Well, My Opinion Of The US Public Just Went Down Again...

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Once again: fossils prove that "evolution" happens but not why it happens.. so yes, the fossil record is absolute proof that living things have changed over time (that is, evolved). As I said, the only debate is over what drives it.

[Nickswitz]

Once again: fossils prove that "evolution" happens but not why it happens.. so yes, the fossil record is absolute proof that living things have changed over time (that is, evolved). As I said, the only debate is over what drives it.

No, the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, unless we're thinking of evolution differently, my thought of evolution was unaided natural mutation that leads to a different creature or a modification of a creature... If God made a lot of similar creatures, and they all died and fossilized, how would that be evolution?

[Mikey]

The science teacher is not qualified in theology nor philosophy. If a science teacher has to explain every alternative theory to science there would be no room in the school for other things.

So do you want the maths teacher to teach the possibility that trig is wrong because certain people don't believe in it?

You're responding to something you infer from what I said - not what I actually said. I said that the fact of the existence of alternate hypotheses should be taught - not the details of those hypotheses. As to the trig question, that's a different kettle of fish - regarding evolution, we're discussing a theory. Trigonometry is not a theory, it's a method of calculation.

No, the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, unless we're thinking of evolution differently, my thought of evolution was unaided natural mutation that leads to a different creature or a modification of a creature... If God made a lot of similar creatures, and they all died and fossilized, how would that be evolution?

The idea is not the use of the existence of fossils alone, but the study of the changes in form of flora and fauna over time - which study does support evolution. However, as I explained regarding my own beliefs, this still doesn't preclude a belief in creation, unless you are a Creationist, believing that a deity placed everything on Earth exactly how it is today.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Once again: fossils prove that "evolution" happens but not why it happens.. so yes, the fossil record is absolute proof that living things have changed over time (that is, evolved). As I said, the only debate is over what drives it.

No, the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, unless we're thinking of evolution differently, my thought of evolution was unaided natural mutation that leads to a different creature or a modification of a creature... If God made a lot of similar creatures, and they all died and fossilized, how would that be evolution?

That is the theory explaining how things evolve ("why it happens"). The evolution I'm referring to as fact is simply the observed fact that living things have changed over time... that observation is not in dispute. What you're disputing is the mechanism, but not the fact. If you wish to posit that a higher intelligence is driving the observed changes in living things, go ahead - but that's still an explanation for the fact of "evolution" (which simply means change over time), even if a theistic rather than a scientific one.

Get it?

[Nickswitz]

Once again: fossils prove that "evolution" happens but not why it happens.. so yes, the fossil record is absolute proof that living things have changed over time (that is, evolved). As I said, the only debate is over what drives it.

No, the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, unless we're thinking of evolution differently, my thought of evolution was unaided natural mutation that leads to a different creature or a modification of a creature... If God made a lot of similar creatures, and they all died and fossilized, how would that be evolution?

That is the theory explaining how things evolve ("why it happens"). The evolution I'm referring to as fact is simply the observed fact that living things have changed over time... that observation is not in dispute. What you're disputing is the mechanism, but not the fact. If you wish to posit that a higher intelligence is driving the observed changes in living things, go ahead - but that's still an explanation for the fact of "evolution" (which simply means change over time), even if a theistic rather than a scientific one.

Get it?

Ahhhhhh

Yes, I do get what you mean now....

Thank you for explaining, in that case yes, evolution is correct, however, that isn't what I was taught in school... Which is why I was confused by it...

No, the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, unless we're thinking of evolution differently, my thought of evolution was unaided natural mutation that leads to a different creature or a modification of a creature... If God made a lot of similar creatures, and they all died and fossilized, how would that be evolution?

The idea is not the use of the existence of fossils alone, but the study of the changes in form of flora and fauna over time - which study does support evolution. However, as I explained regarding my own beliefs, this still doesn't preclude a belief in creation, unless you are a Creationist, believing that a deity placed everything on Earth exactly how it is today.

I don't believe that nothing has ever changed, that would be a very stupid assumption... And I see those who do believe this as quite foolish...

[Sionnach Glic]

One thing I feel like adding to this that may or may not have been mentioned, but evolution is a theory, not a law... This means that there is no actual proof that supports evolution, there is conjecture about it, but no absolute proof...

Incorrect. A scientific theory is not what you think it is. In science, a theory is basicaly a collection of different concepts relating to how a certain subject (in this case, evolution) works. The fact that evolution is "just" a theory has no bearing on its authenticity. Many things that are taken as fact are still technicaly theories in science.

To something Rochey I believe said earlier, What other beliefs are there for atheists, purely wondering, I know there's the big bang theory, which is like spontaneous appearance, but usually IIRC that is coupled with evolution...

*sigh* This is exactly what I was getting at earlier. Atheists have no set beliefs. Zero. If you're an atheist, it just means that you don't believe in a god. That's all. It doesn't mean you believe in evolution. It doesn't mean you believe in the big bang. It doesn't mean anything, except that you don't believe in a god.

Evolution has not been proven, which I believe that Mikey was saying, and that because it has not been proven, children should be shown other thoughts on the matter.

And if there were competing scientific theories to explain it, then I'd be all for them being thought too. The problem is that there isn't.

The rest of what you said is ok, however, this is wrong, How does the fossil record prove or disprove anything at all

It clearly shows that species did indeed change over time. It shows that the creatures alive now looked very different millenia ago. Thus it is proof that species change over time. Thus, evolution.

And why couldn't fossils have been formed if the being was created?

Could you word that a bit differently? I'm not sure what you're asking here.

No, the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, unless we're thinking of evolution differently,

As I pointed out above, the fossil record shows that species changed over time to become what we see now, with many species dying off along the way. Thus it shows that evolution does indeed happen.

[Mikey]

Evolution has not been proven, which I believe that Mikey was saying, and that because it has not been proven, children should be shown other thoughts on the matter.

No, that isn't really what I was saying. Evolution is a theory, not a law, because we don't have time travel and thus cannot observe for the length of time necessary to confirm it by direct empirical evidence. It is also not an hypothesis because it has been buttressed enough by data to be proof against any scientific claims against it.

[Nickswitz]

To Rochey; What I was stating was what I believed as the theory of evolution, not what was being talked about... So I misunderstood, and thus was incorrect in my statements...

And as to the 'what do atheists believe' question, I know there isn't a set of any theories or anything... But I was wondering what in general if they don't believe that a being made it all come to appear... then what are basic thoughts on how the world came to be, and life came to form, etc... I'm just curious...

Also, something everyone has been saying, you all do know that if God is real creation no longer would be theological... It would become scientific...

Thus why is god not a scientific theory? never mind, thought for another time maybe...

[Tsukiyumi]

Also, something everyone has been saying, you all do know that if God is real creation no longer would be theological... It would become scientific...

Thus why is god not a scientific theory? never mind, thought for another time maybe...

Because God can neither be observed nor quantified, and therefore can't be studied by scientific methods.

[Mikey]

The existence of G-d can't be a scientific hypothesis, because there is no way to test it.

More importantly, the act of belief in the divine precludes the need for proof.

*EDIT* Damned simultaneous posts.

[Nickswitz]

Also, something everyone has been saying, you all do know that if God is real creation no longer would be theological... It would become scientific...

Thus why is god not a scientific theory? never mind, thought for another time maybe...

Because God can neither be observed nor quantified, and therefore can't be studied by scientific methods.

Wait, by my question is why not? I know it's outside of our abilities at this time... But imagine that one day we can scientifically prove it... I just realized what I said, and never mind...

I'm just a lil out of it today...

More importantly, the act of belief in the divine precludes the need for proof.

I'm not saying in any way shape or form I need proof... just saying... lol

[IanKennedy]

One thing I feel like adding to this that may or may not have been mentioned, but evolution is a theory, not a law... This means that there is no actual proof that supports evolution, there is conjecture about it, but no absolute proof...

Oh, no here we go again. No that is not true. Just because it's a theory does not mean those things. Please read this and preferably some other stuff on the subject. It will stop you saying dumb things like you have above. This is a common thing put out by the ID / creationist people to try and gain support but it completely misrepresents the concept of a theory as used by science.

And something Ian said, about the flying spaghetti monster vs. Gravity, Gravity has been proven. Evolution has not been proven, which I believe that Mikey was saying, and that because it has not been proven, children should be shown other thoughts on the matter. I personally have no problem with lack of education on Creationism, however, the fact that most of the time they try and pass it off as fact rather than theory is something that annoys me. They act as if Creation must be wrong, and that evolution must be right.

Gravity is a theory, it has not been proven. It can never be proven but it is a theory that fits all available facts, provides testable predictions about the nature of the universe and those predictions that we have been able to test all agree with the theory. This is the exact same situation as with evolution.

To something Rochey I believe said earlier, What other beliefs are there for atheists, purely wondering, I know there's the big bang theory, which is like spontaneous appearance, but usually IIRC that is coupled with evolution...

The big bang theory has nothing to do with the creation of life. Well it kinda does as it gives it somewhere to be created in. As I said before evolution is nothing to do with the creation of life in the first place, simply how it develops over time.

[Nickswitz]

Gravity is a theory, it has not been proven. It can never be proven but it is a theory that fits all available facts, provides testable predictions about the nature of the universe and those predictions that we have been able to test all agree with the theory. This is the exact same situation as with evolution.

What 'testable predictions' have been coupled with evolution? And what of these have been tested...

The big bang theory has nothing to do with the creation of life. Well it kinda does as it gives it somewhere to be created in. As I said before evolution is nothing to do with the creation of life in the first place, simply how it develops over time.

I know it doesn't have anything to do with life, but the reason I stated that is because I know atheists that believe that everything was just here... and others that think it all came from larger stars, etc... I'm wondering what any atheists believe about how things got here, besides evolution...

[eagle_GT]

Part of the problem with the discussion of evolution is semantics. I've attended some very theologically conservative churches and heard arguments about evolution several times. The people that I have heard discuss it have used the terms Macro and Micro Evolution, where Micro Evolution is the gradual change of a species over time and Macro Evolution is the change from one species to another (i.e. men evolved from monkeys). They have readily agreed that Micro Evolution is proven, but contend that there is no proof to support Macro Evolution. So what seems to happen around here is that evolution supporters are talking about Micro, while evolution opponents are talking about Macro, but neither side really realizes that they are not talking about evolution the same way.

[IanKennedy]

*sigh* Yes I know evolution and Atheism are not equivalent. And I know that not every Atheist is out to deride and convert.

I could do a better job of prefacing statements.

Convert to what? There's nothing to convert to, atheism isn't a religion.

However there are plenty of atheists out to deride and convert, particularily in the US. And all too often here the theory of evolution becomes THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. And we start the whole song and dance with both sides going after each other.

I would rather welcome a situation where we could have more tolerance from both sides instead of feeling the need to call one another idiots.

Given you are talking about science then we can only judge the options on the basis of science. In those terms you option does not hold water at all. If it's what you believe that's fine, but don't try passing it off as a scientific possibility when it meets none of the criteria. As has been said before I don't care what you want to believe it make no difference to me, so long as you don't try and teach it in science classrooms.

As for the dinsaur example it isn't that science can't be changed. Rather it's that at any given point in time it is presented to children as being 100% accurate with no room for question. Then they were sure Brontosaurs lived in water, now they're sure Apatosaurs(or whatever the proper name is) could stand up and whip their tales around, maybe in the future they'll decide they always had their heads lower than their hearts.

Science is taught as this is the current situation. It teaches critical thinking and the rules and methods of science. The atom is a good example of this. It is taught as different things at different times. First comes the plumb pudding, then Bohr and so on.

The point is that science in the US is generally not presented as an area of continuing correction, but as "this is how it is". This is particularily annoying when teaching things like the Bohr model of an atom, which we know isn't correct, but is closish and simpler to explain. So they teach it to kids.

Until the kids are old enough to cope with the maths and theories that come after it. It's not actually taught as this is it. It's given as this is a good model of how things are. Given the current model of the atom is so complex that no school child would be able to comprehend it I'm not sure what other options are possible.

More on subject, if they simply taught that the lightning strike and all that are on possible but not neccessarily correct origin of life I think far fewer people would have a problem with it.

Given that's nothing what so ever to do with evolution then I don't see where it comes in.