Evolution v Creationism

[Hooahguy]

wheres Che?

[CBR]

In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact


CBR

[Don Corleone]

In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact


CBR

Actually, I have to take issue with this statement. If it it is a proven fact, it becomes an axiom, no longer a theory.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.

And how about debating things other than monkeys/Adam&Eve? There are too little facts in that. Are there any people in here who are young-earth creationists?

[CBR]

Actually, I have to take issue with this statement. If it it is a proven fact, it becomes an axiom, no longer a theory.

For a quick read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...act_in_science

There are of course multiple hits on your favorite search engine for more reading and opinions.


CBR

[Vuk]

Tempt me not satan!

[HoreTore]

To understand this issue, people have to come to terms with the fact that we know very, very little. We don't have the truth. We will likely never know it. So, your options are to either come to terms with the fact that you'll never know the truth, or you can choose to listen to someone who claim they have it(ie., the religions with creation myths).

CBR: We call it a fact, but it's only a truth until we disprove it...

[Fragony]

Inappropriate image removed

[Don Corleone]

For a quick read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...act_in_science

There are of course multiple hits on your favorite search engine for more reading and opinions.


CBR

I stand corrected, CBR, but while we were semantically disagreeing with each other, we agree more than you think.

I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.

I was attempting to clarify the matter by reserving the term "evolution" for the latter only, as I consider the co-usage of the term needlessly confusing, and frankly, comes across to me as a semantics game. I think the arguments advanced by the scientific community are better served by refraining from introducing ambiguity by using the same language construct for both an observable fact and a theory that strives to explain that observable fact.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I stand corrected, CBR, but while we were semantically disagreeing with each other, we agree more than you think.

I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.

I was attempting to clarify the matter by reserving the term "evolution" for the latter only, as I consider the co-usage of the term needlessly confusing, and frankly, comes across to me as a semantics game. I think the arguments advanced by the scientific community are better served by refraining from introducing ambiguity by using the same language construct for both an observable fact and a theory that strives to explain that observable fact.

I think it has a lot to do with the political battleground between evolution and creationism.

[CBR]

I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.

And yet there is no real difference between them. If we humans were different from any other species then one would expect us to be genetically unique and yet everything points towards us being related to apes and that the process seems no different from what has happened in nature over several hundred million years.

If a god was indeed involved then it looks like he used a rib from a specimen in the Hominina subtribe in the creation of Adam.

I think that is still uncomfortable to some people though and I guess that is based mostly on their religious beliefs because scientifically it does not make much sense trying to put humans above evolution.


CBR

[Rhyfelwyr]

The thing is, we are clearly different from other species. I'm not saying this means we could not have evolved, but I think the differences are just too extreme to reconcile with evolution. Although on the other hand the scientific evidence apparently points otherwise.

But still, even Darwin had always thought that humans were unique from other species, until on his travels he came across some savage natives, which for him showed the link between humans and animals. Which is fine, sometimes when I look at people acting carnally I can see where Darwin is coming from.

But at the same time, we do things that animals do not. For example, we show restraint. It does not matter what % of our DNA they share, from gorillas to dogs to salmon they all act 100% on their desires/instincts. Gorillas jump about shreiking when they feel like it, animals mate when they feel like it, you get those birds that stuff their faces with maggots until they are too fat to fly and just die. But people are different, we act on much more than instinct. Of course its all a matter of degree. But then, how do you explain restraint in the evolutionary model? Human society is the polar opposite of the natural, wild life, and yet we are the only species which practice it. And this is not a matter of degree, you either live in such a society or you do not. Of course, some animals have their herds and whatnot, but even then they live purely base, instinctual lives. Us humans have always been doing the opposite, we are always coming up with ideologies which fight against this sort of existence. It doesn't have to be religious either, look at stoicism for example.

This is one thing which appears to seperate us from the animals, just as much from our 'close relatives' as much as any other creature.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.

You posted that already.

Maybe I will bring some of the stuff from the EB Tavern. The Celtic Viking sure knows how to fly off the handle when it comes to this, of course I would never do such a thing!

[Prodigal]

In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact


CBR

Only till they find an orangpendek