Evolution...not really political, maybe controversial

[SmokinDVM]

Evolution is a fact.

[CoventryCat86]

Evolution is a fact.

I agree with Barry 100%.

[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

[heftysmokes]

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]

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]

I agree with Barry 100%.

what say




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

[SmokinDVM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Devil Doc]

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

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

Doc.

[SmokinDVM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Geologic timetable dude.

[SandPiper]

OK, I know I said

I'm not jumping into this beyond this post

but, this is it (really )

Geologic timetable dude.

Exactly. The geologic timetable is constructed with some foundational assumption as to the time required for geologic formation. Otherwise, it's not demonstrable (i.e. we must estimate deposition rates etc. involved based on modern conditions and speculation about past conditions...we couldn't "watch" sedimentation occur for a million years, and then measure). There must be some beginning assumption, simply because of the timespans involved with geology; it's difficult to conduct an experiment knowing the conclusion is millions of years in the future. Dude.

[Shagaroo]

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.

[HersheyWalker]

I just wanted to add this.

I find little, either Scripturally or scientifically, that indicates the earth is a mere 6,000-10,000 year old.

If you add up the ages of the people listed in the geneologies in the Bible from Adam to Jesus you are left with 4,500 years or so. Add the 2,000 since that time and you are left with 6,500 or so. How can you disregard this?

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.

This is not a salvation requirement, but it gives power to those who are saved. The world tells us that the Bible is a fairytale which preys on the weak minded. We are bombarded everyday with the notion that we have been living in a world who's inner workings are death and destruction, ie. evolution. We are told that everything that God wrote in the Bible as fact is wrong. It's the biggest slap in the face of the Christian, who despite all of the propoganda has had a spiritual encounter with Jesus and believes. Yes, a person can come to salvation without having to understand and accept the historical record recorded in the Bible, thank God for that. But when living in this modern world as a Christian, we shrink and feel embarrassed that we have experienced a real emotional/spiritual thing in Jesus Christ because of what that entails. "Omg, you believe the Bible? But it's just a book of stories written by drunk shepards". We never share our beliefs with our neighbors, we never read in the Old Testament, we never put up our flag and stand for our beliefs.

"In the grand scheme of things", it makes all the difference in the world. This is coming from a person who use to be embarrassed that he prayed to Jesus.

We as Christians have absolutely no reason to live like this. We have every right to stand strong in our beliefs and stand strong in knowing that God has spoken in our hearts and in the Bible. Understanding that the Bible is on point from cover to cover is such a critical point in owning your faith. If we don't take literally that with Adam's fall sin came into the world, and with sin death also came into the world. Then we can't understand why Jesus had to die as a undeservant sacrifice. And this ties to evolution because evolution tells us that death and destruction has fueled the process that brought us into being. The Bible tells us the exact opposite, that we were brought into being and sin/death followed. If we can't believe that, then why believe any of it? Why believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If there is a single lie in a book which claims to be the written voice of God, then we are fools. If evolution is true, then the Bible is full of lies and more to the point, there's no reason Jesus had die. Nothing in the Bible makes sense unless you accept a literal reading of Genisis. It lays the foundation for everything that follows.