ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη wrote:

Well... I just think it's pretty obvious that evolution happens. Bacteria reproduces and dies extremely fast and scientists watch it evolve with stimuli through generations to adapt to different habitats. I think that same could be said of macro organisms, but at a much greater/ slower scale.

dude seriuosly.....is that all you got? of course there is adaptation because God will make sure any organism has what he needs...that doesnt prove taht they "evolved"

You need to distinguish micro evolution from macro evolution.

"MIcro" refers to adaptation WITHIN the same species, which pretty much everyone accepts. MACRO means adaptations from one species to another--that is, changes are such that a new species evolves, as opposed to the same species with some incidental changes.

While there is a good deal evidence for macro evolution, this is where the debate is.

However, you need to be reminded that evolution does not necessarily rule out the idea of being intelligently guided--the key question is whether these changes were directed by God (or, God designed something original in the first place which was capable of these changes under certain circumstances), or whether they are the result of random events.

graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

While there is a good deal evidence for macro evolution, this is where the debate is.

Well what is the "evidence"

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

While there is a good deal evidence for macro evolution, this is where the debate is.

Well what is the "evidence"

I do not have an extensive science background, though I know many people who do, and nearly all of them accept the data for macroevolution to one extent or another.

Some evidence pertains to fossils and or skeletal remnants, etc. which idnciated species with characteristics "in between" currently existing species, but which no longer exists. It is of course possible that these were distinct species created entirely uniquely (no evolution), but it certainly gives the appearance of something that was in transition between one species and another. I believe it is also possible at times to extract DNA from such samples which also shows similar associations, etc. But this is only one line of evidence. I likewise couldn't reiterate for you the arguments for how we know the earth revolves around the sun, but it is clearly established fact questioned by no one reputable in science. Evolution (macro) is not QUITE at that point, but close. But once again, evolution in and of itself does not necessairly preclude the existence of an intelligence which guides it---THOUGH it does raise questions about the justification of positing such on the grounds of this evidence.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

While there is a good deal evidence for macro evolution, this is where the debate is.

Well what is the "evidence"

Pay attention in science class.

Young earth creationist...SIKE!!!!!!!!
I am staunchly theistic evolutionist. I had a kid in my biology class who believed that the earth was really 10,000 years old. I mean....come on!

I am quite suprised that this topic hasn't provoked any rage. Most other forums would be like this within the first five posts....

Theonymic wrote:

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

While there is a good deal evidence for macro evolution, this is where the debate is.

Well what is the "evidence"

Pay attention in science class.

wow...that sure was a good argument

I got straight As in science through high school so far...so obviously I pay alot of attention.

Unless your class wasn't very informative, the evidence should have been presented along with the theory. Geological evidence speaks volumes.

well yeah they tried to show evidence of course....but I wasnt jsut gonna fall for it liek you guys...I actually looked at this "evidence" and studied it..and looked at what I knew..and with logic was able to give a counter-argument to everything thrown at me

Because none of us were smart enough to study it; we all just fell for it.

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

well yeah they tried to show evidence of course....but I wasnt jsut gonna fall for it liek you guys...I actually looked at this "evidence" and studied it..and looked at what I knew..and with logic was able to give a counter-argument to everything thrown at me

im sorry, but can you give a single problem with the evolution theory? or better yet, a decent arguement for ID that is not merely a critique of evolution?
seriously, try me. or any other decently educated human.

olias wrote:

Young earth creationist...SIKE!!!!!!!!
I am staunchly theistic evolutionist. I had a kid in my biology class who believed that the earth was really 10,000 years old. I mean....come on!

In Europe YEC is still pretty much the most popular form of creationist-thinking.
I actually had never heard of OEC until 2 or 3 years ago.

really? I would never expect that coming from Europe.

I'm not entirely sure what opinion I subscribe to. Evolution definitely occurs, though. I am not a YEC... I'm probably more a OEC... maybe lol... In the end it all comes down to speculation with what evidence we do have and I don't think we can get it 100% accurate. This isn't the most important topic for me at all anyways.

Kan-o-sushi wrote:

In the end it all comes down to speculation with what evidence we do have and I don't think we can get it 100% accurate.

Such is the way of science, a method of observation. I am glad you get it. I had a girlfriend years ago who threatened to break up with me when I told her my views on the matter.

Matt wrote:

olias wrote:

Young earth creationist...SIKE!!!!!!!!
I am staunchly theistic evolutionist. I had a kid in my biology class who believed that the earth was really 10,000 years old. I mean....come on!

In Europe YEC is still pretty much the most popular form of creationist-thinking.
I actually had never heard of OEC until 2 or 3 years ago.

probably because OEC is the dumbest thing ever, and is even more ignorant of science and history and YEC. YEC goes against evidence for sure, but it is a model for the world, while untrue, that could theoretically work. OEC is impossible.

???....

olias wrote:

really? I would never expect that coming from Europe.

From what I know and would guess of much of European society (not that it's homogenous for each country, just saying) that the reactionarianism of fundamentalist groups would be even greater in such conditions.

olias wrote:

???....

natural selection leading to micro-evolution is accepted by all groups. this wouldve caused fairly major changes in human kind in millions of years. moreover, there is no evidence for any human civilization more than like 10,000 or so years back.

Theonymic wrote:

olias wrote:

really? I would never expect that coming from Europe.

From what I know and would guess of much of European society (not that it's homogenous for each country, just saying) that the reactionarianism of fundamentalist groups would be even greater in such conditions.

i can see that

mystery wrote:

olias wrote:

???....

natural selection leading to micro-evolution is accepted by all groups. this wouldve caused fairly major changes in human kind in millions of years. moreover, there is no evidence for any human civilization more than like 10,000 or so years back.

Which leads to another interesting issue: human evolution.

My current hypothesis is in line, as best I can make it, with the lack of "transitional fossils" from primate ancestors to man: plants, animals, bacteria, etc were formed through guided evolution, while man, being the image of God, were created separately.

Bear in mind, though, that forming civilisation is not an inherent consequence of change and advancement. Many Native American peoples remained nomadic, because this was the most suited to the environment as they were able to be. One might say that this was even more suited than "advanced cultures" have ever been, since we have a tendency to take from the environment without giving back.

olias wrote:

Kan-o-sushi wrote:

In the end it all comes down to speculation with what evidence we do have and I don't think we can get it 100% accurate.

Such is the way of science, a method of observation. I am glad you get it. I had a girlfriend years ago who threatened to break up with me when I told her my views on the matter.

Dang. Never had that, but I'm pretty sure this girl at youth thought I was going to become an atheist any day. That, and the "You're just giving in to the atheists!!!!" crap on other sites.

Theonymic wrote:

mystery wrote:

olias wrote:

???....

natural selection leading to micro-evolution is accepted by all groups. this wouldve caused fairly major changes in human kind in millions of years. moreover, there is no evidence for any human civilization more than like 10,000 or so years back.

Which leads to another interesting issue: human evolution.

My current hypothesis is in line, as best I can make it, with the lack of "transitional fossils" from primate ancestors to man: plants, animals, bacteria, etc were formed through guided evolution, while man, being the image of God, were created separately.

Bear in mind, though, that forming civilisation is not an inherent consequence of change and advancement. Many Native American peoples remained nomadic, because this was the most suited to the environment as they were able to be. One might say that this was even more suited than "advanced cultures" have ever been, since we have a tendency to take from the environment without giving back.

ahhhh yes, the scientifically unsupported idea of human exceptionalism. its the opiate of the masses.

strong words, mystery. At any rate, I do agree with you M., in that there is not any scientific proof and that human exceptionalism is just a postulation made to fill in the lack of evidence of a transitional species. However, opiate of the masses? It's only a hypothesis.