[hibuckhobby]

Having lurked in the background and followed this thread, I would make a few observations:
1.  Eric is right about both groups having arrived at their positions by having made a "leap of faith."  The center of the argument seems to be which group is making the larger leap?  The creationists making theirs based on a choice to believe the Bible as being Divine in origin and their source of truth.  The evolutionists making theirs based on theories as to how to interpret a fossil record that does not give consistent basis for the theory.  They claim their source is science, but do not use the scientific method that they claim to be is one of the basic tenents of the way they go about constructing theories.

2.  It would seem that those who believe in creationism have (at least in this forum) been far more gracious and less antagonistic than those who disagree with them.  I may have missed it, but comments such as "moron", "idiot" and "incapable of comprehending" seem to come from just one side of the discussion and also appear be based in an inability to directly address the questions that the creationists have raised...therefore choosing the avoid having to answer the question by seeking to discredit the questioner.

3.  There is at best...within both camps varying degrees of opinion.  While the number of scientists who are questioning evolution is in the minority, that number is growing because the scientific community has people of integrity who are willing to admit that certain assumptions made in the past are not borne out by the data.  Intra-species mutation or "evolution" is well documented.  Inter-species evolution has at this point not yet managed to find a example to cite.  If they could find one, believe me, it would be trumpeted in the headlines of not only scientific journals, but newspapers as well.  The same is true for the "young earth, old earth" controversy"  which is based on carbon 14 dating, that while widely accepted is based on the theoretical half-life of an isotope that is measured in such long periods of time that we've never been able to establish what the half-life truly is.  The point being, it's hard to insist one side has data and science on it's side when that side has to abandon it's basic premise for interpretation to arrive at their conclusion.  So...they instead say things such as "any educated person knows...."

4.  There are few, if any researchers or theologians without an agenda.  Each side approaches and interprets information based on certain presuppositions that they have.  Those who are able to do research or study in an area with no presuppositions tend to be people who haven't yet learned enough about the specific field of endeavor to form them.  You either believe that God created the heavens and the earth...or you believe it just happened.  

Once a particular bent in thinking has been established, it is doubtful that debate will change that bent...because at the end of the day...it is about choosing to believe something because you have decided that the evidence is compelling (for you.)  It's still a leap of faith because all the evidence is not in.  (but I guess I already said that...didn't I)  
Bob

[maxwalrath]

I haven't been following the thread so I feel strange chiming in...but as far as carbon dating the earth, I believe there is more than one isotope used to check age, and "any educated person" does know the approxamite age of the earth.

[Tyson]

While the number of scientists who are questioning evolution is in the minority, that number is growing

Please show evidence to back this claim.

I never used moron or idiot to refer to anyone.  My "incapable of comprehending" comments stem from people letting "faith" cloud what they will or will not accept as fact or theory.

You either believe that God created the heavens and the earth...or you believe it just happened.

We have proof that it did happen (by the fact that we are here at all).  We do not have proof that god even exists, let alone is some kind of agent for change.  Until such is proven, then using god to explain anything at all is invalid.

So, once you remove god, what theory do you have that has greater explanatory power for life diversity on this planet?

Because, you see, merely taking pot-shots at a theory is not enough, an alternate theory must be proposed that accounts for more facts, or accounts for the given facts in a better manner.  I'm still waiting to hear this alternative theory.

[maxwalrath]

even Georgia has the word evolution in their textbooks

[Tbadder1]

However there is a lot of posturing and conjecture flying about. If you are going to use the word evolution and imply science in the same sentence. Please define your terms. Explain what you mean by evolution.

Proof of Evolution:

1) Organisms change through time.  Both fossil record and nature today make this obvious.

2) Because of: descent with modification. Evoluntion proceeds via branching through common descent.  Offspring are similar to but not eaxact replicas of their parents.  This produces the necessary variation to allow for adaptation to an ever-changing enviroment.

3) Because of: multiplication of speciation: Evolution does not just produce new species; it produces an increasing number of new species.

4) Because of: natural selection.  The mechanism of evolutionary change, co-discovered by Darwin and Alred Russell, operates as follows:
     a) populations tend to increase indefinitley in a geometric ration: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512...
     b) in a natural enviroment, however, population numbers stabilize at a certain level
     c) therefore, there must be a "struggle for existence" because not all of the organisms produced can survive
     d) there is variation in every species
     e) in the struggle for survival, those individuals with variations that are better adapted to the enviroment leave behind more offspring than individuals that are less well adapted.  This is known as differential reproductive success

By the way, lets get our terms correct.

Hypothesis: a testable statement accounting for a set of observations
Theory: A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses
Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement
Construct: a nontestable statemen to account for a set of observations

For instance, the living organisms on Earth maybe accounted for by the statement "God made them" or the statement "They evolved."  The first statement is a construct, the second a theory.


P.S. Before whipping out your credentials you might want to know who's on the otherside.

[Eric]

Proof of Evolution:

1) Organisms change through time. Both fossil record and nature today make this obvious.

2) Because of: descent with modification. Evoluntion proceeds via branching through common descent. Offspring are similar to but not eaxact replicas of their parents. This produces the necessary variation to allow for adaptation to an ever-changing enviroment.

3) Because of: multiplication of speciation: Evolution does not just produce new species; it produces an increasing number of new species.

4) Because of: natural selection. The mechanism of evolutionary change, co-discovered by Darwin and Alred Russell, operates as follows:
a) populations tend to increase indefinitley in a geometric ration: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512...
b) in a natural enviroment, however, population numbers stabilize at a certain level
c) therefore, there must be a "struggle for existence" because not all of the organisms produced can survive
d) there is variation in every species
e) in the struggle for survival, those individuals with variations that are better adapted to the enviroment leave behind more offspring than individuals that are less well adapted. This is known as differential reproductive success

By the way, lets get our terms correct.

Hypothesis: a testable statement accounting for a set of observations
Theory: A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses
Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement
Construct: a nontestable statemen to account for a set of observations

For instance, the living organisms on Earth maybe accounted for by the statement "God made them" or the statement "They evolved." The first statement is a construct, the second a theory.


P.S. Before whipping out your credentials you might want to know who's on the otherside.

_______________________________________ _____________________


1. I think we can agree that species have been documented to change over time. There is not documentation of them transitioning to another species, only changes within the species

2. Is this statment always true. Some change just happens. It has nothing to do with the environment. Some species (the cockroach) have not changed is spite of changes in their environment. You conclusiondoes not always follow

3. Has never been domonstrated

4. Facts mixed with unproven conclusions. You begi by atgtributing a,b and c to natural selection. that is an unwarranted conclusion that you have not demonstrated

According to your definition of theory, evolution does not fit. It has never been well tested. I have never seen a test of inter-species mutation, or of protiens being randomly formed or of order proceeding from chaos. So by your definition, evolution is a construct that is not tested

I dont understand what you intended by your P.S. so I won't address it

[hibuckhobby]

I agree...you must posit a viable alternative to disprove theory.  My point is that evolutionists have not yet proven their theory...therefore, it is no more valid...or invalid than any other.

The fact that we are all here, simply proves that something did happen.  No one is disagreeing here.  The issue at hand is "how?"  Faith, by definition is not a uniquely religious word.  It is simply that act of choosing to believe something you cannot prove...or as I said before, something that you have decided the evidence is compelling for . (for you)

Science for all of it's rhetoric, takes leaps of faith all the time.  They do it every time they have to try to put things together going backward in time.  One minor point, I will differ with you on the definition of the word hypothesis.  A hypothesis is a theory or guess as to how the interaction of variables within an experiment will turn out.  You then run the experiment repeatedly in a controlled environment to prove or disprove the hypothesis.  The point I raise here is that science cannot go back and run creation repeatedly to see if they get consistent results.  In fact, the results we do have are consistently inconsistent.  That's why it's called the theory of evolution. (something we both agree upon)  

Currently, the hypothesis is that evolution took place in fits and starts.  This conclusion was arrived at because the fossil record did not support a gradual evolution as had been assumed by the majority of the scientific community since Darwin.  I have no problem with this new hypothesis...other than that it is an effort to "backward interpret" something that we cannot either confirm or deny with futher study.  

Tyson...I was not singling you out in my comments about ungracious behavior.  This obviously is an issue that you have not only well formed opinions about...but also fairly strong feelings.  There were, however, those who never really engaged the heart of the question, but who consistently ranged in their responses from argumentative to rude.

Maxwalrath..."all thinking people know how old the earth is"
Wow!  Really  I say this tongue in cheek because the data is quite conflicting here as well.  One example would be human footprints and dinosaur prints on the same sandstone strata although for years it has been common wisdom that homo sapiens as we now know him did not exist until "millions" of years after that particular dinosaur was extinct.

Another example from the world of geology.  Based on the speed of erosion that currently takes places in North America, the Rocky Mountains can't be more than 6-8,000 years old because using the currently accepted formula's for dating such things, if the mountains were as old as carbon dating says they are, they would already be "flat".  A point of clarification here...I'm not saying that's how old they are, just pointing out that using the very formulas that geologists used, results that are inconsistent with their theories are found.


That's my story...and I'm stickin' to it.
Bob

[Tyson]

Well, it seems to me that we are going in circles, and truly nothing will be resolved one way or the other by this dialog.

[Eric]

Tyson,

In terms of gravity, I can test it repeatedly in a lab. The same cannot be said for some of the basic tenents of evolution

[Tyson]

Eric,
You cannot test and verify "descent with variation" in a lab?  How odd.

[Tyson]

Nevermind, don't bother to answer me cause I'm checking out of this discussion as I truly believe that nothing will be resolved.  I have learned something from it, and for that I say thank you.

[hibuckhobby]

"Well, it seems to me that we are going in circles, and truly nothing will be resolved one way or the other by this dialog."

I agree...with one exception:  Neither side has the inarguable high ground on this issue.  Regardless of how we define words or how closely we parse rhetoric, conclusions will at the end of the day be based on which way you decide to jump.  Either direction will require faith (of a sort)

Discussions like this are entertaining...and (in the right company) stimulating because if one actually listens to what the other is saying, it requires regular re-evalution of conclusions previously arrived at.  Even that is evolution of a sort  

Bob

[maxwalrath]

"Another example from the world of geology. Based on the speed of erosion that currently takes places in North America, the Rocky Mountains can't be more than 6-8,000 years old because using the currently accepted formula's for dating such things, if the mountains were as old as carbon dating says they are, they would already be "flat". A point of clarification here...I'm not saying that's how old they are, just pointing out that using the very formulas that geologists used, results that are inconsistent with their theories are found."

Familiar with the earth's tectonic plates smashing into each other and pushing up the earth? This happens faster than erosion, or else there would be no mountains at all. Mount Everest grew 7 ft. to 29,035 since it's last measurement due to this phenomenon. The "youngest" parts of the earth are newly formed mountains such as those created by volcanoes.

[hibuckhobby]

"Familiar with the earth's tectonic plates smashing into each other and pushing up the earth? This happens faster than erosion, or else there would be no mountains at all. Mount Everest grew 7 ft. to 29,035 since it's last measurement due to this phenomenon. The "youngest" parts of the earth are newly formed mountains such as those created by volcanoes"

Which would seem to make my point. While some mountains get smaller, others get taller.  Which at very least proves that we are good at measuring what happens...not always as good at explaining why.  Shifting plates in the earth's crust do effect topography...just not always the same way....the mountains in California would be an example.  Part of the difficulty lies with new ways of measuring things due to advances in technology that do not allow for all the things that have taken place up to the point that the technology was developed.

I'm going to follow Tyson's lead and make this my last post on this thread.

Have fun folks!
Bob

[Eric]

I am bowing out as well. Thanks for the wonderful discussion

[Tyson]

Ran across this link the other day, it didn't really fit in with the earlier discussion, but I do think it is an excellent overview/introduction to evolutionary theory, so I am posting it for anyone that might be interested in a good synopsis of the current state of evolutionary theory, simply as an FYI, since up until this point we had been debating various points, but nothing had been really posted to address a more general overview.  Anyway, no further comment from me.  Take care all and thanks again for the discussion.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

[Sa-dono]

Are you still alive there Bob?

We are all still waiting for your "postings"...and I am still awaiting answers to my questions on page # 25. Hope you find some time from your busy schedule!

[Aether Audio]

Sa-dono

Thanks for checking up on me.  Sorry I haven't posted.  Been busting my tail to fill a couple orders - none the least of which and first to go out the door is horseheads Continuums.  It might be a week or a little more before I can come back and enlighten everyone with my profound wisdom!

Hang tight and take care

-Bob

[Wind Chaser]

What a great read!  And for the most part, very civilized.  Oddly enough there's less ado here than in other sanctioned areas.

Ah, the good old days. 

[BobM]

Wow, what a cool thread. Haven't read throught all of it, but I can say that I agree with much that I have read.

(EDIT- didn't realize it was 2 years old when I posted the below. I thought I just stumbled on an interesting, and yes civilized, discussion.)

I was also raised Catholic, but am not sure I believe in a God and the church's declaration that man was made in his/her image. What was the quote ... any god that thinks of man as their priority is not much of a god at all ... or something like that.

So, perhaps there is one or more powerful beings, and perhaps they had a hand in our evolution. I doubt that our personal lives mean anything to them now.

In my philosophy (a bastardization of existentialism), if you follow your conscience then you are doing OK. Of course, in childhood I believe you need a religion to help develop your conscience and understand good, evil and all in between. Religion has caused more grief than anything else in history, but it is still necessary for the social development of our youth.

It's when religion becomes intolerant of other people's beliefs that the problems occur. There is no one true faith, and there is no one right belief, at least not that we can prove without the all abiding "faith" argument. That's what gets us all into trouble as fellow human beings, and it's how you treat your fellow human beings that matters. Not how faithfully you go to church on Sunday or how much you tithe or how adritly you try to convert others for "their" salvation.

What kills me is that pretty much all religions say to treat others fairly. So how come the most devout in just about all religions don't tolerate the others well at all, and even go to war with them? That is just manipulation of the ignorant, plain and simple, and should have no place in religion or a belief system.

Enjoy,
Bob