• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A SERIOUS Challenge

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Within this thread, I hope to see the "Thinking Faithful" Rebutt the "Theory of Evolution", with actual Data. I am well aware of the amount of threads in this forum addressing the issue, but they are clouded and seem to be going nowhere.
I request that we stick to information that can be verified, and leave the Bible out of it. This thread is meant to be a study of the scientific Data alone, in hopes that some level of understanding can be gained by those who misinterpret what the Theory actually encompasses.

To Start....a brief explanation of the theory:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.


*Please note no mention is made of who...or what created life in the first place*

Second an explanation of Theory:

In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it.


*the bold highlights are key to this debate*


With any luck, we might be able to lower the wall between two opposing sides of this issue, by understanding what we are discussing in the first place.
 

Shoey

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tecoyah said:
Within this thread, I hope to see the "Thinking Faithful" Rebutt the "Theory of Evolution", with actual Data. I am well aware of the amount of threads in this forum addressing the issue, but they are clouded and seem to be going nowhere.
I request that we stick to information that can be verified, and leave the Bible out of it. This thread is meant to be a study of the scientific Data alone, in hopes that some level of understanding can be gained by those who misinterpret what the Theory actually encompasses.

To Start....a brief explanation of the theory:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.


*Please note no mention is made of who...or what created life in the first place*

Second an explanation of Theory:

In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it.


*the bold highlights are key to this debate*


With any luck, we might be able to lower the wall between two opposing sides of this issue, by understanding what we are discussing in the first place.
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history.
Provide 100% scientific proof of the origin of man.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Shoey said:
Provide 100% scientific proof of the origin of man.
OK...once and for all....EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEAL WITH GENESIS>>>>PERIOD

Please read the intent of this post, as it was designed to avoid this kind of debate. I will however address the aspects of your question that Evolution DOES cover, ie: what we have found that shows Human change over time:

There is compelling evidence linking mankind as we know it (Homo Sapiens) to a fossil record of numerous Homo types....we will focus on a single type, as it seems to be a Mid- point in evolution.

Homo Erectus;
Throughout the early years of paleoanthropology, there were only two different species that were attributed to the genus Homo. These included the Neanderthals, and Homo erectus. In the early 1960s, this began to change, and human ancestry seemed to be populated by many different players. Accordingly, erectus is one of the better-known members of genus Homo, especially in terms of its well-established place in paleoanthropology. This has begun to change, however, and now some question its place in human evolution.

Some (e.g., M. Wolpoff) claim that erectus is an invalid taxon, though few accept this interpretation at this point in time. Others believe that the material previously attributed to erectus should be split into several different taxons: Asian and later African material remaining as erectus (with erectus not contributing to modern humans), early African material as ergaster, and European material as heidelbergensis. In this description of the species, the material that has been attributed as ergaster and erectus in the above splitting scenario will be covered, with the heidelbergensis material discussed under the page dedicated to that species.

The species was named by Eugène Dubois (it was originally designated as Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1894, after his 1891 find from Trinil, Java, in Indonesia (Trinil 2). Dubois was inspired by A. Wallace's conviction that the origins of modern humans might lie in Southeast Asia. Dubois enlisted as an army surgeon in the Royal Dutch East Indies Army, and searched for fossils in Sumatra. He had little success in Sumatra, but found unearthed a thick mineralized hominid skull near the bank of the Solo River in Java. Dubois made his find public a few years later, and was met by derision from the dominant British paleontological hierarchy. Dubois was disillusioned, and this important find actually spent some time in a box underneath the floorboards of Dubois' home.

The material was later associated with the Chinese material from Zhoukoudian, and renamed Homo erectus. Except for modern Homo sapiens, erectus was the most far-ranging hominid to have existed. Material that has been attributed to erectus has come from South Africa, Indonesia, England, and just about everywhere in between, covering the entire continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe. The European material will not be discussed here (it is discussed under heidelbergensis), but the rest of the material will be covered here under erectus.



This stage in Human evolution is well documented, and accepted by the scientific community as a valid link to ouselves. Note it is not considered a fact, as that requires extra-ordinary proof....as does anything defined as fact in science.
 

Attachments

Shoey

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Note it is not considered a fact, as that requires extra-ordinary proof....as does anything defined as fact in science.
I request that we stick to information that can be verified, and leave the Bible out of it.
You answered my question and you broke your own rules by mentioning the book of Genesis.;)
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Shoey said:
You answered my question and you broke your own rules by mentioning the book of Genesis.;)
Note* a request is not a rule....and if indeed I had set rules for a public forum, I would be in the wrong.If possible, is there any way you could focus on the actual thread this time, since the primary reason I created it was to bypass the hijacking you have done in the others.

If you actually wish to discuss Evolution...please continue. If not...please leave the thread alone.
 

Shoey

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tecoyah said:
Note* a request is not a rule....and if indeed I had set rules for a public forum, I would be in the wrong.If possible, is there any way you could focus on the actual thread this time, since the primary reason I created it was to bypass the hijacking you have done in the others.

If you actually wish to discuss Evolution...please continue. If not...please leave the thread alone.
1) The teachings of evolution deals with the origin of man.
2) Don't blame me or any others who believe in Creationism claiming they are hijacking your thread when you can't provide 100% scientific proof where man originated from.
3) I've left the Bible out of this thread and I can't help it your upset you can't provide 100% scientific proof about the origin of man.
4) You should not post what you can't 100% scientifically PROOVE!
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Shoey said:
1) The teachings of evolution deals with the origin of man.
2) Don't blame me or any others who believe in Creationism claiming they are hijacking your thread when you can't provide 100% scientific proof where man originated from.
3) I've left the Bible out of this thread and I can't help it your upset you can't provide 100% scientific proof about the origin of man.
4) You should not post what you can't 100% scientifically PROOVE!
If indeed we used the criteria you set forth of 100% proof, then no one would be able to post anything. As I have noted....several times science does not claim Fact easily. I cannot tell you, nor can anyone else where Mankind came from, but I can look at the available Data and extrapolate a Hypothesis regarding the origin. I do not wish to agrue this issue with you, as there seems to be little point in doing so. You are the clear "Winner" in this debate....as you have worn down my desire to continue.

Congratulations......
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Besides, you cannot compare an natural explanation for natural phenonoma with a supernatural one.

You might as well ask, what caused that lightening strike?

The natural explanation is that the relative potential negative charge in a storm cell and the positive potential charge in another part of the cell or the ground exceed the insulating effect of air and arc together.

The supernatural explanation is that a diety caused it.

How can you "compare" those two explanations? They purport to do two completely different things.
 

Thinker

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
831
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The deafening silence on this thread seems to indicate that there is
no reasoned objection to an evolutionary explanation for life
as we observe it.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Thinker said:
The deafening silence on this thread seems to indicate that there is
no reasoned objection to an evolutionary explanation for life
as we observe it.
Bingo - it's like arguing for a flat earth, or the that the earth revolves around the sun. Some still believe it, although there is no rational argument to support it.

47% of Americans believe in Creationism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

In Great Britain 77% of the population believes in evolution, East Germany 82% believe in evolution

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm

In the US it's 35% believe in Evolution

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp

No wonder the world thinks we're so stupid. As a whole, we are...:(
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Polled in November 2004, 35% of the respondents said that evolution is well-supported by evidence, 35% said that it is not, 29% said that they didn't know enough about it to reply, and 1% expressed no opinion.
and:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?
Polled in November 2004, 38% of respondents chose (1), 13% chose (2), 45% chose (3), and 4% offered a different or no opinion. These results are also similar to those from previous Gallup polls, which extend back to 1982.


This boggles my mind, that 45% of those polled could dismiss hundreds of years of science for something that has never shown one speck of evidence of any existance, has not shown itself in any form to any one at any time in history. I'm embarrassed.....
 
T

The Real McCoy

hipsterdufus said:
Bingo - it's like arguing for a flat earth, or the that the earth revolves around the sun. Some still believe it, although there is no rational argument to support it.
I'm assuming you meant "that the sun revolves around the earth."
 

Saboteur

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Water....

Where there is water, there is life.
 

paulmarkj

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Shoey said:
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history.
Provide 100% scientific proof of the origin of man.


I do not have to provide 100% proof of the origin of man to believe in the theory.

If you say that evolution in general or evolution as the origin of man cannot be proved 100%, then I agree, but this does not disprove it – this is something that many people, especially those who dislike evolution do not understand. Just because you cannot prove something does not mean it is wrong.

You have misunderstood how scientific theory works. To quote the Pennsylvania ruling: “just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully understood.”

Sometimes we have to take the weight of evidence, which in the case of evolution vs ID vs creationism, comes down in the favour of evolution.

I continually hear people saying that evolution is wrong, yet peole cannot show where it is wrong, only where it is not yet proven.

It is part of science to attempt to disprove theories. And if you do disprove the theory, then scientists need to change the theory or abandon it – (note: not try to change the facts). If there is a particular part of evolution you can disprove, then do so.


I believe that what Judge Jones had to say in the recent Pennsylvania case is very important – and relevant to the thread.

The Dover Area School District wanted teacher to read the following to the students:

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

However, the judge ruled:

This paragraph singles out evolution from the rest of the science curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are learning, is “just a theory,” which plays on the “colloquial or popular understanding of the term [‘theory’] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’”

The judgement went on to say:

Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37 (Miller)). As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” … It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Miller stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully understood.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If a scientist had to prove the exact origins of all he studied, plants, animals, humans, before he started to study the evidence that he had from the subject, would there be science? Researchers sitting around going, "Dang I want to study this plant, but I can not prove if it originated, or was created. Too bad, it may have helped someone."

The inability to show excatly where, when, and how, man originated should not stop us from applying the current evidence of the evolution we can see, and prove.

Did man originate, or was he created? Could it be possible that picking up the evidence trail left today and looking for the understanding of it, we may very well answer that question.

Why refuse to look at anything that can be seen, by studing what is known, we can gain a better understanding into where it came from.

Man is here, no one told me, I see them. By starting to examine the traits we can pinpoint in our evolution over the centuries coupled with the advanced tests we can preform today, doors to understanding can only open wider.

Either created or originated here on Earth, man is a natural form, and as such is now and will continue to evolve. The only constant is change. Why not try to find out what this change is, and what it means to us as a species? Maybe then we can see how and why it was caused.

Only after a carefull study of a plant or animal can anyone start to trace an origin of that species. This process should also be done for Humans, constantly growing broader with newer discoveries.

For the sake of debate can we suspend the created/originated question for a while and just say we arose somehow from organic material on the Earth? Can that satisfy both?

KMS
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom