What convinced you of Evolution?

I cannot recall with much certainty when I came to understand the theory of evolution. My grandfather was a Methodist minister and very open minded. He had an extensive collection of National Geographic magazines so you could imagine that he was far from fundamentalist. Oddly, my family did not participate in church services very often (only during Easter) so some could argue that I had a weak Christian base and am therefore unqualified to answer this question.The claim, by he who created this topic, where the definition of religion is blurred actually has some relevance to me. I see the mechanisms of Evolution as being a wonderful explanation for the Unity of Nature. Western philosophy often seeks to seperate mankind as an entity distinct from nature, or claim that nature is in place for the sake of mankind. Seeing the strong evidence that shows how we are related to primates, and all mammals in general, brings about in me a sense of 'belonging' to the universe and nature. This unity extends out to the formation of the stars themselves and the workings of the cosmos, it is a beautiful thing.Morally, it shows that we are all part of a delicate system that is constantly in the process of balancing itself, and that we must respect this system, as disrupting it could lead to our own demise as we are all so tightly interconnected.The point that I am getting at, is that the concepts presented by the ToE can indeed be applied to one's philosphy of life, and if a philosphy of life is a religion then the ToE (although not a religion on its own) could conceivably be the basis for one.

eyesight

quote:

---

eyesight

---

Are you saying you have actually seen an animal evolve??? Or are you saying you believe in evolution because you have good eyes?

Actually, this post is in reply to another post in another thread, but I thought this would be a more appropriate place for a response.I would like to point out a quote from the originating post of this thread: Perhaps I am wrong, but the tone of these quotes seems to be that the only people who accept the theory of evolution are those who either were brainwashed as they were growing up, or who simply refuse to believe in the Bible. There were several responses in this thread from people who were initially creationists but who accepted evolution as they learned more. I can even add more detail to my story: I was a fundamentalist Baptist. I wanted to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I fought against accepting evolution, I prayed to God to help me maintain my faith. In the end I had to admit that by the evidence and by logic the creation account in Genesis could not be the literal truth.So, DaVxOr, are you going to admit that someone who looks at the evidence in a logical, reasoned, objective manner can accept the theory of evolution? Or are you convinced that people believe in evolution are simply dupes?

That's it? That's your response to all that everyone has said?

quote:

---

Are you saying you have actually seen an animal evolve???

---

Just an aside... have you witnessed any species being created separately from all the others, or a giant flood after which only two of every animal had to repopulate the entire planet?We are all working with the same evidence DaVxOr.He simply suggested that it is by looking around at the world and making connections between what we find there, that evolution becomes the best model.In case you didn't answer my original reply because it didn't mention my religious background (and how I turned "evo")...I was born into a Xian house (not fundie), but it never really made much sense to me emotionally. In fact, other posts in this thread regarding the emotional fulfillment generated by nature and the universe are the only things I have experienced myself.In school I learned evo and geology and the evidence made a lot of sense, and explained things that Xianity could not. In fact for the most part I assumed science and religion were completely separate (which you can see outlined in my original reply to you).It was only as fundies began to insist that religion and science are the same that I have felt any real motive to say, okay then Xianity is wrong. It is certainly bad science.Why people feel compelled to make them compete, or mix them up, is beyond me.In this case it seems better to keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter.------------------
holmes

What has convinced me... well nothing realy.
I don't think either Evo or Creo as presented gives a complete picture of the life. Both are filled with emotion and opinion and neither side feels like it can back down on any issue with out a total loss, so I evaluate the evidence for my self and draw my own conclusions. For example: I believe that the bible is literal, and that TOE, Young earth Creo, and Theistic evo, are all correct in part. So I believe in evolution but does that make me an evoultionist?....

I believe that anybody who has a belief system that includes the "Young" of YECism is badly out of touch with worldly realities.Young Earth Creationism breaks down right from the first word. Is that "Young" part of your "Biblical literalism"?Moose

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that anybody who has a belief system that includes the "Young" of YECism is badly out of touch with worldly realities.
-------------------------------------------------------------------Let me reply with a certain 2 year old's favorite saying.
"WHY?"-------------------------------------------------------------------
Young Earth Creationism breaks down right from the first word.
-------------------------------------------------------------------In the opinion of whom? since no one posting on this forum was alive 100 years ago let alone a 1000 or a million whose can say what really happend. All we can do is use the data and our own imagination to "deduce" a story that seems reasonable to us.-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that "Young" part of your "Biblical literalism
-------------------------------------------------------------------Depends on your definition of young.

But whose story fits the most data? Just like a bigot will present Willie Horton as proof that all blacks are violent, creationists use a selective amount of factoids to support their position. The vast majority of the available data is simply ignored. Imagination is a wonderful thing, but willful ignorance is not.Evolution is supported by data from a wide range of fields, using verifiable mechanisms and proposing a remarkably consistent timeline. Creationism fails on all these accounts, and depends for its support on just the sort of special pleading (in the guise of 'objectivity') that you seem to advocate.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Thronacx writes:

quote:

---

since no one posting on this forum was alive 100 years ago let alone a 1000 or a million whose can say what really happend.

---

By this logic, we should open the prisons and let most of the convicts out.The vast majority of crimes have no witnesses, and yet we still manage to come to conclusions that so-and-so did it.By your logic, there is no utility at all in forensics. Yeah, we found the suspect's fingerprints at the scene, but since nobody saw him actually leave them there, we can't make any conclusion about his presence at the scene at all. Heck, we can't even say if he was the one who left them there. Perhaps god did it.You're right that I wasn't there millions of years ago. But you know what, we have the fossils of organisms that were there millions of years ago. We can examine them to find out what they can tell us about their existence then.Just as there are techniques that we can use to determine when a body died, even though we weren't there to see it happen directly, there are techniques that we can use to determine how long ago a fossil was made, even though we weren't there to see it happen directly.

quote:

---

All we can do is use the data and our own imagination to "deduce" a story that seems reasonable to us.

---

Incorrect. That may be what creationists do, but that isn't what scientists do.Instead, they use the data to construct an hypothesis consistent with that data and then test that hypothesis by making predictions about data we don't have yet. We then devise experiments to gather that data and see if those predictions match the gathered data.Science is a creative field, yes, but you don't imagine scenarios simply because they seem "reasonable." Your imagination is great for getting a question asked, but it is lousy for actually answering it. Instead, you rely upon the data to tell you what the story is and keep yourself out of it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Moose said:

quote:

---

I believe that anybody who has a belief system that includes the "Young" of YECism is badly out of touch with worldly realities.

---

Because we've falsified any notion of the Earth having existed for less than 10,000 years with several independant methods. Come on. ALL of our observations are to some degree indirect, and every observation we make of external reality infers naturalistically into the past whether you're observing 8 minutes old photons from the sun hitting your retina or 4 light years old photons from Alpha Centauri. Unless you can present a convincing argument that the relevant observed regularities in the behavior of the universe have not remained constant in the extended past, any doubt about the general accuracy of our chronologies, or at the very least about the maximal margins of error of those chronologies, is unreasonable.[This message has been edited by ::, 12-04-2003]

------------------------------------------------------------------
But whose story fits the most data?
------------------------------------------------------------------That all depends whats being looked at, and whose doing the looking.-------------------------------------------------------------------
...creationists use a selective amount of factoids to support their position The vast majority of the available data is simply ignored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Since that is fundamental to all successfull debates (ephasize your strong points and ignore or underacknowlege your weakpoints) it sounds logical to me. Just remember that the door swings both ways on this one. also just a nitpick: technically your statement was a generalization not a definitive statement.------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagination is a wonderful thing, but willful ignorance is not.
----------------------------------------------------------------No complaints here.-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is supported by data from a wide range of fields, using verifiable mechanisms and proposing a remarkably consistent timeline
--------------------------------------------------------------------In the opinion of whom?
Verifiable mechanisms? verify processess operating in the past?amazing I didn't realize anyone had invented a time machine. "science by definition is the study of the present".--------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationism fails on all these accounts, and depends for its support on just the sort of special pleading (in the guise of 'objectivity') that you seem to advocate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------This statment seems to be a generalization followed by a thinly veiled implication. Seriously, these kinds of statements are in desperate need of some qualifiers such as: "in my opinion" etc.
And just for the record just because one argues against something doesn't mean he supports the assumed opposite.

Ok, go over this step by step. Describe what you are taking as being factual input to the process and then lead us through the logic that arrives at a different conclusion.Since you are a different "who" doing the looking perhaps you'll be able to cast a new light on the subject.

So, you agree with Rrhain's point? Do you believe that no one should ever be convicted of any crime unless there was an eye witness to the act?