Guru

I knew even before i clicked this my BS meter would fly off the scale...

To quote the late great Bill Hicks, "STOP your internal dialogue NOW... Kay?"

Evolution is proven scientific fact.

I have one word for all you creationists, "Dinosaurs."

__________________

Buzzby

The objections of the "debunkers" are entirely from the position that every aspect of evolution has not yet been proven. The fact is, every aspect will never be proven. The fossil record is imperfect and incomplete. We don't understand gravity completely, either, but no one claims, therefore, that it doesn't exist.

__________________

_Jay

Convinced me. Praise the lord, hallelujah.

Merkabah

If there are holes in the theory of evolution, does that provide room for doubt? Science is based on facts, yes? Observation of facts to create theories that fill the gaps of our understanding.

Evolution is a theory, not a scientific fact, if there are holes. If it has not been observed that a species has mutated into another species, it is not fact, but theory. And that's fine. Believe it or not, I'm not here trying to debunk evolution. That was not my intention in the post.

My intention was to pose the doubt. To show evolution for what it is: a theory. I wanted to have a scientific discussion, but I can't see any scientific counterpoints with any sources in the responses on this thread. If evolution is a scientific FACT then please provide counterpoints to specific issues in the article with sources proving this.

You cannot say "One word: Dinosaurs." This is meaningless. Dinosaurs are a group of species that are extinct. There are many such species. If you have some scientific fact that you'd like to present that indicates the dinosaurs' evolution to and from dinosaurs, please provide with sources.

All I'm asking for is a scientific defense to accusations against evolution this article presents. If evolution cannot be proven and doubt remains, all I ask is that respect be given to those who aren't convinced by it. Why should everyone be convinced of a theory that isn't proven and has holes? I'm not asking you to not believe it, just respect the opinion of others without assuming a lack of intelligence being involved.

I will say that I can provide more evidence for the existence of God than anyone here can provide for the validity of the theory of evolution (specifically macroevolution). I won't do it here, because it is a science forum. But I will accept anyone's challenge to do this in the religion forum. In fact this would be a mammoth undertaking that would probably seem without end...and probably would only end when I gave up on listing them all.

The point not being to try and convince those here in the science thread that there is a god, but simply to present facts that can be verified that imply the existence of God and let the reader decide whether they are convincing or not. Consider it an experiment if you like.

And that's all I will say here about anything that could be considered not science related (although I disagree), unless the challenge is given. Then I'll take it to the religion forum and go from there.

I am happy with god, faith, creationism, etc. being discussed in this thread no longer so we can focus on the topic, evolution.

Edit: BTW, I am not saying this article that I provided is right or true or whether it has it's facts right. I'm saying if it's not right or factual, that the errors be presented here with corrections and sources. Let this be a rational, logical discussion.

__________________
To find truth you must first find confusion. The path to truth is one of questions not answers. Arrogance is a blindfold.

Guru

I seriously doubt that one...

Evolution

Creation

macphearsome

Well the problem with this approach is that it has placed fairly large expectations on our ability to uncover all of the fossils connecting humans with our common ancestors.

The statement "science is based on facts" does nothing to solidify the meaning of science; in fact it damages the meaning of the word "science" as well as the word "fact"

I'm sure most of us would agree that there is a world outside of our own minds that tends to act in fairly consistent ways. The best we can hope for with the scientific approach is to find theories that most succintly explain various phenomena, such as human existence. For this reason I have tended towards the theory of evolution, despite my own lack of formal training in biology. The God theory does not answer any questions for me - it simply requires more explanation than it offers.
I think that's a lot to ask for. It's like bringing seven-layer dip to a potluck and expecting duck confit. Quite frankly, I found the article in question to be very poorly written and researched. Can you find a more convincing article? I might be more inclined to have a serious conversation on the topic if you could find an article that is aiming to engage any of the already-considerable literature about evolution and its short-comings.


In regards to your suggestion that you can prove the existence of god better than we can prove the validity of the theory of evolution, I expect that you will find several lively discussions in the religion sub-forums on this topic already. As for me, I look forward to such a topic if you start it anew, but I sincerely doubt that your proof will be anymore convincing than various arguments I have already seen in such discussions.

__________________
"What if I want more than the pale facsimile of fulfillment brought by a parade of ever-fancier toys? To spend my life restlessly producing instead of sedately consuming? Is there an app for that?" - xkcd

Dino image from www.qwantz.com

Legio

There is no such thing as scientific fact. The level of scientific theory is the highest status that can be obtained. The laws of Thermodynamics and Physics are scientific theories. The Theory of Gravity is, you guessed it, a theory.

Observed Instances of Speciation. This provides over thirty instances of observed speciation compiled from over one hundred articles from peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Do it. Oh, and there is no such thing as macro or micro evolution, there is only evolution.

Merkabah

Guru, your first video was very helpful, perfectly on topic, simple enough, explains the theory and observations it's based on well. It makes a great counterpoint. The second video is meaningless. Of course if it's a viewpoint that is opposite yours, you're gonna find one that makes them look as idiotic as possible. Kirk Cameron is not my idea of an intelligent person. He's a zealot.

How so?

Because the theory of evolution is more convincing and as you said, the article is not. That's why I posted it, to find out. Doing further research myself, I'm leaning more on the side of evolution than that article's prespective. But that doesn't shake my belief in God, simply because there is more evidence...which you'll see.

I wouldn't be able to tell if another article was more or less convincing. I'm not a biologist, either. This one just caught my attention and figured I'd bring it here to see what everyone had to say about it. I don't necessarily disagree completely with evolution. Like anyone else, I'm just trying to gather as much information and evidence in this world and make the most logical conclusion on things.

Guru

Thanks, I posted the second video even though it was't very good, because it was from the same series and I felt they related well.

Where can I see this evidence ?
and no, at the time of judgement is not answer

Well then, surely logic must point you towards belief in evolution?

Merkabah

Well, if you don't mind being a bit patient, you can see this evidence in the religion forum as I begin posting them as a series. I agree, judgement day is not an answer. I believe what I believe based on evidence, and I will share that evidence with you, if you bare with me.

Logic points past evolution to it's planner.