What convinced you of Evolution?

Anyway, back on topic. I became convinced of evolution from a dream, after a long night of practicing witchcraft (which I began after seing Harry Potter and playing Dungeons and Dragons). In it, an old man with a tongue forked like a told me that there was no God, and that humans evolved from slime. After waking up and realizing it was just a dream, I suddenly found that by not believing in God, that I had so much more power. I immediately felt the need to go and convert people to this new belief, which is why I am here today!.... is that what you wanted to hear? ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Rather a weak analogy, IMO. Both students are wrong, but for different reasons. In case 1, the student will never get an accurate calculation as the experiment was rigged. In his/her case, there is literally no way - scientifically - to determine the initial conditions and hence any calculation made will be wrong. In case 2, the student is still wrong because s/he utilized the wrong formula - as two minutes would be 120 seconds, not 160. In this case, even knowing the initial conditions, the student is incorrect. Science, including evolutionary biology, is designed to detect and eliminate such errors because every single observation is repeatable by others under the same conditions. If it is not - if the observation cannot be replicated - then the observation or the conclusion, etc, is in error.Try this hypothetical (well, not really hypothetical, a similar occurance happened to me last week) example of the value of evolution to our understanding of the workings of nature.You are out in your back yard, pulling down and cutting a huge tangle of tough, woody vines. The vines are ubiquitous, have choked out most other vegetation, and have even killed two small trees. Your daughter comes out and asks, "Daddy, why are these vines so difficult to remove, and why are they everywhere?". You could, of course, simply reply, "Because God made them that way, sweetheart."However, that doesn't actually answer the child's question. In my case, drawing on my (limited) understanding of the natural world, I was able to explain that the vine was an exotic species that was brought from Asia as a decoration. It got loose in the wild around here and thrived. Back in Asia it wasn't a problem, because there were bugs that ate it and kept it under control. It evolved in an area of tough competition with its eater. When it got loose in an area where the local plant eating insects couldn't eat it, it established itself everywhere. Since the local plants are still fighting their own insects, they can't compete with one that has no natural enemies.Which explanation actually explains something? Goddidit, or evolutionary ecology?

quote:

---

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
We all as humans evaluate "data" based on our bias and assumptions, ex. is the glass half full or half empty?

---

I see this kind of statement from creationists quite often, and yet I can never get one to tell me what the creationist interpretation of genetic data is.

Well thoughout out posts however... The point of the story is to illustrate the human thought process in relation to assumptions...Which was very nicely illustrated through the reply's (assumptions on how the story related to dating methods, how the story parelled creation v evolution debate, how creationists never talk about biology, how I was a creationist, etc.)Generaly the idea was that all humans beings use assumptions and bias to interpret the world and ideas they experience, and scientists and scientific theory are no different.Food for thought...

While scientists are people, and all people have biases, the scientific METHOD is NOT a person, and is designed precisely to rise above individual biases.

Care to demonstrate a possible method that would cause modern radioisotope dating methods not only to be off, but to all be off by the expected amount, regardless of what isotopes are considered, what minerals are being looked at, what particular method is used, etc?The scientific method requires that we accept the most realistic, "best fit" hypothesis. If you cannot postulate such a hypothesis, then your view stands on very shoddy ground.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Another thing wrong with this analogy. No one actually ever saw the teacher fill the bucket. All we have is a paper that claimed that the teacher filled the bucket with water. And we know that that piece of paper was actually written well after the bucket was filled. And the description seems pretty close to the stories told in the next class room that the entire custodial staff is responsible for the filling of the bucket....

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

but was wondering if the experiment you outlined has been documented somewhere (esp online)? Without that it is just an outline for an experiment and a hypothesis of what outcomes one would find.

---

It's from my biology text: Life: The Science of Biology by Purves/Orians. My copy even contains pictures of petri dishes showing the plaques. I have the second edition and I know it has been updated since then (I took biology with Purves when I was at Mudd in the late 80s.)------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

MrHambre writes:

quote:

---

Creationists want us to believe that what we know about the DNA molecule and reproduction should tell us nothing about the relationships between separate species.

---

And yet, they'll use the exact same process to determine paternity.If you can use genes to say that so-and-so is or is not the father of a child, why can't you extend that process to determine which species are related?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Using Creationist logic, since the vast majority of conceptions are never witnessed, the concept of human sexual reproduction is unsupported by evidence. The DNA evidence is persuasive only if you already subscribe to this unsubstantiated notion. I may as well be the product of an independent act of creation.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

OkFirst Davxor, I really dont have any foundation to believe this except my observation that prophecies seem to pass which are orginiated in the biblical account, and also my observation that the evolution of life does seem relevent when considering truth, thus we must consider both to be true, but I first want to state my perspective.My Perspective: I am a Creationist that believes in "Thiestic Evolution" because of a order of evidences which suggest Evolution happend with a Creator in the begining. Which means, that there was a Creation event, perhaps not in the same order that the "Biblical Creation Account" presents but near to the same level that is WRT understanding that their was a begining. I think that this "Divine Creator", yes the "Biblical one", was the stimulate to help the Evolution process and he created the world so that it would evolve to what it was 6-10,000 years ago WRT our species.Understanding that, I also believe that Moses and all the other prophets in the Bible are prophets of God based on the assumption that the Creation allowed evolution to take place (based from the statment in gene 1,2 that each species would bring forth "kind" after its "kind" untill such time God/Elohim felt that It was time to explain himself. I dont think anypart of the Bible specifically presents that this is a impossible idea unless you feel that the Bible is literal. You must first understand that the first and second chapter of Genesis contradict eachother and as such you cannot say they are literal but perhaps a memory of Moses when the account was written.Anyways, I want to state that I have been a Creationst for a long time and I defended Creationism for a longtime, you must understand there is evidence for evolution. I am still a creationist in the form of a Thiestic Evolutionist. (Yes I still believe in Jesus)-added by edit-(Links)
(Put order in the format of my post, and added a few understandings)----------------------------
Check these links for a good understanding of the process of Science and evidence of evolution.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific methodhttp://www.talkorigins.org/...esc/default.htm#common_descent
----------------------------Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-02-2003]

This "response" to my post represents an exceptionally weak rebuttal. Especially since the post contained none of the things you mentioned here. I simply pointed out how your little "story" was fallacious. In fact, I even went so far as to take your alleged point at face value, and briefly explain how the scientific method was designed to detect and eliminate such errors - including bias.If you are referring to my hypothetical situation wherein there was a reference to creationism, you will note that the point was not whether you were or weren't a creationist. Rather, the point was contained in the last line of the post: "Which explanation actually explains something? Goddidit, or evolutionary ecology?" The implication being that whether or not there is bias as you claim in evaluating evidence, the evolutionary explanation more closely matches the available data AND provides a more accurate answer to the "why" and "how" question asked.Oh, and btw - creationists DON'T talk about biology, except to distort, misinform, mislead, and misrepresent the findings of the science and the evidence that led to those findings. I guess if (as you seem to be proclaiming) you're not a creationist, then you shouldn't find anything insulting in this, correct? Perhaps you might clarify your position, rather than playing semantic games?

I haven't read this thread yet, but I wanted to answer the question posed in the title: "What convinced you of evolution."I also want to avoid the question: "So, what convinced you of evolution over any other religion?" as stated in the OP. Before I believed in evolution I was an avid, radical, committed Christian. My wife wore a head covering, even though we had no friends or church associates who did the same, and God was the focus of our lives. After I become convinced of evolution, my religion stayed exactly the same.Okay, that out of the way, what convinced me of evolution was several things. In order of priority:1. The behavior of creationists
2. The behavior of God
3. The behavior of evolutionistsCreationists lied, misrepresented, misquoted, slandered, falsely accused, and in every other way displayed the behavior of people who were wrong and caught in their error.God, as far as I can tell, has always transformed people in small steps. The apostles did not become apostles in a day, but it took time. There were no leaders in the church except the apostles for probably around eight years until "the seven" were appointed, and all the other leaders (prophets, elders, etc.) showed up bit by bit. Each had first to be transformed (evolve) until they were capable apostles, prophets, elders, etc. The method of spiritual evolution is trials, tribulations, and suffering. The tough survive and grow; those who are not tough, perish spiritually. Since God seemed to work by evolution and selection in spiritual matters, it seemed likely he would work that way in natural matters.Evolutionists addressed questions honestly and looked at all the evidence; quite the opposite of creationists. In every way they acted like honest people trying to find out the truth.Of course, the evidence evolutionists provided helped a lot. For example, creationists had plenty of stories and accusations about Donald Johansen's discovery of "Lucy" and especially of the A. afarensis knee he found. Evolutionists, on the other hand, gave me links to news stories explaining the whole story, as well as links to creationist claims and evolutionist answers. Creationists never provide you links to anything except their own claims.

Welcome back, Truthlover! Glad to see you posting again.

Why thank you. I've been, and still am, very busy, so I don't know that I'll be around much even now. A lot of the busy-ness is fun, but it consumes time, anyway.