Evolution

[delfin1 0]

I have to believe in evolution, i mean look at all the evidence there is on fossils. Even now we can appreciate evolution - people are being born with darker skin, smarter, etc. We can see evolution on small organisms with a short half life. I don't know about evolving from apes, but surely we evolved from something. We continue to evolve. For the one who says there is no debate between intelligent design and evolution... off course there is no debate, the newly adopted idea of intelligent design takes care of it.There is a great amount of debate to be done about the old testament vs evolution, because each propose completly different views on the creation of men.The bible teaches men were created to the image of god, maybe some facts about the creation of men got los in translation, or maybe these were all myths. I was raised catholic and it's really hard because there is really no way i can ever come to a conclusion, just have to wait and see what happens after death.

[illini319 0]

Science prides itself on being objective. We come up with a hypothesis, we test the hypothesis, we make emotion-less conclusions from our experiment. All the while, taking into account that our conclusions (which is independent of the data) is our perception of reality; that there can be other ways to interpret the same data that would still be consistent with all the constraints of the experiment. That is, scientists know that with every experiment, one must remain open minded to ensure an unbiased position towards interpreting the data. So, fundamentally, a scientist is first and foremost an open minded tester of phenomena. And yet when it comes to the oldest questions in humanity, scientists close their eyes, stick fingers in their ears, and essentially close their mind to the possibility that something greater than what they currently understand could be the answer to their questions regarding life, the cosmos, etc. Scientifically, with regards to a god, the answer is simple: we don't know. An answer such is this is derived from the fact that we simply do not have positive data regarding this 'experiment.' There is NO data whatsoever that supports or refutes the idea that a god exists. So why is it that most scientists are atheists? Are they not breaking one of the most fundamental tenets of their practice: no conclusion when there is no data?I should note now that I am a scientist. And like everyone (regardless of camp) I have personally debated the idea of a god. But I think, as a scientist, I owe it to myself to remain objectified and acknowledge that there is simply no good data regarding a god. That, as a scientist, I should not fall to the same DOGMATIC trap of the very people most scientists find ignorant. Hence when it comes to things like creation/evolution... I find myself scratching my head and wonder why soooo many people immediately divide themselves as if the two possibilities are so absolutely mutually exclusive. Why can't both be approximations of the same truth?

Edited March 23, 2006 by illini319 (see edit history)

[Vicious_AD 0]

Refer to other "intelligent design versus darwinism" post. Basically I think that it's imp-ossible for some being that came from pretty much nowhere to just poof two perfectly generated humans onto earth, and them somehow have the life span to spawn enough children to incestuously populate the planet, and then also be able to survive practically nakid and survive past the animals that where much more vicious than they are now (due to getting used to humans) and somehow able to populate other continents when they had no boats or ships, and somehow learn all of the things we have learned. The bible also says the earth is 4000 years old, but we've proven that to be completely wrong. Saying "humans got here by god's magic" is the same as just not answering the wuestions at all, because out of one question is makes many many more. It just isn't scientific at all. It is the lack of science that created this theory in the first place. If perhaps god made two single celled organisms and they multiplied enough to spawn the planet, then maybe. but most of the bible and most of all other religions are only there to explain things that couldn't have been explained otherwise with the technology available at the time. Now it can be proven wrong, and has been proven wrong, and the only reason people stick to this belief is because they either want the comfort of thinking that there is some failsafe behind life and that science (which most people don't understand well) isn't everything, which in esssence it is, or they are afraid they'll get smote or condemmned or something silly like that for not believing because their parents or surroundings have forced them to have that phobia. Just because that missing link hasn't yet been found, doesn't mean that it just isn't there, it just means we haven't found it yet. For all we know that missing link could have had the intelligence necessary to pay tribute to dead like some mammals do. Elephants scatter the bones of their dead and didn't used to before the increase in poaching, so why can't other mammals other than homosapiens do the same? perhaps those random bones we often find that can't be placed are just that? I don't think that the missing link is still elived, the same way people who say "we didn't evolve from monkies" don't understand that these early mammals where not "monkies" (because if there where there'd be no monkies today) but instead creatures that somewhat resembled them, and that's why there AREN'T and other ones like that now, just fossils. Just because we haven't yet found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We haven't yet found the arc or jesus's skeleton or any record that this "adam and eve" ever existed, and that doesn't stop people from believing it. Religion seems to have no need tor things like proof, or logic, or reasoning.