Minitokyo » Forum » Religion & Science » What's wrong with Evolution?

Do you believe in Evolution?

Yes, Evolution is a fact.: 77 votes
No, Evolution isn't false.: 5 votes
Your head explodes.: 4 votes
Lightning strikes OP.: 2 votes
Rolls eyes and leaves thread.: 11 votes
Doesn't like OP.: 1 votes

Only members can vote.

page 2 of 17 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 17 Next » 386 total items

well i wont buy bio book bcoz i dun want to be a doctor ;X
can u explain it, here?
if u wont it's ok
i dont believe Evolution of human. there's no such thing

Signature
Image

Currently watching: Detective Conan
Aug 02, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

Lord-Satorious Knight of Avalon

questforu, 'laws' of science aren't being created anymore. There has been a change in terminology since Newton's day, but modern day theories are just as rigorously tested as the 'laws' before them once were. 'Theory' is not the same as 'hypothesis', most theories have just as much evidence as the so-called 'laws of science'. Newton's laws of motion, while still applicable, do not cover the while picture, as Einstein later proved.

The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the Earth since it does receive energy from the sun. If you want to apply it to the entire universe, then that's a different story, but trying to apply it to the Earth insinuates a closed system and that's simply not the case. In fact, it may be applicable, since one hypothesis does suggest that the entire universe will eventually cool down and die once there is not enough fuel for any more stars to be born, but this time span is some trillions of years in the future.

While Darwin couldn't have guessed at how the eye developed, the point you're trying to bring up is called 'irreducible complexity'. Time and time again, functions of organisms that were thought to be irreducibly complex have been shown not to be, the whole concept of irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, and no progress is made that way.

priincess, you don't even understand how evolution works and already you think you understand it well enough to _not_ believe it? Fine strategy, 'I won't study this subject and attempt to show it's falsehood, I'll just believe it isn't so'. Thankfully priincess, the advancements of humankind will not be coming from people like you.

Lord_Satorious
The World-Wide Gundam Informational Network
"The Nu Gundam isn't just for show!" - Capt. Amuro Ray, UC 0093

Aug 02, 2007
Gallery

Psychoblobassassin

Lets take the question of survival of the fittest , which is one of the things that Evolutionists believe as true.
Modern evolutionists have tried to distance themselves from this concept due to the obvious negative consequences of the social realm. Denying that survival of the fittest is part of the evolutionary process is akin to denying that one type of animal will drive another to extinction given the right conditions. Contrary to the rosy picture of animal co-operation which evolutionists like to portray, one type of animal has no qualms wiping out another in its quest to propagate itself. Survival of the fittest has always been an integral part of the evolutionary theory. Wild dogs introduced to Australia are endangering native species because they are more aggressive and have no natural enemies. Sounds like "survival of the fittest" doesn't it? If we are also animals who have evolved according to this basic principle of evolution, why shouldn't we extend this principle into the social realm? Why shouldn't we eliminate weaker classes of humans which are competing for what we feel we need? Evolution taken to its logical conclusion leads to a savage world akin to Hitler's Nazi Germany when the strong determine what is right. It was no coincidence that Hitler was strongly influenced by the writings of Darwin.

Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.

Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word.

As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It's important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well. Creation Science Evangelism wishes not to invite Creation into public schools, but only to have incorrect information extracted from taxpayer-purchased textbooks. Schools have a legal, as well as moral obligation to remain truthful to our students. Unfortunately, many schools today have veered from this path and have accepted voodoo-science as part of their curriculum. Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.

When will America - as well as the rest of the World - wake up and smell the indoctrination. Millions of children everyday are being presented with information that is testable, has been tested, and is now scratched off as untrue in the scientific literature. Even our SAT's are presenting incorrect information to our fervent studiers. Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation. We were fearfully and wonderfully created, and we will soon stand before He that creates and give an account for the life we lived. Will you be ready?

for more info go to DrDino.com

merged: 08-03-2007 ~ 06:26am
Scientific American, Giving Up?
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind
Over the years, Scientific American has published some ridiculous articles belittling creation and extolling the virtues of evolution. Of all the articles I have seen, this one (April 2005, p. 10, “Okay, We Give Up”) has to be the dumbest.

There’s no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don’t mix.
Science and politics don’t mix. This is a ridiculous statement. Most scientists know full well their paychecks come because of the political system. Research and Grant Money is often rolled out only because of the politics of those moments.

They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed UnScientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there’s no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine’s coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided.
With this statement, I would have to agree. The magazine treats evolution as if it is a part of science, when there’s nothing further from the truth. It is a religion, masquerading as science. But there is no scientific evidence that would tell us a dog produced a non-dog, let alone that a dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.

For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying c oncept for all of biology…
Who cares that the theory of evolution has been called, “the unifying concept for all of biology.” The theory of evolution has also been called one of the dumbest ideas in the history of man and science. The fact that some people are very dedicated to this theory to the point of revering Charles Darwin above all others, has nothing to do with the validity of the theory itself.

…and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time…
Who cares if some people think it is the greatest scientific idea of all time. Nearly all polls show the majority of America (somewhere between 55 and 60%) does not believe it is a legitimate idea, and think there’s probably nothing scientific about it. It’s also interesting here that the writers never define what they mean by “Evolution”. They need to watch my video number four where we show the six different meanings of the word “evolution”. Only number six (microevolution) is actually scientific – the first five are religious. This is explained in further detail on our website.

…but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism?
A quick search of the record will show major scientific magazines, especially Scientific American, do not publish articles that even hint a favor of creation. Even if articles were submitted, it would be a waste of time on the part of the author.

Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago…
There’s actually overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans. We simply called them dragons. Man killed most of them, and there may be a few still alive today. The editors of Scientific American need to watch our video number three (Dinosaurs and the Bible) for more about this topic.

…or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon?
As for the flood carving Grand Canyon, why don’t they explain to us why the top of the Canyon is 4,000ft higher than where the river (Colorado River) enters the canyon? Why don’t they explain to us how rivers miraculously flowed up-hill for millions of years to finally cut the groove deep enough so they could flow downhill? It is obvious to anybody who studies Grand Canyon that it could not have been made by the Colorado River. There were two large lakes, named Grand Lake and Hopi Lake, which over-flowed and carved Grand Canyon very fast – probably in a matter of weeks. These editors need to watch our videotape number four (Lies in the Textbooks) to learn the truth about Grand Canyon.

Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils…
Fancy fossils? I don’t know any creationist who would doubt the existence of fossils. We have a huge fossil collection at our Dinosaur Adventure Land, in Pensacola. Fossils don’t speak, nor do they come with a tag on them when they are taken from the ground. There’s no such thing as a “fossil record”; there are simply fossils in the dirt. This is much more evidence for a worldwide flood than for a slow, gradual, evolutionary change over time. None of the fossils found so far have shown any evidence for the evolutionary theory. They only show evidence of rapid burial, often in mass graves of millions of fossils, indicated the Biblical flood story is the most likely explanation for their existence.

…their radiocarbon dating…
Radiocarbon dating was invented a hundred and twenty years after they began teaching the earth was millions of years old. Radiocarbon dating gives wild numbers as anyone who has studied it will attest. The editors should see our video number seven, Questions and Answers, for more on carbon dating.

…and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.
Peer-reviewed journal articles? Try to get a creationist article into a magazine like Scientific American, and see what happens. Ten years ago if a professor in the Soviet Union tried to submit an article to any Soviet magazine claiming that communism didn’t work, and capitalism is a better system, he would be shipped off to Siberia if he survived. Today, if a teacher in a public university, or a writer at any major science magazine (such as Scientific American) dares to suggest that evolution is not true, and maybe Creation is true, he will be sent to academic Siberia in a heart-beat. The fact that peer-reviewed journal articles support evolution is no more surprising than all soviet magazines and newspapers ten years ago supported communism.

As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Mountains of evidence? No one has ever offered any evidence to demonstrate that a dog can produce a non-dog, let alone that a dog can come from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. We’ve been offering $250,000 to see this evidence for over ten years. Where is this “evidence” they talk about?

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that’s a somewhat religious idea. But ID the orists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That’s what makes ID a superior scientific theo ry: it doesn’t get bogged down in details.
Details? Just exactly how does the evolutionist explain the details behind the origin of life; or the origin of sexual reproduction; or the origin of time, space, and matter; or the origin of the incredible genetic code? All they do is give fuzzy and philosophical musings on the subject. No hard evidence is ever given – certainly no empirical evidence. It’s the editors of Scientific American that don’t like to get bogged down with the details, like sticking to real science. They’re too busy promoting their religion of evolution on the pages of this magazine. Can you believe they cut down a tree to print this page? Where’s Al Gore when you need him!

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody’s ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible argum ents or facts.
This would be true if they were talking about the evolution theory. I can’t believe these guys think there are scientifically credible arguments for the idea that all life came from nothing, 18 billion years ago. What are they thinking?

Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields…
The truth is that many scientists have come to understand who butters their bread. They have to support the evolution theory or lose their grant money. Ask any number of scientists who have not kissed the sacred cow of evolution and have lost their job, grant money, or position at a university. The list grows every day. See video number 7 for much more on this.

…better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say thing that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comme nt or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can’t work as pr omised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars and imperil national security,…
I agree that science should inform policy, but evolution has nothing to do with science. And what on earth does the evolution theory have to do with a missile defense system? There’s nothing of value in the field of science that has come because of the evolution theory. Even if the theory were true, it’s absolutely useless as far as science is concerned.

…you won’t hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration’s antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, t hat’s not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either – what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed?
Here’s their altar call. If we don’t teach evolution it will waste billions of dollars and we will all be vulnerable to attack from the bad-guys. So, these editors are setting themselves up as the saviors of the nation by presenting their one-sided elitist and idiotic view of evolution. Slash the budget? Excellent idea! If the National Science Foundation truly dealt with science instead of defended this evolution theory with religious fervor, I’d be in favor of supporting it. Their main goal seems to be defending their dogma against the infidels, the creationists.

This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools’ Day.
Excellent day for an atheistic evolutionist to begin looking at what he really believes. The Bible says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Anyone who believes they came from a rock is a fool. Tell the editors, or any other evolutionist for that matter, I’d be honored to debate them in front of any university with half of my brain tied behind my back. Call our office to schedule a time; I’ll even take on ten at a time.

They may want to watch some of our previous debates before they agree to such an event. I’ve had ninety debates now, and have won them easily every time. Not because I’m smarter; but because I’m right and they’re wrong. Check out the debates for yourself
www.drdino.com

Aug 02, 2007
Gallery

Tinbad Cold Hearted

Quote by EternalParadoxPeople deny evolution because of they hold misconceptions about what the theory of evolution claims. Religious conservatives argue that evolution leaves out the existence of God as the Creator, when in fact evolutionary theory makes absolutely no claims about where life comes from, only how it changes over time.

Evolution and God are not mutually necessarily mutually exclusive.

Basically to make people feel beter, you can tell them. God Exists, evolution was created by god to work as a type of universal adaptation. Like a photoshop program >:3

Signature
Image
Artists-Viewers-United, Doujin Arena, DragonsLovers, Ice-and-Snow, Gekkostate, Nocturnal-MTs

Aug 02, 2007
Gallery

alexjohnc3

Psychoblobassassin, no one is going to bother with you if all you can do is copy large amounts of text and paste it into a forum. I know it's hard, but making original arguments is a good thing.

I might as well reply to at least the first few sentences.

Quote: Lets take the question of survival of the fittest , which is one of the things that Evolutionists believe as true.
Modern evolutionists have tried to distance themselves from this concept due to the obvious negative consequences of the social realm.

No, "evolutionists" don't try to distance themselves from the concept of survival of the fittest. Whether or not survival of the fittest should be practiced among humans is irrelevant to whether or not it is a force that drives evolution. Basically, just because it exists doesn't mean the humans who are the strongest should survive, while everyone else should die. That's like saying just because animals are sometimes cannibals humans should go around eating each other sometimes.

Aug 02, 2007
Gallery

marfish14

You have taken the expression "Survival of the Fittest", too literaly. It refers to species that live because of certain traits that help them to survive. If a mutation helps a certain animal it to be more beneficial to it, then perhaps it outlives its species it mutated from. If we are talking about animals that reproduce by intercourse, then the less efficient species will eventually give way too the mutated one as the trait is passed to the offspring. One example of a beneficial mutation is when a bacteria or virus becomes immune to antibiotics. This would indeed help it to be more efficient and a case of Survival of the Fittest". Also, we have found bones leading up to todays modern day animals. We have also traced humans back quite a ways. Perhaps we cannot test to see how the earth was formed, but we have seen planets forming out in space. The best place to look for such things are in nebulas where there is plenty of matter to be used in forming a planet or star. Though you say that creationism has testable areas, you have not presented anything that is testible. Science is always changing, of course things are going to be prooved true and untrue during the years. Saturns rings were thought to be solid at a certain time, niow we know them to be composed of space debry. Scientific theories are not based on nothing, it is usually through much observation and perhaps complex mathematics, that they come up with an educated guess as to what is happening. Mathematics can be quite specific though, but these theories dont always stand true, string theory is under much research and speculation right now but the laws are specific, but may not be true to this universe. Anyway, science bases its theories on something while the bible is not. It is no wonder that schools choose science, teaching them about the world and what it has to offer. Your right that we can test how old the earth is to some extent as the oldest rock found on earth is said to be 4.4 billion years old. Your argument completely ignored almost all the evidence leading to the scientific theories we have today, and I would like to see some of the evidence you have prooving creationism.

merged: 08-03-2007 ~ 07:36am
Scientists would not use carbon dating if it were so erratic. Scientists will only believe something is true if it has been tested many, many times and come up with the same answer. If carbon dating had such different reading each time, scientists would not use it. Anyway, scientists have created life in laboritories from scratch, almost. They have been able to been able to create a membrane and a protein that could duplicate itself, not at the same time of course.

Aug 02, 2007
Gallery

ProgramZERO The Lost Generation

Quote by questforuThis is about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. I know that the Earth isn't a closed system, but try considering the universe itself. Depending on what you believe as how the world start, but I'm guessing it's the Big Bang theory. According to that, the whole universe started as one infinitisimally small point before time begins, then BANG and the rest is history. This theory is supported by the currently observed redshifts. So taking that into account, yes the Earth itself isn't a closed system, but the whole universe is, and Earth is part of it. So with that in mind, we are a closed system. Of course this is only a theory, but then so is the theory of evolution, so they more or less carries the same weight.

Well, I'm no expert but I do believe even if the Universe is a closed system, the Universe will take a MASSIVE amount of time before it reaches equilibrium since the Universe is HUGE.

Quote: Also, I'm not just talking crap when I'm saying that we still need a lot more time to evolve to what we are now. I'm sure that you've know about "Darwin and the Eye". In the later section of his book "On the Origin of Species" how he wondered rhetorically how an organ delicate such as a human eye can be formed through natural evolution. This, of course, by no means was to disapprove his own work, but it's some food for thought.

Well, the evolution of the eye isn't as complicated as one might think. The first life on Earth fed off the light shining from the sun hence they actually had simple light-sensitive organs, "eyes", if you will, which they relied on for finding their food source. This/these tiny organ/s formed the stepping stone for the life that came afterwards towards evolving (a) more complex and efficient eye/s.

Quote: I don't have anything personal against evolution, I just brought one of the competing theory up to argue against it. The theory of evolution is quite sophisticated, but now as it stands, it is still incomplete (if it is and have hard evidence it would be the Law of Evolution, not a theory). One can only hope things clear up as science is more advanced.

Actually, a scientific law is below a scientific theory. I read this up on Wikipedia and I myself don't fully understand it. I think it is because a scientific theory is composed partly of several scientific laws.

Quote by priincessdo u mean that we're the evolution of monkey?
if it's true, why there r still monkeys here n why they dont change?

Okay. Evolution doesn't work that way. The evolution of animals doesn't just take one path, it can take several paths. Certain apes eventually evolved into humans and other apes evolved into other kinds of apes (yes, humans are classified as apes). That's called divergent evolution.

Quote: it's already thousand years rite?

The passage of time doesn't always mean that large-scale evolution will occur.

Quote: u didnt see when God created humans, so u cant thinking like that, beside, monkeys r stupid, they would never smarter than us.

Well, we do have a record of skeletal remains that show different evolutionary paths. Not only that, some apes aren't as stupid as you may think, they may not be smarter than us but they are smarter than your average animal.

Quote by Psychoblobassassin...

Shorten this post and then we'll talk. BTW, I can already see some of the bull you have to offer so I'm looking forward to your next SHORTER NON-COPY-AND-PASTE post. Thank you.

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

Currently watching: Naruto
Aug 03, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

priincess ?doing fun

so we cant be evoluted from animals

Signature
Image

Currently watching: Detective Conan
Aug 04, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

ProgramZERO The Lost Generation

Quote by priincessso we cant be evoluted from animals

What do you mean?

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

Currently watching: Naruto
Aug 04, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

Espada

Quote by PsychoblobassassinWild dogs introduced to Australia are endangering native species because they are more aggressive and have no natural enemies. Sounds like "survival of the fittest" doesn't it? If we are also animals who have evolved according to this basic principle of evolution, why shouldn't we extend this principle into the social realm? Why shouldn't we eliminate weaker classes of humans which are competing for what we feel we need?

Because we are usually smart enough to know that this would be counter-productive - co-operating with (or exploiting) our lessers is much more economical. Because such would result in wars of elimination and genocide, which always ultimately fail and leave both sides worse off than before. Because the average human being does not emulate dogs and other intellectually-lesser beasts.

Quote: Evolution taken to its logical conclusion leads to a savage world akin to Hitler's Nazi Germany when the strong determine what is right.

You misunderstand the context in which 'survival of the fittest' is used within evolutionary theory. It dictates that those unable to adapt will naturally die out. It does not mean you go about actively killing everything you deem weak.

Quote: Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

Evidence, please? It is my understanding that Young Earth Creationism has long been largely refuted, discredited, and looked upon with scorn by the scientific and religious communities alike. It is laughable to believe in a 6000-year-old Earth when we have abundant evidence of the contrary, such as fossil records.

Quote: Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation.

I find it at once amusing and irritating that you practically wrote an essay before coming to this point, yet failed to give a single shred of evidence in support of it.

NOTE: Found part of the reason your post is so bloody wrong. The entire segment preceeding the merged part? You repeated it. All 6 paragraphs.

Aug 05, 2007
Gallery

kingray100 Ryu,the half demon

I think evolution is an acceptable theory but must be remembered that if we are going to believe this,then you must understand that God(Christian god) probably made everything the way he did and using evolution to do it.Dont rule out the religious section,because evolution is actually something that should be working with religion.

Aug 05, 2007
Gallery

alexjohnc3

Quote by kingray100I think evolution is an acceptable theory but must be remembered that if we are going to believe this,then you must understand that God(Christian god) probably made everything the way he did and using evolution to do it.Dont rule out the religious section,because evolution is actually something that should be working with religion.

What you don't understand is that evolution can't "work" with Christianity. It can't work against it either. It has nothing to do with Christianity. It's like saying gravity or any other scientific theory should work with Christianity. If you want to accept evolution's validity and your religion, good for you, but don't act like evolution can work with or against your beliefs.

Aug 06, 2007
Gallery

EternalParadox Retired Moderator .:Enigma Mod:.

Quote: Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world.

That's not true. Evolution makes no claim either way about a higher being. It does not claim that God exists, nor does it claim that God is not intervening.

Evolution is merely the theory of the process of change in a species and how that process functions. It makes no attempt at addressing the purpose of why such a process exists. For all we know evolution could be the method God has chosen to shape the species of this world.

People need to stop confusing what Evolution does and does not address and stop claiming that Evolution dismisses the notion of a God. It does not.

EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator

Aug 06, 2007
Gallery

ProgramZERO The Lost Generation

Quote by kingray100I think evolution is an acceptable theory but must be remembered that if we are going to believe this,then you must understand that God(Christian god) probably made everything the way he did and using evolution to do it.Dont rule out the religious section,because evolution is actually something that should be working with religion.

Okay, let's say that a higher deity is involved in the evolutionary process. How do you know it is the Christian God that is involved in the evolutionary process and how do you know it isn't Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, Brahman, Allah, or the Invisible Green Dragon that is involved in the process?

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

Currently watching: Naruto
Aug 06, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

junto

people have different beliefs, and what they believe is the truth to them. I'm a Muslim and I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I believe that what I believe is right but someone else might not think so.

don't worry the site will be up soon
Signature
Image
http://junto.sytes.net

Aug 06, 2007
Gallery

sirrocky

i belive in the theory of evolution because it seems the most logical explantion out there, and i'm also an atheist, but even if i myself dont believe in god, that is my choice but there is no way to know if im right or wrong, but the choice to believe or not to believe is up to oneself.

Aug 06, 2007
Gallery

yothsothgoth You came along and cut me loose

Quote by PsychoblobassassinWild dogs introduced to Australia are endangering native species because they are more aggressive and have no natural enemies. Sounds like "survival of the fittest" doesn't it?

Ok, yeah... survival of the fittest comes from, as many here have said... those who cannot adapt will die out, or natural selection. However, the indroduction of a foreign, invasive, and carnivorious species doesn't have anything to do with natural selection or survival of the fittest because that has been overridden. I say this because humans are the only species on the planet which actually bring non-native species to other parts of the world and impacts the ecosystem. This, to me, sounds like artificial "natural selection" since not just one animal "accidently" found its way to Austrailia, there were many that were brought over and established a breeding population. That was very unnatural and too quick for the 'usual' natural selection to happen.

Quote: If we are also animals who have evolved according to this basic principle of evolution, why shouldn't we extend this principle into the social realm? Why shouldn't we eliminate weaker classes of humans which are competing for what we feel we need?

What you're talking about is more animal management, than natural selection. Also, natural selection isn't a "social class" its a physical 'fitness'. Read a book on evolution, any one would let you know that. That would be more related to letting the people in areas of famine die, not disposing of the lower social classes. That in itself sounds like natural selection. Move to another place or die. Animals in the desert and even savanas in Africa do that too. For human "animal" management, you would have to think of people as animals instead of humans... and that is sometimes very difficult to do.

Money in the ecological world means nothing but a scrap of colored paper/cloth. If you can't find food, water, shelter, and aren't able to defend yourself from a predator is what you should think about. I think that most of us here are not "fit" at all. I don't just mean in the physical sense either, I mean that most humans can't take care of their basic needs anymore. If there weren't as many of us on the earth to create this "artifical fitness" with the economy and whatnot, there would be few humans here. (Just my opinion.)

Also, my view on evolution: Some evolution is forced by humans (what I'd call unnatural selection in which a change is brought on because of an introduction of a species that would have no fesible way of making it to another place without a HUGE global migratory change going over thousands of miles of ocean and land distance) and some is natural, like horses and hippos slowly evolving from rats and whatnot. I say humans have caused unnatural selection because there would be no way that certain invasive species could possibly get into certain areas of the globe so quickly. See, naturally some species just accidently find their way to other places and establish populations there. However, it usually takes a long time of migratory changes, not in a few years because people decided to introduce dogs into an ecosystem not prepared for a large, carniverous, invasive species with a large breeding population.

Also, humans have caused the unnatural evolution of bacteria. There are numerous articles on how the overusage of penicillian and antibacterial soap is forcing a change in the bacteria and viruses. Yes, evolution happens naturally very quicly for bacteria and viruses because of their quick reproductive cycles. However, naturally (without the penicillian or antibacterial soap usuage) they wouldn't need to evolve because they've kept their same structures and abilities (heat resistance, cold resistance... etc.) for a long time. You also need to take into account all the viruses and bacteria that humans have used in research and the ones that they have created and manipulated in labs. "Hello", do you really think that they all stayed in the lab? There have been numberous articles and even documentaries about smallpox being created by humans on purpose (but that's another thread starter). To me, evolution is being corrupted and horribly manipulated by humans. Its difficult to see "real" evolution since we're only here for a short time anyways.

(I hope I made sense and didn't sound like an idiot. ^_^' Thanks for listening.)

Signature Image
Admin of:~Hellsing~HardcoreGamers~Wings Lovers~
Newest Scans: Lori Knight and Vampire Hunter D: Manga 4 Cover, Bloodlust/Demon Death Chase, Lina

Currently watching: Ghost Hound, Berserk, D Gray-Man
Aug 06, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

DarkRoseofHell ???????

Nah, didn't sound like an idiot (at least to me) I have to agree with... pretty much everything. What you can call evolution in a bacteria, it's also one reason why HIV (AIDS) is a really hard virus to fight against because it can take on many forms once it reaches some "problems" (in the virus's case)

Evolution before it was slapped around by humans took a LONG time... (supposedly) then again, I don't live forever (nor will I want to)

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

Aug 07, 2007
Gallery

kingray100 Ryu,the half demon

Quote by alexjohnc3
Quote by kingray100I think evolution is an acceptable theory but must be remembered that if we are going to believe this,then you must understand that God(Christian god) probably made everything the way he did and using evolution to do it.Dont rule out the religious section,because evolution is actually something that should be working with religion.

What you don't understand is that evolution can't "work" with Christianity. It can't work against it either. It has nothing to do with Christianity. It's like saying gravity or any other scientific theory should work with Christianity. If you want to accept evolution's validity and your religion, good for you, but don't act like evolution can work with or against your beliefs.

Thats not completely true.People look for ways of how God could have made the human species and this might be a possibility of his plans.But,some things mentioned in evolution are kind of stretched.(Cant remember what)

merged: 08-07-2007 ~ 08:58pm

Quote by ProgramZERO
Quote by kingray100I think evolution is an acceptable theory but must be remembered that if we are going to believe this,then you must understand that God(Christian god) probably made everything the way he did and using evolution to do it.Dont rule out the religious section,because evolution is actually something that should be working with religion.
Okay, let's say that a higher deity is involved in the evolutionary process. How do you know it is the Christian God that is involved in the evolutionary process and how do you know it isn't Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, Brahman, Allah, or the Invisible Green Dragon that is involved in the process?

Because concerning the religion with the most historical evidence,i think that it is very possible.thing of the thing i said as another theory.Those other religions may exist but it doesnt mean they were made up by some statue in the old days.Again,out of all the religions,Christianity has recovered the most evidence, new and old.

merged: 08-07-2007 ~ 08:59pm

Quote by ProgramZERO
Quote by kingray100I think evolution is an acceptable theory but must be remembered that if we are going to believe this,then you must understand that God(Christian god) probably made everything the way he did and using evolution to do it.Dont rule out the religious section,because evolution is actually something that should be working with religion.
Okay, let's say that a higher deity is involved in the evolutionary process. How do you know it is the Christian God that is involved in the evolutionary process and how do you know it isn't Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, Brahman, Allah, or the Invisible Green Dragon that is involved in the process?

Aug 07, 2007
Gallery

ProgramZERO The Lost Generation

Quote by kingray100Because concerning the religion with the most historical evidence,i think that it is very possible.thing of the thing i said as another theory.Those other religions may exist but it doesnt mean they were made up by some statue in the old days.Again,out of all the religions,Christianity has recovered the most evidence, new and old.

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. What evidence?

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

Currently watching: Naruto
Aug 08, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

DarkRoseofHell ???????

Just to state out, one of the few reasons why evolution is opposed by the Christianity (mainly) is because of the Adam and Eve event or so to speak. Evolution in which we weren't always considerably "humans" and yadi yada... Don't make a big fuss about this but it is one of the few reasons...

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

Aug 08, 2007
Gallery

kingray100 Ryu,the half demon

Quote by ProgramZERO
Quote by kingray100Because concerning the religion with the most historical evidence,i think that it is very possible.thing of the thing i said as another theory.Those other religions may exist but it doesnt mean they were made up by some statue in the old days.Again,out of all the religions,Christianity has recovered the most evidence, new and old.
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. What evidence?

I guess i didnt didnt say anything on this thread,same with mishmash,about evidence.Go look on the other popular threads and you will find loads of evidence that me and other people have pointed out because this thread isnt exactly my favorite.(not to mention theres too much things to say in this thread to mention ALL of the evidence.

Aug 08, 2007
Gallery

Gau

Speaking scientifically, evolution is NOT fact. Which is why it is called Evolutionary THEORY. Don't think this means I don't hold evolution to be true or the most likely reasoning for change in species and its other claims, however, science declares very, very, VERY little to be FACT. Science only can say that one hypothosis is more likely than other hypothoses given the data so far. A theory is a strong hypothosis, which is backed up by much data and is generally held to likely be true based on the evidence.

Now, I think evolution is the likely case of what it deals with, its also possible that an entirely different, unknown, situation is the case, of which we simply havn't figured out yet, and its possible that some evidence may be found to disprove evolution at some point, maybe, and then we'll move on... maybe. Supposedly several aspects of Darwin's original evolutionary theory were proven wrong or something, but the current form has taken that into account and changed a bit.

Anyway, as to why people don't believe it. many reasons, some people just don't believe things, some people think that their religious beliefs conflict with it, and some just don't want to believe or happen to be ignorant of it, or simply have been trained to believe otherwise.

Aug 08, 2007
Gallery

DarkRoseofHell ???????

Quote: Speaking scientifically, evolution is NOT fact. Which is why it is called Evolutionary THEORY. Don't think this means I don't hold evolution to be true or the most likely reasoning for change in species and its other claims, however, science declares very, very, VERY little to be FACT. Science only can say that one hypothosis is more likely than other hypothoses given the data so far. A theory is a strong hypothosis, which is backed up by much data and is generally held to likely be true based on the evidence.

That sounds umm... weird... If science declares little fact, so... me chucking a bottle and it flying away isn't true? Me punching the wall and making a dent isn't true? We typing on our computers or laptops and make sensible letters because we can see isn't true? I mean come on... if it's that little... then what the heck are we doing alive?

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

Aug 08, 2007
Gallery

page 2 of 17 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 17 Next » 386 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.