PDA

View Full Version : Theory of evolution.... is failing..


Revendusman
March 25th, 2008, 11:36 PM
At least thats wahtr somebody told me, but they didn't go any further. Do you know what they meant? Cos it seems that Darwinism is getting increasingly pressured as knowledge accumalates against it.

WarHawk
March 25th, 2008, 11:39 PM
It means that they cannot support the theory of evolution with enough proof.

Revendusman
March 25th, 2008, 11:42 PM
It means that they cannot support the theory of evolution with enough proof.
WELL DUH....whos they um,m,m I'm also stupid. Don't feel so bad, ur not alone. Kidding, kidding.

♣Gawain♣
March 26th, 2008, 01:49 AM
Hey! Darwin's theory is true! At least I say it was. You can't just sit and say "Let's wait and see..." Evolution takes place in an astronomical time(I mean millions of years). You cannot really watch evolution goes by. Besides, speciation is extremely essential for the adaptation for a certain species, like us.

Amachi
March 26th, 2008, 02:09 AM
Hey! Darwin's theory is true! At least I say it was. You can't just sit and say "Let's wait and see..." Evolution takes place in an astronomical time(I mean millions of years). You cannot really watch evolution goes by. Besides, speciation is extremely essential for the adaptation for a certain species, like us.
Now wait a moment, you actually can't say that at all. It's a theory, and while there is a heap of evidence supporting it, you can't say it's absolutely-positively-undoubtedly true.

Also, you can watch evolution. Just look at the bacteria, viruses and pests that are becoming more and more resilient to our ways of combating them as each generation goes past.

Then of course there's always Pokémon evolution \o/

♣Gawain♣
March 26th, 2008, 02:34 AM
Well I'm mean the major species. The finches or tortoises and most, must wait for any climatic changes before they can adapt and evolve. And I'm sorry about the "the theory is true" part. I'm just expressing though.

Revendusman
March 26th, 2008, 02:58 AM
Theory of evolution is rubbish, don't believe it, because its only atheory, no better then falt-earth theory. Also, evolution is part of an ANIME game, for gods sake! how on Eart hcould it be real?

♣Gawain♣
March 26th, 2008, 03:05 AM
??????????? Did you not know what's real science? It's about proving theories! And because of evolution why we're here! And evolution take a long time to accomplish(Except for the microbes I think.)

parallelzero
March 26th, 2008, 03:07 AM
Darwinism may or may not be the true theory, we've never known for certain. All I hope for is that a proper scientific look at things will appear someday.

Revendusman
March 26th, 2008, 03:10 AM
??????????? Did you not know what's real science? It's about proving theories! And because of evolution why we're here! And evolution take a long time to accomplish(Except for the microbes I think.)
Well I've never seen a microbe evolve, even over a microsocpe, and they don't evolve quickly.

♣Gawain♣
March 26th, 2008, 03:16 AM
You inaccurately prejudiced it. It's not the shape of the microbes, it's about the genetic material and the resistance and it's defences. Did you know about the dengue virus, which normally leads you to death for days? Now it's now it's in improved form, claiming lots of lives in a matter of hours...

Revendusman
March 26th, 2008, 03:30 AM
Now it's now it's in improved form, claiming lots of lives in a matter of hours...
Oh, you horrible person, you think death is an improvement.

ClassicRockFan
March 26th, 2008, 03:34 AM
Dude, he is saying that it became more immune to things and was faster working due to evolution.

♣Gawain♣
March 26th, 2008, 03:37 AM
Dude, he is saying that it became more immune to things and was faster working due to evolution.


He's very precise and accurate. I'm just saying the bad effect or evo.

PS: And please put an avatar will you? It made me think you're a nobody.

Revendusman
March 26th, 2008, 03:43 AM
Dude, he is saying that it became more im
mune to things and was faster working due to evolution.
My mistake, I though he was endorsing homicide.
He's very precise and accurate. I'm just saying the bad effect or evo.

PS: And please put an avatar will you? It made me think you're a nobody.
i AM A NEwbie, to be honest, and hewas precise but not accurate, and left room for misunderstanding.

♣Gawain♣
March 26th, 2008, 03:47 AM
And...................Welcome to the club of newbies!!!

Revendusman
March 26th, 2008, 03:50 AM
And...................Welcome to the club of newbies!!!
tHANKEE..................................

♣Gawain♣
March 26th, 2008, 03:53 AM
And.................................Welcomee!!

'Cause I sometimes mess up with my post.

Amachi
March 26th, 2008, 04:03 AM
Uhh what. Don't spam you two, stay ontopic - anything else can be left to PM's.

Jaimes
March 26th, 2008, 04:41 AM
Theory of evolution is rubbish, don't believe it, because its only atheory, no better then falt-earth theory. Also, evolution is part of an ANIME game, for gods sake! how on Eart hcould it be real?

Yeah? I suppose gravity is a theory too. guess that's a load of BS then. Critics calling it a 'just a theory' honestly know nothing about the subject of evo.


Besides evolution is termed as a theory AND a fact. People have even made a freaking Wikipedia article to try and get this message across to stubborn people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)

A 'fact' is an observation. It is 'factual' that there are no records of humans living billions of years ago. Fruit flies and bacteria have also been seen evolving to produce different genetic info.
A 'theory' is an explanation of an observation. E.g Maybe there were no humans.. guess they hadn't been around yet.

Since evolution took its millions of years, one uses factual evidence and theories to pull together decent explanations. Biologists look at evidence of it occuring as opposed to watching it happen in there time machine. There is more evidence to actual observations, so evolution is mostly theoretical.

Besides, there's so much evidence available, frankly ignoring it and saying it's rubbish is being really dumb and narrow-minded. If you can provide a better explanation as to how we exist and somehow refute all the evidence that surrounds other theories, go ahead.

Try to actually research something properly before you bash it.

♣Gawain♣
March 26th, 2008, 04:45 AM
Yeah...........your'e kinda right. Evolution is just a theory, and It'll never fail me for studying it...

Whoot! 300th post!

Scales
March 26th, 2008, 06:58 AM
Evolution has been something I have always believed in. Since I don't believe in how the church says everything just came out of no where.

Thanks Jaimes for contradicting people who bash things.

Gyro
March 26th, 2008, 09:59 AM
Evolution has been something I have always believed in. Since I don't believe in how the church says everything just came out of no where.

Thanks Jaimes for contradicting people who bash things.

I learned about this a cuple of months ago in my American History class and about how the Fudamentalists and Secular thinkers were fighting over the truths of science. Fundamentalists were religious Protestant people who believed in the Bible and that God created everything. They rejected Darwin's theory of evolution because they believed God created all, and didnt want evolution being taught in schools and whatnot. That's basically what I learned..and it's a miracle that I even remember any of this.

As for the theory of evolution, I choose to remain indifferent because I can't decide whether or not i believe it ._.

Cassino
March 26th, 2008, 10:03 AM
At least thats wahtr somebody told me, but they didn't go any further. Do you know what they meant? Cos it seems that Darwinism is getting increasingly pressured as knowledge accumalates against it.
I take it this somebody is much more religious than scientific, which would explain his/her statement. Unless there is another scientific theory that has risen to oppose evolution lately, that's the only reason I can come up with.

Jaimes
March 26th, 2008, 10:25 AM
Cos it seems that Darwinism is getting increasingly pressured as knowledge accumalates against it.

Actually it's by far the opposite.

The 'beauty of science' is that new evidence is always being brought forward providing new insight or causing theorists to adjust and improve their work. New evidence for evolution is being discovered all the time and is now accepted by the majority of the scientific community as factual.

What knowledge has accumulated against it? I can't think of any. The only thing against evolution is creationism. Where the only unchangeable source is a 2000 year old book, and any proof supporting this concept is neglible.

Allstories
March 26th, 2008, 12:46 PM
Science is all stupid IMO.

Barely anything is real its all "theories" and all of them have a big thing missing so it all makes no sense.

You're twelve. You're basing your opinion on vague conjecture with no specific examples at all. No scientists are going to throw down their microscopes and give up because of THAT.

Gyro
March 26th, 2008, 12:59 PM
You're twelve. You're basing your opinion on vague conjecture with no specific examples at all. No scientists are going to throw down their microscopes and give up because of THAT.

Pwnage.

I agree with Allstories..I mean we wouldn't even have computers and TVs and all these other technologies we have today if it werent for science. Also, we wouldn't have cures for diseases and things like that and we'd still be living like our ancestors in caves. Everything begins with an idea, which is why people have made such advances in science and technology.

The Infinite Devil Machine
March 26th, 2008, 01:03 PM
According to Kansas state law, I'm obligated to post the church's compelling alternative to darwinism. (http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/07/09/evolution-vs-creationism-family-guy-style/)

Tetsu
March 26th, 2008, 01:20 PM
I'm 99% glad somebody brought this up. The other 1% is because this is one of the 'Definite Controversy' topics. Well, If you want a massive amount of information to the dis-proof of evolution, go here:

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Downloads.htm

WARNING: Just so you know, it's not a neutral view of the topic. The writers of these books are very creationist, so just to let you know. The difference? They use the same scientific processes to disprove evolution that evolutionists use to, er, prove it.
Anyway, the entire contents of all 3 books, and a lot more can be found on this site. Think it was a few thousand pages worth.

Chuchino
March 26th, 2008, 02:22 PM
From a strictly scientific point of view, the Theory of Human Evolution is just that-- a theory. It has not been proven, but it's highly likely that it actually occurred. :B The theory has been tested, there's evidence to back it up, blah blah blah.

:/ Though, using the theory of evolution as an argument against Christianity is amateur at best. That said, I wouldn't exactly shove the Book of Genesis into a scientist's face and say "EAT THAT, DARWIN."

I frankly couldn't care less what I evolved from, as long as I'm able to walk/talk/communicate and express myself in the present time. :B Being Catholic myself, I'm inclined to think that all scientific phenomena, including evolution, are thanks to the Big Guy. I'd prefer not to be evolved from a Chimp, but whatever happened, happened.

As for "evidence against Evolution", sure, I bet there are other non-Creationist theories that debunk it in a very vague sense. Heck, I've heard some opposing scientific theories, but even those would have to be proven facts to hold any water.

Jaimes
March 26th, 2008, 02:45 PM
WARNING: Just so you know, it's not a neutral view of the topic. The writers of these books are very creationist, so just to let you know. The difference? They use the same scientific processes to disprove evolution that evolutionists use to, er, prove it.
Anyway, the entire contents of all 3 books, and a lot more can be found on this site. Think it was a few thousand pages worth.

I looked at 2 of the pdf (like hell I'm actually going to read all of them)... And seriously I don't think you could choose a less biased, more ridiculous site to cite information from. From ridiculous assumptions, to statement which actually had no science in them (such as carbon dating being unreliable) and other irrelevant facts.
In the "Creation speaks for itself" as well as using facts from stories, many of the scientific usage was massively irrelevant- simply used to boost credibility of the content. And then there's the reliability in the Bible...whoa.. don't get me started on that.
Besides it hardly 'disproved evolution', sure there were probably a couple of average points in that 1500+ page of drivel that could stump an evolutionist, but if you were to consider the evidence that actually supports evolution.. It really doesn't do much in disproving the concept.

I don't mind when people are skeptical about evolution or simply admit to 'not knowing how existance occured' ... but using creationism as an oppositional excuse is just hypocritical. Also I found the term "Science vs. Evolution" massively ironic.


If you want a non-biased source how about an encyclopedia? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_theory) It has less BS in, is a neutral source and refrains from brainwashing.

ShadowofTime01
March 26th, 2008, 03:28 PM
Hell, creationism is just one of the last assumptions that we have that are not based on any facts other than blind faith in an unseen creator. That's not to say evolution could've have been created by a divine being... but it makes sense from a scientific standpoint that we evolved into the state that we are now...

But at times I still wonder about the ancient Babylonian texts that say visitors from another galaxy came and harvested our planet of an important element necessary to their survival. They created humans by mixing their DNA with the cro-magnons of the time, thus there's a gap between the last state of our evolution and our current one. Haha, but that's a little over the top.

22sa
March 26th, 2008, 09:49 PM
Theory of Evolution is a myth, a story, not the history of man.

A man is a man and was never more or less. Some ape or insect of whatever Darwin theorized we came from could not have been man--they contradict the nature, the essence a human being. All different animals exist and survive in different ways. A panda isn't a dog. A fish isn't a hawk. A man can't be anything but a man. The theory of evolution is just a fantasy.

Jaimes
March 27th, 2008, 03:27 AM
Theory of Evolution is a myth, a story, not the history of man.

A man is a man and was never more or less. Some ape or insect of whatever Darwin theorized we came from could not have been man--they contradict the nature, the essence a human being. All different animals exist and survive in different ways. A panda isn't a dog. A fish isn't a hawk. A man can't be anything but a man. The theory of evolution is just a fantasy.

omg lawl. So you're saying that every single animal on the planet has existed on it for the past 4.5billion years? It's a shocker we don't find fossils of rabbits next to fossils of dinosaurs... >_>

That's a really good argument too... "All different animals exist and survive" it's called adaptation. And I'm not even sure what you're on about with "the contradicting essence" garble.

Yeah if you made a proper argument, you might be taken more seriously.

sims796
March 27th, 2008, 06:06 AM
From a strictly scientific point of view, the Theory of Human Evolution is just that-- a theory. It has not been proven, but it's highly likely that it actually occurred. :B The theory has been tested, there's evidence to back it up, blah blah blah.

:/ Though, using the theory of evolution as an argument against Christianity is amateur at best. That said, I wouldn't exactly shove the Book of Genesis into a scientist's face and say "EAT THAT, DARWIN."

I frankly couldn't care less what I evolved from, as long as I'm able to walk/talk/communicate and express myself in the present time. :B Being Catholic myself, I'm inclined to think that all scientific phenomena, including evolution, are thanks to the Big Guy. I'd prefer not to be evolved from a Chimp, but whatever happened, happened.

As for "evidence against Evolution", sure, I bet there are other non-Creationist theories that debunk it in a very vague sense. Heck, I've heard some opposing scientific theories, but even those would have to be proven facts to hold any water.

I really gotta go with this, particulary the bolded part. Me being a (chosen) Christian, I do believe in Creationism. To a point. I mean, I love to see a talking snake, but my dreams never come true. As for Evolution, I'm gonna need more *conclusive* proof to sway me. I really don't care how smart, educated, critically aclaimed these scientist are, based on what the "community" says. Personally, I am sick of how things are "accepted" as fact, without their being 100% proof. What I never understood, and would love to find out, is how only a group of people evolved from monkeys, and how their are still monkeys today. This sounds confusing, but I'm having difficulty explaining. I am also somewhat annoyed at the sheer number of atheist on this site, meaning it's hard to get something other than a one-sided arguement on the matter. Oh well.

Besides, I've seen South Park. I won't get overrun by beavers :laugh:

Went
March 27th, 2008, 07:14 AM
I love this kind of threads, specially before the flamewars start. Debates like this are very interesting.

As for Evolution, I'm gonna need more *conclusive* proof to sway me. I really don't care how smart, educated, critically aclaimed these scientist are, based on what the "community" says. Personally, I am sick of how things are "accepted" as fact, without their being 100% proof.

Sadly, this point can be perfectly used against creationism. I mean, I need some other proof than a 2000 years old book to believe in that, specially when evolution is so backuped with evidence. And in reality, can you prove with a 100% of security, that God created all the living beings several thousands of years ago?

What I never understood, and would love to find out, is how only a group of people evolved from monkeys, and how their are still monkeys today. This sounds confusing, but I'm having difficulty explaining.

Actually that's wrong, it's not that some monkeys evolved and others didn't. It's more of a Vileplume-Bellossom thing, to compare it to pokémon. Originally both followed the same evolution line, but they reached a point (Gloom) where the species split in two: a group of them went out of the forests, and thus got adapted to the life in the open, getting more inteligence to make up for their lack of strenght; while the others kept living there and thus got even more adapted to the life in trees, becoming the current monkeys.

I am also somewhat annoyed at the sheer number of atheist on this site, meaning it's hard to get something other than a one-sided arguement on the matter. Oh well.


Well, I'm an atheist myself, but that doesn't have anything to do, I mean, if there was enough proof supporting it, more people than catholics would support it. Or is Evolution only supported by atheists?

sims796
March 27th, 2008, 07:34 AM
I love this kind of threads, specially before the flamewars start. Debates like this are very interesting.
Ditto.


Sadly, this point can be perfectly used against creationism. I mean, I need some other proof than a 2000 years old book to believe in that, specially when evolution is so backuped with evidence. And in reality, can you prove with a 100% of security, that God created all the living beings several thousands of years ago?
Understood. And you've further proved the point that nothing is exact in the least. I wasn't using it against evolution, but I was giving (one) of my reasons to not up & jump on that therory.


Actually that's wrong, it's not that some monkeys evolved and others didn't. It's more of a Vileplume-Bellossom thing, to compare it to pokémon. Originally both followed the same evolution line, but they reached a point (Gloom) where the species split in two: a group of them went out of the forests, and thus got adapted to the life in the open, getting more inteligence to make up for their lack of strenght; while the others kept living there and thus got even more adapted to the life in trees, becoming the current monkeys.
I wasn't stating a fact. I was pure confused on the matter. This cleared it up. Just so happens that Vileplume & Gloom are my favorites. (although Eevee would have been a better example.


Well, I'm an atheist myself, but that doesn't have anything to do, I mean, if there was enough proof supporting it, more people than catholics would support it. Or is Evolution only supported by atheists?Just about. I mean, there aren't much views outside evolution on this site, which leads to one sided arguements, and I don't learn much from those.


Whadda mean my message was too short? I can't quote anymore? Bah. Dang PC rules...

Comments in bold.

22sa
March 27th, 2008, 07:56 AM
omg lawl. So you're saying that every single animal on the planet has existed on it for the past 4.5billion years? It's a shocker we don't find fossils of rabbits next to fossils of dinosaurs... >_>

That's a really good argument too... "All different animals exist and survive" it's called adaptation. And I'm not even sure what you're on about with "the contradicting essence" garble.

Yeah if you made a proper argument, you might be taken more seriously.
You don't know what I mean by contradicting the nature of man? Man thinks, uses language, and have completely different brain activities then apes (was that what Drawin said we came from? I'm not even clear about it =D). An ape could never have been labelled as a man. Saying that we evolved from Apes means that they are related to us, are out ancestors, but they could not have been because they contradict what makes us what we are.

I really have no clue when and how certain animals came into existence, but saying a dog evolved from a wolf is infinitely more believable then man evolving from an ape. At least they don't have that many differences, just that wolf is much more predatory. I believe the first animals were all creations of God.

This is not to say I deny evolution in whole though, because it has some right ideas [survival of the fittest].

Jaimes
March 27th, 2008, 08:13 AM
Actually that's wrong, it's not that some monkeys evolved and others didn't. It's more of a Vileplume-Bellossom thing, to compare it to pokémon.

lol. That's really weird- I was just about to post a Gloom analogy. >_>

But thats essentially correct. The similarity in genes and physical structures show that monkeys and human had a common ancestor. Supposedly the last ancestor was around 6million years ago. Humans aren't monkeys that evolved more and got more l33t in the process.

The 'man evolving from monkey' concept is a falsheood, made up by opposition used to decredit early darwinism. Although not a single evolutionist/biologist actually believes this, some creationists still use it as a point (or an ignorant insult).

You don't have to be atheist to support evolution. With increasing understanding, media and technology, many religious people accept evolution as well. Claiming it to be Gods work, but oppositely refuting creationism - an example of this would be the present Archbishop of Canterbury, who described Biblical creationism as 'a category mistake'.
Some Christians say that the 6days in the Bible, were super long days. Allowing for evolution to occur. Although plants being made a 'long day' prior to the sun and birds & fishes occuring simultaneously, somewhat shed skepticism on this theory.
And there are many religions that don't have their own creation stories, or a deity to drive them. So fall on evolution for answers.

sims796
March 27th, 2008, 08:28 AM
lol. That's really weird- I was just about to post a Gloom analogy. >_>

But thats essentially correct. The similarity in genes and physical structures show that monkeys and human had a common ancestor. Supposedly the last ancestor was around 6million years ago. Humans aren't monkeys that evolved more and got more l33t in the process.

The 'man evolving from monkey' concept is a falsheood, made up by opposition used to decredit early darwinism. Although not a single evolutionist/biologist actually believes this, some creationists still use it as a point (or an ignorant insult).

You don't have to be atheist to support evolution. With increasing understanding, media and technology, many religious people accept evolution as well. Claiming it to be Gods work, but oppositely refuting creationism - an example of this would be the present Archbishop of Canterbury, who described Biblical creationism as 'a category mistake'.
Some Christians say that the 6days in the Bible, were super long days. Allowing for evolution to occur. Although plants being made a 'long day' prior to the sun and birds & fishes occuring simultaneously, somewhat shed skepticism on this theory.
And there are many religions that don't have their own creation stories, or a deity to drive them. So fall on evolution for answers.
Thats good to know. It just seems that, well, many people who goes for Creationism gets that common stereotype that they are all God fearing, loudmouth, judgmental idiots, who masks the fact that they can't make a real argument by being loud. That upsets me, and is why I take these threads personally. I have an open ear to evolution, as it makes much more sense than the world being made in 6 days. I'd love to clap my hands and say "let there be light", but unfortunately, I don't own a Clapper :D

In the same light, many evolutionist also get the rap of being judgemental (you're an idiot if you believe in creationism) arua, thinking that their ways are the ultimate, and only way of thinking. Which ultimately leads to backwards thinkng.

EDIT:Just throwing it out there, Vileplume is the best.

Otter Mii-kun
March 27th, 2008, 09:22 PM
For many years, politicians and educrats within the government "public" school system have been pitching the idea that evolution is the only proven scientific method-and that any other concepts, including intelligent design/creationism are "bogus" and "religionist" and "don't belong in the classroom".
I have yet to find ANY proof that evolution is 100% solidly proven fact other than "research" sourced from politically-favorable special interests, liberal academia, media, and other government-sponsored sources.

Many of these "sources" are also the same interests that preach over and over that global warming is "man-made and catastrophic" and that we "need carbon taxes" now "or else" we're "doomed for eternity."

And don't get me started on how we (American children) "need more science and math" to "compete in the global economy". What other countries are teaching and scoring in their schools is none of our business-just like it's none of our business to be meddling around the Middle East for "regime change" missions.

♥vampy©valentine♥
March 27th, 2008, 10:42 PM
I take it this somebody is much more religious than scientific, which would explain his/her statement. Unless there is another scientific theory that has risen to oppose evolution lately, that's the only reason I can come up with.
its not so much as failing but the gap that where already there are becoming more noticable

Zet
March 28th, 2008, 07:26 AM
Ok in the spoiler box, some people may find this offensive(religious people)

the bible never said God created dinosaurs. Then what the hell created the dinosaurs? the moon? probably not but since no mention about the awesome dinosaurs in the bible, evolution wins =D

Edit for the sake of it: I am a catholic, I respect any opinion and can make fun of religion because there is no harm being done

Captain Arcane
March 28th, 2008, 09:45 AM
Well, if I were you in that situation I probably may have ripped that mans head off!? (yelling wise)

In my opinion, (and many, many, many, many.........others), there is to much evidence to say "nope, there is no such thing". The man that probably said that stuff to you was most likely extremely religious, being either Christian, Catholic, or Mormon.

Plus, to make Darwin ever more truer, an event is taking place right know!? All across southern California, all rattle snakes are loosing their "rattle". When they attack, their rattles do not rattle any more! You could probably go look it up on something like google, or whatever, but in my opinion, this is a big SMACK in the face to all those "super" religious people out there.

Edit:
Oh, and Aniki, that stuff in your spoiler was great! XD

sims796
March 28th, 2008, 09:49 AM
Well, if I were you in that situation I probably may have ripped that mans head off!? (yelling wise)

In my opinion, (and many, many, many, many.........others), there is to much evidence to say "nope, there is no such thing". The man that probably said that stuff to you was most likely extremely religious, being either Christian, Catholic, or Mormon.

Plus, to make Darwin ever more truer, an event is taking place right know!? All across southern California, all rattle snakes are loosing their "rattle". When they attack, their rattles do not rattle any more! You could probably go look it up on something like google, or whatever, but in my opinion, this is a big SMACK in the face to all those "super" religious people out there.

But not enough to exclusively say Evolution is the only way to go. That rattlesnake thing doesn't furter prove what he said, at least based on the limited info you gave. It could be a number of reasons why those snakes don't rattle. And it doesn't disprove Creationism any less. Or more. Whichever is in proper grammer.

Captain Arcane
March 28th, 2008, 09:58 AM
Yeah, I know I lack on details, but, I'm not in the mood to right a book right now! XD

Yes, correctly, it does not 100% mean that evolution, is real, but either way or not, it sure helps it a hell of a lot.

But, y'know, now that I looked over my post from a spectator's view, I just realized that I left out a specific part. -- Rattle snakes no longer rattle when they feel they're in danger, or when they're about to attack. They've completely stopped. (that was the point I miss completely)

Kayleigh
March 28th, 2008, 10:33 AM
Ok in the spoiler box, some people may find this offensive(religious people)

the bible never said God created dinosaurs. Then what the hell created the dinosaurs? the moon? probably not but since no mention about the awesome dinosaurs in the bible, evolution wins =D

Edit for the sake of it: I am a catholic, I respect any opinion and can make fun of religion because there is no harm being doneActually, dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The only difference is that ancient names like "behemoth" and "tannin" are used rather than what we call them now. It's in the very old book of Job (verses 40:15-19), which was probably written about 2,000 years before Jesus was even born.

Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God…

Some people could argue that the "behemoth" mentioned was something like an elephant or a rhinoceros, but... er, those animals certainly don't have swaying tails that could be compared to the trunks of cedar trees. ^^; I'm thinking it's something along the lines of a Diplodocus or Apatosaurus, who were both gigantic dinosaurs but fed on foliage and the like. Who knows? That's just my opinion. I wasn't there, so I can't argue that it's a "fact" or anything.

But I still thought I'd add that in. I'd prefer to stay out of the other stuff since I don't exactly have the talent of debating well with others. XD; I'll leave that to the guys.

Jaimes
March 28th, 2008, 11:02 AM
But, y'know, now that I looked over my post from a spectator's view, I just realized that I left out a specific part. -- Rattle snakes no longer rattle when they feel they're in danger, or when they're about to attack. They've completely stopped. (that was the point I miss completely)

I think he's trying to get at natural selection causing adaptations.

Basically when some members of a specie experiences a mutation that makes them better off (e.g say a elephant had camoflage), than others in it's species (standard greys). So they are more likely to survive (e.g don't get eaten), so they mate and pass on the gene (creating camo kids). This increases the number of advantageous genes present in the generation and reduces the less useful ones.

There's only a tiny amount concerning dinosaurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Palaeontology_and_dinosaurs)in the bible.. actually it's not even mentioned. The Behemoth/Leviathan are really quite vague, nor do they rule out the possibility of it being a mythical creature (Cherub anyone? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Human_headed_winged_bull_facing.jpg)).
Belief that all except 2 from each species got killed in the flood is convenient... though how they all managed to fit on the ark beats me.. and what stopped them from eating each other. Good job Noah.

And just for the record.. concerning the Book of Job, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Origin) hardly any of the Bible exists as it's original text. Most of which appears to be written up to centuries after its supposed occurence.

sims796
March 28th, 2008, 11:27 AM
Hey, scientist aren't absolute on how the dinos died. Who's to say it wasn't a giant flood? Hohoho.

Seriously, I wouldn't say the theory of evolution is failing, but it certainly can't be considered the only possibility.

Merzbau
March 28th, 2008, 12:23 PM
If I didn't put my two cents in, I could never forgive myself.

The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin, is a groundbreaking work of science.

When you look at science, you need to look at it with a scientific perspective. I observe, I record, make a hypothesis, test it, and if it holds true, I have a theory.

That's how making a theory works.

Just because something is a theory does not make it false.

The theory of general relativity is just that, a theory. Is it false? We can see it happen in our very own weapons of war, atomic bombs.

Some people will refuse to see things as they are. We have the fossils, we have the theory, it makes logical sense, it has been validated by transitional fossils, etc., etc., etc. It really scares me that people can have so much information at their disposal but choose to ignore it to fit their preconceived notions.

An age of distrust of science and reason happened once already. Historians call it The Dark Ages.

Sadly, it looks like it's repeating itself.

On a final note...this image (http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8491/219mo6.jpg) kind of fits.

sims796
March 28th, 2008, 12:52 PM
But the thing is, it is taken as the ONLY means of truth.

The only way you can sway most people is with hardcore proof. Otherwise, they will continue to use their beliefs on how the world works.

Merzbau
March 28th, 2008, 01:00 PM
What alternatives would you propose that are naturalistic in origin?

Zet
March 28th, 2008, 11:04 PM
ok, since I was disproven i have to say this(again a spoiler thing ^___^)

God's apple contains the powers of knowledge, no where the hell is my flying car? or more so where is the garden? it's only protected by a giant flaming sword, can't be that hard to find

Scales
March 29th, 2008, 12:17 AM
I think the garden of Eden was destroyed when the great flood happened and Noah was told to put 2 of each animal on the ark

Jaimes
March 29th, 2008, 03:24 AM
ok, since I was disproven i have to say this(again a spoiler thing ^___^)

God's apple contains the powers of knowledge, no where the hell is my flying car? or more so where is the garden? it's only protected by a giant flaming sword, can't be that hard to find

I wouldn't exactly call the vague description over the Behemoth conclusive evidence, since it doesn't rule out mythical or animals which were undiscovered at the time. Its 'tail' has also been translated in other cultures as a more explicit organ, or could have reffered to cedar tree needles.
Actually it sounds more like a Hippo (especially the swamp dwelling part). It was noting that Jewish cultures believe it to be a mythical monster.

Have a Wikipedia link to read it yourself.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth)



If there were fossils of dinosaurs besides a fossil of a men...that would really shut me up. But good old evidence shows that we lived a LONG time apart. >_>

Zet
March 29th, 2008, 03:32 AM
Didn't us humans come after the giant comet came and smacked up the most of the dinosaurs? then we came out of the swamps and grew arms and legs and ate the remaining dinosaurs thus leaving bones instead of the fossils? Also didn't the flood only flood Noah's crappy little village?

Jaimes
March 29th, 2008, 04:51 AM
Didn't us humans come after the giant comet came and smacked up the most of the dinosaurs? then we came out of the swamps and grew arms and legs and ate the remaining dinosaurs thus leaving bones instead of the fossils?

Accoding to science

Dinosaurs existed : 230 - 60 million years ago
Dinosaurs owned by meteor: 65million years ago
Modern Human race started: approx 200,000 years ago

According to the Bible

All organisms began: 6000years ago
2 of each animals taken aboard Noahs ark: approx 2100years ago
Global flood owns everything and everyone else... Creating all dinosaur fossils. (though not rabbit fossils etc.)
Dinosaurs get off the ark, though supposedly they all die soon after because they couldn't survive with the changed environment.
Other animals get by fine.

I'm going to go with science on this one.

Also didn't the flood only flood Noah's crappy little village?
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." Genesis 7:21-23

That is of course if you actually believe a 40 or 150 day long (Biblical contradictions) global flood occurred, leaving no geological evidence behind.

Zet
March 29th, 2008, 04:57 AM
Whoal that means only Noah and his wife were the only humans who didn't die in the flood. So in retrospect they are Adman and Eve version 1.1 or something. But wouldn't the dinosaurs eat anything that moves on the ark?

Jaimes
March 29th, 2008, 05:28 AM
As well as Noah and his wife, there were Noah's 3 sons and their wives too. Supposedly Ham was the ancestor of all African raced people, Shem was the ancestor of all Arabic races and Japeth the ancestor of the other races.

God only allowed humans to eat other animals after they got off the ark (Gen 9:3) it is believed this also applied to animals. So the T Rexes and Lions were all originally herbivores.
Besides when the animals left the ark what would they have eaten? Any plants would be killed by the flood and prey would become extinct... Someone didn't think it through.. >_>


Though I think we're weening off topic right now.

Zet
March 29th, 2008, 05:32 AM
Those are very good thoughts:P but since this is a topic about evolution failing I guess this can also support a way for evolution to be real

sims796
March 29th, 2008, 07:12 AM
Those are very good thoughts:P but since this is a topic about evolution failing I guess this can also support a way for evolution to be real

Not one bit. As said before, niether creationism nor Evolution can be used to prove the other never happend. Call those people whatever you like, but there is a reason the Bible lived on for so long.

Virtual Chatot
March 29th, 2008, 08:16 AM
Accoding to science

Dinosaurs existed : 230 - 60 million years ago
Dinosaurs owned by meteor: 65million years ago
Modern Human race started: approx 200,000 years ago

According to the Bible

All organisms began: 6000years ago 6-10 thousand
2 of each animals taken aboard Noahs ark: approx 2100years ago Try 6-7 thousand
Global flood owns everything and everyone else... Creating all dinosaur fossils. (though not rabbit fossils etc.) They have found fossils of animals such as deer and lions
Dinosaurs get off the ark, though supposedly they all die soon after because they couldn't survive with the changed environment. Is it really that hard to believe? Such an occurrence would dramatically change Earth's climate.
Other animals get by fine. Think about how big Dinosaurs are, and how little other animals are in comparison. Practically all large animals died ( Giant Sloth, Giant Anteate, ect )

I'm going to go with science on this one.


"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." Genesis 7:21-23

That is of course if you actually believe a 40 or 150 day long (Biblical contradictions) global flood occurred, leaving no geological evidence behind.
Of course, you must be forgetting the layer stretching all over the world with millions of dead fossils trapped in limestone, right?

You phail

Mooshykris
March 29th, 2008, 08:50 AM
The ultimate thing here is this. Look, I'm a creationist, so I don't support evolution either way.

The ultimate thing is, we can't prove or disprove either by the true scientific method, so it's all a matter of faith.

Whether creation or evolution, you just have to believe in what you believe is right.

Mooshykris

Jaimes
March 29th, 2008, 08:57 AM
Aww Heatran.... okay. Some sources would be nice for this though.

1) All organisms began: 6000years ago 6-10 thousand
Too bad actually most Evangelical Christians say that the world is 6000 years old (http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html), supposedly one can work this out by counting back the years from the death of certain figures. Though even if it was 10,000 years ago.. that's still somewhat recent.
Although Wikipedia says 6000-10,000 years as well, the reference supporting the Wiki statement (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp) only claims that the world is 6000 years old with the necessary calculations (and there's no source for the +4000 years).

Therefore I don't fail. Even still, 10,000 years is way too recent for the earths formation from a scientifical perspective.

2) 2 of each animals taken aboard Noahs ark: approx 2100years ago Try 6-7 thousand
I got the time of the flood from the Creationist Museum:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/1969987142_2903389bdb.jpg?v=0
So either they're wrong about interpretting the Bible and have wasted millions of dollars in the process or you are.

Therefore Creationist Museum fails or you fail. Eitherway not my problem.

3) Global flood owns everything and everyone else... Creating all dinosaur fossils. (though not rabbit fossils etc.) They have found fossils of animals such as deer and lions
No ones found a fossil of a modern day rabbit next to a dinosaur. If they did, the concept of evolution would be totally screwed.

Seemed I didn't fail there either. [Psst, a source too would be great for this as well.. it sounds quite interesting.]

4)Dinosaurs get off the ark, though supposedly they all die soon after because they couldn't survive with the changed environment. Is it really that hard to believe? Such an occurrence would dramatically change Earth's climate.
It's not hard to believe a single pair of animals wouldn't survive a global flood. Actually it's more likely that almost nothing would survive a worldwide flood. Seriously.. what's there to eat? What are predators going to eat? Won't their offspring have to inbreed? How would they get from Mount Arat to their new habitats?
Isn't it more likely that such a massive catastrophe didn't actually happen?

Therefore I don't fail there.

5) Other animals get by fine. Think about how big Dinosaurs are, and how little other animals are in comparison. Practically all large animals died ( Giant Sloth, Giant Anteate, ect )
Elephant's are large. They lived. Yay.
Not all dinosaurs are huge. Look at Compsognathus for example. Even Wikipedia has a nice article about Dinosaur sizes.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size) >_>

I don't phail. I just pwned. :D

sims796
March 29th, 2008, 08:59 AM
This is starting to take an ugly turn.

Went
March 29th, 2008, 10:50 AM
The ultimate thing here is this. Look, I'm a creationist, so I don't support evolution either way.

The ultimate thing is, we can't prove or disprove either by the true scientific method, so it's all a matter of faith.

Whether creation or evolution, you just have to believe in what you believe is right.

Mooshykris

One of the best quotes I have read here. After all, there is no ultimate way to prove anything (points at Do I exist? thread).

Jaimes
March 29th, 2008, 10:51 AM
This is starting to take an ugly turn.
And skewering off-topic again...


Interestingly, only 15% of Americans believe evolution occurred naturally and 30% believe it occured by divine intervention. With a significant majority believing species always have existed as they are.
(Source: Some US news poll) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml)

It's pretty interesting to compare what other developed countries think, like in this survey (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html):
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg
Showing that US ranks pretty low concerning the percentage who accept evolution amongst others.

And that countries which are secular or have a greater number of agnostics/atheists (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html) (specifically Denmark, Sweden, Japan, France & UK) have a higher percentage of evolutionists.


I just thought like pointing out the correlation. Since I reckoned early on this thread could get potentially mobbed by mass numbers of theists on this site.

sims796
March 29th, 2008, 10:55 AM
What is that for? Just to point something out, or to prove a point?

Jaimes
March 29th, 2008, 11:01 AM
What is that for? Just to point something out, or to prove a point?

Just felt like pointing it out.. I thought it was somewhat interesting. :P

sims796
March 29th, 2008, 11:05 AM
Oh, it was. This really showed me a few things. No sarcasm intended.

However, it's not surprising that the majority of americans believe in creationism. Just watch Family Guy :P

Seriously, most of our history stems from beliefs of creastionism, including that dark time involving Christians that I can't remember in detail.

Zet
March 29th, 2008, 09:32 PM
Since some bibles state the world started 6000 years ago does that mean the remains of human fossil found that are 1.2million years old fake? (http://www.newsoxy.com/oldest_human_fossil_found/article10621.htm)

Scales
March 29th, 2008, 10:06 PM
I doubt they are fake. I think that if we lived 1000 years ago the Church would just choose to ignore this piece of evidence and declare it as heresy. It happened to Galileo when he announced the Earth revolved around the sun.

Most likely this piece of evidence is going to make us change our history books about how humans came to Europe.

Always and Never
March 30th, 2008, 12:12 AM
Now wait a moment, you actually can't say that at all. It's a theory, and while there is a heap of evidence supporting it, you can't say it's absolutely-positively-undoubtedly true.

Also, you can watch evolution. Just look at the bacteria, viruses and pests that are becoming more and more resilient to our ways of combating them as each generation goes past.

Then of course there's always Pokémon evolution \o/

A theory in science is different than what we normal people percieve a theory to be. In science a theory is, "A hypothesis that continues to be proven true."

Amachi
March 30th, 2008, 05:28 AM
A theory in science is different than what we normal people percieve a theory to be. In science a theory is, "A hypothesis that continues to be proven true."
You say that like I haven't studied science or evolution before o.o

Anyway, this thread has veered waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic, and since none of you had any real intention of bringing back onto the right track, it's gonna hit a wall.

Nice try though, I commend you all for your efforts *applaud*

locked