Evolution a proven fact!

[BarryPrays]

Please help me win a debate against this guy called SheepFarmer, who accuses religions of brainwashing us against the theory of evolution. I support a middle ground, where evolution and creation are not exclusive.
Thanks for the help!

Quote:
"Quite frankly I think that in this day and age, the fact that evolution is still questionned shows our society's fundamental failure to accept obvious truths. This in turn indicates to me the dangerous hold that religion has over people's minds," SheepFarmer

http://homeworkhelp.madpage.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1156078671/

 

[Sunstone]

"Quite frankly I think that in this day and age, the fact that evolution is still questionned shows our society's fundamental failure to accept obvious truths.

I would agree with this part of his statement.

This in turn indicates to me the dangerous hold that religion has over people's minds...

I think he's being a bit superficial here. It does not indicate that religion is necessarily dangerous. Instead, what it indicates is that certain religious people in the US launched an intense, sustained campaign some decades ago to discredit both scientists and the theory of evolution, and that their campaign has paid off over time. But SheepFarmer has not demonstrated that these lunatics are representative of all religious people in general.

If SheepFarmer were accurate in his claim that the hold religion has over people's minds were necessarily dangerous, then we would expect to see no instances of when religion has been beneficial to people and society. However, there are numerous instances when religion has benefited people and society. So, SheepFarmer is wrong to assert that religion is necessarily dangerous.

 

[Ryan2065]

Uhh... Is he talking about evolution or ID? Some people confuse the two... You can believe in ID and still believe in evolution. You can still believe in the concepts of evolution and not believe that evolution will make a new species appear...

 

[Random]

Evolution remains a theory. Life arising from Non-life is in and of itself a supernatural occurence logically speaking, something which is rarely touched upon by Scientists or Atheists.

This doesn't necessarily imply the involvement of God or gods though, as a monadic force may have been the catalyst...though for me, it is appparent that consciousness and form are predicated on some aspect of intelligent design.

Religions do brainwash people, which is why the gulf between it and authentic spirituality is widening. Materialism and so-called "Naturalism" will never replace religion though, simply because Science will never be able to tell us where the atoms, molecules, and electrons that comprise the processes it decribes came from in the first place.

Cheer up. You don't need to defend yourself against SheepFarmer or anybody else.

 

[Ryan2065]

Evolution remains a theory.

Gravity is also a theory... I don't see you questioning that. Google the scientific definition of theory and you will find that theory pretty much means *fact*

Life arising from Non-life is in and of itself a supernatural occurence logically speaking, something which is rarely touched upon by Scientists or Atheists.

Read up on evolution please... Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life, it simply talks about how life adapts to its environment.

If you want to read up about theories of how life came about check out abiogenesis.

Religions do brainwash people, which is why the gulf between it and authentic spirituality is widening. Materialism and so-called "Naturalism" will never replace religion though, simply because Science will never be able to tell us where the atoms, molecules, and electrons that comprise the processes it decribes came from in the first place.

There will be theories :flirt:

 

[JerryL]

Evolution remains a theory.

Yep. Having been proven true graduated the hypothesis of evolution to proven theory.

Life arising from Non-life is in and of itself a supernatural occurence logically speaking

Support.

This doesn't necessarily imply the involvement of God or gods though, as a monadic force may have been the catalyst...though for me, it is appparent that consciousness and form are predicated on some aspect of intelligent design.

To me it's apparent that there's no intelligence involved (unless it's a terribly inept one). I wonder if "apparent" is a good argument.

Religions do brainwash people, which is why the gulf between it and authentic spirituality is widening.

Spoken like every true believer of every other true believer. But I'm sure you are the one person in history that actually got it right.

Materialism and so-called "Naturalism" will never replace religion though, simply because Science will never be able to tell us where the atoms, molecules, and electrons that comprise the processes it decribes came from in the first place.

Virbations of quantum strings?

Religion can't even manage to tell us where humanity came from... at least not accurately.

 

[Random]

I am familiar with Abiogenesis and have read extensively about Evolution in general. Life arising from Non-life is the necessary supposition of Evolutionists, otherwise the whole theory is without foundation. Check out the Wikipedia articles.

BTW, I didn't say it wasn't a good theory, nor did I deny that it may be a fact.

 

[JerryL]

I am familiar with Abiogenesis and have read extensively about Evolution in general. Life arising from Non-life is the necessary supposition of Evolutionists, otherwise the whole theory is without foundation.

That's simply an untrue statement. Evolution requires that there was life, but makes absolutely no requirement on where it came from.

Perhaps you have been extensively studying the wrong books?

TW, I didn't say it wasn't a good theory, nor did I deny that it may be a fact.

Evolution is proven. If it were not proven, it would be a hypothesis.

 

[Ryan2065]

I am familiar with Abiogenesis and have read extensively about Evolution in general. Life arising from Non-life is the necessary supposition of Evolutionists, otherwise the whole theory is without foundation. Check out the Wikipedia articles.

Hrm... Looking at the wikipedia link... Don't see anything in the evolution theory that explains how life was formed... Wikipedia says this:

n biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Through the course of time, this process results in the origin of new species from existing ones (speciation). All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is the source of the vast diversity of extant and extinct life on Earth.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Where exactly does it say that evolution ONLY works if life began from non life? Hrm, so if evolution cannot occur without life coming from non-life, if we see examples of evolution in the modern world is that evidence of life coming from non-life?

 

[Random]

That's simply an untrue statement. Evolution requires that there was life, but makes absolutely no requirement on where it came from.

Perhaps you have been extensively studying the wrong books?

Evolution is proven. If it were not proven, it would be a hypothesis.

It is not an untrue statement at all. Read the oft-cited "Timeline of Evolution" online and it is plain for all to see that A) At one point as the Earth is forming there is no life, then, B) Life appears and develops allegedly from "Self-replicating RNA molecules", posssibly stimulated electrically.

Ergo, Life from Non-life.

Secondly, who has proven it? How? I have heard no formal declaration of this from the scientific community, who despite almost unanimously agreeing to the validity of Evolution, still refer to it invariably as a theory.

 

[Mike182]

evolution is inevitably founded on life appearing from non life, evolution is a forwards-moving process, so to speak, ergo we should be able to trace the current state of things back through time, and back through the process of evolution... we should eventually find the point where we have the first form of life, that came from some form of non life.

if evolution was not based on life appearing from non life, it would be the same as saying lifeforms have, in one state or another, existed for eternity, which is scientifically bull-plop

can science explain the miracle or life appearing from non life? any explanation given will sound just as vague and "iffy" to me, as me saying "God did it" sounds to you.

 

[Random]

evolution is inevitably founded on life appearing from non life, evolution is a forwards-moving process, so to speak, ergo we should be able to trace the current state of things back through time, and back through the process of evolution... we should eventually find the point where we have the first form of life, that came from some form of non life.

if evolution was not based on life appearing from non life, it would be the same as saying lifeforms have, in one state or another, existed for eternity, which is scientifically bull-plop

can science explain the miracle or life appearing from non life? any explanation given will sound just as vague and "iffy" to me, as me saying "God did it" sounds to you.

Exactly, agreed.:clap

 

[Ryan2065]

evolution is inevitably founded on life appearing from non life, evolution is a forwards-moving process, so to speak, ergo we should be able to trace the current state of things back through time, and back through the process of evolution... we should eventually find the point where we have the first form of life, that came from some form of non life.

if evolution was not based on life appearing from non life, it would be the same as saying lifeforms have, in one state or another, existed for eternity, which is scientifically bull-plop

can science explain the miracle or life appearing from non life? any explanation given will sound just as vague and "iffy" to me, as me saying "God did it" sounds to you.

Hrm... Technically any explanation on where life came from, wether it be religious or otherwise, requires life to come from non-life. The theory of evolution plays no part in *how* the beginning of life started.

As far as can science explain the miracle of life appearing from non-life... Well, they have an alright hyphthesis that has evidence backing it up... To me thats a little more credible than god did it

 

[Ryan2065]

It is not an untrue statement at all. Read the oft-cited "Timeline of Evolution" online and it is plain for all to see that A) At one point as the Earth is forming there is no life, then, B) Life appears and develops allegedly from "Self-replicating RNA molecules", posssibly stimulated electrically.

Ergo, Life from Non-life.

You seem to be disagreeing with Jerry here... Would you please point out in the theory of evolution where it states how life came from non life? I will be interested in seeing this...

Secondly, who has proven it? How? I have heard no formal declaration of this from the scientific community, who despite almost unanimously agreeing to the validity of Evolution, still refer to it invariably as a theory.

You obviously have no idea what "theory" means in the scientific community...

When a scientific hypothesis is tested and experimented and then passes all the tests that science can throw at it, it becomes a theory.
Check out wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

 

[Mike182]

Hrm... Technically any explanation on where life came from, wether it be religious or otherwise, requires life to come from non-life. The theory of evolution plays no part in *how* the beginning of life started.

As far as can science explain the miracle of life appearing from non-life... Well, they have an alright hyphthesis that has evidence backing it up... To me thats a little more credible than god did it

nice statement, please provide the evidence.

 

[fantome profane]

Not only have we seen in the last few days several people who don’t seem to be able or willing to understand what the word “theory” means in the scientific sense, people also seem to be confused about what the word “proof” means.

Theory as has been pointed out repeatedly does not mean the same thing when used in the scientific sense as it does when used in the everyday sense. It does not mean a guess or a hunch. A scientific theory is a framework that is used to explain a variety of observations and to make predictions.

Proof in the scientific sense simply means evidence that supports the theory. It does not mean that it suddenly becomes 100% certain, only that there is evidence to support it. If there is a lot of evidence to support it you can say that it is well proven. Evolution is an extremely well proven theory. String theory is an example of a theory that is as of yet not well proven.

The idea that the earth revolves around the sun is part of what is referred to as the “heliocentric theory”. It is also a well-proven theory. But regardless of how well proven either of theses theories are, they will always be referred to as theories, because that is what they are. They are well proven models that can be used to explain observations and make predictions. They are not hunches, they are not guesses, they are not something that someone just made up.

 

[joeboonda]

I believe "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I do not believe it was by evolution.

 

[Random]

Theory=PROPOSED description, explanation, or model...a hypothesis clothed in a theory is still a hypothesis until proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

No-one will be doing that with Evolution anytime soon: for a phenomena to be accepted as conclusively true, it must be empirical, observable, reproducable and falsifiable (as per the Scientific Method).

This won't happen with Evolution in the near future: no scientist can claim to have observed random Mutation in action and Natural Selection properly belongs in the realm of Social Darwinism.

AS for the link between Life and Non-life...? The mystery drives us on, I think.

 

[Ryan2065]

nice statement, please provide the evidence.

The easy answer is if you are telling someone where life came from you are propsing that life had a starting point... So if life had a starting point it had to come from something... No mater what it comes from, it comes from non-life =p

Major religions that say life came from non-life... Er, all the mainstream religions... Maybe scientology would go against my argument... But otherwise the mainstream religions agree life came from non-life.

 

[Mike182]

The easy answer is if you are telling someone where life came from you are propsing that life had a starting point... So if life had a starting point it had to come from something... No mater what it comes from, it comes from non-life =p

Major religions that say life came from non-life... Er, all the mainstream religions... Maybe scientology would go against my argument... But otherwise the mainstream religions agree life came from non-life.

so i'm right, your arguments is just as vague and "iffy" as mine is