Do you believe in evolution?

@WillPayton: I see science and religion as relatives. each has answers that the other one cannot answer. for example religion will tell you what happens when you die, where you will go after your body starts to decompose, and science will tell you how you were created and why you are the way you are.

@DarkKnightDetective said:

@WillPayton: I see science and religion as relatives. each has answers that the other one cannot answer. for example religion will tell you what happens when you die, where you will go after your body starts to decompose, and science will tell you how you were created and why you are the way you are.

Valhalla?

@WillPayton: I see science and religion as relatives. each has answers that the other one cannot answer. for example religion will tell you what happens when you die, where you will go after your body starts to decompose, and science will tell you how you were created and why you are the way you are.

@WillPayton: Maybe.

It shouldn't even be "believe" in evolution.

Do you "believe" in gravity?

It shouldn't even be "believe" in evolution.

Do you "believe" in gravity?

@WillPayton:@Owie Looks like someone needs to evolve out of the Paleolithic era...I'd reply to the user, but I learned long ago that you should not argue with the blindly ignorant, for they will bring you to their level and beat you with experience. For the record, the idea of a flat Earth has nothing to do with scientists. Aristotle and Pythagorus, the ancient Mayans, Egyptians, Indians (all of which outdate Islam), along with Galileo and Copernicus, presented the dimensionally round Earth idea in their works.The problem was: the Church dismissed their finding as they conflicted with their beliefs and the botched methods of Catholic "astronomers" and forbade any consisive research. Ransacking of the ancient world and collapse of empires only exasterbated this as time went one. Religion getting in the way of progress, pont das le cas.

@IZZR said:

Thats different, we have unequivocal proof for that(gravity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory#Modern_era, actually we don't

@KnightRise said:

@WillPayton:@Owie Looks like someone needs to evolve out of the Paleolithic era...I'd reply to the user, but I learned long ago that you should not argue with the blindly ignorant, for they will bring you to their level and beat you with experience. For the record, the idea of a flat Earth has nothing to do with scientists. Aristotle and Pythagorus, the ancient Mayans, Egyptians, Indians (all of which outdate Islam), along with Galileo and Copernicus, presented the dimensionally round Earth idea in their works.The problem was: the Church dismissed their finding as they conflicted with their beliefs and the botched methods of Catholic "astronomers" and forbade any consisive research. Ransacking of the ancient world and collapse of empires only exasterbated this as time went one. Religion getting in the way of progress, pont das le cas.

Thanks for the post. I agree it's hopeless trying to inform the willfully ignorant, but inevitably other people read these things and go away with misleading or completely false information. That's the main reason I post, to put out information for those who are willing to listen.

Yup, any sailor in the ancient world would have at least a good sense that the Earth was curved. Once you sail out far enough from shore this is obvious. Also, as you said, others in the ancient world were already noticing that the Earth was round by looking at evidence such as the length and direction of shadows at certain times of day. The Church, however, wasnt too keen on anything challenging the world view they got from their scriptures. If the Bible says the world has "four corners", then obviously it must be flat, right? This is what happens when you try to get actual knowledge about how the world works from religious texts... you fail miserably.

I fell as if I am being misunderstood here. I dont think evolution I false, nor do i disregard it. I believe in it and I await to see more discoveries on the matter but what I am trying to say is that a strict line must be kept between Tory and fact. It is not scientifically okay to come up with an idea that contradicts a scientific fact however its perfectly fine to come up with an idea that contradicts a theory (as long as you have enough evidence to support your idea and to challenge the theory in question) if we start making it a taboo to questions theory and look for other solutions we could be at risk of spending billions of dollars and much precious time going into the wrong direction trying to prove something fact. And once again, I'm not saying biologist studying evolution are going in the wrong direction.

@TheNooseIsLoose: throw a ball into the air and it will always come down, the existence of gravity is a fact. Now, the idea of what causes gravity, how it works, and its relationship to the other fundamental forces is what hasn't been discovered yet nor has equations and formulas describing gravity has been proven 100% true

@Agent9149 said:

throw a ball into the air and it will always come down

Scientific Law

what causes gravity, how it works, and its relationship to the other fundamental forces

Scientific Theory

@IZZR: Someone from the UK of all places talking sh*t about America robbing the world for decades? Wow, you're people taught us how. Want Proof go talk to India, Africa, Aboriginal Austrailians and Maoris and see what they have to say about British Imperialism then come talk to us about what the US has done. At least my country has the balls to admit we've done wrong.

@WillPayton said:

@KnightRise said:

@WillPayton:@Owie Looks like someone needs to evolve out of the Paleolithic era...I'd reply to the user, but I learned long ago that you should not argue with the blindly ignorant, for they will bring you to their level and beat you with experience. For the record, the idea of a flat Earth has nothing to do with scientists. Aristotle and Pythagorus, the ancient Mayans, Egyptians, Indians (all of which outdate Islam), along with Galileo and Copernicus, presented the dimensionally round Earth idea in their works.The problem was: the Church dismissed their finding as they conflicted with their beliefs and the botched methods of Catholic "astronomers" and forbade any consisive research. Ransacking of the ancient world and collapse of empires only exasterbated this as time went one. Religion getting in the way of progress, pont das le cas.

Thanks for the post. I agree it's hopeless trying to inform the willfully ignorant, but inevitably other people read these things and go away with misleading or completely false information. That's the main reason I post, to put out information for those who are willing to listen.

Yup, any sailor in the ancient world would have at least a good sense that the Earth was curved. Once you sail out far enough from shore this is obvious. Also, as you said, others in the ancient world were already noticing that the Earth was round by looking at evidence such as the length and direction of shadows at certain times of day. The Church, however, wasnt too keen on anything challenging the world view they got from their scriptures. If the Bible says the world has "four corners", then obviously it must be flat, right? This is what happens when you try to get actual knowledge about how the world works from religious texts... you fail miserably.

Its just so upsetting how backwards people can be. I have no problem with religous people, but to take something so literally and so zealously that no amount of evidence can even slightly alter one's perception is flabergasting. I'm a science major, anthroplogy, biology, and evolutionary mechanics are a huge part of the field. I don't know whats worse: denying something that conflicts with a holy text out of zeal, or purposely ignoring it out of want for ignorance.

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@Agent9149 said:

throw a ball into the air and it will always come down

Scientific Law

what causes gravity, how it works, and its relationship to the other fundamental forces

Scientific Theory

that's basically what I said

@Agent9149 said:

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

@Agent9149 said:

throw a ball into the air and it will always come down

Scientific Law

what causes gravity, how it works, and its relationship to the other fundamental forces

Scientific Theory

that's basically what I said

So you understand that laws explain an observation but a theory tells you why an observation happens?

Well I kinda do and kinda dont, but mostly NO....

@KnightRise said:

@WillPayton said:

Thanks for the post. I agree it's hopeless trying to inform the willfully ignorant, but inevitably other people read these things and go away with misleading or completely false information. That's the main reason I post, to put out information for those who are willing to listen.

Yup, any sailor in the ancient world would have at least a good sense that the Earth was curved. Once you sail out far enough from shore this is obvious. Also, as you said, others in the ancient world were already noticing that the Earth was round by looking at evidence such as the length and direction of shadows at certain times of day. The Church, however, wasnt too keen on anything challenging the world view they got from their scriptures. If the Bible says the world has "four corners", then obviously it must be flat, right? This is what happens when you try to get actual knowledge about how the world works from religious texts... you fail miserably.

Its just so upsetting how backwards people can be. I have no problem with religous people, but to take something so literally and so zealously that no amount of evidence can even slightly alter one's perception is flabergasting. I'm a science major, anthroplogy, biology, and evolutionary mechanics are a huge part of the field. I don't know whats worse: denying something that conflicts with a holy text out of zeal, or purposely ignoring it out of want for ignorance.

I hear ya. I dont have any problem with people being ignorant about a subject... I know I'm ignorant about a lot of stuff. But, it's the sheer unwillingness to learn that gets to me. When someones's whole argument is "I dont know how this works, so God did it", and then you try to tell them how it works and they just ignore you and go on to make another ignorant statement... arghh!

@WillPayton said:

@KnightRise said:

@WillPayton:@Owie Looks like someone needs to evolve out of the Paleolithic era...I'd reply to the user, but I learned long ago that you should not argue with the blindly ignorant, for they will bring you to their level and beat you with experience. For the record, the idea of a flat Earth has nothing to do with scientists. Aristotle and Pythagorus, the ancient Mayans, Egyptians, Indians (all of which outdate Islam), along with Galileo and Copernicus, presented the dimensionally round Earth idea in their works.The problem was: the Church dismissed their finding as they conflicted with their beliefs and the botched methods of Catholic "astronomers" and forbade any consisive research. Ransacking of the ancient world and collapse of empires only exasterbated this as time went one. Religion getting in the way of progress, pont das le cas.

Thanks for the post. I agree it's hopeless trying to inform the willfully ignorant, but inevitably other people read these things and go away with misleading or completely false information. That's the main reason I post, to put out information for those who are willing to listen.

Yup, any sailor in the ancient world would have at least a good sense that the Earth was curved. Once you sail out far enough from shore this is obvious. Also, as you said, others in the ancient world were already noticing that the Earth was round by looking at evidence such as the length and direction of shadows at certain times of day. The Church, however, wasnt too keen on anything challenging the world view they got from their scriptures. If the Bible says the world has "four corners", then obviously it must be flat, right? This is what happens when you try to get actual knowledge about how the world works from religious texts... you fail miserably.

Its just so upsetting how backwards people can be. I have no problem with religous people, but to take something so literally and so zealously that no amount of evidence can even slightly alter one's perception is flabergasting. I'm a science major, anthroplogy, biology, and evolutionary mechanics are a huge part of the field. I don't know whats worse: denying something that conflicts with a holy text out of zeal, or purposely ignoring it out of want for ignorance.

@Owie said:

@Shadow Stalker said:

Microevolution (small changes within a species to adapt to their environment) or Macroevolution (all living things came from non-living things that became more and more complex)?

Only the first has been observed.

Macroevolution is actually usually considered to be when one species evolves into another, different species. Which has been observed in multiple circumstances.

Sorry, I should have said microevolution, macroevolution and abiogenesis. All three of those often get grouped together when people talk about Evolution. Microevolution is observed fairly often, macroevolution is quite rare in animals and abiogenesis has not been replicated by humans.

Playing devils advocate here...

This thread is almost tragic. Countless members of our species have devoted their entire lives to studying and documenting truths about reality, and how we came to be as we are today, many of those people religious as well and yet a few frauds and proponents of intelligent design, whose claims and ideas are throughly proven as false, inaccurate and are constantly rebutted still manage to seep into the public zeitgeist to actually convince people evolution isn't true? What a slap in the face of all the scientists, many religious who did all the heavy lifting to bring us evolution and all its little details. Don't take my word for it, educate yourself, its fun. Everyone should learn about evolution and intelligent design and the history of both. Personally I don't doubt that many people blindly believe in evolution, but at least they aren't further misleading people.  
 
Some say that solid ice being solid is a fact. Yet if you melt solid ice with heat it melts and becomes a liquid, therefore solid ice being solid isn't a fact.  
 
Just because A changes to B, doesn't mean that the previous facts about A change. They may not apply to B, but they aren't intended to.  
 
Macroevolution hasn't been observed.  
 
Yes, yes it has many times in many different ways. Unless one is using the Ray Comfort term of macroevolution or being mislead then yes. More than that macroevolution and microevolution aren't really that different, and the only people that paint big distinctions are creationists and proponents of intelligent design.  
 
Yeah but what about god? Rich people believe in god as well.   
 
You can believe in god and evolution. Look at Francis Collins for example. Believes in god, believes that evolution is proven by DNA evidence alone. Given that he headed up the Human Genome Project even if you don't want to go and learn about how DNA evidence supports evolution, and you should, its fun, it would be reasonable to trust him based on that. Rich people also aren't necessarily smart, educated or more knowledgeable people either. Typically speaking their potential for those things is more, but that potential never has to be realized. Belief in god is something that actually is likely to happen in all people because of evolutionary reasons. The irony right?       
  
Evolution is NOT a fact, its only a theory.   
 
Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. OR Abstract reasoning; speculation. OR a speculative or conjectural view or idea. OR a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result OR A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.  
 
Evolution covers the later two definitions. So evolution is a fact. Its not just one fact in fact, its multiple facts, supported by multiple facts. There is possible room for improvement? Sure, there is a lot of room for improved accuracy, improved predictions and so on. Potentially to such an extent that evolution theory will be replaced by a new theory, but it can only be replaced as opposed to neutralized. This is why you get things like creationism and intelligent design instead of people going the more obvious and easy route of you know just pointing out that evolution isn't a fact or asking rhetorical questions designed to injure the validity of evolution. Yeah chances are if your trying to question evolution and think you have made a legitimate point? You don't understand evolution. That or go and pick up your Nobel Prize.   
 
Thinking its a fact, case closed isn't right.  
  
I agree, people shouldn't case close and then go home with a giant banner hanging up saying "Mission Complete" except even though its considered a "fact" people are going to keep on doing research and work on evolution, find more evidence and facts to do with the subject matter evolution covers and so on. Something being a fact doesn't mean people don't stop working towards the truth or wanting to know and learn more.   
Evolution still hasn't explained the origin of life so....   
  
Thats right, its not suppose to, thats what abiogenesis is for. Why hasn't Marvel released a Superman comic yet.. hmm hmm hmm? Oh wait thats right, they aren't suppose to.  
 
Will evolution theory ever be upgraded to a law or fact?  
 
No, this isn't Pokemon. Scientific law = observable fact about something. Scientific theory = A hypothesis supported by tests, studies, facts, laws in various ways to various degrees, to be able to make predictions the phenomenon that serves as subject for hypothesis. Theory doesn't upgrade. Its endgame. They aren't less credible than laws. Theory deals with explanation, its just inherently different. Evolution for example as well as being an explanation as in a theory for how life forms survive, evolve and adapt, but its also a fact. As in genetic change over generations are observable facts. Theories are basically just explanations and as such replaceable by other theories. Better theories. So the idea that theories to some can be usurped by other theories and thus theories are weaker in validity is lazy, because theories can only be superseded by superior theories, like comparing Einstein to Newton. Many of Newton's theories weren't so much as wrong as so much as they weren't as accurate in predicting things as Einstein's theories. Facts make claims about what is, not what isn't and this is where theories trump facts because with theories we can (attempt) to draw accurate conclusions on things that for reasons we might not be able to draw facts from. That accuracy being far more substantial and practically reliable than many things considered facts by people's perceptions in everyday living. Theories themselves will also naturally be supported by and made up of facts, but since facts don't explain everything, and since science is about more than just absolutes (its about progress, accuracy, consistency, predictability among other things) it stands that theories are necessary, needed and not a word that should have a just or only attached to it. The scientific theory is something that simply put is badass. If I say things like its "only" knowledge, or its "only" love, or its "only" self sacrifice, or its "only" comics, or its "only" Galactus are those things devalued or less so? Maybe to some peoples perceptions ironically highlighting science and things such as theories even more. What is regardless of perceptions.   
 
I understand this is a heated topic for some, but I welcome any questions, accusations or arguments to anything I have said. I also recommend researching a lot of this as well, and to try be objective and skeptical about what information you come across. Look for opposing views on irreducible complexity and the definition of macroevolution and go where the reason and evidence lies. Find people who have opposing views to you and see if they have better sources. You want to learn for learning sake not to support your own personal views. Those? Those you can reshape the same way you did when you were a kid, ain't nothing wrong with learning something new, and evolution and god are two very different things, you don't have to chose.  

@IZZR: Someone from the UK of all places talking sh*t about America robbing the world for decades? Wow, you're people taught us how. Want Proof go talk to India, Africa, Aboriginal Austrailians and Maoris and see what they have to say about British Imperialism then come talk to us about what the US has done. At least my country has the balls to admit we've done wrong.

This thread is almost tragic. Countless members of our species have devoted their entire lives to studying and documenting truths about reality, and how we came to be as we are today, many of those people religious as well and yet a few frauds and proponents of intelligent design, whose claims and ideas are throughly proven as false, inaccurate and are constantly rebutted still manage to seep into the public zeitgeist to actually convince people evolution isn't true? What a slap in the face of all the scientists, many religious who did all the heavy lifting to bring us evolution and all its little details. Don't take my word for it, educate yourself, its fun. Everyone should learn about evolution and intelligent design and the history of both. Personally I don't doubt that many people blindly believe in evolution, but at least they aren't further misleading people.  
 
Some say that solid ice being solid is a fact. Yet if you melt solid ice with heat it melts and becomes a liquid, therefore solid ice being solid isn't a fact.  
 
Just because A changes to B, doesn't mean that the previous facts about A change. They may not apply to B, but they aren't intended to.  
 
Macroevolution hasn't been observed.  
 
Yes, yes it has many times in many different ways. Unless one is using the Ray Comfort term of macroevolution or being mislead then yes. More than that macroevolution and microevolution aren't really that different, and the only people that paint big distinctions are creationists and proponents of intelligent design.  
 
Yeah but what about god? Rich people believe in god as well.   
 
You can believe in god and evolution. Look at Francis Collins for example. Believes in god, believes that evolution is proven by DNA evidence alone. Given that he headed up the Human Genome Project even if you don't want to go and learn about how DNA evidence supports evolution, and you should, its fun, it would be reasonable to trust him based on that. Rich people also aren't necessarily smart, educated or more knowledgeable people either. Typically speaking their potential for those things is more, but that potential never has to be realized. Belief in god is something that actually is likely to happen in all people because of evolutionary reasons. The irony right?       
  
Evolution is NOT a fact, its only a theory.   
 
Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. OR Abstract reasoning; speculation. OR a speculative or conjectural view or idea. OR a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result OR A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.  
 
Evolution covers the later two definitions. So evolution is a fact. Its not just one fact in fact, its multiple facts, supported by multiple facts. There is possible room for improvement? Sure, there is a lot of room for improved accuracy, improved predictions and so on. Potentially to such an extent that evolution theory will be replaced by a new theory, but it can only be replaced as opposed to neutralized. This is why you get things like creationism and intelligent design instead of people going the more obvious and easy route of you know just pointing out that evolution isn't a fact or asking rhetorical questions designed to injure the validity of evolution. Yeah chances are if your trying to question evolution and think you have made a legitimate point? You don't understand evolution. That or go and pick up your Nobel Prize.   
 
Thinking its a fact, case closed isn't right.  
  
I agree, people shouldn't case close and then go home with a giant banner hanging up saying "Mission Complete" except even though its considered a "fact" people are going to keep on doing research and work on evolution, find more evidence and facts to do with the subject matter evolution covers and so on. Something being a fact doesn't mean people don't stop working towards the truth or wanting to know and learn more.   
Evolution still hasn't explained the origin of life so....   
  
Thats right, its not suppose to, thats what abiogenesis is for. Why hasn't Marvel released a Superman comic yet.. hmm hmm hmm? Oh wait thats right, they aren't suppose to.  
 
Will evolution theory ever be upgraded to a law or fact?   No, this isn't Pokemon. Scientific law = observable fact about something. Scientific theory = A hypothesis supported by tests, studies, facts, laws in various ways to various degrees, to be able to make predictions the phenomenon that serves as subject for hypothesis. Theory doesn't upgrade. Its endgame. They aren't less credible than laws. Theory deals with explanation, its just inherently different. Evolution for example as well as being an explanation as in a theory for how life forms survive, evolve and adapt, but its also a fact. As in genetic change over generations are observable facts. Theories are basically just explanations and as such replaceable by other theories. Better theories. So the idea that theories to some can be usurped by other theories and thus theories are weaker in validity is lazy, because theories can only be superseded by superior theories, like comparing Einstein to Newton. Many of Newton's theories weren't so much as wrong as so much as they weren't as accurate in predicting things as Einstein's theories. Facts make claims about what is, not what isn't and this is where theories trump facts because with theories we can (attempt) to draw accurate conclusions on things that for reasons we might not be able to draw facts from. That accuracy being far more substantial and practically reliable than many things considered facts by people's perceptions in everyday living. Theories themselves will also naturally be supported by and made up of facts, but since facts don't explain everything, and since science is about more than just absolutes (its about progress, accuracy, consistency, predictability among other things) it stands that theories are necessary, needed and not a word that should have a just or only attached to it. The scientific theory is something that simply put is badass. If I say things like its "only" knowledge, or its "only" love, or its "only" self sacrifice, or its "only" comics, or its "only" Galactus are those things devalued or less so? Maybe to some peoples perceptions ironically highlighting science and things such as theories even more. What is regardless of perceptions.    I understand this is a heated topic for some, but I welcome any questions, accusations or arguments to anything I have said. I also recommend researching a lot of this as well, and to try be objective and skeptical about what information you come across. Look for opposing views on irreducible complexity and the definition of macroevolution and go where the reason and evidence lies. Find people who have opposing views to you and see if they have better sources. You want to learn for learning sake not to support your own personal views. Those? Those you can reshape the same way you did when you were a kid, ain't nothing wrong with learning something new, and evolution and god are two very different things, you don't have to chose.  

I heard a great argument somewhere the other day. Something to the effect of, "Evolution is just a theory". And the reply was, "So is gravity".

@WillPayton said:

@Shadow Stalker said:

Microevolution (small changes within a species to adapt to their environment) or Macroevolution (all living things came from non-living things that became more and more complex)?

Only the first has been observed.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? These two terms are really kind of meaningless, evolution is evolution, which is a scientific fact.

Really? Micro- and Macroevolution are two very well defined concepts. I may have misspoke and defined macrogenesis as abiogenesis before I corrected myself later but they are all parts of what people commonly refer to as Evolution.

I do believe evolution the changes of species as that passes over there are animals. There are animals that show that they have not evolved the great white shark. This asks more questions since it showed that they lived in the time of the dinosaur even earlier. Sharks are good example of Darwinism but talking about it is side tracking

Creationism is easily blundered by the words “Intelligent design”. There something you all afraid to face. Luck, you all fear advantages or disadvantages are done just by a chance. You feel that there should something bigger than that but it can simply be just that. You can narrow it down but the possibility that it will happen. Those who have disadvantage have to improvise and can survive. They may have better understanding which gives them an advantage but than again it could just be luck. Creationism is garbage luck and evolution are more believable.

Pokemon did have one to show evolution that creature is called Magikarp. It stated that it is weaker than its ancestors. They lose strength in order to adapt in many areas.

@_Black said:

@IZZR: Do you still believe the Earth is the center of the solar system too?

Please tell me this is a joke.

@cameron83 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: WHY DECEPTICONS.....WHY NOT AUTOBATZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What?

If you have a question go to my Q and A thread.

@IZZR: I would ask where was Europe when my ancestors were being slaughtered wholesale and being robbed of their land by a hostile invading force but then I remember oh yea, they Were the hostile invading force.

@IZZR: I would ask where was Europe when my ancestors were being slaughtered wholesale and being robbed of their land by a hostile invading force but then I remember oh yea, they Were the hostile invading force.

Because funny.

Because funny.

@SC said:

This thread is almost tragic. Countless members of our species have devoted their entire lives to studying and documenting truths about reality, and how we came to be as we are today, many of those people religious as well and yet a few frauds and proponents of intelligent design, whose claims and ideas are throughly proven as false, inaccurate and are constantly rebutted still manage to seep into the public zeitgeist to actually convince people evolution isn't true? What a slap in the face of all the scientists, many religious who did all the heavy lifting to bring us evolution and all its little details. Don't take my word for it, educate yourself, its fun. Everyone should learn about evolution and intelligent design and the history of both. Personally I don't doubt that many people blindly believe in evolution, but at least they aren't further misleading people.

Some say that solid ice being solid is a fact. Yet if you melt solid ice with heat it melts and becomes a liquid, therefore solid ice being solid isn't a fact.

Just because A changes to B, doesn't mean that the previous facts about A change. They may not apply to B, but they aren't intended to.

Macroevolution hasn't been observed.

Yes, yes it has many times in many different ways. Unless one is using the Ray Comfort term of macroevolution or being mislead then yes. More than that macroevolution and microevolution aren't really that different, and the only people that paint big distinctions are creationists and proponents of intelligent design.

Yeah but what about god? Rich people believe in god as well.

You can believe in god and evolution. Look at Francis Collins for example. Believes in god, believes that evolution is proven by DNA evidence alone. Given that he headed up the Human Genome Project even if you don't want to go and learn about how DNA evidence supports evolution, and you should, its fun, it would be reasonable to trust him based on that. Rich people also aren't necessarily smart, educated or more knowledgeable people either. Typically speaking their potential for those things is more, but that potential never has to be realized. Belief in god is something that actually is likely to happen in all people because of evolutionary reasons. The irony right?

Evolution is NOT a fact, its only a theory.

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. OR Abstract reasoning; speculation. OR a speculative or conjectural view or idea. OR a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result OR A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution covers the later two definitions. So evolution is a fact. Its not just one fact in fact, its multiple facts, supported by multiple facts. There is possible room for improvement? Sure, there is a lot of room for improved accuracy, improved predictions and so on. Potentially to such an extent that evolution theory will be replaced by a new theory, but it can only be replaced as opposed to neutralized. This is why you get things like creationism and intelligent design instead of people going the more obvious and easy route of you know just pointing out that evolution isn't a fact or asking rhetorical questions designed to injure the validity of evolution. Yeah chances are if your trying to question evolution and think you have made a legitimate point? You don't understand evolution. That or go and pick up your Nobel Prize.

Thinking its a fact, case closed isn't right.

I agree, people shouldn't case close and then go home with a giant banner hanging up saying "Mission Complete" except even though its considered a "fact" people are going to keep on doing research and work on evolution, find more evidence and facts to do with the subject matter evolution covers and so on. Something being a fact doesn't mean people don't stop working towards the truth or wanting to know and learn more.
Evolution still hasn't explained the origin of life so....

Thats right, its not suppose to, thats what abiogenesis is for. Why hasn't Marvel released a Superman comic yet.. hmm hmm hmm? Oh wait thats right, they aren't suppose to.

Will evolution theory ever be upgraded to a law or fact? No, this isn't Pokemon. Scientific law = observable fact about something. Scientific theory = A hypothesis supported by tests, studies, facts, laws in various ways to various degrees, to be able to make predictions the phenomenon that serves as subject for hypothesis. Theory doesn't upgrade. Its endgame. They aren't less credible than laws. Theory deals with explanation, its just inherently different. Evolution for example as well as being an explanation as in a theory for how life forms survive, evolve and adapt, but its also a fact. As in genetic change over generations are observable facts. Theories are basically just explanations and as such replaceable by other theories. Better theories. So the idea that theories to some can be usurped by other theories and thus theories are weaker in validity is lazy, because theories can only be superseded by superior theories, like comparing Einstein to Newton. Many of Newton's theories weren't so much as wrong as so much as they weren't as accurate in predicting things as Einstein's theories. Facts make claims about what is, not what isn't and this is where theories trump facts because with theories we can (attempt) to draw accurate conclusions on things that for reasons we might not be able to draw facts from. That accuracy being far more substantial and practically reliable than many things considered facts by people's perceptions in everyday living. Theories themselves will also naturally be supported by and made up of facts, but since facts don't explain everything, and since science is about more than just absolutes (its about progress, accuracy, consistency, predictability among other things) it stands that theories are necessary, needed and not a word that should have a just or only attached to it. The scientific theory is something that simply put is badass. If I say things like its "only" knowledge, or its "only" love, or its "only" self sacrifice, or its "only" comics, or its "only" Galactus are those things devalued or less so? Maybe to some peoples perceptions ironically highlighting science and things such as theories even more. What is regardless of perceptions. I understand this is a heated topic for some, but I welcome any questions, accusations or arguments to anything I have said. I also recommend researching a lot of this as well, and to try be objective and skeptical about what information you come across. Look for opposing views on irreducible complexity and the definition of macroevolution and go where the reason and evidence lies. Find people who have opposing views to you and see if they have better sources. You want to learn for learning sake not to support your own personal views. Those? Those you can reshape the same way you did when you were a kid, ain't nothing wrong with learning something new, and evolution and god are two very different things, you don't have to chose.

Simply spectacular post as per.

I haven't even bothered to read through all these pages why does there have to be so much debate for what is proven?

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I haven't even bothered to read through all these pages why does there have to be so much debate for what is proven?

Because a lot of people are ignorant and perfectly willing to stay that way regardless of what anyone tells them.

@WillPayton said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I haven't even bothered to read through all these pages why does there have to be so much debate for what is proven?

Because a lot of people are ignorant and perfectly willing to stay that way regardless of what anyone tells them.

True there are way too many people like that.

A lot of people don't seem to know the definition of "scientific theory". I think that's the cause of a lot of confusion..

@_Black said:

A lot of people don't seem to know the definition of "scientific theory". I think that's the cause of a lot of confusion..

True enough, but even if you educate them they'll just move on to something different, like saying... "well, it cant be proven 100%".

The problem isnt lack of knowledge, it's the unwillingness to acknowledge that their beliefs may be wrong. Any evidence that contradicts their beliefs can always be waved off by ignoring it or simply adjusting their rationalizations in some way. In science, if the evidence contradicts your belief, then you change your belief. It's hard to do that when you start off thinking that what you believe is "absolute truth" handed down by "God"... you cant just change absolute truth, that's not how it works.

Of course. Don't you read X-men?

@WillPayton said:

@_Black said:

A lot of people don't seem to know the definition of "scientific theory". I think that's the cause of a lot of confusion..

True enough, but even if you educate them they'll just move on to something different, like saying... "well, it cant be proven 100%".

The problem isnt lack of knowledge, it's the unwillingness to acknowledge that their beliefs may be wrong. Any evidence that contradicts their beliefs can always be waved off by ignoring it or simply adjusting their rationalizations in some way. In science, if the evidence contradicts your belief, then you change your belief. It's hard to do that when you start off thinking that what you believe is "absolute truth" handed down by "God"... you cant just change absolute truth, that's not how it works.

Nice post. That seems to be a fault of the human race. This especially applies to the battles forum. Lol

Who gives a sh*t honestly. What I want to know is when is the human race going to evolve again, so people stop pissing me off? All we do is argue and fight, because we are still just a bunch of apes... Show me prof we are not. Go back and read through this thread alone and you will see a ton of prof that suggests I am correct in my thinking. The human race is not that advanced.

I don't believe that Humans evolved from another species.There is a great deal of evidence that we Homo-sapiens have been around for millions of years. We have, however, adapted to different environments while remaining the same species/race.

I also believe that if evolution was true then we would not be the only bi-pedal, Highly intelligent, species with opposable thumbs. In nature successful features tend to be pervasive in a great number of life forms so there should be many different species that walk upright , have opposable thumbs, and large brains. The fact that we are the only one is curious to say the least.

@_Black said:

@WillPayton said:

@_Black said:

A lot of people don't seem to know the definition of "scientific theory". I think that's the cause of a lot of confusion..

True enough, but even if you educate them they'll just move on to something different, like saying... "well, it cant be proven 100%".

The problem isnt lack of knowledge, it's the unwillingness to acknowledge that their beliefs may be wrong. Any evidence that contradicts their beliefs can always be waved off by ignoring it or simply adjusting their rationalizations in some way. In science, if the evidence contradicts your belief, then you change your belief. It's hard to do that when you start off thinking that what you believe is "absolute truth" handed down by "God"... you cant just change absolute truth, that's not how it works.

Nice post. That seems to be a fault of the human race. This especially applies to the battles forum. Lol

Oh, absolutely! Religious thinking is a general trait of the human brain (and likely other animal brains too), and it applies to all fields of thought... politics, economics, social issues, business, CV battle forum discussions, ... It's easy to start thinking that what you believe is true to the point where you tune out other differing views. You dont even realize you're doing it, it's just the way the brain works.

@TheSwordsman said:

I don't believe that Humans evolved from another species.There is a great deal of evidence that we Homo-sapiens have been around for millions of years. We have, however, adapted to different environments while remaining the same species/race.

I also believe that if evolution was true then we would not be the only bi-pedal, Highly intelligent, species with opposable thumbs. In nature successful features tend to be pervasive in a great number of life forms so their should be many different species that walk upright , have opposable thumbs, and large brains. The fact that we are the only one is curious to say the least.

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs.

Unfortunately, hundreds of years of science, all the evidence, and all the scientists that actually know something about the subject disagree with you. They must all be pretty dumb I guess. No doubt if you only get around to publishing your ideas in a scientific journal you will win the Nobel Prize and become world famous as the next Einstein, overturning science and everything we think we know about the world.

But, I can understand that you probably dont have time for this. You're probably busy using your vast intellect to cure cancer or poverty or something. Overturning science will just have to wait I suppose.

@Glitch_Spawn said:

@DoomDoomDoom said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Belief is not a factor in regards to evolution,it is a fact.

True.

Reminded me of something Morpheus would say. Love this quote.

Thanks!

You mean Morpheus from the Matrix,cos he is one of my favourite characters out of the Matrix.

@WillPayton said:

@TheSwordsman said:

I don't believe that Humans evolved from another species.There is a great deal of evidence that we Homo-sapiens have been around for millions of years. We have, however, adapted to different environments while remaining the same species/race.

I also believe that if evolution was true then we would not be the only bi-pedal, Highly intelligent, species with opposable thumbs. In nature successful features tend to be pervasive in a great number of life forms so their should be many different species that walk upright , have opposable thumbs, and large brains. The fact that we are the only one is curious to say the least.

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs.

Unfortunately, hundreds of years of science, all the evidence, and all the scientists that actually know something about the subject disagree with you. They must all be pretty dumb I guess. No doubt if you only get around to publishing your ideas in a scientific journal you will win the Nobel Prize and become world famous as the next Einstein, overturning science and everything we think we know about the world.

But, I can understand that you probably dont have time for this. You're probably busy using your vast intellect to cure cancer or poverty or something. Overturning science will just have to wait I suppose.

I know I am entitled to my own beliefs and do not, with all due respect, require you to endorse this fact.

Your sarcasm and condescension notwithstanding, evolution is still, in actuality, a theory. Sorry.

Many Cancers can be averted simply by removing the vast amounts of carcinogens from the equation, and Canada has for all intents and purposes eradicated poverty from their society so emulating their paradigm should suffice.

Your apparent hostility is quite puzzling. Relax. There are those in the scientific community who believe the theory is sound and there are some that believe that it is intrinsically flawed from an evidentiary standpoint. Until evolution is proven as a law or fact then your angst concerning views opposing your own is entirely dispensable and not at all productive.

@TheSwordsman said:

Your sarcasm and condescension notwithstanding, evolution is still, in actuality, a theory. Sorry.

You dont seem to understand what a scientific theory is.

@TheSwordsman said:

Your apparent hostility is quite puzzling. Relax. There are those in the scientific community who believe the theory is sound and there are some that believe that it is intrinsically flawed from an evidentiary standpoint. Until evolution is proven as a law or fact then your angst concerning views opposing your own is entirely dispensable and not at all productive.

The scientific consensus by far is that evolution is true, and a fact. All life that we know of on Earth has evolved from earlier forms, and that includes humans. There is no biologist of any credibility that believes otherwise.

You also dont seem to understand what a scientific law is. Evolution will never be a "law", it is a "theory", which is the appropriate and highest level that evolution can attain in science.

@WillPayton said:

@_Black said:

@WillPayton said:

@_Black said:

A lot of people don't seem to know the definition of "scientific theory". I think that's the cause of a lot of confusion..

True enough, but even if you educate them they'll just move on to something different, like saying... "well, it cant be proven 100%".

The problem isnt lack of knowledge, it's the unwillingness to acknowledge that their beliefs may be wrong. Any evidence that contradicts their beliefs can always be waved off by ignoring it or simply adjusting their rationalizations in some way. In science, if the evidence contradicts your belief, then you change your belief. It's hard to do that when you start off thinking that what you believe is "absolute truth" handed down by "God"... you cant just change absolute truth, that's not how it works.

Nice post. That seems to be a fault of the human race. This especially applies to the battles forum. Lol

Oh, absolutely! Religious thinking is a general trait of the human brain (and likely other animal brains too), and it applies to all fields of thought... politics, economics, social issues, business, CV battle forum discussions, ... It's easy to start thinking that what you believe is true to the point where you tune out other differing views. You dont even realize you're doing it, it's just the way the brain works.

Animal brains too? That's interesting.

@WillPayton said:

@TheSwordsman said:

Your sarcasm and condescension notwithstanding, evolution is still, in actuality, a theory. Sorry.

You dont seem to understand what a scientific theory is.

@TheSwordsman said:

Your apparent hostility is quite puzzling. Relax. There are those in the scientific community who believe the theory is sound and there are some that believe that it is intrinsically flawed from an evidentiary standpoint. Until evolution is proven as a law or fact then your angst concerning views opposing your own is entirely dispensable and not at all productive.

The scientific consensus by far is that evolution is true, and a fact. All life that we know of on Earth has evolved from earlier forms, and that includes humans. There is no biologist of any credibility that believes otherwise.

You also dont seem to understand what a scientific law is. Evolution will never be a "law", it is a "theory", which is the appropriate and highest level that evolution can attain in science.

Yes. I know what a scientific theory is.I am not at all sure that you do, however.

You are absolutely mistaken. There are indeed zoologists that question the theory. You are confusing credibility with opposing views.Emotionally compromised and illogical individuals often claim others who do not agree with them lack credibility. Surely you understand and can relate to this on a personal level.

You obviously do not understand what a law is if you believe that evolution can never be more than a theory. If evidence surfaced that proved it to be fact then it would indeed transcend it's classification as a theory. You are either simply making things up or are responding based on emotions and not logic.

You will, of course, present an ever-convoluting series of condescending, overzealous, and inaccurate responses to likely attempt to draw me into a text-based war of attrition by which you can vent your frustrations. I will pass,

Good luck. Be well.

/Exits discourse

@_Black said:

Oh, absolutely! Religious thinking is a general trait of the human brain (and likely other animal brains too), and it applies to all fields of thought... politics, economics, social issues, business, CV battle forum discussions, ... It's easy to start thinking that what you believe is true to the point where you tune out other differing views. You dont even realize you're doing it, it's just the way the brain works.

Animal brains too? That's interesting.

I would guess that for at least some animals, like chimpanzees, this will eventually be shown to be true. Chimps and other apes close to us have very similar brains, and we know they have things like emotions, morals, and other human-like traits. They can learn sign language and even teach it to other chimps. In many ways, animals like chimps are a slam dunk to believing in evolution, even if someone is completely unaware of all the other evidence. We have almost all DNA in common, we look alike, we behave alike, and our bodies share the same structure. If a god were to have "designed" us, what would be the point of also designing other creatures that are so similar? Also, what would be the point in designing us with so many flaws and obvious signs of evolution? To trick us?