Do you believe Human Evolution By Sir Charles Darwin or we're God's creation?

[yhokz101]

---

nana pud ta ani.....hahiggsstt

OT: Sorry tay..

[Jhared]

made of is very different from having.. know your words.

Having bacteria in our body is crucial to our health. The complex relationships between humans and bacteria are quite fascinating, they play a very important role. But wait, let's go back, you meaning to say these bacteria are the deciding factor of our evolution? If I am hearing you right, you said body = bacteria. That;s why scientist do experiments on them to trace back our evolution?

Look, this is beyond the topic but the very reason they have those experiments is to study how microbs/bacteria interacts, as I said, to pinpoint the mutations that selection acts upon, what brought about the adaptations, and to find out how exactly these mutations work. Not on human level.. coz if this is the case, we could have easily say we are from - bacteria, case solved!

because of the notion that life started as mere bacteriums, prokaryotes or whatever and how these unassuming microorganisms breaks down DNA to reproduce itself, it became an integral part of the evolutionary science to explore upon these tiny creatures,. and base their conclusions there..

but the question we are asking really, is whether or not this is enough to support evolution?
If it is, evolution would no longer have been a theory., however this experiments, coincided with the theory therefore making it more viable a candidate than the rest.. so it is safe for me to side with this theory because it is a working theory, as of the moment..

Should science speak of Faith, or taking science on faith. Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith. Science as what was repeatedly being told is the exact or most reliable source of knowledge. But religion on the other hand is based on faith. So, should be inter-relate them as much as we would like when speaking scientifically? I'd say YES, but you just necessarily label that one as religious as it should be. Faith, is what drives Columbus to explore the earth to prove to the people that the earth is not flat. Faith, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe or unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes. You see, when you see faith, as you always do, jump into conclusion to label that person "unscientific". enough of this, OT na kau.

there seems to be a confusion here with the distinction between faith and scientific.. you cannot inter relate the two..

Curiosity drove columbus, not faith..

Creation? of what? what do you mean by this, this is broad and vague.

you know, creation as opposed to evolution.. that god made everything instantaneously appear..

we'll have to settle on theory as of the moment.. no way to record nor do an actual experimentation on human evolution. Evidence, yes, but inconclusive. To be convince is to have a solid proof, in scientific approach I mean. But when you say to be convince with the given data, you are taking it by faith.

id rather call it a matter of principle.. this principle of siding on an empirical bias when there is none to dispute it..

[yhokz101]

because of the notion that life started as mere bacteriums, prokaryotes or whatever and how these unassuming microorganisms breaks down DNA to reproduce itself, it became an integral part of the evolutionary science to explore upon these tiny creatures,. and base their conclusions there.. but this is never enough for some people.,

life started somewhere.. may it be on a single cell protozoa, who can tell.. we are still looking into that "origin". Your point is valid but not necessarily conclusive. We study things to understand them, same as life and its origin. These things are broad and will consume a lot of space here para e discuss each nato. Evolutionary in tiny living organism is crucial as it "relates" on how we as humans did evolve or mutate in time with respect sa environment and such but not necessarily, again conclusive as to human evolution. I admit this is too subjective if you ask me, so let's leave it there.

hold your horses mate... i never really asserted that the way to go is evolution, that this is the only theory that we should believe, that part is for you to decide, what im saying here is that apart from all the theories present, this to me, is arguably the best representation of reality there is...

that is one theory but not necessarily the only one explanation we have scientifically. That's the closest we could come up, tracing our ancestry and origin of early humans.. this is still an ongoing conquest. Just hold on to your theory, as for me I put it in my shelves of "scientific" section.

because evolution is definitely unobservable in its macro level, there is possibly no way of gathering evidences to support such theory to such level,. that is why im pointing you now to the microlevel, which proves to be

i dont want to go too much on that fate notion, as people here always likes to point out, nor do i have to prove to you that it is not, because it will be such a waste of time.. im a pragmatist so i look at things in its realistic sense, but that deserves another topic entirely.. call it faith, call it belief, call it religion.. i dont want to get caught up by too much labels..

agreed.

We can however, as what currently being done - DNA tracing. DNA tracing on human origins, as what Geneticist have been doing.

Curiosity drove columbus, not faith..

Curiosity, partly yes, but he took it on faith cuz he strongly believes the world is not flat. He was not sure if he right or wrong, he took it by faith.

you know, creation as opposed to evolution.. that god made everything instantaneously appear..

From a scientific approach. there is impossible to have soemthing out of nothing; the First Law of Thermodynamics: that you can't get something from nothing.

If you take the bible literally, then you will have a problem. I take it that what they are trying to say is there is a creator hence the creation, but not necessarily creating from nothing. Somewhat like magical, right? I believe it's not like that.

id rather call it a matter of principle.. this principle of siding on an empirical bias when there is none to dispute it..

That's your take, you are entitled to it anyway.. but disputing the theory of evolution, believe me there are a lot of discussion about it out there.

[Jhared]

life started somewhere.. may it be on a single cell protozoa, who can tell.. we are still looking into that "origin". Your point is valid but not necessarily conclusive. We study things to understand them, same as life and its origin. These things are broad and will consume a lot of space here para e discuss each nato. Evolutionary in tiny living organism is crucial as it "relates" on how we as humans did evolve or mutate in time with respect sa environment and such but not necessarily, again conclusive as to human evolution. I admit this is too subjective if you ask me, so let's leave it there.

exactly yes.,

that is one theory but not necessarily the only one explanation we have scientifically. That's the closest we could come up, tracing our ancestry and origin of early humans.. this is still an ongoing conquest. Just hold on to your theory, as for me I put it in my shelves of "scientific" section.

That's not my theory.. that's just a theory im taking a stand unto..

agreed.

We can however, as what currently being done - DNA tracing. DNA tracing on human origins, as what Geneticist have been doing.

DNA tracing have it's limitations.. it's not conclusive..

Curiosity, partly yes, but he took it on faith cuz he strongly believes the world is not flat. He was not sure if he right or wrong, he took it by faith.

It's a myth..

the belief of a spherical earth as a physical given is way older than you think.. It was already a common knowledge during Columbus time.. Columbus sailed west because he wanted to find an easy short route to the east, he wanted to reach Japan i think.. a leap of faith? ya sure, but i think it was more of a curiosity, it's all too subjective..

From a scientific approach. there is impossible to have something out of nothing; the First Law of Thermodynamics: that you can't get something from nothing.

If you take the bible literally, then you will have a problem. I take it that what they are trying to say is there is a creator hence the creation, but not necessarily creating from nothing. Somewhat like magical, right? I believe it's not like that.

true... although some speculate that Something can come from nothing.. nothingness is like a 0, 1-1 = 0, 0 Therefore can just be a pairing of an equal positive energy and a negative one, for some reason it could break apart,.. the physics of that is fuzzy.. but it's something.. lol..

then what do you believe is it like?

That's your take, you are entitled to it anyway.. but disputing the theory of evolution, believe me there are a lot of discussion about it out there.

ya but you'd agree with me that in comparison to the other theories, evolution is the closest, most rational explanation we have?

[yhokz101]

DNA tracing have it's limitations.. it's not conclusive..

same goes with theory of evolution

ya but you'd agree with me that in comparison to the other theories, evolution is the closest, most rational explanation we have?

Yes. With comparison to other theories this is by far the more realistic in a scientific approach.. Sadly inconclusive.

[Jhared]

same goes with theory of evolution

Yes. With comparison to other theories this is by far the more realistic in a scientific approach.. Sadly inconclusive.

how inconclusive?

[yhokz101]

how inconclusive?

Insufficient evidence linking this to that

[Jhared]

Insufficient evidence linking this to that

the theory is not inconclusive per se, in fact we have used this theory to our great benefit.. it's the evidences that are yet inconclusive to support the theory,..

[yhokz101]

the theory is not inconclusive per se, it's the evidences that are yet inconclusive to support the theory,..

That's why the theory of evolution is still inconclusive since there is still insufficient evidence to back it up. As per definition of theory which means it can still be proven wrong, hence inconclusive.

[necrotic freak]

^^A bacteria in denial..

This thread needs a dose of antibiotic once again.