ok, god is assumed to have created everything on this earth and in this universe (even though the universe still appears to forming). however, when someone was trying to refute evolution in another thread (i think evolution is hard to deny), i thought that god can't have created everything on this earth as it is, simply because we have an animal that is completely dependant upon us to survive. the bulldog. i said as much but no one seems to reply to my ideas. the bulldog depends on veternarians to birth as natural birth is immpossoble for them to perform due to their large jaw- a trait bred through by dog breeders. if the bulldog had indeed been created by god then the bulldog would not exist, it's futile attempts to concieive would have produced no results and killed the female bulldog. the transformation from wolf to dog is kind of like evolution sped up several thousand millenia under some strange selection pressures. humans have created the modern dog, and fundamentalists cannot deny this fact as it is happening with cats as well now- minature cat anyone?

Two thoughts:
1)Bulldogs were evidently not part of the original creation (present on the ark, so to speak), being an artificially bred variety of dog
2)Humans were, so the bulldog is an indirect creation - creation by proxy.
But we did not create dogs as a species.

Nothing says that God did not create evolvable species - we weren't set in stone.

have u seen a mad dog- it looks like a human trapped in there.

1)Bulldogs were evidently not part of the original creation (present on the ark, so to speak), being an artificially bred variety of dog
sorry, don't believe in the ark because of it's biological ramifications and the sheer size of what was trying to be accomplished is not even doable in todays vastly technically superior world.

But we did not create dogs as a species.
yeah we did. wolves aren't dogs. dogs are dogs because we tamed wolves then bred out "desirable" traits.

Nothing says that God did not create evolvable species - we weren't set in stone.
i thought evolution was regarded in any form as false by religious doctrine. if it can apply to dogs why can't it apply to humans?

Originally posted by Jenyar
Nothing says that God did not create evolvable species - we weren't set in stone.The belief in 'micro-evolution' creates a difficult problem for creationists: A mechanism would have to exist to prevent speciation.

Originally posted by atheroy
yeah we did. wolves aren't dogs. dogs are dogs because we tamed wolves then bred out "desirable" traits.Actually, dogs are genetically identical to wolves.

"....Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. "Recently I attended a canine genetics workshop at Texas A & M University in which it was further emphasized that there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. "....I would taxonomically identify all wolves, wolf hybrids and domestic dogs as the species Canis lupus. Technically, the domestic dog and wolf hybrids should be designated as the sub-species "domesticus". I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
The belief in 'micro-evolution' creates a difficult problem for creationists: A mechanism would have to exist to prevent speciation. It's called Young Earth Creationism. You don't get much time for speciation in 6,000 years. In fact, it's barely enough to get the lethargic Koala from Mount Ararat to Brisbane. ;)

Actually, dogs are genetically identical to wolves
yeah, but if you try and breed a wolf with a chiwawa(sp?) i think the results would be rather disasterous:D. dogs and wolves may be genetically identical but when i say we created dogs, i mean their character, their size or shape, their existance. besides, the time between when we started breeding wolves and todays dogs is hardly enough time for genetic speciation to occur. i was just saying if we didn't intervene wolves would probably still be wolves and dogs wouldn't be dogs.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
It's called Young Earth Creationism. You don't get much time for speciation in 6,000 years. In fact, it's barely enough to get the lethargic Koala from Mount Ararat to Brisbane.That's okay. There are so many massive problems with the 'Young Earth' theory that this particular problem is insignificant in that case. Just imagine the three toed sloth swimming to Brazil. :D

Originally posted by atheroy
yeah, but if you try and breed a wolf with a chiwawa(sp?) i think the results would be rather disasterous:DOnly if the Chihuahua is the female, otherwise the results (and the act) would merely be funny. ;)

i was just saying if we didn't intervene wolves would probably still be wolves and dogs wouldn't be dogs.And I do agree with your underlying point. The fact of the matter is that evolution does occur. Even speciation has been observed. The amazing and amusing thing is to watch the hoops creationists will hop through to explain why the facts don't matter.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Jenyar
...
But we did not create dogs as a species.

Nothing says that God did not create evolvable species - we weren't set in stone.

An organism separated from others like it which is then allowed to multiply on its own indepently of others like it might evolve. Examples are found in birds, insects and humans. Once the organism evolves enough, it is a new species. For example, there are humans who become thickly haired all over after puberty, humans that have tails, humans that have extra long incisors; as well as humans in an African tribe that have, as a tribe, two toes. Crossbreeding all those traits one can have after puberty, a two-toed, fanged, tailed, hairy ape that walks on two feet and can breed with any other human. To keep it a new species one has to only breed out 5-toes, no tails, limited hair growth, and fangs.

GodLied.

To try and say evolution is not a reality would require going back to the dark ages, evolution is a widely accepted and even noted phenomena.

HOWEVER - Human evolution is a different ball game. :eek:

In the not too distant past a human skull was discovered that far outdated many of our "ape like ancestors". Which meant that that a particular group we once assumed were in our line, fell into a totally different species. This however is not an arguement against human evolution offcourse, but it does raise a few questions to say the least. Human evolution has not been categorically proven.

Today's truth is tommorws fiction!

There was a time when scientists believed current flowed from positive to negative (conventional current). Thats is until the discovery of the electron!

Food for thought!


Originally posted by atheroy
sorry, don't believe in the ark because of it's biological ramifications and the sheer size of what was trying to be accomplished is not even doable in todays vastly technically superior world.
[/B]

Surely anything is "doable" with God's help!!!


Originally posted by atheroy
i thought evolution was regarded in any form as false by religious doctrine. if it can apply to dogs why can't it apply to humans? [/B]

1. Wolves did not evolve into dogs.
2. To Try and say that IF wolves did evolve into dogs, that these are grounds for human evolution would be a fallacy.




:cool: SoSlick :cool:

1. Wolves did not evolve into dogs
what mj have you been smoking? this is common knowledge.

To try and say evolution is not a reality would require going back to the dark ages, evolution is a widely accepted and even noted phenomena.

HOWEVER - Human evolution is a different ball game.

so we live outside of the natural biological realm of this world? what applies to everything else does not apply to us humans because we are special somehow?
nah. common presumption that humans are different and special made by religious types.


In the not too distant past a human skull was discovered that far outdated many of our "ape like ancestors". Which meant that that a particular group we once assumed were in our line, fell into a totally different species. This however is not an arguement against human evolution offcourse, but it does raise a few questions to say the least. Human evolution has not been categorically proven
man that's so specific and hasn't happened before that i'm totally surpirsed. i studied this last year, and you'd be surprised at what you'd learn if you bothered to delve into the subject a little deeper.

Today's truth is tommorws fiction!

There was a time when scientists believed current flowed from positive to negative (conventional current). Thats is until the discovery of the electron!
you don't say? i wish the same sort of thought could be applied to religion (although it is in an entirely different way than it should be).

Surely anything is "doable" with God's help!!!
i'm not sure i know of anytime or anywhere where god has helped humans on any scale.

:m:NotSoSlick:m:

I have thought about this for a long time.
The people who developed different breeds of dogs thousands of years ago MUST have understood evolution.
An in depth knowledge of it is required for you successfully make a breed. Why did they never put 2 and 2 together and realise they were formed through selective breeding the same way their sniffing hound was?
I think they did, I think man has known about evolution for a long ass time but this was kept out of historical records by the religious powers of the times.

For man to manipulate evolution to the point he did in the time he did with dogs is phenomenal. It required people who understood inheritence very well.
But the directions in which man branched familiaris is very telling of the lack of understanding we suffer when it comes natural survival. Nature was a better dog breeder than man as far as quality is concerned. The dogs man has made are absolutely inferior to those nature made when it comes to surviving in the wild.
Obviously the english bulldog but less obvious would be the american bulldog. It seems like a perfect machine. Its stronger than any wolf or wild dog, in fact it was designed to take on packs of wolves single handedly and does so quite well, but it still depends on man to give it its bowl of food everyday, wolves, coyotes and even jackals have it beat hands down in that regard.
I fear humans are innadvertantly breeding themselves to be like bulldogs, more so of the english variety. Fat and useless and completely incompetent living organisms.


PS: I'm guilty in propogating the myth that dogs descended from wolves:( my bad, its just easier to say wolf than canis familiaris because no one knows what a wild canis familiaris is. Dogs were "stolen" from nature, their ancestors are extinct. They would have been very similar to the dingo of australia.

PS: I'm guilty in propogating the myth that dogs descended from wolves my bad, its just easier to say wolf than canis familiaris because no one knows what a wild canis familiaris is. Dogs were "stolen" from nature, their ancestors are extinct. They would have been very similar to the dingo of australia.
really? but wolves and dogs are genetically identical. though what you say is true of human evolution as well, i'm always being asked how i can believe we evolved from chimps or apes, a common misconception held by people who don't know muh about evolution. the being that we evolved from is chimp-like, not an actual chimp.

The people who developed different breeds of dogs thousands of years ago MUST have understood evolution.

An in depth knowledge of it is required for you successfully make a breed. Why did they never put 2 and 2 together and realise they were formed through selective breeding the same way their sniffing hound was?
not really, they may have simply observed that a trait becomes more developed simply by breeding dogs together that they thought looked similar. they did not require an understanding of the mechanics of what they were doing, instead, it just made sense.

I think they did, I think man has known about evolution for a long ass time but this was kept out of historical records by the religious powers of the times.
maybe, it makes intuitive sense though. micro-evolution has been performed by dog breeders, evolution as a concept is sound and applicable in any environment. i'm not sure it was known though.

Fat and useless and completely incompetent living organisms.
lol, yes. perhaps it should be in recognition of our own inheritance that things might change.

really? but wolves and dogs are genetically identical. though what you say is true of human evolution as well, i'm always being asked how i can believe we evolved from chimps or apes, a common misconception held by people who don't know muh about evolution. the being that we evolved from is chimp-like, not an actual chimp.
The problem is not so much that there is no fossil record of a pre-chimp human/pre-human chimp, but that the theory necessarily converges at a point where pre-chimps and pre-wolves share a common ancestor. At one stage, apparently, they were all part of the same niche in the food chain, with no natural predators. I wonder why we are not all rabbits, rather.

Please elaborate jenyar.
I'm every interested as to where you see a shortcoming in the theory of evolution.
What you just did was simplify it to the point of greatly insulting its complexity.

Dogs and humans seperated a very long time ago, we aren't much further removed from any other mammal than we are from dogs. Dog ancestors evolved feeding on our ancestors for quite some time.
I don't know where to begin in explaining why we aren't all rabbits:rolleyes:

Jenyar, you are one person I think purposelly ignores studying evolution seriously. You are too intelligent to hold such primitive misconceptions, I think deep down you know you're wrong.
Maybe not, but I maintain my suspicion.
:bugeye:

I'm every interested as to where you see a shortcoming in the theory of evolution.
What you just did was simplify it to the point of greatly insulting its complexity.

Dogs and humans seperated a very long time ago, we aren't much further removed from any other mammal than we are from dogs. Dog ancestors evolved feeding on our ancestors for quite some time.
The shortcoming is the lack of evidence and the ready speculation. I have no problem with the mechanisms of evolution - they are well attested - but I have doubts about their power to create. I do simplify it somewhat, because that makes it harder to hide among its "complexities".

Consider what you just said: dogs and humans "separated a very long time ago", and the commonality is that both are mammals. Early dogs/wolves might have hunted early humans (or was it the other way around?) but you suppose that we were both the same (carnivorous/omnivorous/herbivorous?) animal at some stage, with no "natural" food - not life feeding on life, but life feeding on itself. Was cannibalism the only option for such a being? I know you can't answer that - because nobody knows. I just want to figure out where knowledge about evolution ends and where the speculation begins.

There is no evidence of such a "template animal" for any species - all fossils we have ever found are either different, or related species. I think you are stretching their "relatedness" further than science warrants.

(My point about the rabbits was that they are far more effective breeders and efficient eaters than most - at their first stage of evolution, they what natural predators would they have had?)

Originally posted by Jenyar
*snip*
Consider what you just said: dogs and humans "separated a very long time ago", and the commonality is that both are mammals. Early dogs/wolves might have hunted early humans (or was it the other way around?) but you suppose that we were both the same (carnivorous/omnivorous/herbivorous?) animal at some stage, with no "natural" food - not life feeding on life, but life feeding on itself. Was cannibalism the only option for such a being? I know you can't answer that - because nobody knows. I just want to figure out where knowledge about evolution ends and where the speculation begins.
*snip*
Mmm, I have to share Dr Lou's notion that you are deliberately being obtuse. Obviously there was no stage in time, except for the very first instances of life, perhaps, where the fauna of Earth consisted of a single species. Concurrent with early mammals were late dinosaurs, other lizards, birds, insects. There was always a food chain.

And we can easily document that; the fossil record shows that even right after the so-called mass-extinctions, there were an abundancy of species on Earth.

About template animals and transitory types, an argument also often brought on by creationists: Evolution is not a deliberate process; it is not planning to produce a certain species or variation. At any time, selection works according to present conditions and on the present material. Any creature that has ever existed has been viable in itself, thus, depending on definition, there are no templates or transitional types ... or all types are.

Hans

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenyar
Consider what you just said: dogs and humans "separated a very long time ago", and the commonality is that both are mammals. Early dogs/wolves might have hunted early humans (or was it the other way around?)
No the dogs ancestors, which were similar to the cat like fossa of madagascar, definately hunted the humans ancestors which were small rodents. They continued hunting our ancestors as they evolved into possum like creatures and later lemurs.

but you suppose that we were both the same (carnivorous/omnivorous/herbivorous?) animal at some stage with no "natural" food - not life feeding on life, but life feeding on itself. Was cannibalism the only option for such a being?I know you can't answer that - because nobody knows. I just want to figure out where knowledge about evolution ends and where the speculation begins.
Nobody knows? well you can call me "nobody"(it wouldn't be the first time I've been given that label)
There's mindless fantastical speculation and then there's speculation like when flanders "assumed" homer stole his airconditioner after seeing his footprints leading from his smashed window to the side of homers house where an airconditioner was crudely attached.
This belongs in the second category.
When dogs and humans were the same animal they were feeding on other animals as well as plants and insects. Is that so hard to understand?

If you want to go back to when there was only one animal you have to go back to the very origin of life. And the interesting thing about the original life was there was no conformity to its phenotype. The laymans way of putting it would be they were half plant half animal, but really animals and plants are just half of what they were. The least changed descendents of the original life are plankton which are still these "planimal" organisms and they still have an intricate eco-system among their own species. Some look like little crayfish, some look like little blobs, the little crayfish ones will feed on the little blobby ones.

The reason we have eco-systems today is because thats how the original species of organism naturally behaved within its own species. The standards we see today within species, (ie all leopards have spots and act like leopards) didn't exist in the original species. "my brother looks like a microscopic string of leaves and my sister looks like a flea, wierd" is what the original organisms would say is they could talk.
It is this diversity within this single "species" (which could be refferred to simply as life) that allowed such a diverse array of species to evolve from this one animal, sorry aniplant. All plants evolved from it too.

Science hasn't written this down in text books yet, and thats because it can't be proven the same way the tigers relation to the lion can be. But using the method used to establish the tigers relation to the lion, which surpisingly enough is the same as the method used to establish the frogs relation to the salamander and so on and so on, you can stretch it back like mathematics to get to the origin. Its simple(or maybe advanced) logic.
We are fortunate enough to still have animals alive today demonstrating the links and its only by means of pure luck that they standed the test of time.

I'd be stumped if I didn't know about plankton. But the fact it is an organism that has no standard phenotype and is neither plant nor animal is just too obvious.
Then there are marsupials which are clearly part of the transition from reptiles to mammals. And madagascar has the rise of primates in lemurs which are just obviously a possum like creature turning into a monkey. Possums are clearly marsupial rats that got better at climbing trees. It all makes too much sense for any intelligent person to ignore, and the icing on the cake is you can actually see how mammals travelled around the globe evolving as they went.
I'll get into that later if you want, I'm tired now.

PS; as much as fossills have done for the theory of evolution they aren't the only thing to look at. The fact is the amount of fossills found compared to the amount of species throughout natural history would be something like 1 in 80 trillion.
Missing fossills does certainly not a case make.
Brains come in handy for filling gaps, you should trying using yours for that. It IS reliable if done logically, taking what IS known and using it as a precedent, taking into account that patterns are consistent on this planet.

Originally posted by Jenyar
but you suppose that we were both the same (carnivorous/omnivorous/herbivorous?) animal at some stage, with no "natural" food - not life feeding on life, but life feeding on itself. Was cannibalism the only option for such a being? I know you can't answer that - because nobody knows. I just want to figure out where knowledge about evolution ends and where the speculation begins.

First, although it's already been said, you're over-simplifying. You're thinking of the tree diagram where the lineage of modern species is traced out where one species joins with another on down the tree until there is only the trunk of the tree (one species). But this is a vast oversimplification.

Think of it more like graphing a function, where the individual fossil discoveries are the points on the graph.

http://www.dean.tec.ma.us/MCAS/MCASgraph.htm

The lines of the tree graph are interpolations of the data, not exact representations. If we were to examine the tree in more detail we would find it to be truly bizarre. Rather than solid branches, they would be woven from many different strands. It would be very hairy, with all sorts of tendrils twisting and turning in and out of each other to make up the branches, some threads would dead-end and others would merge sometimes only to split later on.

In regards to your cannibalism question; at no point would one species ever have existed alone except very close to the point of inception of life on Earth. And at this point we would be talking about something similar to bacteria which would have lived off the nutrients in the oceans.

~Raithere

Brains come in handy for filling gaps, you should trying using yours for that. It IS reliable if done logically, taking what IS known and using it as a precedent, taking into account that patterns are consistent on this planet.
I try to use my brain whenever the opportunity presents itself ;) But as you know, "filling gaps" are only fine as long as they do not make any claim to evidence that are not theirs. If I find a tire in the grass and tracks in the dirt - I might conclude that the tire belonged to a car, but won't have evidence to support it. Conjecture is useful but not factual. As long as you realize this. Otherwise you are just saying "evolution did it" where others might say "God did it", with the same amount of faith.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I try to use my brain whenever the opportunity presents itself ;) But as you know, "filling gaps" are only fine as long as they do not make any claim to evidence that are not theirs. If I find a tire in the grass and tracks in the dirt - I might conclude that the tire belonged to a car, but won't have evidence to support it. Conjecture is useful but not factual. As long as you realize this. Otherwise you are just saying "evolution did it" where others might say "God did it", with the same amount of faith. Except for the fact that there is abundant evidence for evolution, but none for God.

Hans

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Except for the fact that there is abundant evidence for evolution, but none for God.
There is abundant dead evidence pointing towards the kind of evolution you have in mind, but there is a Bible full of living evidence pointing towards God. The scientific documents point to dead animals and extinct species out of the past, the Biblical documents point to a living God and a different future than evolution suggests. The evidence is different because they point to different realities. The conclusion is still made in your mind.

There is plenty of evidence in live animals too, however, how is text in a 2000 years old book more alive than a fossil?

Point to two different realities? In my version of the universe, there is only one reality.

But based on your post above, I take it that you acknowledge that PHYSICAL evidence do indeed point to evolution, but are contradicted by the religious statements in the Bible. In this case I agree that the conclusion is made in your mind.

This does leave one question, though: Have you got any guess at God's purpose in creating a world that falsely gives the impression of being of great age, and with evolution?

Edited to add: I should point out that in my opinion, evolution does not disprove or even contradict a belief in God. It is, however, contradictory to a literal interpretation of the Bible.


Hans

I agree. If evolution happened, it happened. That first week there was nobody to take the time - my personal subjective opinion is that we know too little about the characteristics of time and space from our vantage point. A curvature in time might give an impression of greater age the further back you "conjecture" - but that's our bad, not God's. Just as an optical illusion is not a dishonesty of the image itself, but the result of our perception of it. The Bible is also a perception of God, which is often coloured by our own beliefs. With both the Bible and Evolution, our observation are highly dependent on the accuracy and dependability of our measuring equipment, but even more on the assumptions we make either way.

The "realities" I referred to was meant as the difference between a scientifically observable "reality" (the territory of science), and something like history, emotions, values, which are equally real, and equally valid observations of reality, but objectively unrepeatable, untestable and "invisible". When there is conclusive evidence that evolutions can create, I will have to accept its inherent power. At the moment, such power is only assumed (without scientific evidence) because people are being brainwashed into thinking belief in God is somehow unacceptable.

people are being brainwashed into thinking belief in God is somehow unacceptable.
might i ask who you think is doing this? the only people i see being brainwashed are those young children being taken to church so as to capture them from a young age. the church doesn't have faith in itself that if people weren't indoctrined from a young age, they wouldn't become religious. i was never told by anyone god is unacceptable, the mayority of this world (a large majority at that) believe in god. why do you assume this?

This is where you can see English isn't my native language :(

(people are being brainwashed) into thinking (belief in God) -> is somehow unacceptable.

Of course no kind of brainwashing is acceptable, but the truth is that great parts of evolution being taught children today has very little scientific backing, but they aren't taught what is conjecture and what isn't. Because they aren't old enough to verify the facts for themselves, they have to believe it.

I know that religion has the same status in your eyes, but faith is something that you start incorporating into your life at a very early age. You may have wondered why so many people believe in God even when they don't really know who or what He is. In my experience faith depends more on the credibility of the parents themselves than on the actual content. When you grow up knowing love, and being able to trust your parents, and very quickly you become aware if those qualities have a source in their faith, and the correlation becomes an incredibly powerful testimony to what they believe. Your then also measure what you hear in church against what you experience at home and from those who believe what is taught there. Discrepancies usually throw doubt on the faith rather than the parents (although it says something about them as well) - and children become disenfranchised.

The theory of General evolution has no such build-up of credibility - in fact, it becomes harder to explain the further you go with it. An authentic life stays authentic, but teaching children to believe as a fact something that isn't a fact is just as dishonest as teaching your children about a God you have no reason to believe in yourself.

I have said before, that I think you are the most intelligent theist I have come across so far.
I think we agree on may things, but there is this ethereal line where we split off and you veer towards God and I veer away.
I do completely agree with this statement:
Originally posted by Jenyar
Of course no kind of brainwashing is acceptable, but the truth is that great parts of evolution being taught children today has very little scientific backing, but they aren't taught what is conjecture and what isn't. Because they aren't old enough to verify the facts for themselves, they have to believe it.


We are being completely irresponsible in this regards of teaching our children.
Scientists often do make leaps and bounds (although they may often be warranted) and the bridges between the gaps are often incorrectly taught as proven fact.
Not just with matters of evolution, either.
This happens in many areas of science and history, and, as I said, it is an irresponsible way to teach our children.
If the educators feel that young minds aren't developed anough to discern fact from conjecture, then they should spend more time on developing those minds' capabilities to reason for themselves before filling them with information that they are not yet ready to process, and simply confusing them further in an attempt to take advantage of that time when they are most prone to learning and growth.
They take advantage of that time to fill their open minds with junk information and trivial bullshit rather than developing the mind properly to learn rather than memorize.
So every 3rd grader can name all the president's names, but can't tell you what the logic behind the differing parties each of these president belonged to.
When we chose to teach children to memorize rather then to learn and reason, they become machines that process rather than individuals that create and grow.

(sorry for that little rant of a tangent)

to jenyar,

This is where you can see English isn't my native language
wow :) i'm impressed, you could have fooled me otherwise. don't be sorry, most of the time you are very clear in what you say, i also agree with one_raven.

Of course no kind of brainwashing is acceptable, but the truth is that great parts of evolution being taught children today has very little scientific backing, but they aren't taught what is conjecture and what isn't. Because they aren't old enough to verify the facts for themselves, they have to believe it.
i'd just like to say (this may not be the case everywhere, but it was for me), i only learn't about evolution in my last year of college. my teacher detailed to the class that this was only theory, and while it was also her personal belief, she said she wanted to in no way impose her beliefs on any of the students. and she also understood people who's personal belief wasn't in that of evolution. in this way we were taught from both sides of the coin, on evidence that was plausible and that human knowledge is infantile to our own existence, that evolution also has it's points of pure theory.

i agree with you when you say evolution shouldn't be taught as the truth, but in the same way we were only taught about it at a fairly old age, one where we could accept or dicline this theory on our own beliefs- evolution in the depth we were taught just fitted with me, i've ran with it ever since. this i believe should also be the case with things like religion, i will never be able to thank my parents enough for not imposing any belief on me. for so many reasons it should be this way for everyone, i was about 10 before i heard about god, even knew anything of him, but because of my parents neutral stance i could've become religious (may have if some stupid christian people hadn't introduced me to their beliefs in such a rancid way) if i wanted to. i didn't because it just wasn't me. i'm not sure how many can attest to this sort of faith or freedom from their parents but to them i am eternally greatful for letting choose my own way.

Originally posted by atheroy
i'd just like to say (this may not be the case everywhere, but it was for me), i only learn't about evolution in my last year of college.

Either things have changed, or it is different where you are from where I was.
I was told that it was the "theory" of evolution, but it was basically presented as irrefuted scientific knowledge.
And, this happened in the third grade (8 - 9 years old).

Originally posted by Jenyar-of-the-70-Books
The theory of General evolution has no such build-up of credibility - in fact, it becomes harder to explain the further you go with it. In fact? Whose? What, precisely, becomes harder to explain for anyone other than a subset of Jude-Christian literalists?

Either things have changed, or it is different where you are from where I was.
I was told that it was the "theory" of evolution, but it was basically presented as irrefuted scientific knowledge.
And, this happened in the third grade (8 - 9 years old).
holy crap. 8-9!! i first truly learn't about evolution when i was 17-18, 7th form. i take it you live in the USA? i live in new zealand, i would say we are more liberal than the USA, but sometimes we are more sensible :D

i'm truly surprised. i'm not sure i could've even dealt with the concept of evolution when i was that young, perhaps schooling goes along a slower process here?

Originally posted by atheroy
perhaps schooling goes along a slower process here?

And perhaps it should go at a slower pace here. :)

Originally posted by one_raven
I was told that it was the "theory" of evolution, but it was basically presented as irrefuted scientific knowledge. What refutations did you have in mind?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What refutations did you have in mind?

I didn't have any specific refutations in mind.
That is not the point.
The point is that it has not been accepted as a "law", it is still just a theory.
A theory that is hotly contested and lacking enough empirical evidence to be considered a law.

Yes, there is a good deal of evidence for it.
I am not saying that I don't believe it is true (I don;t think that Darwin was 100% correct) but there is ample evidence that there is evolution and natural selection taking place on at least some level (See Daphne Island Finches).
However, the simple fact of the matter is that the theories regarding evolution are incomplete at best and to present it as otherwise is irresponsible.

Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
There is abundant dead evidence pointing towards the kind of evolution you have in mind...
----------
(Let's see here, Jenyar-in-tap-shoes, "dead evidence" of evolution. Hmmm, it seems that there is the entire human race out there, and I wouldn't exactly call them "dead!" They are very much alive and filled with the One Spirit of God! So you are actually saying that "God is Dead." Okay, that's your perogative.)
----------
but there is a Bible full of living evidence pointing towards God.
----------
(Okay, the Bible, an inanimate object, tells a story of the people who may have lived up to some 5,000 years ago. Now, as far as I can tell, these people would seem to be no longer alive. But, it is very likely that the stories of these people were made up myths taken from earlier stories of creations in and around the Middle Eastern area. You seem to be confused. Do you know the actual difference between being dead or being alive? The Bible has NO LIVING EVIDENCE of God! You cannot even prove there is a God!)
----------
The scientific documents point to dead animals and extinct species out of the past, the Biblical documents point to a living God and a different future than evolution suggests.
----------
(The scientific documents point to growth, change and survival in the species. Most of those species are still alive! Some may have gone the way of the fossil, but the One Spirit of God STILL resides in those who have survived--including humans!)
----------
The evidence is different because they point to different realities.
----------
(This statement doesn't make a lick of sense! What evidence is different? You need to explain more clearly the point you're trying to make instead of dancing around the subject! There is only one reality, so the evidence isn't different. Reality is that the One Spirit of God resides in all creation. Since you cannot understand this concept, you are rejecting God.)
----------
The conclusion is still made in your mind.
----------
(What conclusion are you referring to? The conclusion to reject God? Evolution is not something that can reasoned in one's mind. It is science and it is fact. Who's to say that Adam and Eve weren't hairy apes? After all, apes are vegetarians. They would've had a field day in the Garden of Eden. I'll spell this out for your lower mental capacity--maybe it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve Ape ate that made them become more human (as in "bigger brains)!) Jenyar, this is what you should strive for. I know you're limited, but please try to get on the evolutionary train and evolve a little bit! Your posts suggest a lowered mental capacity which probably had something to do with your not evolving with the rest of the human race.)

Originally posted by one_raven
The point is that it has not been accepted as a "law", it is still just a theory.
A theory that is hotly contested and lacking enough empirical evidence to be considered a law.A couple of points here.

1. Evolution refers to both theory and observed fact. The fact is that evolution as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) has been observed. There is nothing to contest here, no debate at all.

2. The various theories of how evolution progressed historically and what factors contributed towards the evolution of particular species is indeed theoretical and sometimes even only hypothetical. Modern theories are also dramatically more precise and complex than simple "Darwinism". To take into account only Darwin's original theory is akin to arguing against the Copernican model of the Solar System. It is quite outdated and is no longer the preeminent model within the field.

Any alternative theory must therefore take into account the fact of evolution (what creationists mislabel as 'micro-evolution'). And find some alternative genetic mechanism as well as evidence to support their theory. To date, none have.

~Raithere

Originally posted by one_raven
... ... The point is that it has not been accepted as a "law", it is still just a theory. A theory that is hotly contested and lacking enough empirical evidence to be considered a law... ... ...1) I'm curious about your views on A) electromagnetism B) atomic orbital theory C) molecular orbital theory etc.. .. .. Should we just drop chemistry from the curriculum because we don’t fully understand how two atoms bond? Of course not.
2) Evolution in and of itself is not contested by anyone anywhere in science that I have ever read in any reputable scientific journal. The nuances regarding the processes of evolution can be hotly debated.
(Of course so is every areaof scientific enquiry. Just yesterday I listened to two scientists debate the effects of human growth hormone on stem cell neurogenesis in the CNS. It’s actually quite a common phenomenon in science.)

Originally posted by Michael
1) I'm curious about your views on A) electromagnetism B) atomic orbital theory C) molecular orbital theory etc.. .. .. Should we just drop chemistry from the curriculum because we don’t fully understand how two atoms bond? Of course not.
2) Evolution in and of itself is not contested by anyone anywhere in science that I have ever read in any reputable scientific journal. The nuances regarding the processes of evolution can be hotly debated.
(Of course so is every areaof scientific enquiry. Just yesterday I listened to two scientists debate the effects of human growth hormone on stem cell neurogenesis in the CNS. It’s actually quite a common phenomenon in science.)
That's all fine and scientific, but when people start stating that humans evolved from non-humans, or that life itself is a product of evolution of matter, without proof, it ceases to become factual. Theories are the building blocks of science, true, but facts are the cement.

I think the house built on the theory of evolution becomes very unstable when your last facts were left far below.

I won’t go into evolution other than to say what I need to make my point. Evolution is a fact. However, the nuances of this phenomenon are not fully established. Similarly, chemical bonding is a fact, however each year new bonding theories are proposed to explain this "bonding" phenomenon. Two of these are atomic and molecular orbital theories - as they are the easiest to understand. They are taught in school (oh mygosh ) these two particular theories are completely different explanation for the known phenomenon – that atoms bond. Yet it's still taught?!?!? Why aren't these same people protesting against evolution protesting against chemistry??!!?? Could it be they have an agenda? Hmmm.. maybe?

Let me state that again:
1) There may be different theories of atomic bonding – however atoms do bond to one another (its a fact). When taking a chemistry class a student should be exposed to scientific theories of chemistry. ((Would you agree? Of course you would!))
2) There may be different theories of evolution – living things do evolve (its a fact). When taking a Biology class a student should be exposed to scientific theories of evolution.

So, my point is that using the same (it’s only a theory) argument we could say that these subjects shouldn’t be taught either: Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Physics, Psychology, Sociology, Some Maths, etcetera… Even Language has theory – better cancel that out too :)

I think the house built on the theory of evolution becomes very unstable when your last facts were left far below.
can't you see this about your own religion (this here seems to be a reoccuring theme)? where evolution actually has plenty of factual evidence, from which sound theory can be derived,
your own belief lies in a antiquated book (which has no relevance to our natural universe) and nothing else (except some chemical reactions in your brain, which you ascribe to god).