Star Trek

Hay you guys stop fighting In the words of Naomi wildman "now shake hands and makeup!" Weather you believe in god (a god) or evalution we all have a thing in commen we both love trek!! people who hate trek would look at us and say "look at the fighting" we need to stick together Loving Star Trek!!!!!

I'm new to posting here and I'm not sure about jumping in on such a dividing topic right away, but you see I've obviously been kicked in the head a few times and have read too many storybooks cause I haven't seen proof enough on either side of the argument to belittle anybody's opinion on the subject. After all, I don't have all the answers. Somebody please enlighten me as to where the proof of evolution is, because the scientific community is dying to know! All I want is the truth, no matter which way it goes. Anything less is merely speculation and that leads us to...opinion.

Of course evolution exists!! According to Darwin's Theory of Evolution the reason evolution happens is because of the influence of one's environment in order to adapt to it.

I thought the evolution symbol is the picture of an ape evolving into man. At least that's the pic that pops into my head whenever I hear the theory of evolution

My new most favorite aphorism goes like this: Love of theory is the root of all evil. The implication is that only bad things can happen when a flawed theory is held to in spite of all evidence to the contrary

When and if a theory describes reality without error it is no longer a theory but truth. If a theory does not describe reality perfectly, then it is not true. To love a theory over truth is the mark of madness. Or of Enlightenment. Or, nowadays often, of tenure.

Everybody knows the old joke about the academic who says, “That works fine in reality, but does it work in theory?” Only it isn’t a joke. Many cannot think of truth except in the framework of theory. Just bring to mind the standard issue (media) climatologist and you’ll have the idea. It is truth which gives weight to a theory, it is not so that theory gives weight to truth. What is true just is true, regardless whether it can be shoehorned into some theory.

This thought connects with evolution in that all the evidence I have seen presented to support Darwin's theory bears more resemblance to a good story than to undiluted truth. From a few bones a societal structure is deduced. This is conjecture, not truth. Someone draws fraudulent pictures of embryos of different species, all of which are suspiciously similar in appearance and I was told in school that this points to common ancestry. Now that these drawings have been proven to have been intentionally misrepresentative to further the notion of common ancestry, have they been removed from the evolution metanarrative? Of course not, they are an important part of the 'history of the theory'. When a deliberate fraud is important to the theory, I can't help but feel somewhat suspicious.

The Origin of Species is for many folks the equivalent of a large train set in the basement. "Yes, that looks good, but if we put a little green felt over here the field will look more realistic. An occasional black stone among the white rocks under the train tracks will give the impression that coal has fallen from the coal car. So real, so true to life!" But it isn't real life. Historical science, without documentation (and fossils that ten different people can interpret in ten different ways does not amount to documentation) can only present us with a story. It can be a nice story, an elaborate story, even a convincing story like the train set in the basement, but without being able to satisfy standard scientific methodologies that test the validity of any theory, it's just a story, just a train set in the basement. 

Well said, eutychus. Darwin's theory of evolution is too often mentioned as if the theory were indeed fact. There would be no debate at all if it were! For a theory to be accepted as fact it must be proven-something that simply hasn't happened. For anyone to go about quoting Darwin (who later in life regretted some of what he wrote) as if he had all the answers is putting faith in something else altogether.

All things evolve, just look at how much humans have continued to advance the past few decades. We have come a long way from living in caves and hunting with spears, have we not? Though I admit, I've met people who I swear are DE-evolving as well.

Just to add to (reinforce) some of the above:

1. There are literally thousands of artefacts under the sea, but none lined up in a manner that would suggest the sea parting. Even if it had happened, prevailing currents would have scattered the various objects long ago. I would be highly suspicious of the authenticity of a "line" of submerged artefacts.

2. I haven't heard of the Ararat ark being a hoax -- (link?) -- Many of these apparent "ark" shapes that turn up have far too many other possible interpretations.

I'm not quite sure the educational level of many of you here...

But honestly, if we have Ph.Ds on this board saying a theory equals proof? Well, then, I'm really disappointed.

A theory's primary purpose is to provide explanatory power to a phenomena. On top of that, a theory should be testable (meaning it can be proven to be wrong), predictive, and ultimately lead to heuristic knowledge.

So with that said? Do I believe in the theory of evolution?

Well, I certainly believe it IS a theory. However, I do not believe enough scientific evidence has been offered to replace the theory with definitive proof of evolution.

Now personally, I do think the theory holds up rather well. And its explanations for life on this planet make a lot more sense to me than the parables from the book of Genesis.

Nevertheless, I have a very healthy respect for other people's beliefs. And if evolution ever is definitively proven? I'd like to see religious beilevers accept it as part of God's ultimate plan.

"Theory" can cover both proven and unproven hypotheses.

Prospective parents may say of their unborn child, "I just know it's a girl." That is a theory -- although ultimately it could still be incorrect. Queen Mary Tudor had a bulletin drafted announcing the birth of a prince, even though her supposed "pregnancy" turned out to be phantom. She had a theory based on physical evidence, ran with it, even convinced herself of the "baby's" gender, and was proven wrong. So theories do not necessarily equate to truth.

Equally, however, you have musical theory -- which holds true because it is man-made -- and mathematical theory, which may be proven. Pythagoras' theorem is also a theory, but we know that it is true.

In the case of evolution, it is observable, and has been observed among several lifeforms on this earth. (Extreme case in point would be the dog.) Domesticated foxes, over several generations, will select for blue eyes over the usual colours of amber or brown; without deliberate intervention on the part of humans.

Look no further than the evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. I mean you might argue that it is "merely" natural selection, reactions to a change in environment, and genetic mutation -- but all of those are the most basic elements that allow evolution to occur.

I'd have to say if it's not proven yet, it's pretty damn close to being so.

Now, as to the question of whether there is a deliberate pattern at work -- or even a deliberate engineer behind it... That we do not know. But it has no bearing on whether evolution itself is real.

The only real stumbling block is finding a definitive link between "this" and "that" ... beyond the occasional aberration or mutation.

But yeah, the explanatory power of the theory of evolution is pretty hard to ignore.

I must take issue with your statement about China surpassing us because of science.  They are surpassing us because of slave/cheap labor and the fact that they don't let environmental issues get in the way of their progress.  It seems most of the technological breakthroughs are still US created, then farmed out to other countries for cheap labor.  

people also fail to realize that literature served a far different purpose in different parts of history than it does now. 

You know how you can read a book by a Bronte or one of their contemporaries and there are long passages describing flower beds or arrangements and what the different flowers were?  to them each flower had a meaning and the flowers described contained a code that they understood.  The passages had a totally different meaning to them then they did to us. 

Literature in the ancient world was meant to teach through parables, it wasn't meant to be taken as the literal truth for the most part.   Of course there are "history" books and passages in the bible that are meant to record history, but they were likely transcribed oral histories.

wee are all form god.

Evolution is a known fact of life

History shows us evidence that we all are connected and are made up the same materials found on earth?