Evolution as a solid theory?

[dukeofhazzard]

Hi! I'm new, I need to post an intro, but I haven't yet.

Here's the thing. I started as a YEC (I was homeschooled AND went to Christian schools, so YEC was taught as a fact and all the "flaws" of evolution were frequently discussed).

I started to become really interested in astronomy and cosmology and was really forced to take a closer look at what I believed and realized I believed in an old earth. Subsequently I found much support online for this and realized that I could be a Christian and not be a YEC . Amazing, yeah??

SO, after learning MUCH more, I began to suspect that evolution could very well explain a lot. Basically, I believe in the "concept" of evolution. I believe that the Adam and Eve story is the illustration of the beginning of human sentience.

That being said (sorry for the novel); I've been fed so much "information" about the "flaws" in evolution AND I don't think I completely understand the actual theory that I'm not sure I believe in the current theory of evolution, or just evolution as a concept. Does that make sense?

Is it true that some of the fossils for early humans were actually only teeth? How did they come to believe that it was a human? Do you believe that evolutionary theory is incomplete? What do you think?

Thanks

 

[Mallon]

Welcome to the fold, dukeofhazzard.
Similar to what your studies of astronomy revealed, evolution very likely isn't as scary or incomplete as what you were taught. There's an excellent website designed for people just like you here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
It explains the basics of what evolution is and isn't in plain language.
You might also try perusing the Index to Creationist Claims here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Very likely, many of the supposed failings of evolution that you were taught are addressed here, with references for further reading. Your claim about early human fossils recognized only from teeth is addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html
In fact, we have thousands of transitional humanoid fossils now in every state of preservation.

Is evolutionary theory incomplete? I would answer that question by pointing out that NO theory is complete. There are many things we do not yet understand about evolution (see the first website I cited), but that does not make the theory worthless. We quite confidently understand the basic mechanics of evolution, and can even use our understanding to verify predictions. It's no wonder ~99% of the world's naturalists subscribe to the theory.

 

[USincognito]

Welcome to CF dukeofhazzard.

As far as devling deep into the details of evolutionary theory and what sort of evidence supports it (and more importanly what would falsify it), unless you really want to step into the debate there's no reason to do an in depth study. You've got Internet access, so if you see something on TV, read something or hear something that interests you, or you have questions about, a Google search usually turn up something to clarify it for you.

If you are interested in engaging in debate it's a very stimulating and intellectually rigorous exercise that covers some fascinating topics.

Is it true that some of the fossils for early humans were actually only teeth? How did they come to believe that it was a human? Do you believe that evolutionary theory is incomplete? What do you think?

The earliest scientific finds of fossils were Neandertal remains found in the 1800s. The earliest in terms of evolutionary time include the 1924 discovery of the 2.5 million year old Taung Child which was a partial skull, endocast and full set of teeth. Other more fragmentary finds go back another million years or so.

What you might be referring to is Nebraska Man, which was more of an error combined with a sensationalist illustration by a newspaper. You can read the full story here.

 

[dukeofhazzard]

Thanks to both of you for your replies! Mallon, I'm going to have alot to read -- thanks for the links!

And USincognito,

As far as devling deep into the details of evolutionary theory and what sort of evidence supports it (and more importanly what would falsify it), unless you really want to step into the debate there's no reason to do an in depth study.

It's not that I feel the need to do an in depth study -- I REALLY don't know enough about it to even say with conviction that I believe it, you know?

Basically, I'm convinced that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally -- I cannot believe that the God of this universe, who MADE all the laws of nature and physics that we see every day would violate those very laws to create it. It's obvious that SOME sort of evolution occurred, I'm trying to figure out the current theory. That's why I'm looking for info.

My mind is so confused between what's actually real and what I've learned from Christian "scientists" such as Dr. Baugh that I was looking for a good site to learn about the truths and myths of evolutionary theory. I do understand what you're saying though, and I do enjoy a good debate now and then .

Maybe once I've studied I can join in the debate -- I've already enjoyed reading some of them on the debate board here .

Thanks again!

 

[USincognito]

Hey, you can call me US.

It's not that I feel the need to do an in depth study -- I REALLY don't know enough about it to even say with conviction that I believe it, you know?

One of the most unfortunate things about this area of discussion is that people who don't know anything about it feel unlimited license to comment, pontificate, berate, etc. on it. It's wonderfully refreshing to have someone who doesn't know about Crevo approach the subject inquizatively than with preconceived notions.

Basically, I'm convinced that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally -- I cannot believe that the God of this universe, who MADE all the laws of nature and physics that we see every day would violate those very laws to create it. It's obvious that SOME sort of evolution occurred, I'm trying to figure out the current theory. That's why I'm looking for info.

If you want some insight the variety of ways people approach a non-literal Genesis check some of the older threads in the main Origins Theology sub-forum. One of the most compelling and simplist views is that there are two Testaments - the Bible which describes mans relationship with God and the Creation which is simply the reality live in. Any conflict between the two is a problem of interpreting the former, because the latter isn't up to interpretation. Basically, reading Genesis is up to interpretation, whether a mountain is 6,000 or 75,000,000 years old isn't.

My mind is so confused between what's actually real and what I've learned from Christian "scientists" such as Dr. Baugh that I was looking for a good site to learn about the truths and myths of evolutionary theory. I do understand what you're saying though, and I do enjoy a good debate now and then .

There's no way for me to put this other than directly - Carl Baugh shouldn't be trusted if he looks at his watch and tells you what time it is. The same applies to most professional Creationists unfortunately.

If you have any questions, impressions, thoughts, observations or funny limericks, share them here and you will have plenty of people who have lots of experience with Crevo here that can answer them for you.

Maybe once I've studied I can join in the debate -- I've already enjoyed reading some of them on the debate board here .

Thanks again!

I look forward to having you join in and good to have you with us.

 

[dukeofhazzard]

lol, then you can call me Duke.

I appreciate the tips -- I guarantee you I'll be doing alot of reading. By the way, what does "crevo" mean? Is it some mix of "creation" and "evolution"?

There's no way for me to put this other than directly - Carl Baugh shouldn't be trusted if he looks at his watch and tells you what time it is. The same applies to most professional Creationists unfortunately.

That would be why I put quotes around the word "scientist" when referring to him. The funny thing is -- I started watching his program to learn more about origins theology, and watching him make those ridiculous leaps and assumptions that he did is what prompted me to begin considering evolution as a viable theory. So I guess I should thank him??

I'll definitely be searching in your origins theology sub forum here, I'm sure I'll learn alot!

Thanks!!
Duke

 

[USincognito]

I appreciate the tips -- I guarantee you I'll be doing alot of reading. By the way, what does "crevo" mean? Is it some mix of "creation" and "evolution"?

Yep. Crevo, C&E or CvsE = Creationism and Evolution. If you ever see C/ID or some other permutation of that abbreviation it means Creationism/Intelligent Design.

I look forward to your questions/comments Duke, and again, welcome to CF.

 

[Catholicon]

Aside from Talk Origins another good page for real information about evolution can be found at Ebon Musings.

There are a lot of articles I'm sure you'll find enlightening.

 

[dukeofhazzard]

Aside from Talk Origins another good page for real information about evolution can be found at Ebon Musings.

There are a lot of articles I'm sure you'll find enlightening.

Thanks!

 

[RustandWind]

I take it you all haven't read Romans 5?

 

[crawfish]

I take it you all haven't read Romans 5?

Wow! You mean all we have to do is read Romans 5 and all will be clear?!?!?

Why didn't I think of that?!?!?

</sarcasm>

 

[shernren]

I take it you all haven't read Romans 5?

We certainly have. Is there anything you want to discuss with us about it?

I should point out that recently in the Origins Theology forum, most of our regular TE posters here answered "yes" to the following six questions:

1. Do you believe in the Nicene Creed?
2. Do you believe that Christ died for all sins, original and actual?
3. Do you believe that, due to an event far ago in the prehistoric past, humanity Fell?
4. Do you believe that, from this Fall, humanity has been "broken" so that we are unable to be fully good and have a pure and wholly innocent conscience, will, and nature?
5. Do you believe that it is only by Christ's Grace that we were healed, are being healed, and will be healed of our imperfections that we "inherited" (for a lack of a better term) from the Fall?
6. Do you believe therefore that the Bible speaks the truth in that humanity Fell, Christ died for humanity's sins and for the healing of humanity's souls and nature, and that Christ is therefore infact a Second Adam?

You could decide for yourself whether or not you also agree with these questions. We could then go from there.

But this thread was set up for a different purpose, and I propose that you start a thread explicitly to discuss Romans 5 if you feel that it has strong bearing on what we believe here that we have not yet considered.

 

[mark kennedy]

3. Do you believe that, due to an event far ago in the prehistoric past, humanity Fell?
4. Do you believe that, from this Fall, humanity has been "broken" so that we are unable to be fully good and have a pure and wholly innocent conscience, will, and nature?

Key points in Creationism as theology, nice to see them conceded to.

6. Do you believe therefore that the Bible speaks the truth in that humanity Fell, Christ died for humanity's sins and for the healing of humanity's souls and nature, and that Christ is therefore infact a Second Adam?

That of course is based on the antecedent first Adam.

You could decide for yourself whether or not you also agree with these questions. We could then go from there.

But this thread was set up for a different purpose, and I propose that you start a thread explicitly to discuss Romans 5 if you feel that it has strong bearing on what we believe here that we have not yet considered.

Yes please.

Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[Molal]

Hi! I'm new, I need to post an intro, but I haven't yet.

Here's the thing. I started as a YEC (I was homeschooled AND went to Christian schools, so YEC was taught as a fact and all the "flaws" of evolution were frequently discussed).

I started to become really interested in astronomy and cosmology and was really forced to take a closer look at what I believed and realized I believed in an old earth. Subsequently I found much support online for this and realized that I could be a Christian and not be a YEC . Amazing, yeah??

SO, after learning MUCH more, I began to suspect that evolution could very well explain a lot. Basically, I believe in the "concept" of evolution. I believe that the Adam and Eve story is the illustration of the beginning of human sentience.

That being said (sorry for the novel); I've been fed so much "information" about the "flaws" in evolution AND I don't think I completely understand the actual theory that I'm not sure I believe in the current theory of evolution, or just evolution as a concept. Does that make sense?

Is it true that some of the fossils for early humans were actually only teeth? How did they come to believe that it was a human? Do you believe that evolutionary theory is incomplete? What do you think?

Thanks

Hi - glad to have you in the forum. I hope you jump around - there are lots of people here and plenty to learn.

I will not repeat what has already been provided in the way of links (berkeley, etc.) but I do want to point out one thing,

Nothing in science is ever proven. Proof (prove, proven) is only used in mathematics and liquor - it does not belong in science. A scientific theory (such as the theory of evolution) contains facts, data, observations, scientific laws, etc. It provides a predictive ability and it's predictions can be measured. But a theory is never, ever proven. This includes the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the germ theory, theory of relativity, etc.

Therefore, for anyone to ask if the theory of evolution is absolute is a red herring. Currently, it is the best (and only) theory that describes life on earth and provides predictions that are highly accurate.

I hope this helps.

 

[troodon]

Evolutionary theory is very solid. As an apprentice scientist there is no doubt in my mind that life on earth evolved to its present state. If you have any questions as to the specifics of the theory just ask away.

 

[PaladinValer]

Interesting that Mark thinks of them (I am the creator of those questions, mind you) so highly here yet still thinks otherwise in the other thread.

Very, very interesting...

But that's besides the point of this thread.

OP, evolution, like any theory, is always open to editing. The basic concept of evolution, that it explains the rich diversity of life on Earth, is true; the evidence for this phenomenon is not only overwhelming in abundance, but has also been observed. The only thing that is edited are really the finer details or the additions of new evidence and findings.

Think of it like charting a new planet. You're going to give a rather rough sketch at first, but through careful exploration, these charts will improve with the new evidence provided. The river might "move" on the map by a few miles/kilometers or so, but the fact that there is a river there was evident right from the start through just looking at the planet from space.

We are constantly finding new pieces that fit in the overall "chart" of evolution. We know what its supposed to look like, and the map we have is actually pretty darn good; it is the details that are being fine-tuned, and it is a process that is never going to finish because, just like a planet's surface, evolution is something that is constant and unceasing.

Thus, as oft-said, evolution is a fact, yet also a theory with incontrovertable evidence (and heaps of it at that). It has taken a long time for Americans to accept evolution has much as we have, but the numbers of us who put aside our predisposed notions of it as taught by an astrolabe mindset are ever-increasing every year, especially as huge discoveries are made fairly often.

 

[InTheCloud]

This classic essay written by a debout Russian Orthodox Christian and a leading evolutionist scientist, Theodious Dobzhansky should be useful reading:
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

 

[beamishboy]

Hi,

I quite enjoy this thread. There are a few witty points I picked up which I must use myself: Proof is only found in Maths and liquor. I didn't understand that at first because, naturally, I still have to wait quite a few years before I can drink legally even if I want to. But I looked at our cellar and I now know what you mean. Haha.

Next is that quotation from CS Lewis addressed to those literalists. When Christ told us to be like doves, he meant we should go and lay eggs. That's really funny.

I never have a problem with Genesis as non-literal. I think Adam actually means man in Hebrew. So to me, Adam was a representative man not a man named Adam. But as in most forums, some people won't take what I say seriously because I'm still in that "illegal" age. Haha.

 

[gluadys]

Welcome. Glad you're enjoying your visits here.