Treeees!!!

[BubbuClinton]

Re: Treeees!!!

Good. Now just take this idea to its logical conclusion. If you change the characteristics of a population of dogs enough they could evolve into something else.

No, it is still a dog with different charateristics. Its not a cat/dog or a dog/bird. It is still a long hair dog or a happy dog, or a really stupid dog that looks like a Hot dog. But it still a dog.

The logical leap you make is the insane approach that I am complaining about. No where in there written history of man has there been evidence of anything changing from one species to another. So no, it is not logical to continue on your thread of if charaterics change it will change species. You still don't have evidence.

Yes my post was strongly biased in favor of evolution and I expalined why. Your posts are biased against evolution. So what?

Actually, I am just questioning your logic and asking you point to real evidence that supports you. I did not bring up religion, you did. I am not totally opposed to evolution, but I think it still a very weak theory and should be treated as such and not believed in like a religion.

I should imagine not, otherwise you would have to be very old indeed.

I am very old. But I answered this above.

Its called \"peer review\". It is fundamental part of the scientific method.

You are making my point. Peer reviewed means "challenged and examined by peers. Not blindly followed like evolutionist tend to do.

No I disagree. There is abundant evidence to support evolution. Evolution may or may not be the correct inpretation of that evidence, but the evidence is there.

Yes there is a lot of evidence. I do not dispute that. And you are also correct that evolution may not be the correct interpretation of that evidence.

This in itself supports the theory of evolution.

Now this is sounding like magic. Because something is not demostrated by our febble skills to interpret does not make it a fact.

The only evidence that you offer to support you theory is a statement with a serious logical fallacy.

My only point is that we don't know yet and Evolution has yet to be proven. Yet you insist on believing it.

I disagree. Fossil evidence does show organism have developed.

Show your evidence. That is all I ask. So far you have profered none.

I think you may have a profound missunderstanding of evolution here Bubbu. Evolution is not magic. A dog does not simply transform into a cat, therefore no one can provide evidence that it does. If I could provide such evidence then it would not support evolution but rather magic or creationism.

Hmmm.... who has lack of understanding here? You are the one with the logical fallacy to support. You state that if characteristics change enough they will change species. Of course the dog to cat example was a little extreme to make a point. Show me a fish that turns into a lizard or something. You pick since the evidence is so vast. Go a head. I dare you,

No, I double dare you.

Bubbu
__________________________________

P.S. Thanks Harte for not getting into this pissing match.

 

[Lucidus]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

No, it is still a dog with different charateristics. Its not a cat/dog or a dog/bird. It is still a long hair dog or a happy dog, or a really stupid dog that looks like a Hot dog. But it still a dog.

The logical leap you make is the insane approach that I am complaining about. No where in there written history of man has there been evidence of anything changing from one species to another. So no, it is not logical to continue on your thread of if charaterics change it will change species. You still don't have evidence.[/b]

Well naturally there are not written records of this because recorded history only goes back a few thousand years. And if there was, would you believe it? Maybe you would, millions of people do believe written accounts of the Earth being created only 6000 years ago.

To get an idea of this you need to look at older records, ie the fossil record. 65 mya the only mammals on earth were small rodents, since that time we see the emergence of many new mammal species filling the nitches left vacant when the dinosaurs suddenly passed into extinction.

So would you agree that a human is not just a really smart rodent, or that an elephant isn't just a really big rodent?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

Actually, I am just questioning your logic and asking you point to real evidence that supports you. I did not bring up religion, you did. I am not totally opposed to evolution, but I think it still a very weak theory and should be treated as such and not believed in like a religion.[/b]

I have pointed to some evidence, but you find it uncompelling. Thats good. That is what good science is all about, people questioning and critisizing the current theories.

I assure you that my belief in evolution is not of a religious nature. I personally favor Christiany as a religious belief system.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

You are making my point. Peer reviewed means \"challenged and examined by peers. Not blindly followed like evolutionist tend to do.[/b]

So you feel that evolution does not meet the requirements of peer review? How so?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

Yes there is a lot of evidence. I do not dispute that. And you are also correct that evolution may not be the correct interpretation of that evidence.[/b]

Agreed.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

My only point is that we don't know yet and Evolution has yet to be proven. Yet you insist on believing it.[/b]

Yes I believe it because I feel that it is the best explaination of the evidence available. The only other theories that I am familiar with are creationism and intelligent design, both of which IMO have much, much, less supporting evidence than evolution.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

Show your evidence. ?That is all I ask. ?So far you have profered none.[/b]

You have access to the internet, do your own research. I am not going to hold your hand.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

Hmmm.... who has lack of understanding here? You are the one with the logical fallacy to support. You state that if characteristics change enough they will change species. Of course the dog to cat example was a little extreme to make a point. Show me a fish that turns into a lizard or something. You pick since the evidence is so vast. Go a head. I dare you,
[/b]

The evidence is readily available if you want to see it. If you have seen it and still think evolution is bumpkiss, fine that is your right. I will not try to convince you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

No, I double dare you. ?[/b]

Oh my goodness a dare. If I don't take this dare what will the other kids think?)

 

[BubbuClinton]

Re: Treeees!!!

Well naturally there are not written records of this because recorded history only goes back a few thousand years. And if there was, would you believe it? Maybe you would, millions of people do believe written accounts of the Earth being created only 6000 years ago.

To get an idea of this you need to look at older records, ie the fossil record. 65 mya the only mammals on earth were small rodents, since that time we see the emergence of many new mammal species filling the nitches left vacant when the dinosaurs suddenly passed into extinction.

So would you agree that a human is not just a really smart rodent, or that an elephant isn't just a really big rodent?

Well there are a lot of statements there. Most of which I would have an issue with. However, lets put it this way. I am not proposing the Earth is 6000 years old, and i agree for evolution to have a shot in hell at working it would take "billions and billions or years" like a good Saganite would say. I would agree that there have been new species on the earth at different time. What I disagree with is that evolution fully explains how those species came to exist. I understand your bias against creationism and intelligent design, but just because you don't like something doesn't make it so. And just because you can't think of another theory doesn't make it so either. Lets just say we don't know yet and all of the above proffered theories are just that theories.

Is man a smart rodent? I tend to not support this theory. I think man is man. I do not think that somehow we evolved from a primate which came from a rodent or something. At least I have not seen any credible evidence to demonstrate this. All of the evidence proffered by paleo anthropologist are pretty thin. They find a fraction of a jaw bone and they have a new species all of a sudden. They may find a piece of monkeys little toe that is carbon dated 4 million years ago and declare that there is a new form of man. Yeah right.

My point is evolution is just a theory. It may even be part of the answer, but it is not the complete answer.

I have pointed to some evidence, but you find it uncompelling. Thats good. That is what good science is all about, people questioning and critisizing the current theories.

I assure you that my belief in evolution is not of a religious nature. I personally favor Christiany as a religious belief system.

I was not really intending to attack you personally. I appologize if I did. It is just that most, not all, evolutionist treat evolution like thier religion, just like Athiest treat thier belief there is no god as a religion.

And yes, the evidence is not compelling.

So you feel that evolution does not meet the requirements of peer review? How so?

Evolution is surely a fit subject for peer review. My issue is that most of the peers already subscribe to the fallacy that you proposed. If you already believe that something can change species over time without question then you are not truly examining the issue in an unbiased way. They don't start by asking the question have things changed species, they start out with well this is simillar so it must have evolved. But there is usually a significant difference between the two samples.

Again, I am willing to look at the theory, I just don't take it as a fact.

Yes I believe it because I feel that it is the best explaination of the evidence available. The only other theories that I am familiar with are creationism and intelligent design, both of which IMO have much, much, less supporting evidence than evolution.

OK, belief in an unknown is the same as faith or religion. Thus my point.

have access to the internet, do your own research. I am not going to hold your hand.

No need to hold my hand. Yes I can do research. Thats why I have this issue. If I just watched TV or believed everything they tried to push on me in school, I would be a sheeple.

The evidence is readily available if you want to see it. If you have seen it and still think evolution is bumpkiss, fine that is your right. I will not try to convince you.

Thank you

Oh my goodness a dare. If I don't take this dare what will the other kids think?)

I am sorry, I should have thought of what others would think. My bad, just a small piece of bad humor.

Stick to your guns if this is what you really believe in.

Bubbu
__________________________

 

[Lucidus]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

. And just because you can't think of another theory doesn't make it so either. Lets just say we don't know yet and all of the above proffered theories are just that theories.[/b]

Agreed. It is very possible that all our current theories are wrong. In fact I would be suprised if some aspects of evolution are not completely wrong. But, I still think that it is the best theory we have right now and I believe that we are on the right track.

Do you favor a theory? If so, I would like to hear about it. Not to critisize or try and prove it false, but just to hear a new idea.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

Is man a smart rodent? I tend to not support this theory. I think man is man. I do not think that somehow we evolved from a primate which came from a rodent or something. At least I have not seen any credible evidence to demonstrate this. All of the evidence proffered by paleo anthropologist are pretty thin. They find a fraction of a jaw bone and they have a new species all of a sudden. They may find a piece of monkeys little toe that is carbon dated 4 million years ago and declare that there is a new form of man. Yeah right.[/b]

Yeah, the evidence can be hard to interpret correctly, scientists are bound to make some mistakes along the way. But on the upside, science is self-correcting. If there is a problem with a theory someone will eventually point it out and a new improved theory will be developed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

My point is evolution is just a theory. It may even be part of the answer, but it is not the complete answer.

Evolution is surely a fit subject for peer review. My issue is that most of the peers already subscribe to the fallacy that you proposed. If you already believe that something can change species over time without question then you are not truly examining the issue in an unbiased way. They don't start by asking the question have things changed species, they start out with well this is simillar so it must have evolved. But there is usually a significant difference between the two samples.[/b]

Maybe they don't understand the fallacy that you describe. I certainly don't. Evolution seems logical to me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

OK, belief in an unknown is the same as faith or religion. Thus my point.[/b]

Agreed. This is something that religion and science share. In both cases you have to some faith in the people who are presenting the ideas. I tend to have more faith in science due to the nature of the scientific method.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

Stick to your guns if this is what you really believe in.[/b]

You too.

 

[darkbreed]

Re: Treeees!!!

Interesting discussion. I have to say I keep a hand at Bubbu's shoulder for the moment, as I too have doubts about the traditional evolution theory. But as stated, it is of course all theories and not facts, and things like this would be really hard to prove in any way

 

[Lucidus]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"darkbreed\")</div>

Interesting discussion. I have to say I keep a hand at Bubbu's shoulder for the moment, as I too have doubts about the traditional evolution theory. But as stated, it is of course all theories and not facts, and things like this would be really hard to prove in any way[/b]

Ok, I'm curious now. If you don't accept the theory of evolution for the origin of species, what mechanism do you accept. Surely you are not suggesting that new species just appear out of thin air, are you?

 

[BubbuClinton]

Re: Treeees!!!

Ok, I'm curious now. If you don't accept the theory of evolution for the origin of species, what mechanism do you accept. Surely you are not suggesting that new species just appear out of thin air, are you?

Like I said before, I don't know the answer to life. I think there is as much evidence that life pops out of thin air as there is that morphed and evolved with highly structured DNA out of chemical goop. I admit that if I were to completely dismiss God, Divine intervention, aliens or whatever, I would have to turn to an unsubstinated theory like evolution. The thing is I am not smart enough to dismiss this posibility. I would not be surprised if controled evolution was a tool used and we were seeded.

The thing is I am not so smart that I think I know how the whole universe works. Therefore, I don't base my opinions on my own speculation or on those that have as much knowledge that I do. I have no problem considering evolution as a theory at all. I just don't use it as a belief system. I don't feel that 90% of all people that have lived on Earth are completely irrationale in believing in a spiritual side of man or a divine purpose to the development of man. And since this is a posibility, and there is no real evidence that isn't pure speculation, that is contrary, I haven't formed a solid opinion yet. I am looking at both avenues.

I admit I lean toward a prepared earth.

Bubbu

 

[Lucidus]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

Like I said before, I don't know the answer to life. I think there is as much evidence that life pops out of thin air as there is that morphed and evolved with highly structured DNA out of chemical goop. I admit that if I were to completely dismiss God, Divine intervention, aliens or whatever, I would have to turn to an unsubstinated theory like evolution. The thing is I am not smart enough to dismiss this posibility. I would not be surprised if controled evolution was a tool used and we were seeded.

The thing is I am not so smart that I think I know how the whole universe works. Therefore, I don't base my opinions on my own speculation or on those that have as much knowledge that I do. I have no problem considering evolution as a theory at all. I just don't use it as a belief system. I don't feel that 90% of all people that have lived on Earth are completely irrationale in believing in a spiritual side of man or a divine purpose to the development of man. And since this is a posibility, and there is no real evidence that isn't pure speculation, that is contrary, I haven't formed a solid opinion yet. I am looking at both avenues.

I admit I lean toward a prepared earth.

Bubbu[/b]

I think that I may be starting to understand the difference in our viewpoints Bubbu.

To you evolution seems to represent a fundamental part of a belief system. From that vantage point I can easily understand why you would be reluctant to accept it. If you feel that you must make a choice between evolution and God and spirituality then that is a major decision indeed.

For me scientific theories are not so fundamental. When I evaluate a theory I simply ask myself if it seems to be a good description of the observable universe. Acceptance of evolution then is not a rejection of God, its just another piece of the puzzle of the universe. Evolution for me does not eliminate the possibility of God, divine intervention, or aliens, it simply describes a process that appears to have occured and is occuring with respect to life on Earth.

The divine is part of a much larger question that is generally beyond the scope of scientific investigation. At least thats the way I see it.

Regards,
Lucidus

 

[Harte]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

Like I said before, I don't know the answer to life. I think there is as much evidence that life pops out of thin air as there is that morphed and evolved with highly structured DNA out of chemical goop. I admit that if I were to completely dismiss God, Divine intervention, aliens or whatever, I would have to turn to an unsubstinated theory like evolution. The thing is I am not smart enough to dismiss this posibility. I would not be surprised if controled evolution was a tool used and we were seeded.[/b]

Bubbu,
Sorry, I know you thanked me in advance but I think my post here might surprise you. I am glad to see someone look at both sides of this issue, and to tell the truth, even eveolutionary biologists are troubled by problems with the theory. In fact, Dawinian evolution has basically been discounted by them and new, more reasonable methodologies to drive evolution are being sought.

That being said, it is unreasonable for you to demand someone point out a creature that is turning into another creature, given the time frame involved. If you want good examples of transition of species, you should look at the whales. There is a lot of good evidence out there regarding the evolution of whales from a land species to a marine one.

Also, there is a lot of good evidence out there about how horses evolved.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"BubbuClinton\")</div>

The thing is I am not so smart that I think I know how the whole universe works. Therefore, I don't base my opinions on my own speculation or on those that have as much knowledge that I do. I have no problem considering evolution as a theory at all. I just don't use it as a belief system. I don't feel that 90% of all people that have lived on Earth are completely irrationale in believing in a spiritual side of man or a divine purpose to the development of man. And since this is a posibility, and there is no real evidence that isn't pure speculation, that is contrary, I haven't formed a solid opinion yet. I am looking at both avenues.

I admit I lean toward a prepared earth.

Bubbu[/b]

I don't believe that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. I cannot bring myself to blindly believe that, for example, two of every animal on Earth, even those unknown to the eastern hemisphere, were brought on to an ark by a man named Noah. I am absolutely positive that the Earth never stood still for a time, not even to allow the defeat of the Lord's enemies. And in my opinion it is ridiculous to believe that the Earth was created with fossils in place just to fool us. I mean, what is the purpose in that?

My point is, just because there's a bible story about it doesn't make it true. The bible is a collection of writings by various different people at various different times. The old testament is taken from the Torah, but Torah differs from the old testament. Why would this be? There's not a single story or event in the Bible that was chronicled at the time it occurred. Everything that happens in the Bible had occured years before it was written about, sometimes even centuries before (and in some cases thousands of years.)
Just because the bible story differs from the scientist's theory is not a logical reason to say that the theory excludes God. To my mind, being that we are of God, our theories must either bring us toward God, or be disproven.

I don't see why God can't be using evolution as a machine of creation. Our ignorant ancestors didn't know some things that we take today as a given, like the size of the Earth, or the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. Of course they couldn't adequately explain something like the creation of the universe, the Earth, Man, etc. Why should we limit ourselves to their world view? I think since God created the universe, he created conditions that made it inevitable that Man (and other intelligent life elsewhere) would appear.

Harte

 

[gomp]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

Bubbu,
Sorry, I know you thanked me in advance but I think my post here might surprise you. I am glad to see someone look at both sides of this issue, and to tell the truth, even eveolutionary biologists are troubled by problems with the theory. In fact, Dawinian evolution has basically been discounted by them and new, more reasonable methodologies to drive evolution are being sought.

That being said, it is unreasonable for you to demand someone point out a creature that is turning into another creature, given the time frame involved. If you want good examples of transition of species, you should look at the whales. There is a lot of good evidence out there regarding the evolution of whales from a land species to a marine one.

Also, there is a lot of good evidence out there about how horses evolved.



I don't believe that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. I cannot bring myself to blindly believe that, for example, two of every animal on Earth, even those unknown to the eastern hemisphere, were brought on to an ark by a man named Noah. I am absolutely positive that the Earth never stood still for a time, not even to allow the defeat of the Lord's enemies. And in my opinion it is ridiculous to believe that the Earth was created with fossils in place just to fool us. I mean, what is the purpose in that?

My point is, just because there's a bible story about it doesn't make it true. The bible is a collection of writings by various different people at various different times. The old testament is taken from the Torah, but Torah differs from the old testament. Why would this be? There's not a single story or event in the Bible that was chronicled at the time it occurred. Everything that happens in the Bible had occured years before it was written about, sometimes even centuries before (and in some cases thousands of years.)
Just because the bible story differs from the scientist's theory is not a logical reason to say that the theory excludes God. To my mind, being that we are of God, our theories must either bring us toward God, or be disproven.

I don't see why God can't be using evolution as a machine of creation. Our ignorant ancestors didn't know some things that we take today as a given, like the size of the Earth, or the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. Of course they couldn't adequately explain something like the creation of the universe, the Earth, Man, etc. Why should we limit ourselves to their world view? I think since God created the universe, he created conditions that made it inevitable that Man (and other intelligent life elsewhere) would appear.

Harte[/b]

harte has my vote