Theory of evolution.... is failing..

[♣Gawain♣]

Yeah...........your'e kinda right. Evolution is just a theory, and It'll never fail me for studying it...

Whoot! 300th post!

 

[Scales]

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]

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 ._.

 

[Legobricks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

According to Kansas state law, I'm obligated to post the church's compelling alternative to darwinism.

 

[Tetsu]

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]

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]

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? It has less BS in, is a neutral source and refrains from brainwashing.

 

[ShadowofTime01]

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]

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]

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]

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:

 

[Ivysaur]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.