Evolution and Genesis

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

That's like calling gravity a theory. You know that if you jump off a building that you're going to hit the ground. That's what evolution and natural selection are. They are plain and simple and beautiful--and they explain everything.

You make a poor comparison. Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory not a law.

There is concrete evidence to support the law of gravity. There is only incomplete and anecdotal evidence to support the theory of evolution. Maybe it's better to describe evolution as a hope.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You make a poor comparison. Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory not a law.

There is concrete evidence to support the law of gravity. There is only incomplete and anecdotal evidence to support the theory of evolution. Maybe it's better to describe evolution as a hope.

So what part of "evolution" do you not believe? We can talk about it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

OK, fine. I'm trying to talk about biology here.

Explain to me why evolution will be replaced.

Because all scientific theories of man's finite mind ultimately have been or will be replaced. There is hundreds of years of scientific theories that have been proven unsustainable. The theory of evolution as it is now taught and understood will be replaced with other theories.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

So what part of "evolution" do you not believe? We can talk about it.

I do not believe that a lengthy series of truly random mutations from a single-celled organism to a human being is a mathematical certainty.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You make a poor comparison. Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory not a law.

There is concrete evidence to support the law of gravity. There is only incomplete and anecdotal evidence to support the theory of evolution. Maybe it's better to describe evolution as a hope.

Incidentally, there is still no unifying theory of physics which explains relationships between gravity and electromagnetism, etc. But do you doubt the laws of physics, despite lack of a unifying theory?

Biology has a unifying theory which explains everything, yet you view that theory as inconsistent with the evidence or inferior to some unknown future theory?

[Tex]

Newton first formulated his ideas on gravity in 1687.
Darwin first published his theory on evolution in 1859.

No one doubts gravity anymore. It's generally accepted by everyone. Yet questions/debates about evolution continue.

Maybe the Darwinists just need to wait another 170 years or so.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

So what part of "evolution" do you not believe? We can talk about it.

It's not that I believe or disbelieve any part of it. I will not be cornered. Fundamentally I do not ascribe to the idea that it is even a sound theory to begin with. There are points of the theory I find fascinating, and that seem wonderfully logical. There are many other points of the theory that simply illogical.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You make a poor comparison. Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory not a law.

There is concrete evidence to support the law of gravity. There is only incomplete and anecdotal evidence to support the theory of evolution. Maybe it's better to describe evolution as a hope.

There is a great body of evidence supportive of the theories and principles espoused by natural selection.

Given the time spans involved, the body of evidence will always be "incomplete', but I take issue with your description of "anecdotal." The evidence is far greater than anecdotal. Incomplete only because it spans billions of years on a planet with lots of resources.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There is a great body of evidence supportive of the theories and principles espoused by natural selection.

Given the time spans involved, the body of evidence will always be "incomplete', but I take issue with your description of "anecdotal." The evidence is far greater than anecdotal. Incomplete only because it spans billions of years on a planet with lots of resources.

Natural selection is a misnomer. In the history of the world the selection of one species over another ect. most certainly has been a deliberate and overt act.

Logical Selection may well be better terminology.

How many dots truly have been connected in regards to the theory of natural selection? You are deluding to yourself if you believe it is more than a good theory, even at this point in time!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Natural selection is a misnomer. In the history of the world the selection of one species over another ect. most certainly has been a deliberate and overt act.

Logical Selection may well be better terminology.

How many dots truly have been connected in regards to the theory of natural selection? You are deluding to yourself if you believe it is more than a good theory, even at this point in time!

A highly skilled artist is lecturing an uninformed attorney on the extent of evidence supporting the theories and principles of evolution?