Okay read the rest and wish idin't for it pointless. You seem to be saying all all forms of life have always existed as they are now which is wrong!! Evolution is natural selection over a long peroid of time and can and has been proven to occur in various forms of life.
Oh and there is proof of something like a 'big bang' but not what caused it.
Oh and please go on to expain what these things that have been 'tacked' on to evolution are as far I know your just making them up.

I have never once stated that all forms of life have continued unchanged. I am a firm believer of natural selection as I have said many times. How is it that you misunderstand this? The proof of a big bang is sketchy at best. It is entirely possible that a big bang did happen. As you say, you cannot prove what caused it. I have an extremely hard time even trying to consider that it happened at random and everything turned out so perfectly, especially ANY type of life. The things that have been tacked on are (and these are even listed on the thread you yourself gave me as not really being part of the original definition of evolution):
1. all life began in the sea and evolved to how it is today
2. The big bang, especially the idea that the big bang was totally random
3. Some say not only did all land life came from the sea, but that all life began with one microbial organism

None of these three has any proof whatsoever that it is true.

------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/prime.gif

"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

Ahhh, but to a person with faith, that faith makes things true. To a scientist with a theory, faith will not make it true. He must have proof. And he has none. so therefore he is deluding himself. you are viewing it solely from a scientific perspective, while I am viewing it from both sides, and I feel I am qualified to do so. From a scientific perspective, I cannot say that creation is false, unless I prove that evolution is true. At this point I cannot prove that, so for now I must accept creation as truth. Many scientists refuse to do this, even though they have no proof, as, IMO it means they aren't as all knowing as they like to think. My opinions come not from my faith, although this also screams them at me, but from a clear scientific perspective of the situation as it stands thus far, not clouded by a desire to disprove God in the universe.

------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/prime.gif

"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

all i want to add is thanks for your theories and arguments and personal insights although i got a little lost somewhere ... although i know this is Rikards thread http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif ...

------------------
Revived I Am to hunt this world... Banish ye evil or face my wrath...

Natural selection is evolution to denny one is to denny the other.
As for 1.2&3 that proven stuff. Carbon and Uraiun dating and the sheer fact that sea life is discovered in the oldest levels of soil while anyform of land life is not in that level tells us that sea life came first. And if not a single ogamisn, what else?
The orgainal theory of evolution has been altered so it fits with our current knowlage, just like the old theorys of the universe have been changed as we know that everything doesn't go aroung us.

As for the big bang all spacal bodies can be traced back it there ever expanding course to a single point in space, is that just ramdom chance? Besides if the universe was one day to collapse upon itself it would proudce a graity well to shuch magnetiud that it could well fold time and expolde outward again as the big bang, but that just theory.

So as one thing is unproven you chose a even less proven theory to be true? That is not science, that being a sheep! if they are proven to current science standerds, just like the theorys of gravity, realitive and many others which the basies of teaching stand upon, would you disclaim these?
That a assumtion not all scientiest are tring to disprove god and you are doing just what you are having a go them for, It is pointless to contine this as you seem to stand on the basies that the bible is all truth while everything else is wrong and while you claim to be of a scietifict mind to is blantly overious that you are not because your mind is close anything different.



[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 10-31-2001).]

faith is nice - i suppose.......... !

however, faith is based more on a person's willingness to believe the words of someone else.

take the bible, as that book is one i'm familiar with, it's stuffed with political intrigue and cultural 'norms' from start to end. women are unimportant for the most part (except where no man is available) son's are very important indeed - cultural difference, different time different culture. the explanations containd within the text attempt to explain where people came from - fair enough - hey, we all are interested in that, surely? evolution is also trying to explain and understand the same thing.

personally, i think we need to look at the reasons why people choose to belong to a 'faith' of one sort or another. that would give huge insight into why people prefer the ethereal creator myth to a more concrete exploration of our begining. i still think that people steeped in faith and belief systems need to follow a moral code of some sort because to choose to accept the possiblity of there being no creator leaves them feeling that there are far too many decisions to be made. moral or otherwise. religion gives people a 'place' in the world without their having to make any effort to make their own.

to say 'i'm a christian' or 'i'm a sikh' or 'i'm a jew' contains a huge amount of presumption about where that individual stands in the world and how they interact with it. of course, it's never entirely 100% accurate. i'm using it to make a point. i know many christians and jews who are the most enormous hypocrits! (jewish friends who love prawns and bacon and don't bother with the sabbath very often - naughty http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif) (christian friends who don't worry too much about adultery and telling lies etc.,)

but the point is, they feel safer because of their faith. they wouldn't relinquish it even though most of the people i know personally who profess to have a 'faith' go against it very very often in pursuit of their own personal interests.




------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/hclark50/tracey5_10096.gif

offended mistress of the illuminati

that is not faith

It doesnt matter whether its true or not. The point is that at this moment of time it is the most plausible explanation, therefore for most of our intents and purposes it is "true" to us. You could say that it is a coherent truth beacause it fits in with most of the evidence we have availible.

------------------
http://www.games-workshop.com/40kuni...Battleship.gif

These Ships among the stars serve as the physical embodiment of the God-Emperor's will, punishing all who dare oppose the doctrines of Terra

Natural selection is evolution to denny one is to denny the other.
As for 1.2&3 that proven stuff. Carbon and Uraiun dating and the sheer fact that sea life is discovered in the oldest levels of soil while anyform of land life is not in that level tells us that sea life came first. And if not a single ogamisn, what else?
The orgainal theory of evolution has been altered so it fits with our current knowlage, just like the old theorys of the universe have been changed as we know that everything doesn't go aroung us.

As for the big bang all spacal bodies can be traced back it there ever expanding course to a single point in space, is that just ramdom chance? Besides if the universe was one day to collapse upon itself it would proudce a graity well to shuch magnetiud that it could well fold time and expolde outward again as the big bang, but that just theory.

Ummm, no. I can accept natural selection and not accept that all life came from the sea, or a microbe that randomly decided to live, or a big bang that randomly decided to happen. They are NOT proven things, they are only speculated at. We find less old organic matter on the land than in the sea? This tells us nothing, there is more sea, and more life in the sea, and things tend to be preserved more often in the sea. Doesn't prove a thing.

A theory cannot just be altered. It must have concrete proof in order to do so, and so far this only fits our current guesses, nothing to do with actual knowledge. "would expand outward again as the big bang, but that is just theory." NO, that is not theory. That is hypothesis. There is a clear demarkationbetween what is a theory and what is a hypothesis, and many of the things that you and many others claim as theories in the modern view of evolution are not at this point. They get pushed off as such because natural selection IS a theory and they are tacked to it under the term evolution.


------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/prime.gif

"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

it can be. If you are a christian you learn about the faith from other people and the bible, therefore you are putting faith in what they tell you. e.g When they tell you that you will go to heaven if you do what they say, you are putting faith in their promise. One reason why people like to belong to a faith is beacuse of the problems they have with accepting that their is no point to life. our genes exist to replicate themselves, but why, what is the point? beliving in a religion at least gives you an answer to this and the hope of eternal life.



[This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 10-31-2001).]