davidH

I wonder sometimes when talking with those that believe in evolution.
I ask them a question, the answer - well that's out of my depth ask someone in the scientific field.

Those that believe in evolution. Why do you believe? Have you read all there is to know about evolution.
How everything started, what happened first, why it happened etc.
Can everyone here that believes in evolution answer these questions or do you just believe it anyway.

Do you just believe it because it's the only feasible thing to believe? That is foolishness then. If you believe in evolution because you don't believe in the Bible.....does that mean that you would still believe in evolution if the Bible had never been written? Think about it.

Do you know how everything came to be? What the first chance making of atoms were? Are you sure of what you have been told? Have you made sure it's true? How do you know whether the scientists are telling you the truth or whether they had guessed a certain parts and assumed that they must be true.
How was evolution proved in the first place? Who did the experiment to show that something formed out of nothing? How did life orginate from the nonliving? How come the chance meeting of organisms with exactly the same mutation occured so many times?
How did the eye form by natural selection? All the DNA required to make it function as it does -pages and pages od codes.
Could the eye have formed bit by bit - could it have functioned were certain DNA bits still not mutated enough?
How come we don't see evidience of any of the inbetween animals that there had to have been? Suerly one pair didn't mutate all at once? Where then are the other animals?
How come it has been scientifically proven that the sun decreases in size by about a metre a year and yet you still believe that the earth took millions and millions of years to form? Do the math the sun would have overlapped the earth long ago! Even if it were 1000km closer the temp on earth would have risen to unbearable levels.
When will all those who believe in this really study what they believe?
Do you know what the odds of all the protein needed for the building of blocks for life forming by chance are?
Worse than the universe being full of blind men shuffling a rubik cube (those with all the coloured squares)and coming to the solution at the same time!!!!
Look at your bodies! How complicated are they? Each organ functions perfectly with the others. The human body is so complex that we haven't even completely understood yet how it works! Do you think that suggests a random accident that kept on having random accidients over millions of years? Come on, it's a valid statistic that over half the students that study genetics in universities no longer see evolution as possible!
Do you really believe that it has taken man a few years to work out the human genetic sequence - how many letters of ATGC must that contain???? And yet you believe that all those came about by genetic mutation? And yet more than that, that each of those mutations caused a change that fitted in perfectly with everything else? Come on I can't believe that you could accept such odds on such a large scale!
Every mutation I have seen has resulted in either a deformity or a seemingly benefit but with an equally severe problem.

eg. Rat poison - can cause a mutation that makes the rat seemingly imune to the poison. However Rats that are immune can't make Vit A in their bodies and need to consume large amounts otherwise they die.

Please think seriously about this if you have never studied evolution, is it really probable enough to have been feasible?

Viti

Like the useless appendix, unnecessary wisdom teeth, and weird weak spine....yeah a real work of art

Kaina

Hi DavidH,
A lot of us on this board know an awful lot about evolution. If you stick around you can learn a lot from the knowledgable and articulate folk who post here. Or just go to talk.origins now, which is where they will direct you and which is full of great info. For most of us, and for the scientific community at large, evolution is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of accepting the preponderance of evidence. Evolution has the supporting evidence, creationism does not - not any.

On a side note, it surprises and saddens me to see you're from Northern Ireland. I thought most of the creationists were Americans -- is their illogical thought and blind faith spreading to the rest of the world or is this another US-centicism?

Pantera

Do you really believe this worn out old lie? Do you really believe that if it was true it would not have been noticed by astronomers?

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html#_Toc430357875" target="_blank">Click me</a>

Do you really believe we're going to be bothered by these tired old arguments from personal incredulity?

SingleDad

davidH

Since I don't have a specific memory of what kind of question's you've asked, much less the answer, you will have to be more specific on this point.

This question cuts both ways: Have you read all there is to know about evolution? Have you even read all there is to know about christian theism?

Are you arguing for Philosophical Skeptism, the position that knowledge is impossible?

The answer is no, but I have read enough, both of evolution and of theism, to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure, I can answer the questions; if I'm allowed the same liberty to make stuff up as theists display, I can even answer them in specific detail.

The existence of an unanswered question is not evidence against belief in a scientific theory.

You say this like it's a bad thing. Of course I believe evolution because it's the only feasible (i.e. rational, logical and sensible) thing to believe.

This is a nonsequitur. My belief in evolution does not depend on my belief or disbelief in the bible, the Qur'an, the Hindu Veddas, the Book of Mormon, The Iliad or any other religious writing. However, my belief in evolution and my disbelief in religious scripture does stem from the same source: rationality.

Again, this question cuts both ways: Do you know (not just have faith in, but know) how everything came to be?

I'm not "sure", if you mean absolutely, unquestionablly certain. However, I am confident beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because scientists:

• Do not claim esoteric knowledge
• They fully explain their reasoning
• Have a reliable history of vigorously and critically examining their own and each others' claims

The first scientific evidentiary argument for Evolution was Darwin's <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/" target="_blank">On the Origin of Species</a>. Although it is almost 150, and much has been learned since then, almost all the major arguments still stand.

These questions have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which describes how life has changed since it began. These questions are about the Origin of Life, a separate (and as yet infant) scientific field.

Huh?

Darwin himself gives a good account of the formation of the eye in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter6.html" target="_blank">Chapter VI: Difficulties of the Theory</a> of On the Origin of Species

We do see the evidence of transitional fossils. See the Talk.Origins <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">Transitional Fossils FAQ.</a>

A basic familiarity with science seems a prerequisite for an attempted scientific critique. The sun does not decrease in size by about a meter/year; see the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html" target="_blank">Solar FAQ</a>, specifically <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html#_Toc430357875" target="_blank">Shrinkage</a>.

We're doing so now.

Nope, and neither do you. This has nothing to do with evolution anyway, it's about OOL. See the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html" target="_blank">Interim Abiogenesis FAQ</a>

Evolution does not describe only a series of random accidents.

Rational, honest people, including scientists, do not simply fabricate facts. It's a little quality called intellectual honesty.

That's not how it happened. The primary (but not exclusive) process of evolution is Random Mutation and Natural Selection. Again, you should at least understand the assertions of a science before you attempt to criticize it.

The likelihood of you having seen even a single genetic mutation seems somewhat low.

Again, one committed to intellectual honesty does not simply fabricate facts.

Please think seriously about this: Why would we wish to adopt a belief system that, judging from this example, apparently requires us to abandon intelligence, rationality and integrity, not to mention high-school standards of grammar and composition?

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: SingleDad ]</p>

edge

Unfortunately, evolution is not a simple issue. This is one of the main problems that we have in communicating the science of evolution to the layman. However, neither is nature so simple and a complex theory is necessary to explain it. I know that you would like a simple explanation, such as the one that you believe, but it will never be so.

Because it explains the things tht I need to have explained to me. Creationism is not capable of doing that. And no, I have not read all there is to know about evolution. I doubt that anyone has.

[quote]How everything started, what happened first, why it happened etc.
Can everyone here that believes in evolution answer these questions or do you just believe it anyway.

Done.

That is a small part of the answer, but not the most important. See above.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are we supposed to give credence to a theory that has been discredited?

Actually, that has nothing to do with it. We might not be here on this message board, however.

No. That's your department.

Yep. 100%.

I have verified most of it to my satisfaction.

You mean absolutely? Of course not. But what does that have to do with it?

By independent verification.

Who said it was proved?

This is getting silly. I think I'm wasting time here. Why do I answer creationists' questions when they refuse to answer mine?

... (hundred questions game abbreviated)

I have. Yes, in fact it is probably required.

theyeti

I don't believe in the Bible because it's full of contradictions and nonsense and is completely inconsistent with reality. However. what I think of the Bible is completely inconsequential to my acceptance of evolution. I accept evolution because it is the best explanation for the diversity and history of life on Earth, and is supported by a wealth of scientific evidence. It is unrelated to my thoughts on the Bible, and yes, I would accept it had the Bible never been written.

Now let's try this exercise in reverse:

Do you reject evolution because of your belief in the Bible? That is foolishness then. If you reject evolution because you belive in the Bible.....does that mean that you would accept evolution if the Bible had never been written? Think about it.

theyeti

theyeti

Reference please.

ps418

You wont get any reference for that claim because its false. Either DavidH made it up himself, or he's regurgitating a falsehood he heard elsewhere.

Pantera

Let me guess - based on a poll of genetics students at Bob Jones University.