What evolution debate? (Page 3)

Because it is neither provable or disprovable. Because of that you can't apply the scientific method to it, therefore it's not science and shouldn't be taught in science classes.

Do you understand what "theory" means?

Creationism is something to be taken on faith. It says "Our physical world is so complex, it's too complex to understand therefore we can only logically conclude that God did it." That ain't science and it isn't even a theory. It's abdication of the empirical method of discovery. It ain't science.

 Why would you want your faith to be sold as science? Isn't that an insult to faith in general?

What's wrong with calling faith faith? Why not be upfront about it? Why try to advance it as something it's not - science?

I don't want to get into a big argument here because I do believe evolution has been proven to occur, but the study referenced here is the one I have a problem with being used as a solid scientific argument.  It has not been proven that the atmosphere of early earth consisted of the same ratios of methane/ammona/hydrogen/water that were used in this study.  In my biochem classes in college we were taught that this lab test was essentially crap.  And as far as I know, no one has been able to demonstrate the evolution of amino acids into biological cells.  I think science has a ways to go before bridging that gap.

Would it have anything to do with W possibly wanting to re-create all of us in his image?

[I don't know why I get involved in this stuff.]

We'll never agree, and that's fine. I just don't know why the Judeo-Christian beliefs always get the bums rush. I believe what I believe because I choose to believe it, and there is scientific evidence to back it up. You believe what you choose to believe, and there is scientific evidence to back it up. It's like a court case. Each side brings in their "expert", and each expert has "evidence" to support their side, and denounce the other. The evidence is weighed, and decisions made. But just because my decision is different than yours doesn't mean it's has any less value (and vice versa).

[BTW, the you and yours in this post are meants in the third-person, as in "one", not directed to anyone specific]

Renee, it is about faith for me. And, to be fair, I choose to believe it because of faith, and not because of any scientifical evidence one way or another. What I was taught, though, was that it wasn't fair for others to discount my beliefs as less valuable because they arise out of faith instead of out of scientific theories.

You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution.  Evolution has nothing to do with the spontaneous origin of life.  Evolution describes the change in genetic makeup of populations over time.

I think Judeo-Christian beliefs get the bum's rush (in your wouds) only because it's distasteful to some where there are being inserted.

You say there's scientific evidence for your beliefs, but actually there's really not. This so-called scientific evidence is actually directed at disproving the theories they don't agree with.  It's not evidence for creationism, but rather against evolution. There can be no scientific evidence for faith-based theroies. It's the nature of faith.

Fair enough. But why doesn't it go the same way for me? I think that evolution is a flawed theory, and object to the fact that it is being taught to my child as fact. But I have to live with it. How is that any different for me than for you?

Okay, I'm getting an education here. abiogenesis... You're right. I just looked that up on google. What I disagree with is "Big Bang" and evolution on the big scale (people used to be monkeys which used to be slugs, which used to be rocks). I do agree that evolution (survival of the fittest, vestigial organs, that sort of thing) on a micro scale is evident.

Man, this is WAAAYYY more interesting than work

I disagree.  A lot of my faith is based on what I know about science.  The more I learn about science, the more in awe I am of nature and it's workings.  I choose to bridge the gap between what I understand about science and the parts of it that are unfathomable to me with faith in a higher being (intelligent design if you will).  I think evolution occurs (I'm not trying to disprove it in the least), but I choose to believe it occurs because a higher being designed things that way.

I think you are generalizing about people who have faith.  Not everyone who has faith in a higher being (whatever religion) is completely anti-science.  The two can mesh.  It just seems to be the ones who are most extreme in their beliefs that are most verbal.  This is why Christianity gets a bum rap.  Same reason the only muslims we see in the news are the extremists who are blowing things up.  It's too bad really.

These points have been made above:

• Evolution is a fact, the starting point is theorized. You can't argue that change takes place over time. In just the last hundred years, humans on average are something like 6 inches taller. Bacteria change at an even higher rate: they develop antibiotic-resistant strains as a survival strategy.
• There is empirical evidence for evolutionthat is subject to the scientific method.

There is the aspect of this broad thing we call evolution that is fact. It is presented as fact. Then there is the aspect that is theory. It is presented as theory. The theory is not being presented as fact.

Stacers, you are way more eloquent than I am. Whatever she said

Applause for your articulate post.

And if this is the way it is presented, then I don't suppose I would have a problem with it. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. At least, it wasn't when I was at school. That was a LONG time ago , so maybe things have changed.

Oh, and I hate PC crap I try to treat people with the respect and dignity they deserve, regardless of whether I disagree with aspects of their beliefs/lives etc. (Although, being imperfect, I do not always succeed.)