BF2S Forums Evolution theory can be called a fact now.

mKmalfunction wrote:

I'm pretty sure that they teach Evolution in school. Maybe not in Tennessee during the 50's or whenever that scandal was, but whatever. That was 60 years ago, and irrelevant.

I'm not exactly a Christian. My beliefs go beyond simple religous convictions. I believe the Bible, and the teachings of Christ have been manipulated through poor translation. I also believe parts have been manipulated on purpose, for the agenda of those in power.

Also, if you saw my other thread, you'd know that I believe in evolution. However, too many of you are stuck in this 'God is dead, and everything thats considered a scientific fact is absolute truth' rut.

Science is constantly proven wrong. At one point, it was a 'fact' that the world wasn't round. It was also a 'fact' that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and all things revolved around us.

Basically, in 200 years, shit, maybe even 30 years... Everything we know, or think that we know, about evolution could be proven completely false. Same thing for any other scientific theory. Big bang included.

Humans aren't as smart as we think we are.

There are places in the US where the do not teach Evolution at the moment. Kansas springs to mind - http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08 … debate.ap/

You seem to be quite a sensible and open minded Christian, it is silly to place absolute faith in science I agree. But placing a degree of faith in scientific theories based on the amount of evidence backing them is what I believe is the right way to approach all things.

[PED] soul76 wrote:

mKmalfunction wrote:

Science is constantly proven wrong. At one point, it was a 'fact' that the world wasn't round. It was also a 'fact' that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and all things revolved around us.

these were not scientific mistakes.

these medieval beliefs were not the result of scientific investigation, but a mixture of religious and mythic stories.

the "fact" that earth is the center of the universe is another one of those that were propagated and defended foremost by the church, which also threatend those who spoke against this notion with scientific evidence, as it did time and again - galileo galileo, remember?

sure science does make mistakes too,  but those are never on so grand a scale. and besides that, science is impartial and does only aknownledge proof, thus making it possible to change theories that were proven wrong, while religion clings to old, unuseful and provably stupid theories with a stubbornness and ferocity that makes me quite afraid of religious ppl sometimes.

Still yet, scientific theories are still proven wrong all the time. Modern ones that is. I hear about it on the Science Channel alot.

I could give examples, but my memory is shot, and most Scientific stuff goes over my head. (I only recently got interested in it, I was more into History/English... That kind of thing.)

I've used this quote on here before, but I'm probally gonna butcher it this time, 'cause I don't feel like doing the ctrl+c / ctrl+v thing.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Einstein

A simple suggestion to those who feel they have no soul, or that greater powers aren't at work... Meditate. Alot. Or take the short cut... And eat some Acid or Shrooms.

mKmalfunction wrote:

[PED] soul76 wrote:

mKmalfunction wrote:

Science is constantly proven wrong. At one point, it was a 'fact' that the world wasn't round. It was also a 'fact' that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and all things revolved around us.

these were not scientific mistakes.

these medieval beliefs were not the result of scientific investigation, but a mixture of religious and mythic stories.

the "fact" that earth is the center of the universe is another one of those that were propagated and defended foremost by the church, which also threatend those who spoke against this notion with scientific evidence, as it did time and again - galileo galileo, remember?

sure science does make mistakes too,  but those are never on so grand a scale. and besides that, science is impartial and does only aknownledge proof, thus making it possible to change theories that were proven wrong, while religion clings to old, unuseful and provably stupid theories with a stubbornness and ferocity that makes me quite afraid of religious ppl sometimes.

Still yet, scientific theories are still proven wrong all the time. Modern ones that is. I hear about it on the Science Channel alot.

I could give examples, but my memory is shot, and most Scientific stuff goes over my head. (I only recently got interested in it, I was more into History/English... That kind of thing.)

I've used this quote on here before, but I'm probally gonna butcher it this time, 'cause I don't feel like doing the ctrl+c / ctrl+v thing.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Einstein

A simple suggestion to those who feel they have no soul, or that greater powers aren't at work... Meditate. Alot. Or take the short cut... And eat some Acid or Shrooms.

Einstein said "Science without religion is lame"?????  Doesn't sound like the words of a respected Physicist. I think you probably have butchered that quote.

I understand the human need for belief in a higher power, although I think the decline in religion - which was universally believed to be fact, whereas now atheism is becoming more and more common - probably because we're getting used to the idea that if you don't believe in God you won't get burnt at the stake any more - I reckon within a century or 2 religion will be all but dead.

we should be careful not to mix up evolution of life with creation (start) of life.
imho there is lots of evidence for evolution as the force that keeps life going and evolving, and while there will be never proof in the form of "i was there and saw the whole thing, officer" as ppl like JaMDuDe want it - although the experiments mentioned in this thread give at least a small-scale idea - it is still proof beyond any reasonable doubt for me.
the start of life is another matter. there are a few possible theories, but even if you found a way to prove exactly how life started, you could still maintain that a "higher" being created the circumstances that allowed life to start without being able to prove/unprove it, so there is no real point in discussing it.
just thinking we need to keep these two things apart.

yea... that little mouse thing, means nothing to me.  big whoop, the made a mouse look different.  i can do that with the bottom of my boot

I have not read this thread in detail but ran across these articles while browsing some blogs.  And I thought that you might enjoy picking them apart or just flaming them.

The first three are in support of ID
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archi … .html#more
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003091.html
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003092.html

The next is a critique to those 10 points brought up in the first three articles:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 … her_so.php

The final is another article from the first guy refuting what the second guy said:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003099.html

Please enjoy and comment on these.

While I believe in a Higher power as far as creation goes(based on Faith not fact). I also believe in Evolution to a point. I cant believe that we are a derivative of Apes. Plus the very meaning of Evolution defines a species as a whole evolving through natural selection and passing down of heritable traits, thereby causing the end of one species and creating a new one. The story of Adam and Eve are just stories No way in hell could three people populate the earth today without serious deformations of inbreeding but who's to say how they got on earth in the first place? there is also a fine line between evolution and adaptation. You can see adaptation in Humans today over the past few hundred years. If you look at homes and buildings from back then you see smaller doors, rooms, and stairs. this is because people were smaller. Mainly this is due to the types of foods/chemicals and other factors in our environment that our bodies adapted to and used. this also explains why Americans were considered on average taller than most other countries during the 18th-20th centuries. "the benefits of low population densities, a healthier disease environment, and the seemingly endless supply of highly productive arable land in the New World that provided an abundant source of nutrients including proteins beneficial to the human organism".
So who can really say which one is better so I'll just put my belief in all three.