather to the parody of both sides represented by this thread)

My Question: What do the laws of science, math, or philosophy (logic) tell us about a randomly generated factuality?

If factuality is random then statistics, observation, calculation, causality, mathematical norms are utterly and completely irrelevant.

At stake for both sides is any claim to reason, evidence, or scientific theory.

This is not a parlor trick, it IS the essence of the debate for both sides.

So how do laws speak to or tell us about random facts.

Note: both sides assume the same basic nature of facts (regardless of whether they realize it or not). Likewise both sides assume the laws of science, math, and logic necessary for their observations and theories about the past. WHAT NEITHER SIDE has done is to demonstrate how their understanding of laws and their understanding of facts ever meet. They merely ASSUME that they meet. Now there is nothing wrong with assumptions. However the assumption made here is based on an inherit contradiction and impossibility and therefore is utterly damning to the very POSSIBILITY of the debate as it has been framed by both sides

Answer this dilemma and the thread is worth participating in.

Fail and this is just one more blog of straw man opinions, mud slinging, and pooling of ignorances.


And stop making people of faith out to be either fanatics or idiots. There are plenty of each on both sides of the debate as there are plenty of intelligence and integrity who merit our respect from both sides. Enough

And if it were me, I would want to base my understanding of this issue on the best, the most profound, and the most discerning from both sides. Not the mildly disturbed and polemic rabble featured in the videos and quotes thus far.

Just my 2 cents

[sgreger1]

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

THat is my all time favorite short story Tex. One of his best works.

@ Nonserviam: Re: the blood cell

I think that we may in fact be that blood cell in a way. Think about it, everything seems to expand into infinity, it's like a fractal, we have little spheres rotating around other little spheres in atoms, with a trillion of those we get planet earth which itself is just a sphere spinning around another sphere (the sun), which in itself is the same, as our solar system spins around another, galaxies spin around another etc etc. The whole "known" universe may be nothing more than a single sphere in a larger atom in some much larger and more complex system. Who is to say it's not like a fractal of spheres orbiting spheres out into infinity? What if our whole universe is just a math problem playing itself out to a trillion decimal places?



@ Dog: Honestly I don't understand what it is you were trying to convey. I must be too dumb. Sounded like you were saying niether had any facts to back up their argument.

[tom502]

I don't think anything is random. Everthing is interconnected, motivated by cause and effect.

[Roo]

You're right Snusdog, and I apologize to anyone I may have offended by inferring that people of faith, or anyone who would chose to believe in an alternate theory to evolution, are dingbats of any sort.