Originally posted by FeceMan
One analoguous to that which I stated in the preceding post:"What I've found troublesome about radiocarbon dating is that, unless I am mistaken (as I am prone to be, considering that my love of dinosaurs is in anatomy and physiology rather than history), it is based on the assumptions of scientists of the level of carbon-14 in the organism's system."
Switch out "carbon-14" for the appropriate element.
For whomever mentioned it earlier:
"Proving" young-Earth creationism relies on demonstrating that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old (as well as proving that the Earth isn't billions of years old), pointing out the flaws with the current model of evolution, showing evidence for events outlined in the Bible (especially the Flood), etc.
Radiometric dating does not require knowledge of the initial proportions.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
you expect me to scroll though all of that awful porn just to make a point (not happening)
However, my opinion is not concrete on that because I am open to new theories, other opinions and ideas.
But that is my standing opinion at the moment.
You can view that as an open minded person or a flip flopper.
Originally posted by BigRed
Okay, God started evolution or made it possible.However, my opinion is not concrete on that because I am open to new theories, other opinions and ideas.
But that is my standing opinion at the moment.
You can view that as an open minded person or a flip flopper.
OK I just wanted to know where you stood
A PM I responded to.
Anyways, first off, what exactly is evolution in modern science terms?
Evolution is complex. Its easier to distinguish what isn't evolution, than what is.
In the absolute simplest terms. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
Evolution can be "precisely" defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Evolution has changed a lot since Darwin proposed his hypothesis, the modern form of the Theory of evolution is called the Modern Synthesis. A quick Wikipedia search can be fairly accurate. Its not really worth me rambling.
Secondly, does it tie in with the Big Bang Theory?
Nothing really. Both Theories are independent of each other. People will put them together in a sort of "This is Science's Version of the History of the Universe"...kind of like a scientific Pentateuch...but this is artificial and not scientifically motivated. Evolution is a much stronger Theory than the Big Bang. Neither theory requires the other to be true (hence they are different Theories)
And are there any theories on the origin of life other than God and Big Bang that hold up in modern science?
God isn't scientifically testable, so that concept is not a scientific endeavor.
Big Bang Theory involve the creation of the universe and not life itself.
To my knowledge, there is no Origin of life Theory. There are many hypothesis though (in science, a Theory is factual statement about the Natural world, where as a hypothesis is a potential answer to a scientific question. Theories are facts. Hypotheses are fact-based possibilities)
Abiogenesis is a term to describe the idea that life came from non-living substances. This hypothesis is highly supported. Organic molecules have been spontaneously created under the proper conditions. The simplest forms of "life" today (viruses, prions, etc) aren't really alive at all. If you want more information on this, I can tell you. It is important to note that evolution does not discuss this part of natural history.
And does evolution factually disprove the remote possibility of a God?
No.
Many, if not a majority of scientists, are religious. The evidence that supports Evolution also suggests that holy texts, like the Bible, are not to be taken literally. The Theory itself makes no mention of religion.
Evolution concerns how life changes, for many people, God is present in the beginning and at the end of life (the Alpha and the Omega), but lets nature takes its course through evolution.
People with a religious view that requires a more active god believe that god guided the evolutionary process.
Of course, evolution does not exclude god, but does not require one either.
Evolution, like all scientific theories, presents fact and sticks to it. It never speaks at all to religion. Society, Religious groups, and philosophers deal with the relation between evolution and religious policy.
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~I'm more inclined to believe the we have evolved over millions upon millions of years, from lesser lifeforms.
Sorry if this has been done, but which do you beleive in and why?I personally beleive in the Evolution theory, because it has basically been scientifically proven. Especially by the Hard-Weinberg Principle.
I don't think a greater power simply went *poof* and we were here.
Think about it this way.
God could have simply been responsible for creating the first molecule in the Universe. After an infinite amount of time, this one molecule eventually became space dust, then this dust started spinning to create gravity, and then that dust came together, then planets were formed, and so on and so forth.
So this would mean that God is still the Supreme creator of all that exists, but he didn't clap his hands and there appeared ALL of creation.... This would mean all life evolved from that one molecule.
This idea may sound crazy, and it's not necessarily what I believe....... It's just another theory among the rest.
Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Originally posted by Galan007
I'm more inclined to believe the we have evolved over millions upon millions of years, from lesser lifeforms.I don't think a greater power simply went *poof* and we were here.
Think about it this way.
God could have simply been responsible for creating the first molecule in the Universe. After an infinite amount of time, this one molecule eventually became space dust, then this dust started spinning to create gravity, and then that dust came together, then planets were formed, and so on and so forth.
So this would mean that God is still the Supreme creator of all that exists, but he didn't clap his hands and there appeared ALL of creation.... This would mean all life evolved from that one molecule.
This idea may sound crazy, and it's not necessarily what I believe....... It's just another theory among the rest.
Close enough... A little off on the molecule thing, but get what you are talking about. 👆
Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Originally posted by Galan007
I'm more inclined to believe the we have evolved over millions upon millions of years, from lesser lifeforms.I don't think a greater power simply went *poof* and we were here.
Think about it this way.
God could have simply been responsible for creating the first molecule in the Universe. After an infinite amount of time, this one molecule eventually became space dust, then this dust started spinning to create gravity, and then that dust came together, then planets were formed, and so on and so forth.
So this would mean that God is still the Supreme creator of all that exists, but he didn't clap his hands and there appeared ALL of creation.... This would mean all life evolved from that one molecule.
This idea may sound crazy, and it's not necessarily what I believe....... It's just another theory among the rest.
Your ideas are similar to many throughout history.
One question I would ask, which is amusing at least from a historical perception: What started matter spinning?
Molecule thing is a bit off...
Originally posted by AngryManatee
That is a good question, and it in fact does require that. They determined the age of the earth based on the half-life of U-238
Not really that simple. A good brief explanation is here.
Originally posted by Alliance
Not really that simple. A good brief explanation is here.
Originally posted by Galan007👆
I'm more inclined to believe the we have evolved over millions upon millions of years, from lesser lifeforms.I don't think a greater power simply went *poof* and we were here.
Think about it this way.
God could have simply been responsible for creating the first molecule in the Universe. After an infinite amount of time, this one molecule eventually became space dust, then this dust started spinning to create gravity, and then that dust came together, then planets were formed, and so on and so forth.
So this would mean that God is still the Supreme creator of all that exists, but he didn't clap his hands and there appeared ALL of creation.... This would mean all life evolved from that one molecule.
This idea may sound crazy, and it's not necessarily what I believe....... It's just another theory among the rest.
Evolution. It's happening.
I don't care whether you choose to believe whether life originated from a creator, or through some process such as abiogenesis, but seeing as how we've gotten so much evidence of it (*cough* finches *cough* Home erectus *cough Neandertal *cough* Homo Heidelbergensis*), who do some people still deny the existence of a process known as descent with modification (evolution)?
Descent with modification is the Darwinian definition of macroevolution which isn't really an accepted part of the current model of evolution although it is still taught in universities. People don't believe in evolution for a variety of reasons, the evidence is simply not strong enough to convince a lot of people.
Theories on the Neanderthal are beginning to support that they were not a seperate species and that they went extinct by absorbtion.
On a side note, the current mapping of the Neanderthal genome is exciting.
Wrong forum, this is religion, not science. Not to mention that there are already a couple of threads on this topic. Rather long threads I might add.
As for the actual question. There may be some wackjobs that deny anything and everything that has to do with evolution, but most sensible religious people fall somewhere in between the two extremes. They accept microevolution without accepting speciation for example. Myself, I still believe that God created the world, but the bible doesn't say how he did it. Evolution is as good an explanation as any.
AS for your examples -
finches - observed examples of microevolution, not speciation.
the various members of the genus homo - evidence of the concept of survival of the fittest or natural selection, again not speciation.
My personal favorite evidence of macroevolution is the whale. While there are still some leaps between the various uncovered species, the direction of evolution does seem rather glaring.