[quote="One Eye Trouser Trout"]I believe evolution is a crock of shit….reason being is because if evolution was real…then why are monkey still around? and why haven’t we actually SEEN evolution take effect in an animal? i dont belieev that every animal would just happen to evolve all at the same time.[/quote]
I’ve had many debates with those who are pro-evolutionist so to speak. Most of those people held to the belief that Creationism was of a different “scientific standard” than Evolution. Or they said that Evolution could be proved while Creationism couldn’t.
My position is that Creationism isn’t a theory not because it can’t be proved, but because it doesn’t explain how intelligence, any intelligence affected the creation of life on earth as we know it. Was it space aliens tinkering with our genetics as we selectively breed cattle, something like that? Was it God that introduced a chaos variable as described by chaos theory, into the celestial cauldron of proto-plasmic goo that eventually resulted in the appearance of mankind? Is evolution on its principles correct, but the appearance of sentient intelligence was only brought out by intelligent meddling?
You can’t say creationism is a theory without it providing a stable explanation for things. The reason why that matters, is simple. Because that then leaves evolution as the [i]only[/i] theory around.
The Theory of Evolution, is then, on par with the Theory of Relatvisim or the Special Theory of Relativism. Meaning, because of what THT discussed, you cannot conduct experiments that de facto proves the consistency of the explanations in the theory. Exactly as you cannot conduct direct experiments, reviewable by a peer group of scientists, on black holes for example. Nor can you send a man at .5 c to Alpha Centauri A and then talk to him when he gets back about how much time has passed.
That does not mean the theory is wrong, it simply means it will stay a theory until such a time as all hypotheses in the theory can be experimented and verified to be accurate, consistent, and true. When a theory can account for all inconsistencies and all models of explanation, then I believe it will graduate to a law, or a principle if it is only one hypothesis. Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty, Newton’s Law of Gravity.
You will certainly have heard that Einstein described gravity much better as a function of the curvature of space time, which accounted for many stellar phenomenon that was undetected in Newton’s days, than Newton’s inversed square (?) equation. As I see it, Newton conducted all the experiments to show that he was correct, and he was. But his law did not explain other such phenomenon, and therefore it became obsolete.
The Theory of Evolution has conducted many experiments, if not EVERY experiment, concerning its hypotheses. Which, as far as I recall, is that single cell organisms evolve through generations, mutation is one example, to multi-celled organisms. And that the environment in which they survive, provides for better adaptations that allow specific strains of cells which are higher evolved to survive and procreate better. Thereby resulting in the new species outlasting and killing off the weaker species.
We see that in the difference between species today, adapted to their environments, in which things are there for a reason, and that reason is to survive better in their environment.
Now the question is, how exactly does one species “metamorphosize” into another species. There’s a lot of versions of that explanation going around, the most relevant one is about the “missing link”.
But, to quote real life examples of Evolutionary experiments, you can see it in such things as genetically engineered plants. Where we produce plants that are better able to survive in specific conditions, or even unspecific conditions.
In fact, that would not be an experiment per say, but an actual “application” of scientific theorem. Which carries a much greater worth than just somebody cooking up the right batch of chemicals.
But, where as Evolution assumes that everything was a staple of mutation, randomness, entropy to enthalpy, Creationism assumes that an intelligence was at work.
Genetically engineered plants didn’t occur naturally, it was made by intelligences, us. Is that proof we were tampered with? No. Is it proof that evolution, here or anywhere, is always random? No to that one too. Is it an indication that Intelligent design is possible? Of course.
Evolution is probably true. There is a chance that humans were aided through outside intervention. You could even postulate that an alien race threw out a piece of junk asteroid and when it hit the Earth, it allowed us to evolve instead of the dinos. That would be “Intelligent design”, but only principally. I don’t hear of any consistent explanation by the Creationists, except to say that Evolution is true, except that part about no Intelligences. Like politics, you have to offer an alternative, not just talk down the other guy.
Crealution so to speak. Crea+lution.