Evolution...not really political, maybe controversial

**heftysmokes** · 04-30-2007, 01:11 AM

I'm a big fan of cheese...all kinds really: your basic cheddar, a nice baby swiss, even a nice nutty gruyere.......mmm, cheese,

What were we talking about?

**SmokinDVM** · 04-30-2007, 02:20 AM

Evolution is a fact.

**CoventryCat86** · 04-30-2007, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

Evolution is a fact.

I agree with Barry 100%.

**borovy3488** · 04-30-2007, 12:40 PM

I'm just wondering, not trying to start anything, but how do you guys think evolution started? Like where did everything come from to just start evolution?

-Wayne

**heftysmokes** · 04-30-2007, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by borovy3488

I'm just wondering, not trying to start anything, but how do you guys think evolution started? Like where did everything come from to just start evolution?

-Wayne

Well, what happens is, they take milk, usually from a cow or a goat, and start a process of...oh wait, that's cheese.

I don't know the answer to your question, sorry.

**CoventryCat86** · 04-30-2007, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by borovy3488

I'm just wondering, not trying to start anything, but how do you guys think evolution started? Like where did everything come from to just start evolution?

-Wayne

The water.

**nhcigarfan** · 05-01-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

I agree with Barry 100%.

what say

Not that I disagree, but I never figured.....

**SmokinDVM** · 05-01-2007, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by nhcigarfan

what say

Not that I disagree, but I never figured.....

I know it's extremely shocking, but it does happen every now and then.

**Devil Doc** · 04-30-2007, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

Evolution is a fact.

I believe it's called the Theory of Evolution not the Law of evolution. Perhaps you should look up the word 'theory'.

Doc.

**rsanz** · 04-30-2007, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Devil Doc

I believe it's called the Theory of Evolution not the Law of evolution. Perhaps you should look up the word 'theory'.

Doc.

theory (link to look up 'theory')

**CoventryCat86** · 04-30-2007, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Devil Doc

I believe it's called the Theory of Evolution not the Law of evolution. Perhaps you should look up the word 'theory'.

Doc.

I don't think it's called either but there is certainly scientific evidence of evolution.

**nhcigarfan** · 04-30-2007, 04:05 PM

Evolution - because I have evolved from smoking crap to cubans.

**Devil Doc** · 04-30-2007, 04:46 PM

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=48

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

I don't think it's called either but there is certainly scientific evidence of evolution.

Doc.

**SmokinDVM** · 04-30-2007, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Devil Doc

I believe it's called the Theory of Evolution not the Law of evolution. Perhaps you should look up the word 'theory'.

Doc.

This is the part that most people can't figure out;

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

The Theory of Evolution has so much supportive evidence that it is considered a fact. The only questions remaining are as to some of the minor details.

**WhiteWidow** · 04-30-2007, 07:25 PM

How come you can't believe in both? And the idea the earth is only 7000 years old is pretty fuckin retarded seeing as how we have dinosaur bones and carbon dating and what not

**TampaSupremo** · 04-30-2007, 08:43 PM

I subscribe to the Lovecraftian theory, i.e. that it doesn't really matter what the hell happened 'cause Cthulhu and the Great Old Ones are gonna come back and rule the cosmos anyway and we will either worship them or go insane.

TampaSupremo

**SandPiper** · 04-30-2007, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

How come you can't believe in both? And the idea the earth is only 7000 years old is pretty fuckin retarded seeing as how we have dinosaur bones and carbon dating and what not

I'm not jumping into this beyond this post, as I don't think forum posts are conducive to a debate this size. To post as much info as it would take to make even a basic argument either way would be unwieldy. Just as a baseline, I am a Christian, but don't necessarily believe in a young Earth. The theology behind that is not set in stone...just too many variables in the scripture to definitively say so, because it's not explicitly stated. I believe the origin of that idea (<7,000 years) was from some clergyman's margin notes several hundred years ago who was attempting to simply add up lifespans of people mentioned in the Bible. It seems to me that the young Earth beliefs are often a lot of conjecture. It just doesn't appear to be clearly stated in the Bible to me. But, just as a sidenote, there are stronger arguments to be made for an old Earth than the mere existence of dinosaur bones and carbon dating. The age of the bones is deduced, for the most part, from the context in which they are found. The problem being, there must be a fundamental assumption of some baseline age in the surrounding stria. Carbon dating is essentially worthless in ages of this scope (even in the extraodinarily rare occurrence of any original material in a dinosaur fossil...usually there's no original material remaining; it's been mineralized/replaced). Its half life is much too short. In old Earth thinking, the last dinosaurs died off about 68 million years ago. Carbon's halflife is about 5,700 years...its usefulness in age estimation is significantly degraded by 25,000 years, and entirely useless beyond 50-60,000. That being said, there are other elements that could theoretically be used (K-Ar, etc.). Then, there's the whole thing with original matrix content, intervening contamination, etc.

**WhiteWidow** · 04-30-2007, 09:13 PM

Geologic timetable dude.

**Shagaroo** · 05-01-2007, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by SandPiper

Just as a baseline, I am a Christian, but don't necessarily believe in a young Earth. The theology behind that is not set in stone...just too many variables in the scripture to definitively say so, because it's not explicitly stated.

I am an old earth creationist at this point in my journey. Some scholars claim a more accurate translation of Genesis 1:2 (And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.) is that the earth, in it's previous form, had been destroyed and God created the earth that we know. This is one of the many variations on the Gap Theory. I find little, either Scripturally or scientifically, that indicates the earth is a mere 6,000-10,000 year old.

Unfortunately some have tried to turn this into a Salvation requirement, which it clearly is not. And in the grand scheme of things, as far as Christianity is concerned, doesn't matter one bit.

**rsanz** · 04-30-2007, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

How come you can't believe in both? And the idea the earth is only 7000 years old is pretty fuckin retarded seeing as how we have dinosaur bones and carbon dating and what not

Exactly. One does not cancel out the other.

Though certain areas of science do not sit well with certain areas of various religions. For those believing the world is between 6,000 to 10,000 years old for example. But I guess they also have problems with the geological sciences too.

I suspect there are a few here who believe the world is between 6,000 to 10,000 years young. But none of them are retarded. They just believe what they believe. As does anyone.