Some scientists will be upset...

[mechanic]

Evolution is in direct opposition to physics.  Physics teaches that all things will eventually wear out, wear down, or cease to exhist, and that something cannot come from nothing.

You could liken it to a man placing dynamite randomly amongst the trees of a forest and detonating it in order to build a house..........

If we apply what we learn in physics to life......we must have a Creator.

Ben

[DDZ]

you must first understand the scientific method before you can attack it. you must understand what is really being said. no hypothesis says that animals sprang up from mud.
but, dont clean your bathroom and mold will grow.. so yeah an understanding of basic science biology is in order at some point.

This is what you stated, and I took it to mean that someone needs to first know the scientific method, and biology before they can argue against evolution. Forgive me if I misunderstood you.  

When I think of evolution I'm referring to Darwin's theory that life arose from nothing and created a hypothetical simple living cell, which transformed into invertebrate, then to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles then to mammals. This is what I have been talking about all along.

I agree that the climate back in the beginning was much different than now, and living things did change. What I don't believe is one species changed into another. The earth did have a vapor canopy which would have provided a tropical paradise. Which would have altered the aging and dying process. Genesis supports this, and its no wonder the Hebrew people called it the paradise of god.
 Many plants and animals grew to giant proportions. Fossils show that moss like plants grew to three feet, and asparagus stalks grew to be forty feet. Today horsetail reeds grow to be four or five feet, but they once grew to fifty feet. Clams grew to two feet in length. Foot long cock roaches have been unearthed. the hornless rhino grew to seventeen feet tall. Pigs were the size of cattle, beavers were the size of pigs, camels were thirteen feet tall, and some birds were eleven feet in length.
The reptiles (dinosaurs) were the largest because reptiles never stop growing from the time they hatch until the time they die.
Did all these creatures change from that time, yes they did, but they all have remained what they were.
 Sorry I don't refer to this as evolution, I know some do, but evolution to me is the idea that life sprang from nothing with no creator involved.          

[Graybeard]

MGMorden perhaps you desented from an ape and perhaps as you say you really are an ape now. You know better than I about your status. I must admit I have often wondered about you. 

But me, I did NOT come from any ape and there are no apes in my family tree.

If as folks so want us to believe that humans evolved from apes then why the hell are apes still around in pretty much the same form as they were?

[powderman]

If as folks so want us to believe that humans evolved from apes then why the hell are apes still around in pretty much the same form as they were?



HEH. I can hardly wait for a reply to that question. POWDERMAN. 

[Leatherstocking]

I'll join this debate. Why is it not possible that there is both creation and evolution?

[billy_56081]

I have to agree Bill, I had quite a bit of formal education in the anthropology area. The "science" behind evolution was very very sketchy indeed. A few fragments of bones and a tooth was made into a complete skelton with even the brain capacity. THese "scientists" had already formed an answer before they found the "proof". Many many of these "human ansester" finds have been proven false. Many even have been complete frauds.

[Pat/Rick]

+1 Graybeard. In addition, pretty sure none of my forebearers crawled out of some primordial sea either.   

[ironglow]

I have to agree Bill, I had quite a bit of formal education in the anthropology area. The "science" behind evolution was very very sketchy indeed. A few fragments of bones and a tooth was made into a complete skelton with even the brain capacity. THese "scientists" had already formed an answer before they found the "proof". Many many of these "human ansester" finds have been proven false. Many even have been complete frauds.

    And "Nebraska Man" is a prime example, somebody finds a tooth...so they go ahead and 'build a man around that tooth' and csall it Nebraska Man... only to go back later, dig around and find the rest of the pig it came from ! 

[ironglow]

  Then of course, there is "Piltdown Man"..some pieces of bone 'discovered' in an English gravel pit, some 3 years before Darwin published his conjectures.  Much of the scientific community once exposed to Darwin, became enthralled with the 'mixed-bag' of bones.  I say mixed-bag because that is what they eventually proved to be.
   In any case, reputable scientists latched onto the few pieces of odd bones from different eras, and using clay etc...built a man around them.  Then the world's text book started including this in their "fossil record" around 1912-1915 as an example of early man.  Schools and colleges taught this as the truth...for about 40 years..  I can remember it being taught in my grade school classes.
   Once the fraud was discovered..their 'truth' was quietly dropped out of the books. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has been credited with the fraud, which only started as a joke, to be discovered by his friend who walked by the gravel pit each day.

    http://www1.umn.edu/scitech/piltdown.htm

   Below see the Piltdown patchup..a 'human skull' created from a few pieces of bone.  The dark areas are the pieces of bone, the light areas came from the maker's mind.

[Scibaer]

DDZ,
 no harm no foul. there are alot of people who take 'evolution' to mean life springing up from near nothing. and that is the real argument, not whether or not animals and man have changed over time, to suit an environment or thru the handing down of traits from parent to child, and the original start of a species or life itself. thats why i included bio-genesis into the discussion. i think of the 'first cause' creator idea to be very seperate, because it involves so much more in the way understanding time, space, the universe, life creation myths, beliefs in a higher power and concepts like 'GOD has always been' and ideas of sheer faith.
the idea of GOD creation and evolution then gets into the discussion , with some believing that GOD did create everthing, therefor HE also allows for evolution
 ( adaptation of a species ) and other variations ,and to the other end of the spectrum of ( GOD created everything and it has always been that way) camp.
part of the scientific method, is adding to or adapting to new finds or data.
when a tooth is discovered, or a skull and later to be found a fraud, it is labeled as such, but that adds to the base of knowledge none the less.
but it does not mean that the science itself is faulty or completely incorrect.
that is why in part, of my skepticism of this israeli find. but i dont dismiss archeology as a whole a fraud.
we, modern humans did not evolve from apes. we evolved from earlier humans, thru adaptation.
and those earlier human species likewise adapted and evolved from still earlier forms, whom at one time split from the primate line.
modern apes and modern humans are both primates and share more then 90% of chromosomes/DNA.
i agree that those isreali archeologist jumped the gun, claiming they found modern human teeth dating to 400,000 yr ld.
but it does not mean that all claims by archeological research is fraudulent, and to make that claim is a deflection of logic.
are all gun owners murders, just because they own a gun ? nope. likewise, not all archeology digs frauds because a few have shown to be as such.
and my guess is that the isreali dig will find a error in thier soil sample dating and have to make a correction to thier data.
and if that happens, is in no way means that GOD did or did not create us all, thru whatever means he has chosen, or that we ( modern humans ) are 100,000 or 400,000 years old. 
 

[powderman]

It always amazed me how these self proclaimed experts can tell you exactly what dinosaurs looked like, how thick their hide was, even what color, and how fast they could run from dead dried bones. POWDERMAN. 

[MGMorden]

If as folks so want us to believe that humans evolved from apes then why the hell are apes still around in pretty much the same form as they were?

I mentioned earlier, but the thing is: they AREN'T.  The apes we have today - including us - are NOT the apes of yesteryear.  Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans of today are ALSO descended from other, earlier, forms of primates, just like we are.

We DID NOT evolve from any of the apes we see today.  Those are separate paths that evolution took - paths that only converge many millions of years ago when none of the current species existed.

Or put another way:  Do you agree that chimps and gorillas are related species?  Black bears and polar bears?  Different, yet definitely related.  How can we POSSIBLY have multiple related groups?  Simple: different evolutionary paths.  To say that we are not descended from apes because we have other apes around today is akin to claiming that a black bear is not descended from bears because we still have polar bears around today.  It's a claim without merit.

[squirrellluck]

Correct me if I am wrong but... It is the theory of evolution if I'm not mistaken. Theory can not be proven or it becomes a fact. Our school systems try to teach it as fact. I am a descendant of Adam, Gods creation not a monkey as some believe.   I am sure that this belief that we came from monkeys makes it easier to lower or accept lower morals from society. If I am wrong than at the end of my life I cease to be. If you are wrong???

[Scibaer]

In science, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations which meet basic requirements about observations made.
These theories are expected to be functional ( rational ) and a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively express the idea.


The word "theory" when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. It can be changed, and often is changed,  if new information is found.

yes, evolution is a "theory" set out to explain the adaption of life as we know it. its is the best testable, observable, repeatable and base of knowledge we have for now, ever changing and advancing.

The confusion over the word evolution and the difference  between "fact" and "theory" is mostly  due to people using evolution to refer to three related yet distinct ideas: first, the changes that occur within species over generations ( adaptation ) the mechanism thought to drive change  the concept of common descent.( passing on of traits, characteristics and genes. Among ( biologists ) there is a consensus that evolution is a fact, easily enough proven by the fact that we have different races of people in differing regions of the world.

[squirrellluck]

But there is only 1 race human. According to science isn't there 1 race with various sub-species or variants just as in deer or any other species. Or does science work differently for us than it does for every other creature? PS I do agree that the human race has adapted to various climates to survive but just as in any other species we can still breed between the subs and get fertile offspring.

[MGMorden]

Correct me if I am wrong but... It is the theory of evolution if I'm not mistaken. Theory can not be proven or it becomes a fact. Our school systems try to teach it as fact. I am a descendant of Adam, Gods creation not a monkey as some believe.   I am sure that this belief that we came from monkeys makes it easier to lower or accept lower morals from society. If I am wrong than at the end of my life I cease to be. If you are wrong???

Scibaer got the explanation spot on.  What people have to understand is that the scientific community's definition of the word "theory" is NOT the same as in common vernacular.  Most of the science that we used to go to the moon, to make satellite television, and GPS systems is all still theory.  As I said - gravity is still a theory as I mentioned earlier, but take GPS systems for example.   Due to them traveling at a very fast speed, time moves slightly more slowly for the satellites.  Without correcting for this, the time as read on the satellites would get out of sync with the time down on Earth and errors would start to creep into their positioning.  We know to expect this though, and using the THEORY of Relativity, we can calculate just how much adjustments need to be made to keep them up there working like they're supposed to.

Yes it's the "theory" of Relativity, but it's used to run the GPS satellites that much of the world uses - either directly or indirectly - every day.  This is fine, because as said, science doesn't use the word theory us non-chalantly as in common vernacular.  A theory is an explanation or idea that has had a significant amount of EVIDENCE put forward in support of the theory.

The step up - scientific "law", is so hard to achieve that modern science pretty much never makes anything a law anymore, because that's saying that an idea is PERFECT, and we rarely get things perfect.  The idea in general might be fine, but a detail might be off.  This was particularly compounded when part of Newton's "Laws" were proven invalid.  Newton's equation F=ma (force equals mass times acceleration) was proven incorrect - after it was declared a law.  You see, Newton's equations worked BEAUTIFULLY here on Earth.  They're so close to correct that for any task on this planet, they work fine.  HOWEVER, very close to a very massive object (like a star), they no longer work.  In essence, they are wrong.  They are a close approximation, but there are instances where they break down.  Einstein's THEORY of relativity however, explains the same things, and his equations continue to work no matter how close you get to the massive object.

In essence, the old "law" was invalidated and a "theory" has taken it's place as a more accepted universal explanation.  With this in mind, if you have a problem with the word "theory", you're out of luck as that's generally the last stage things get to in modern science.

[ironglow]

   What disturbs me most about the whole debate is the way the evolutionist theory is presented in tax funded schools and colleges as the ONLY truth, when the entire subject is very debatable indeed.  There are many very bright minds on either side, have we each fairly examined both views ?  Many of those of us who have taken the time to study Intelligent Design have done studied both by default, since our publiuc school/college only teaches one side
   It does appear that the ID side has some rather empirical evidence to offer..something nearly impossible for both sides.
   http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design

   Since our schools are supposedly open to question and investigation, many wonder why I.D. puts so much fear in their minds. Is it because they see such as competeing "faiths" ?  When one studies I.D. just as diligently as the Darwinist theory is force fed to students...a competing picture starts to emerge.

   They really shouldn't be so "closed minded".

  MG;
  Youy can play semantics and word-games all you want with "theory"... but that still doesn't change the fact that Darwin's theory cannot be proven empirically, to be accurate.

  Some folks for a time evidently had a "theory" that the moon was made of green cheese...but that didn't make it fact..

[MGMorden]

  MG;
  Youy can play semantics and word-games all you want with "theory"... but that still doesn't change the fact that Darwin's theory cannot be proven empirically, to be accurate.

  Some folks for a time evidently had a "theory" that the moon was made of green cheese...but that didn't make it fact..

See, that's where you are mistaken.  There never was a scientific theory that the moon was made of cheese.  Some kooks might have said it, but without EVIDENCE to support that idea (which there is none), the idea would never advance to the stage of being a theory.  That's not a "word game".  That's the way science works.  That's the way science has worked ever since the scientific method was laid out thousands of years ago.  A theory has a specific meaning, and that meaning is not "any wild-haired idea that might pop into somebody's head".  It is a concept that after been subjected to scientific review, has has sufficient evidence put forward in support of it so as to make it a likely scenario. 

I almost blame this confusion on TV.  Too many bad writers of thrown in that line in detective shows "I have a theory, and it's just a theory. . ." until the public lost the proper meaning of the word.  What those guys had in those shows WERE NOT THEORIES.  As untested ideas there were hypotheses, NOT theories, but realistically television is written to entertain, and hypothesis just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as theory does.  A few bad lines on TV do not invalidate the meaning as it pertains to science however.

[squirrellluck]

MG you leave out the rest of it. In school we were taught theory was something that could be neither wholly proven or dis proven. Did they change that part or has it been omitted enough to be irrelevant?   

[MGMorden]

MG you leave out the rest of it. In school we were taught theory was something that could be neither wholly proven or dis proven. Did they change that part or has it been omitted enough to be irrelevant?   

Right, but perspective: a theory has to be something that COULD be disproven.  IE, the possibility exists, but for any theory that remains a valid theory, nothing as of yet as been able to disprove it. 

And yes, a theory is also not "wholly" proven, but it has reached as stage in scientific study where there is enough evidence that it is looking like a likely explanation.

IE, if you come home and find your pet bird gone and your cat has feather's in it's mouth, I could offer up two explanations:

1. The cat ate the bird. 

2. A robber walked into the house, heard the bird squawk, got annoyed, and then stole it to go kill it, but dropped a few feathers on the ground.  The cat then curiously picked them up.

Either could be true, but there's no evidence in support of #2.  There is evidence to support case #1.  It would become a theory, and accepted as the most likely scenario, but you still haven't proven it 100% true. 

Such is the case with scientific theories.  They aren't "100% proven" because in modern science we basically have come to a point where we never consider ANYTHING 100% proven anymore.  It's like declaring something perfect - rarely is anything perfect.  There may be some details that are off in current theories, but to become theories the BASIC idea behind them has already passed the stage of daydreaming.

Amongst the vast majority of modern scientists, evolution, as a general concept, is pretty well as far along as any idea ever is going to get  The only thing now is to work out the details.  Specific date ranges may need some tweaking.  Additional stages may later be identified in the fossil record.  Things like that.  Whether or not humans and neanderthals could interbreed is still debatable (at this point it's looking likely, but not for sure yet).  Details like that.  That's why things remain theories.  The basic idea though that "Through survival adaptations, life changes over time to suit it's environment, and man, like all modern animals, is a result of the changes to pre-existing species to suit their environments." is pretty well universally accepted in modern science.

[Scibaer]

yes, there is only one current human species or race, homo sapien sapien ( modern human ). but there are variants, a result of a change in character and traits due to adaption and mutation.( i.e. evolution of the species ) which by the way make us human, that is, the primary ability to readily change and adapt and take full advantage of the environment, change ( manipulate and alter ) the environment to suit our needs.
 i used the word 'races' to simplify and illustrate the point , the differences in theory and fact. and as MG  said, "fact" is not used much in scientific arenas any longer, other then to illustrate a 'law' of scientific study.  

[Graybeard]

From Answers.com:

The scientific system of naming organisms?
Scientist name animals by their; Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Species.

Read more:
 http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_current_scientific_method_of_naming_organisms#ixzz19uyP6Sif

Note that race IS NOT listed and is applied ONLY to humans and very incorrectly so. Just more PC BS from liberals who have to make a big deal out of skin color and shape of facial features to call attention to differences in minor characteristics to keep folks at odds with each other, to foment trouble among peoples and to make the rich even richer.

Humans, ALL Humans are the same species and race has no place in the discussion.

BTW I also do not believe humans set foot on the moon.

[Scibaer]

Bill, i am right with you there, i have read everything i could get my hands on, and watched all i could about the moon landing.
 i have an uncle, my dads older brother who worked for a time at NASA and was part of the Saturn Rocket program, after alot of badgering from myself, he sat me down and we talked about the space program.  from everything i can gather, we (anyone)  has never landed on the moon in any way.
 
as for human and the race issue, yupper thats right too...

Kingdom:    Animalia
Phylum:    Chordata
Class:    Mammalia
Order:    Primates
Family:    Hominidae
Genus:    Homo
Species:    H. sapiens
Subspecies:H. s. sapiens. ( homo sapien sapien ) Modern human

There is no consensus of a list of the human races, few anthropologists endorse the notion of human "race" because genetic studies have proven the absence of clear biological borders, only traits associated with adaption, so  the term "race" is not really used anymore in serious scientific studies, both in biological anthropology or in human genetics work.

[DDZ]

If we evolved from a lower species, then why is it that the apes didn't evolve in the evolutionary process? Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers?  They don't exist.  This is what is known as the "missing link" by evolutionists.  I didn't call them "scientists" because there is NOTHING scientific about evolution.  Science by it's very definition means "the study of."  To "study" something, it must be observable.  Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.  Evolutionists CANNOT display even ONE single proof of evolution.
I just don't see any credibility to the Theory of evolution.  Give me some proof and I'll believe it. I say that because I know there never will be any proof.

On the contrary, Thousands upon thousands of scrolls of the Bible have been discovered throughout the holy land.  They all agree with each other.  The Bible and history accurately coincide.  How could one book written by 40 men over a 1,500 year time period be so accurate.  Most of those men didn't know each other.  The Bible is a perfectly interlocking prophetic puzzle, a masterpiece of literature.  Further, the Bible is the only book on the face of this earth which addresses the sinfulness of mankind and our need for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.  It's been said that man wouldn't write the Bible if he could, and couldn't if he would.  There is no book which even compares. So why such an urge to believe something like evolution, that is so far fetched it is pretty much unbelievable.
 Many people want to believe evolution because it relives them of the horrifying possibility that there might actually be a holy God watching how we live. Whether you believe there is a God or not, the thought of both possibilities is very freighting. You see, as adults we tend to become proud and stubborn, Satan blinds our minds with worldly thinking. It is people's sinful pride and love for sin that hinders them from being saved. 
Have some of you ever realized that you are a sinner, bound for an eternal hell without Christ?  Don't risk spending an eternity in the lake of fire. You've got nothing to lose, salvation is a free gift from God...paid for by the precious blood of
Jesus.
This is the truth that I believe, along with many others. Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and trying to live your life as he wants you to, does have great rewards.
Sorry if I over stepped the bounds bringing God and Jesus Christ into the discussion, but God and his book the Bible, are the direct opposition to evolution.

[billy_56081]

As I said DDZ the "proof" I was taught about in my education was a few scraps of bones and a tooth or two that was made into a complete creature. Heck they even would tell you about these protohumans society.

[powderman]

DDZ. Excellent post, I heartily agree. POWDERMAN. 

[Scibaer]

DDZ "Sorry if I over stepped the bounds bringing God and Jesus Christ into the discussion, but God and his book the Bible, are the direct opposition to evolution"
 I hear alot of people say that, and i'm not sure that's true.  as we have discovered, "evolution" is a change in a species over time.
that really does not address 'creation' of a species. bio-genesis on the other hand describes a morphing of one spiecies into another life form.
it really comes down to the understanding of the terms and how they are used, as MG pointed out often incorrectly.
i am of the belief, that GOD as a creator of all things, crafted the human race, allowed for evolution of our minds, hearts, bodies and souls.
there is no need, at least as i see it, to apologize for saying what you believe, and i really enjoy your contributions to this discussion.

[ohiobenito]

Happy new year all;
     That is exactly what I was referring to as "bridge" fossils.  Certainly we can easily recognize localized adaptations of any given species..short, stocky bodies in arctic areas or tightly curled/frizzy hair in equatorial areas.  There are plenty of adaptations...but no bridge or crossover fossils clearly demonstrating movement from one species to another.

this only helps prove my case for extraterresterial experimentation with our species.  Its the only logical explaination. 

[ohiobenito]

[quote
BTW I also do not believe humans set foot on the moon.
[/quote]

research MK Jessup and the Van allen radation belt.   the russian cosmonauts and space program know it can't be done they cooked a lot of people trying

[powderman]

Happy new year all;
     That is exactly what I was referring to as "bridge" fossils.  Certainly we can easily recognize localized adaptations of any given species..short, stocky bodies in arctic areas or tightly curled/frizzy hair in equatorial areas.  There are plenty of adaptations...but no bridge or crossover fossils clearly demonstrating movement from one species to another.

this only helps prove my case for extraterresterial experimentation with our species.  Its the only logical explaination. 

It proves to me that God knows what he is doing. POWDERMAN.