Evolutions unsolved questions!

by **mith** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:30 am

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of ... of_Science

by **GAG CAT UUG** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:08 am

Why is it that people of strong religious beliefs find it necessary to attack the theory of evolution, while evolutionists keep separate science and god (:twisted:)?

Is it that some have intentions of trying to strenghten their unsound faith by attempting to discredit someone elses? Is that how one strengthens themself by attempting to weaken another?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ID believe in evolution? So there is no argument here that evolution does exist - just the mechanics in which it occurs. It seems the real questions are more about the origin of the first life forms. And I think you can ask any reasonable scientist that this question will never be answered with 100% certainty because we were not there and therefore will never know.

However, evolution is more concrete and observable, and therefore explains more about the existence of man than any ghostly explanation.

Excalibur, where is your alternative model that no other reasonable, credible SCIENTIST has ever thought of?

by **alextemplet** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:14 am

I'm a person of strong religious belief, and I've done a lot of defending evolution in this forum. I never really thought of myself as a theistic evolutionist but I guess the term fits. Would you call my faith unsound, GAG CAT UUG?

by **alextemplet** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:52 am

I'm cool with that. I hope you can forgive me for getting a bit touchy. Strong religious faith tends to do that to people.

by **Linn** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:46 am

saving you the trouble

mithrilhack wrote:Gravity is a theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Two examples we're familiar with are Newton's Law(which is a special type of theory) of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Similar article for electricity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

People really should read my posts and save me the trouble of requoting myself
There is a difference between the definition of theory commonly used and the definition of theory used in science.

by **Linn** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:55 am

I repeat myself that gravity and electricity are fact. The evidence is there.
Evolution is a theory. There is NO evidence.
You are refering to the explanation for the phenomena of gravity and electricity.

And can some people debate without bringing religion up?
linn

by **Linn** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:22 am

"However, evolution is more concrete and observable, and therefore explains more about the existence of man than any ghostly explanation."

I beg to differ :wink:

by **Linn** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:58 pm

alextemplet
"If intelligent design is correct, then two things must be true:
1) The "perfect" designer created numerous organs that contain very obvious flaws, such as the already-mentioned back problems and the backwards wiring of the human eye; that is, the designer is not perfect.
2) This designer created in such a way as to make it look like evolution occurred, such as the remarkable similarity in structure among vertebrates and the fossil evidence of the many missing links that creationists wrongly claim don't exist; that is, the designer is a liar."

answer to 1) why is it a flaw?
How would you design it?
2) I would like to see proof of any transitionary stages. I was not aware that there was? elaborate?

by **Linn** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:15 am

crazypantboy wrote:How can you believe in something that has never been proven to be true. Evolution has so many more problems with it than just the missing link. Oh, and did you know that Darwin, the creator of the theory of evolution, recanted everything he said before he died.

Sorry i have been out of touch
heard something about that
but I am yet to read it?
Is there a link?
thanx

by **Linn** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:42 am

sorry I am trying to read everyones posts to understand some things
stay with me if I repeat things

it was mentioned about flaws in the back where is that?
thanx

also about the eye
why are you saying that is a flawed design?
How would you improve it if you were able?

Actualy I was going to mention a positive about the eye:
I like the comment made by astronomer Robert Jastrow " It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors"

Also said by Jastrow; "The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better."

and Darwin had problems with this.
"To suppose that the eye... could have been formed by (evolution), seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

The eye is complex.
All parts of it must work together for sight to take place.
Could the underected element of chance that is the idea behind evolution , have brought all these parts together at one time to produce the eye?

by **alextemplet** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:22 am

Linn:

I repeat myself that gravity and electricity are fact. The evidence is there.
Evolution is a theory. There is NO evidence.
You are refering to the explanation for the phenomena of gravity and electricity.

Okay, Linn, have it your way. By that definition, gravity, electricity, and evolution are all fact, because the evidence is there. Their mechanisms are all theories, but just because they're theories doesn't make them false. They're true.

answer to 1) why is it a flaw?
How would you design it?

In an nutshell, the eye's optic nerve loops in front of the retina before heading to the brain, causing a large blindspot that is only overcome by constant, microscope vibrations of the eye itself. That's the human eye. By contrast, squid, for example, have an eye in which the optic nerve is placed directly behind the retina, and does not obstruct it. As a result, they see much better than we do.

2) I would like to see proof of any transitionary stages. I was not aware that there was? elaborate?

I've already mentioned this in my debate with Springer. Again:
Astralopithecus: links apes and humans
Ambulocetus: links mesonychids and whales
Archaeopteryx: links dinosaurs and birds
Eohippus: links small mammals and horses
Ichthyostega: links fish and amphibians

Need I go on?

Also, Linn, are you trying to take over Springer's job?

by **Linn** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:24 am

PS
I am from the old school before you changed the meaning of theory.

But come to think of it then,
If that is your meaning of theory, you dont even have one because there is no evidence and is just conjectural musing. :wink:

Evolutions unsolved questions!

Who is online