🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Who believes in evolution?

Who believes in evolution?

  • I believe

    Votes: 23 60.5%
  • Bogus

    Votes: 15 39.5%
  • What's evolution?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    38

HLGStrider

All Knowing Magic Cat
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
7,803
Reaction score
32
Location
Moving on the whim of the military
I am curious about how one can be a supporter of Evolution. By selectively breeding chimpanzees? ;) You can support legislation. You can support another person. You can support a political canidate. Can you support scientific theories? You can believe in them. You can look for evidence to support it, and if so I guess you are sort of supporting it.


Definition of supporter: A person or thing that supports (the definition of supports I'll get into later. It's long). 2. an adherent, follower, backer, or advocate. 3. A jockstrap. 4. a garter. 5. either of two human or animal figures flanking and supporting an escutcheon.

Now, I think we can rule out 3, 4, and 5 now. Two is the best bet. . .but even then, all of those things that suggest action. Is a person a supporter of the Law of Gravity if they believe in it?

Personally, I see evolution as a theory which I don't believe in but don't really have the ability to argue against. However, I know that there are many reputable scientists who don't believe in it. They can argue against it for me and do better at it.

I believe in the Intelligent Design Theory. I don't think I support it, however. Theories are only supportable by evidence.
 

Arlina

White Wolf Angel
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Location
anywhere but here
I disagree with the theories of evolution. Scientist have tried to find proof, but none has come up that backs up their theories. I'm not informed in the subject of evolution much, but I do know, however, everything the scientist have found so far haven't supported their theores. Therefore, how could evolution be true if it's only a theory (or should I say a hypothoesis) with no support? Scientist try to find reasoning for everthing, but they don't have PROOF for their theories. That's the main word here: PROOF. We were put on this world by God, believe it or not; take it or leave it.
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
155
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Arlina said:
I disagree with the theories of evolution. Scientist have tried to find proof, but none has come up that backs up their theories. I'm not informed in the subject of evolution much, but I do know, however, everything the scientist have found so far haven't supported their theores. Therefore, how could evolution be true if it's only a theory (or should I say a hypothoesis) with no support? Scientist try to find reasoning for everthing, but they don't have PROOF for their theories. That's the main word here: PROOF. We were put on this world by God, believe it or not; take it or leave it.
This is an interesting point. You say that you are not informed in the subject of evolution much. Yet you are so well informed that you know everthing that the scientists have found and also know that each and every discovery has failed to support their theories! I wish I was so Ill informed about it.
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Science can't produce proof. I know many people think that it can, but it can't. Sorry about that. There is no theory -- none -- that was "proven".

Scientific theories are the best explanations we have for a set of phenomena. Why are they the best? Why don't we keep the old theories if none of them is proven?

The criteria are:

  • Predictive power
  • Experimental repeatability
  • Falsifiability
  • Simplicity (the smallest number of entities is to be preferred, a principle known as "Occam's razor", stated by William of Occam, a 13th century monk).
A scientific theory must make predictions. That rules out many philosophical systems.

A scientific theory must be "repeatable", i.e., observers must be able to reach the same conclusions from the same data. That rules out many kinds of personal experience (such as mystical experiences).

A scientific theory must be falsifiable, else it will be pointless. If there is no experiment that can prove that a theory is false, then the theory is useless. This was the argument used by Sir Karl Popper to rule out Marxism and Fruedian psychology as scientific theories... there is no experiment that can falsify them since a contrary result is always reinterpreted as being predicted by the theory in a new clothing.

A scientific theory must have the smallest number of entities possible. For instance, when Copernicus offered the heliocentric system, the great argument for its use was that it simplified astronomy enormously, by reducing the number of entities. The epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy were needless once you put the sun in the center of the system. Note, the argument was not whether the sun is actually in the center of the system or not! The argument for the heliocentric system was that it was simpler, and that it did fit the observations. It was only a few decades later that people started to take the theory as a fact and to believe that the sun was indeed in the center of the system.

A theory supplants another when it fits those criteria better than the old one. The other side of this principle is that there must be a theory that fits the criteria better than the old one, or the current theory -- no matter how flawed -- is the best theory we can offer.

And another caveat is that the new theory must be also scientific. "God did it" is not a scientific theory; as can be seen by checking it against the criteria. I don't mean that it is false to say that God did it; heck, I'm a Christian and I believe He did :). No, I mean it is unscientific; and that therefore it is not an argument against evolution.

Now to criticize Evolution as "not proven" is not correct since this applies to all scientific theories. To criticize Evolution, you must show that it breaks one of the criteria above (I hope I haven't missed any :)). As you see, there is nothing pertaining to "truth" or "proof" there.

If I were to play Devil's Advocate here and attack Evolution I know where I would start. I think it would not be the same spot that it will be chosen by creationists in this thread :). I think creationists will focus on the predictive power and on the experimental repeatability, while I would focus on the falsifiability... but I'll leave this to other posters :D.
 

Eliot

We shall prevail.....
Joined
Aug 28, 2002
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago, the greatest city in the world
I very strongly believe the Universe was created by the Christian God. In my very humble opinion, I can't believe some people would be stupid enough to believe the Universe evolved to its present form.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree."

--Charles Darwin
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
155
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Eliot said:
I very strongly believe the Universe was created by the Christian God. In my very humble opinion, I can't believe some people would be stupid enough to believe the Universe evolved to its present form.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree."

--Charles Darwin
Can you please explain just why anybody who does believe in this theory is stupid?

Words of two syllables or less please ;)
 

Eliot

We shall prevail.....
Joined
Aug 28, 2002
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago, the greatest city in the world
I never said everybody who believes in Evolution is stupid. I just said in my very humble opinion they are. ;) :D

I've also been raised as a Christian. That should explain everything. I've been taught since I was 3 or 4 that the Universe was created by God in 6 days. I found out what Evolution was when I was like.....9 or 10 or something. I found the theory stupid then, and I find it stupid now.


P.S.

I can't figure out how to put a link to another URL into my signature. I see you've put one in yours, Gothmog. Could you help me?
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
155
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
I understand that you are a Christian. So is Eriol. Try talking to him about it on This Thread :). Elessor II would probably like to see you on it as well. ;)

As for the Link in my Sig I had to write in the tags by hand.

Hope that helps.
 

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
I understand that you are a Christian. So is Eriol. Try talking to him about it on This Thread . Elessor II would probably like to see you on it as well.
Indeed I would, any help from a fellow creationist would be appreciated!
 

Arlina

White Wolf Angel
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Location
anywhere but here
Gothmog said:
This is an interesting point. You say that you are not informed in the subject of evolution much. Yet you are so well informed that you know everthing that the scientists have found and also know that each and every discovery has failed to support their theories! I wish I was so Ill informed about it.

Excues me for miss wording what I had said. I didn't mean for it to sound the way it did, so please forgive me for my error...

"So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

((for anyone who cares))
 

HLGStrider

All Knowing Magic Cat
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
7,803
Reaction score
32
Location
Moving on the whim of the military
I used to read a lot of Intelligent Design Theory books. . .a lot of which were very good, though the majority of the were written in a simplified manner (I went through my science stage at about 11, so most of them were not high level. . .Although I did continue reading them up until I was seventeen or so everytime one fell into my lap, at this point I didn't have enough of an interest to seek them out), so I know how evolution is usually countered in these books.

One: the chance of it all, the incredible amount of design in the universe pointing to something more than a chaotic begining. This is not a problem for anyone who believes in Theistic Evolution where God would actually be guiding the process, as I believe Eriol does.

Two: for a Christian and only a Christian (or for a follower of Islam and only a follower of Islam using the Q'oran.), when arguing with a fellow Christian about it, the main arguement is that the Bible states this, that Christiainity isn't much without the Bible, and therefore, if you disbelieve the Bible what's the point of Christianity. However, there are believers in metaphorical translation of the Old Testament. I believe this has included such great Christian thinkers as C. S. Lewis. Therefore, I believe you can be a Christian and believe in Evolution at the same time. I just believe you'll be in for a shock when God says, "I'm sorry, son, but you were wrong. I made earth the old fashioned way." Of course, I also believe I'll be told I'm wrong about some of the ways I've interpeted the Bible. No human will ever get it all right.

Three: The lack of evidence. Normally this includes a long section dealing with former evidences of evolution that have since been disproven. A lot of these are very funny. I mean, the missing links that turn out to be much less than such. Nebraska Man, for instance, is probably the funniest. Hailed as man's ancestor for about five years, it was finally proven to be the skeletal remnents of a pig. Generally, studying this left me with the feeling that any "proof" of evolution will eventually be rejected and put asside as it is disproven.

Four: Genetic problems with it. I have seen this gone into in depth, and truthfully, I didn't come away with enough of an understanding that I can talk about it here.

Fifth: Dating problems. These involve some of the methods used to date fossils. None of them seem very trustworthy.

There are other methods, but those are the most used.
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
155
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Arlina
Certainly I forgive your error :). It was only my wish to point out the danger of making such strong statements. But I do suggest that you read This Thread As the two members who started the thread are both Christians. :)
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Point 1: It is a mistake to talk about "odds" in a sample of one. Everything is wildly against the odds. I am the result of the fertilization of my mother's egg with one out of 100 million spermatozoans. (10 to the eighth power). Each spermatozoan is different from the other, and so the chance that I would be here (and not someone with a different genetic makeup) is 1/100000000. Let's be conservative and ascribe 30 years for each generation. In 3000 years that's 100 generations. The chance that I would be here is then 1/(10 to the eighth power)to the hundredth power, which is a number too small to be written here, but I'll try: 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

So, considering only the spermatozoans in the last 3000 years (not the entirety of history even if we accept a Young Earth scenario) and disregarding other matters of probability (such as the chance that my father would meet my mother -- and the same process happening for each of my ancestors), my existence is so against the odds that I shouldn't exist :D. And this applies to every human being.

There are two ways to face this argument and solve the problem. If you are a believer, you say that God governed history so that everything would concur to your birth. But then the same argument applies to Evolution. If you are a non-believer, you must realize that the notion of "odds" presupposes repeatable observations. We talk about "odds", properly, when we discuss cards, dice, lottery tickets, etc. etc. To talk about odds in non-repeatable observations -- such as stock markets or even horse races -- is misleading and, in the last analysis, plain wrong.

Since we don't have "repeatable universes", we can't discuss the odds of the universe being what it is. It's a given; including all the minute chances (such as my existence, and that of everyone else).

Point 2: It is only of concern for believers, and as Elgee said, it is circumvented by interpretation. We'll only find out who's right about it when it is no longer important enough for us to worry about it :).

Point 3: The frauds and mistakes should not be used as "lack of evidence" without considering the non-frauds and non-mistakes. Paleontology is a very delicate science (as is obvious once you think of what these guys are doing... digging up minutely fragmented bones of animals which died millions of years ago). Even so, the amount of evidence for evolution is indisputable. That assumes, of course, that one has looked into it :). We have intermediate forms (though creationists deny that, I don't know why), we have biogeographical evidence, we have genetic evidence, we have biochemical evidence...

As J.B.S. Haldane said, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution".

Point 4: I don't know what kind of problems you're talking about, Elgee.

Point 5: They are extremely trrustworthy in that they are based on atom physics, something which can't be tampered. The problem is not in the theoretical framework, is that samples can and often are contaminated. But "often" does not mean "always". There are uncontaminated samples. And they give those very old ages. To refute an uncontaminated sample that gives an age of some billion years (like the Greenland rocks, they're very much uncontaminated) one must refute Radioactivity.

Another problem is that sedimentary rocks are not good for dating. But fossils are only formed in sedimentary rocks. So what the paleontologists must do is to date from igneous rocks that are found nearby the sedimentary rocks. But this is risky in the sense that the fossils may have been formed elsewhere and have been moved there by earth movements. So yes, dating of fossils is a risky business... the risk is not in the dating itself, though, but in the attribution of a given date to a given fossil. The date is good.
 

HLGStrider

All Knowing Magic Cat
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
7,803
Reaction score
32
Location
Moving on the whim of the military
3. I have heard the opposite. I've heard it stated often, and there are scientists who make a living out of looking into it and disbelieve. I feel fine about trusting them.

4. I wish I could understand them.

5. Again, I have repeatedly heard the opposite.

Scientists look at the same data and seem to always get two different answers. I think it is wrong to assume that the evolutionists who look at the data and assume evolution are correct and the others incorrect simply because evolution is the accepted theory.
 

jejeje

Squirlybot
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Location
Leeds, england
Im definitely not an expert on theology, but i am quite interested.
There may not be much proof to say that everything was created by evolution, but i am pretty sure that there is evidence to say that the earth was not created 4000 years ago.
Im an atheist by the way, and think evolution is pretty much a sound theory, unlike the idea of god (no offense) which is pretty dumb if you think about it for a while
 

omnipotent_elf

Omnipotent....mmm....good
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
549
Reaction score
0
Location
Here
I am stumped by the suggestions that evolution has no evidence

ever heard of the following techniques
*comparative embryology
*comparative anatomy
*biogeography
*biochemistry
*paleantology
*DNA-DNA Hybridisation


each of these are proven techniques.
These are techniques which people like Darwin actually used to prove the theory.
 

HLGStrider

All Knowing Magic Cat
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
7,803
Reaction score
32
Location
Moving on the whim of the military
unlike the idea of god (no offense) which is pretty dumb if you think about it for a while
Which makes me very curious about your thinking process, how did you arrive at this, because during all the religious debates on this forum (there used to be a lot), I never once saw anything close to a logical arguement against God, definitely nothing that shoke my faith in him.

comparative embryology
My science book listed embryology as a rejected theory. It said it was based on homogenous appearances that generally fall apart on closer examination, like the assertation that human embryos have gills, which really happen to be facial muscles when they develop further.

comparative anatomy
Which is a double edged sword. A lot of animals have things in common with animals that no evolutionist in his right mind would suggest they are related to. Humans have the most in common with pigs, if you think anatomically. I think it was the horse that our eye is most like.

paleantology
This used to be my science of choice, and so I know there are plenty of very exacting creationist paleantologists. Paleantology is actually one of the most rewarding fields for a creationist scientist.

The other three I don't know much about.
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
jejeje said:
Im an atheist by the way, and think evolution is pretty much a sound theory, unlike the idea of god (no offense) which is pretty dumb if you think about it for a while
:D

Tell that God is a pretty dumb idea if you think about it to the likes of Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Louis Pasteur (among scientists) or Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz, Kierkegaard (among philosophers)... all of those guys were pretty sure that there was a God.

No offense, but to the idea that "the idea of God is a pretty dumb idea" is, well, a rather undeveloped idea ;). You should think about it.
 

Bombadillo

Skipping right along
Joined
Jun 15, 2002
Messages
145
Reaction score
0
Location
Wageningen
well, I don't believe in god, but i am interested in religion.

And I strongly believe in evolution.

Arlina said:
Scientist try to find reasoning for everything, but they don't have PROOF for their theories. That's the main word here: PROOF. We were put on this world by God, believe it or not; take it or leave it.
its funny but i don't know a single piece of evidence that there is a god...
at least there are some hints that evolution could be right.

Evolution is IMO the only theory that supports the things known to us today, it may not be entirely true and some aspects of the theory will change in the future, but it is the best theory.

and what do the people who don't believe in evolution make of the legs in a pythons skeleton, and the legs on a whale??

If god made everything, why make legs that are not even visable from the outside?
 

Thread suggestions

Top