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 5 of 17 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17 Next » 386 total items

ChinoMareno This is a girl in the picture

Darwin made observations that are barely scientific, though the idea's explored are provoking and somewhat plausable atheist seize upon it as undeniable proof. I've had alot of poeple try to convince me about it merits but i think they are easily convinced. If evolution was definitive it'd be an obvious and widely accepted but atm i view it as possible not proven.

Im not religious, when i read the old testament i can't believe how immoral god is and how western society's laws could be based on such a thing.

Your avatar is an image which reflects your personality or an aspect of it. Minitokyo recommends against putting a female avatar if you are a male, and likewise for the other gender.

Aug 14, 2007
Gallery

Mnemeth Rider of the Currents

Quote by Cagari1.People accept it as a scientific law when technically, it's still in the theory stage.
Yet many of them don't want to accept the fact that somebody is actually over them and decides to believe in evolution instead. A scietific law is a theory verified by enough observations and experiments and stands the test of time. Technically, we can't observe or experiment on evolution.

No argument on points 1 and 3 since most peopel are ignorant of the scientific method and that how it actually works seeing as all those "laws" are not unbreakable they just have not been broken yet. As for point two it has more holes than a good sized swiss cheese. Don't compare Creationism with Evolution, cause its apples and oranges. Creationism defines the Who (God) and What (pretty much everything) while Evolution attempts to define the How.

Quote by Cagari2. Evolution does go against the second law of Thermodynamics, which states "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." This basically means that no matter how complex a system is, its entrophy(degeneration), over time, will continue to increase, along with the loss of more usable energy and result of greater disorder. We see this in life everywhere: a brand new car slowly turns into an old one, people get old and die, machines break down and need repairing or sometimes are beyond repair. Evolution states that everything gets better over time, but it's going against a very important scientific law while doing that, and since it's only a theory, that's a little harsh do you not think?

First see the comment about scientifc "Laws " in my first paragraph. Second evolution is change and not necessarily improvement (even though many people think that is what it means) so in that vein it does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Quote by Cagari3. If evolution were true, there would be many transitional forms of fossils. Yet, scientists haven't found even one. If we were half ape/monkey at one point, we would have found millions of skeletons like that. And if fish really turned into birds, then we would have many of these half-bird, half-fish skeletons. The fossil record is probably the biggest blow to the theory of evolution. Even Darwin said it:
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have fomerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection wihch can be urged against my theory."
Also:
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He woh rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Darwin had an excuse to write this though-relatively few fossils have been found during the time of his life, but today, we don't have any excuses.
And keep in mind that "species" and "kinds" are different. A kind would be a wolf, and a species of wolf would be a dog, but the origin of a new species within a kind, however, is not the same as changing one kind into another.

This is not necessarily true. You assume that the changes occurred gradually because that is the popular way of thinking about evolution but in reality there is no evidence that the evolution of a species has to take a long time. A simple genetic change has been proven to drastically affect the development of a species. As to why that change occurred well then you get back to the Who or What.

I beleive the above statements also answer to the rest of your points

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Aug 14, 2007
Gallery

kingray100 Ryu,the half demon

Quote by Mnemeth
Quote by Cagari1.People accept it as a scientific law when technically, it's still in the theory stage.
Yet many of them don't want to accept the fact that somebody is actually over them and decides to believe in evolution instead. A scietific law is a theory verified by enough observations and experiments and stands the test of time. Technically, we can't observe or experiment on evolution.
No argument on points 1 and 3 since most peopel are ignorant of the scientific method and that how it actually works seeing as all those "laws" are not unbreakable they just have not been broken yet. As for point two it has more holes than a good sized swiss cheese. Don't compare Creationism with Evolution, cause its apples and oranges. Creationism defines the Who (God) and What (pretty much everything) while Evolution attempts to define the How.

Quote by Cagari2. Evolution does go against the second law of Thermodynamics, which states "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." This basically means that no matter how complex a system is, its entrophy(degeneration), over time, will continue to increase, along with the loss of more usable energy and result of greater disorder. We see this in life everywhere: a brand new car slowly turns into an old one, people get old and die, machines break down and need repairing or sometimes are beyond repair. Evolution states that everything gets better over time, but it's going against a very important scientific law while doing that, and since it's only a theory, that's a little harsh do you not think?
First see the comment about scientifc "Laws " in my first paragraph. Second evolution is change and not necessarily improvement (even though many people think that is what it means) so in that vein it does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Quote by Cagari3. If evolution were true, there would be many transitional forms of fossils. Yet, scientists haven't found even one. If we were half ape/monkey at one point, we would have found millions of skeletons like that. And if fish really turned into birds, then we would have many of these half-bird, half-fish skeletons. The fossil record is probably the biggest blow to the theory of evolution. Even Darwin said it:
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have fomerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection wihch can be urged against my theory."
Also:
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He woh rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Darwin had an excuse to write this though-relatively few fossils have been found during the time of his life, but today, we don't have any excuses.
And keep in mind that "species" and "kinds" are different. A kind would be a wolf, and a species of wolf would be a dog, but the origin of a new species within a kind, however, is not the same as changing one kind into another.
This is not necessarily true. You assume that the changes occurred gradually because that is the popular way of thinking about evolution but in reality there is no evidence that the evolution of a species has to take a long time. A simple genetic change has been proven to drastically affect the development of a species. As to why that change occurred well then you get back to the Who or What.

I beleive the above statements also answer to the rest of your points

Everything Cagari said makes sense.They obviously have scientific knowledge to the extent of which many atheists dont today.And the thing you mentioned about evolution always not being about improvements,then give me an example of when there wasnt an improvement done during this supposed evolution phase,please.

Aug 14, 2007
Gallery

marfish14

Quote by CagariHere are the things that make evolution questionable:
1.People accept it as a scientific law when technically, it's still in the theory stage.
Yet many of them don't want to accept the fact that somebody is actually over them and decides to believe in evolution instead. A scietific law is a theory verified by enough observations and experiments and stands the test of time. Technically, we can't observe or experiment on evolution.
2. Evolution does go against the second law of Thermodynamics, which states "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." This basically means that no matter how complex a system is, its entrophy(degeneration), over time, will continue to increase, along with the loss of more usable energy and result of greater disorder. We see this in life everywhere: a brand new car slowly turns into an old one, people get old and die, machines break down and need repairing or sometimes are beyond repair. Evolution states that everything gets better over time, but it's going against a very important scientific law while doing that, and since it's only a theory, that's a little harsh do you not think?
3. If evolution were true, there would be many transitional forms of fossils. Yet, scientists haven't found even one. If we were half ape/monkey at one point, we would have found millions of skeletons like that. And if fish really turned into birds, then we would have many of these half-bird, half-fish skeletons. The fossil record is probably the biggest blow to the theory of evolution. Even Darwin said it:
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have fomerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection wihch can be urged against my theory."
Also:
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He woh rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Darwin had an excuse to write this though-relatively few fossils have been found during the time of his life, but today, we don't have any excuses.
And keep in mind that "species" and "kinds" are different. A kind would be a wolf, and a species of wolf would be a dog, but the origin of a new species within a kind, however, is not the same as changing one kind into another.
4. If evolution is true, then why don't we see apes changing into humans today? Why don't we see other animals slowly change into others? Surely, if it were true, then we would have many witnesses even today.
5. Natural selection is a common fact, not evolution. Just because we live and another species doesn't doesn't mean that we have evolved to be better than them. Adapting to a place is not the same as evolving. If I move to the Sahara Desert, I slowly adapt to the environment, not change into a totally different human being. The people who have lived there for their whole lives have will have darker skin than I, because they have adapted to the environment, not evolved. Besides, mutations are mostly harmful. As more time passes, we see more harmful mutations sprouting up. Mutations also usually make it harder for an animal to survive. Natural selection itself produces no new characteristics, and rather, it weeds out undesirable characteristics. It keeps species strong and healthy by suppressing mutations, not encouraging them.
4. Most of the time, this theory states that everything started with a Big Bang. Imagine this: An atom bomb explodes on a city. A billion years later, there is a thriving city with one of the world's largest populations, and it got there without anybody building the city in the first place! If you believe that chance created this complex, beautiful world of ours and everything in it and the cosmos around us, that would be like you taking a can with dust chalk in it and if you shake it long enough, it will eventually make a stick of chalk!
Now what is wrong with evolution is this:
Evolution is accepted as scientfic law because some of us don't want to realize that there is Somebody whom we have to be accountable to, or just don't think there is enough evidence for Him to exist. If you look at the world around you, with all that order and creativity, all of that couldn't have been created by chance now, could it have been? Look at your girlfriend or boyfriend, or your best friend if you don't have either. Could somebody like them have been created by evolution? It's very cold to say that. Your best friend/boyfriend/girlfriend were created at random, and it's totally random that you guys met and are now together/good friends.
Yes, I am a Christian, and am not afraid to say I believe and love a true and Eternal God, and He loves me too. Only through knowing Him have I found out what I'm really here for.
Technically, Creation and Evolution are both theories and are both accepted by faith. Science can tell us which one is the most reasonable to believe in, but it cannot reinforce or undermine them. Which one would you rather believe in: the one which says everything was created from nothing, from total randomness? The one that says we are animals and nothing else? Or the one which says a God that loves you decided to make a world for you to live in? The one which says there is actually a God? A real one? I would rather accept the one which says I was created, rather the one which says I was made by chance.

Actually, your wrong about not being able to see evolution. We have seen simple life forms such as viruses go through evolution in our lifetime, we call some of them, superbugs as they have become immune to antibiotics. I dont see what thermodynamics has to do with evolution, this is not philosophy, you cannot just apply a law to something that has nothing to do with it. This is a law of "Thermodynamics", not evolution. I do not know where you get your information from, but scientists do have many transition fossils, heres a list:
Fish to Amphibians
Tiktaalik roseae
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Panderichthys
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Pederpes finneyae
Eryops
Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals
Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Yanoconodon
Diapsid reptiles to birds
Yixianosaurus
Pedopenna
Archeopteryx
Changchengornis
Confuciusornis
Ichthyornis
Evolution of whales
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Basilosaurus
Eurhinodelphis
Mammalodon
Evolution of the horse
Hyracotherium
Mesohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus
Non-human apes to modern humans
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Also, we did not evolve from apes, we have the same ancester as apes. Natural selection favours the more efficient creatures, so when you have an animal that went through mutation and came out with a trate that helped it, it will survive more than its counterpart and mate eventually having far more of its kind than the original and eventually the older kind would give way to the new ones through mating. All together, this universe isnt all that complex. Through your explination, you find it odd that the universe should have created itself, yet you do not find it odd that god created himself. The world is complex, but do you need an intelligent being to do such a thing? If you did your research you might find that the science describing such a universe is all here. Evolution isnt built on a hollow structure. Evolution has lots of proof, or it wouldnt be so widely believed by people. Creation cannot be compared to science because its theories are not built on anything and do not describe the world we live in.

merged: 08-15-2007 ~ 04:59am
Contradicted myself about the complexity of our world and the universe. I guess the universe could be considered complex, even more so if string theory is proved true.

Aug 14, 2007
Gallery

BobaFett2ha Mandalore

If you're wondering about how evolution could make things worse, just look at our own species. We got a nice brain, but everything else went bad. We lost our body hair that could keep us warm. We are more susceptible to disease, and need to cook all of our food in order to avoid it. The list goes on.

And, marfish14, string theory is actually not about making the universe seem complex; it's quite the opposite. It is incredibly simple and elegant that all matter and forces are manifested through the string and its different types of vibration.

"The ugly and thin cattle ate up the seven sleek and fat cattle." - Genesis 41:4

Aug 14, 2007
Gallery

ProgramZERO The Lost Generation

Quote by kingray100This is also ridiculous!ProgramZero,you seem to place doubt over everything!

I do so because nothing has proven the divinity of Jesus and there is no absolute evidence that Jesus once existed.

Quote: Understand that scientists researched the behavior of these people through documents and manuscripts,and even evidences through their building ability when thinking of irrelevant building strategies.

I understand that scientists have, according to you, researched the lying patters of people living during Jesus's lifetime. I'm just concerned over the fact that you've yet to present this research you speak of so much.

Quote: I accept the research offered by these brilliant scientists,and thats how i understand the lying pattern of these people.Period!Do you know who Lee is?he was an atheist questioning the bible more than you have already!He didnt have the same opinion as the scholars nor did he expect to find proof,but he did!

Could you present this proof to me? And don't tell me to read his book, I'm asking you for proof.

Quote: What are you talking about?still an atheist?Hes a Christian now!Get your facts right,program!And no,I've just mentioned evidence you cant get your hands on,therefore making you want to ignore the evidence anyway.

Alright, list the evidence and number this list so that I may be convinced.

Quote: And yes,there is testimonies that mention seeing God after his supposed death,such as this Josephus character that I had already mentioned.

Those are unverifiable testimonies.

Quote: By the way,I looked at the site you posted and its not true.I have the book in my hands and the things said are different from what is said on the site.the author of the site you looked at was a person who assumed the person to be religious from the beginning when Lee clearly says on the next page of the supposed proof that he is religious,it says that he considered himself an atheist and thought God was made up in Mythology.

I don't care for Lee, I care for the book which makes unwarranted assumptions.

Quote: Did you ever watch the oreilly factor on fox,because if you have,I would like to be the religious O'reilly and straighten you up!(felt as if i needed to say that,is all.)

I need no straightening up. And no, I've never seen the O'Reilly Factor.

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

Currently watching: Naruto
Aug 15, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

marfish14

I wasnt really confounded by the fact that the universe maybe made of strings of energy, but more the idea of higher dimensions. Plank length black holes, worm holes, curled up microscopic dimensions. You must be involved in this research right, I hear its suicide for a physicist not to be these days. Have you heard of any new break throughs?

Aug 15, 2007
Gallery

ProgramZERO The Lost Generation

Quote by CagariHere are the things that make evolution questionable:
1.People accept it as a scientific law when technically, it's still in the theory stage.
Yet many of them don't want to accept the fact that somebody is actually over them and decides to believe in evolution instead. A scietific law is a theory verified by enough observations and experiments and stands the test of time. Technically, we can't observe or experiment on evolution.

Sure we can. We can look at bacteria that develop resistances to anti-biotics.

Quote: 2. Evolution does go against the second law of Thermodynamics, which states "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." This basically means that no matter how complex a system is, its entrophy(degeneration), over time, will continue to increase, along with the loss of more usable energy and result of greater disorder. We see this in life everywhere: a brand new car slowly turns into an old one, people get old and die, machines break down and need repairing or sometimes are beyond repair. Evolution states that everything gets better over time, but it's going against a very important scientific law while doing that, and since it's only a theory, that's a little harsh do you not think?

You're right except you forget one thing. Earth is NOT a closed, isolated system therefore the second law doesn't apply.

Quote: 3. If evolution were true, there would be many transitional forms of fossils. Yet, scientists haven't found even one. If we were half ape/monkey at one point, we would have found millions of skeletons like that. And if fish really turned into birds, then we would have many of these half-bird, half-fish skeletons. The fossil record is probably the biggest blow to the theory of evolution. Even Darwin said it:
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have fomerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection wihch can be urged against my theory."
Also:
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He woh rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Darwin had an excuse to write this though-relatively few fossils have been found during the time of his life, but today, we don't have any excuses.
And keep in mind that "species" and "kinds" are different. A kind would be a wolf, and a species of wolf would be a dog, but the origin of a new species within a kind, however, is not the same as changing one kind into another.

Look at the list provided by Marfish14. Thank you Marfish14.

Quote: 4. If evolution is true, then why don't we see apes changing into humans today? Why don't we see other animals slowly change into others? Surely, if it were true, then we would have many witnesses even today.

First of all, evolution isn't a linear process so, as a result, apes wouldn't necessarily evolve into humans. Second, macro-evolution is a long process which is why we must study micro-evolution in micro-organisms.

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

Currently watching: Naruto
Aug 15, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

Mnemeth Rider of the Currents

Quote by Kingray100Everything Cagari said makes sense.They obviously have scientific knowledge to the extent of which many atheists dont today.And the thing you mentioned about evolution always not being about improvements,then give me an example of when there wasnt an improvement done during this supposed evolution phase,please.

Not too sure what phase you are talking about but as for examples there are plenty. Think about how many creatures have died out due to becoming to specialized (sorry best description I could come up with). Creatures improve up to a point where they become far to specialized and even a minor alteration in the world or just their specific environment immediately changes those improvements into detriments.
Try size for example. It has a direct genetic link.
Why do you think the saber-toothed tigers vanished. They were apex predators capable of survival in extreme environments considering where their remains have been found and what the environment was supposedly like back then. They hit an evolutionary dead end because they became so specialized to be able to take down larger creatures that when those creatures disappeared/died off they were unable to switch to smaller more abundant prey while smaller felines that evolved along a separate path are still with us today in slightly different forms.

Quote by ProgramZEROI do so because nothing has proven the divinity of Jesus and there is no absolute evidence that Jesus once existed.

Actually as far as the historical figure of Jesus is concerned there is a fair amount of evidence that he or someone like him existed. This is also aided by the fact that Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet. As for the divinity well that question is faith based and has nothing to do with a scientific discussion unless you are trying to prove/disprove the existence of God.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Aug 15, 2007
Gallery

EternalParadox Retired Moderator .:Enigma Mod:.

Why are people comparing evolution to thermodynamics? They are entirely different fields of science and have little concerning each other.

Quote: 2. Evolution does go against the second law of Thermodynamics, which states "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." This basically means that no matter how complex a system is, its entrophy(degeneration), over time, will continue to increase, along with the loss of more usable energy and result of greater disorder. We see this in life everywhere: a brand new car slowly turns into an old one, people get old and die, machines break down and need repairing or sometimes are beyond repair. Evolution states that everything gets better over time, but it's going against a very important scientific law while doing that, and since it's only a theory, that's a little harsh do you not think?

Evolution does not state that everything "gets better" over time. It states that species will become different over time. Different does not mean better, as there have been plenty of species that have become extinct due to an unfavorable adaptation.

For the sake of high quality debate, lets all do a little research before posting to prevent ourselves from comparing apples to oranges. Entropy is about disorder. Evolution is merely about variation and says nothing about more or less disorder. Thermodynamics is not evidence against evolution.

EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator

Aug 15, 2007
Gallery

kingray100 Ryu,the half demon

Quote by marfish14
Quote by CagariHere are the things that make evolution questionable:
1.People accept it as a scientific law when technically, it's still in the theory stage.
Yet many of them don't want to accept the fact that somebody is actually over them and decides to believe in evolution instead. A scietific law is a theory verified by enough observations and experiments and stands the test of time. Technically, we can't observe or experiment on evolution.
2. Evolution does go against the second law of Thermodynamics, which states "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." This basically means that no matter how complex a system is, its entrophy(degeneration), over time, will continue to increase, along with the loss of more usable energy and result of greater disorder. We see this in life everywhere: a brand new car slowly turns into an old one, people get old and die, machines break down and need repairing or sometimes are beyond repair. Evolution states that everything gets better over time, but it's going against a very important scientific law while doing that, and since it's only a theory, that's a little harsh do you not think?
3. If evolution were true, there would be many transitional forms of fossils. Yet, scientists haven't found even one. If we were half ape/monkey at one point, we would have found millions of skeletons like that. And if fish really turned into birds, then we would have many of these half-bird, half-fish skeletons. The fossil record is probably the biggest blow to the theory of evolution. Even Darwin said it:
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have fomerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection wihch can be urged against my theory."
Also:
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He woh rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Darwin had an excuse to write this though-relatively few fossils have been found during the time of his life, but today, we don't have any excuses.
And keep in mind that "species" and "kinds" are different. A kind would be a wolf, and a species of wolf would be a dog, but the origin of a new species within a kind, however, is not the same as changing one kind into another.
4. If evolution is true, then why don't we see apes changing into humans today? Why don't we see other animals slowly change into others? Surely, if it were true, then we would have many witnesses even today.
5. Natural selection is a common fact, not evolution. Just because we live and another species doesn't doesn't mean that we have evolved to be better than them. Adapting to a place is not the same as evolving. If I move to the Sahara Desert, I slowly adapt to the environment, not change into a totally different human being. The people who have lived there for their whole lives have will have darker skin than I, because they have adapted to the environment, not evolved. Besides, mutations are mostly harmful. As more time passes, we see more harmful mutations sprouting up. Mutations also usually make it harder for an animal to survive. Natural selection itself produces no new characteristics, and rather, it weeds out undesirable characteristics. It keeps species strong and healthy by suppressing mutations, not encouraging them.
4. Most of the time, this theory states that everything started with a Big Bang. Imagine this: An atom bomb explodes on a city. A billion years later, there is a thriving city with one of the world's largest populations, and it got there without anybody building the city in the first place! If you believe that chance created this complex, beautiful world of ours and everything in it and the cosmos around us, that would be like you taking a can with dust chalk in it and if you shake it long enough, it will eventually make a stick of chalk!
Now what is wrong with evolution is this:
Evolution is accepted as scientfic law because some of us don't want to realize that there is Somebody whom we have to be accountable to, or just don't think there is enough evidence for Him to exist. If you look at the world around you, with all that order and creativity, all of that couldn't have been created by chance now, could it have been? Look at your girlfriend or boyfriend, or your best friend if you don't have either. Could somebody like them have been created by evolution? It's very cold to say that. Your best friend/boyfriend/girlfriend were created at random, and it's totally random that you guys met and are now together/good friends.
Yes, I am a Christian, and am not afraid to say I believe and love a true and Eternal God, and He loves me too. Only through knowing Him have I found out what I'm really here for.
Technically, Creation and Evolution are both theories and are both accepted by faith. Science can tell us which one is the most reasonable to believe in, but it cannot reinforce or undermine them. Which one would you rather believe in: the one which says everything was created from nothing, from total randomness? The one that says we are animals and nothing else? Or the one which says a God that loves you decided to make a world for you to live in? The one which says there is actually a God? A real one? I would rather accept the one which says I was created, rather the one which says I was made by chance.

Actually, your wrong about not being able to see evolution. We have seen simple life forms such as viruses go through evolution in our lifetime, we call some of them, superbugs as they have become immune to antibiotics. I dont see what thermodynamics has to do with evolution, this is not philosophy, you cannot just apply a law to something that has nothing to do with it. This is a law of "Thermodynamics", not evolution. I do not know where you get your information from, but scientists do have many transition fossils, heres a list:
Fish to Amphibians
Tiktaalik roseae
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Panderichthys
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Pederpes finneyae
Eryops
Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals
Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Yanoconodon
Diapsid reptiles to birds
Yixianosaurus
Pedopenna
Archeopteryx
Changchengornis
Confuciusornis
Ichthyornis
Evolution of whales
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Basilosaurus
Eurhinodelphis
Mammalodon
Evolution of the horse
Hyracotherium
Mesohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus
Non-human apes to modern humans
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Also, we did not evolve from apes, we have the same ancester as apes. Natural selection favours the more efficient creatures, so when you have an animal that went through mutation and came out with a trate that helped it, it will survive more than its counterpart and mate eventually having far more of its kind than the original and eventually the older kind would give way to the new ones through mating. All together, this universe isnt all that complex. Through your explination, you find it odd that the universe should have created itself, yet you do not find it odd that god created himself. The world is complex, but do you need an intelligent being to do such a thing? If you did your research you might find that the science describing such a universe is all here. Evolution isnt built on a hollow structure. Evolution has lots of proof, or it wouldnt be so widely believed by people. Creation cannot be compared to science because its theories are not built on anything and do not describe the world we live in.

merged: 08-15-2007 ~ 04:59am
Contradicted myself about the complexity of our world and the universe. I guess the universe could be considered complex, even more so if string theory is proved true.

wait wait wait!viruses dont arent even living organisms!how can they be classified as going through evolution?evolution,if im correct,only applies to the living.and you dont know if god created himself,nobody does,so get that out of your argument now since it doesnt prove anything.and the bible has everythiong to do with the world we live in,sir.I do believe God's message is to the people who roam the earth at all times until we all die off somehow.

merged: 08-15-2007 ~ 11:52pm

Quote by Mnemeth
Quote by Kingray100Everything Cagari said makes sense.They obviously have scientific knowledge to the extent of which many atheists dont today.And the thing you mentioned about evolution always not being about improvements,then give me an example of when there wasnt an improvement done during this supposed evolution phase,please.
Not too sure what phase you are talking about but as for examples there are plenty. Think about how many creatures have died out due to becoming to specialized (sorry best description I could come up with). Creatures improve up to a point where they become far to specialized and even a minor alteration in the world or just their specific environment immediately changes those improvements into detriments.
Try size for example. It has a direct genetic link.
Why do you think the saber-toothed tigers vanished. They were apex predators capable of survival in extreme environments considering where their remains have been found and what the environment was supposedly like back then. They hit an evolutionary dead end because they became so specialized to be able to take down larger creatures that when those creatures disappeared/died off they were unable to switch to smaller more abundant prey while smaller felines that evolved along a separate path are still with us today in slightly different forms.

Quote by ProgramZEROI do so because nothing has proven the divinity of Jesus and there is no absolute evidence that Jesus once existed.
Actually as far as the historical figure of Jesus is concerned there is a fair amount of evidence that he or someone like him existed. This is also aided by the fact that Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet. As for the divinity well that question is faith based and has nothing to do with a scientific discussion unless you are trying to prove/disprove the existence of God.

I see your point but the change from saber tooth tiger to cat is an adaption.If the saber toothed tiger truly died off completely,there would be no adapted forms of it such as the cat.I say this evolution adapted it to a smaller feline that suits its environment.What do you say?

merged: 08-16-2007 ~ 12:09am

Quote by ProgramZERO
Quote by kingray100This is also ridiculous!ProgramZero,you seem to place doubt over everything!
I do so because nothing has proven the divinity of Jesus and there is no absolute evidence that Jesus once existed.

Quote: Understand that scientists researched the behavior of these people through documents and manuscripts,and even evidences through their building ability when thinking of irrelevant building strategies.
I understand that scientists have, according to you, researched the lying patters of people living during Jesus's lifetime. I'm just concerned over the fact that you've yet to present this research you speak of so much.

Quote: I accept the research offered by these brilliant scientists,and thats how i understand the lying pattern of these people.Period!Do you know who Lee is?he was an atheist questioning the bible more than you have already!He didnt have the same opinion as the scholars nor did he expect to find proof,but he did!
Could you present this proof to me? And don't tell me to read his book, I'm asking you for proof.

Quote: What are you talking about?still an atheist?Hes a Christian now!Get your facts right,program!And no,I've just mentioned evidence you cant get your hands on,therefore making you want to ignore the evidence anyway.
Alright, list the evidence and number this list so that I may be convinced.

Quote: And yes,there is testimonies that mention seeing God after his supposed death,such as this Josephus character that I had already mentioned.
Those are unverifiable testimonies.

Quote: By the way,I looked at the site you posted and its not true.I have the book in my hands and the things said are different from what is said on the site.the author of the site you looked at was a person who assumed the person to be religious from the beginning when Lee clearly says on the next page of the supposed proof that he is religious,it says that he considered himself an atheist and thought God was made up in Mythology.
I don't care for Lee, I care for the book which makes unwarranted assumptions.

Quote: Did you ever watch the oreilly factor on fox,because if you have,I would like to be the religious O'reilly and straighten you up!(felt as if i needed to say that,is all.)

I need no straightening up. And no, I've never seen the O'Reilly Factor.

Wrong,Jesus is proven to have existed,so stop picking on old news.
How can I provide the evidence that other people have done?you do realize that im not a high ranked professor who has access to all the information in the world.your going to have to find a site on it or something because i didnt tell these scientists to do the thing that they did.And i can prove that Lee was an atheist by quoting the exact words said in the book.
"For much of my life I was a skeptic.In fact,I considered myself an atheist.To me, there was far too much evidence that God was merely a product of wishful thinking,of ancient mythology,of primitive superstition.How could there be a loving God if he consigned people to hell just for not believing him?How could miracles contravene the basic laws of nature?"
There's more on how he questioned God but that was just a piece of it.Page 15 of the book if you want to be exact.
And the book does not make unwarranted mistakes just because your not there to read it.
To end things,the O'reilly factor is on the foxnews channel at 8pm.Its a very good show and oreilly is the smarteset guy I know.Doesnt touch on religious matters though...at least not yet.I would like it if he ran for president,hes that good.

Aug 15, 2007
Gallery

DarkRoseofHell ???????

Quote: wait wait wait!viruses dont arent even living organisms!how can they be classified as going through evolution?evolution,if im correct,only applies to the living.and you dont know if god created himself,nobody does,so get that out of your argument now since it doesnt prove anything.and the bible has everythiong to do with the world we live in,sir.I do believe God's message is to the people who roam the earth at all times until we all die off somehow.

Whoa whoa whoa, viruses and bacterias... look at them, the only reason why virus's aren't classified living is beause they don't react to the surrounding and such things. They're still organic... Oh yes, and in terms of my english language and biology knowledge, bacteria and viruses are different...

Quote: I do believe God's message is to the people who roam the earth at all times until we all die off somehow.

Believe... oh yes, believe everything, please do so, now go stone the people who work on the day of sabbath...

Umm... I don't think you understand the random mutations in a body in which allows or disallows survival, if two mothers were to born two seperate baby, they're both different, right? Saying it like you did is the same way to say that people are all the same...

Quote by kingray100Wrong,Jesus is proven to have existed,so stop picking on old news.

I'll answer the same thing I did with the other thread...

Quote by DarkRoseofHellHey, do you know jesus's DNA signature? Do you know if they found it's skeletal remains and had a DNA check to confirm it's jesus?

Quote: How can I provide the evidence that other people have done?you do realize that im not a high ranked professor who has access to all the information in the world.

Nor does a professor has access to all the information in the world, nor does anyone in the world has accessed to all the information in the world...

Quote: And i can prove that Lee was an atheist by quoting the exact words said in the book.
"For much of my life I was a skeptic.In fact,I considered myself an atheist.To me, there was far too much evidence that God was merely a product of wishful thinking,of ancient mythology,of primitive superstition.How could there be a loving God if he consigned people to hell just for not believing him?How could miracles contravene the basic laws of nature?"
There's more on how he questioned God but that was just a piece of it.Page 15 of the book if you want to be exact.

I don't know, but I do see how that adds to any of the debate, why? Cause even Program said he doesn't care about Lee, and personally, I don't care about Lee too...

Quote: To end things,the O'reilly factor is on the foxnews channel at 8pm.Its a very good show and oreilly is the smarteset guy I know.Doesnt touch on religious matters though...at least not yet.I would like it if he ran for president,hes that good.

Smart means nothing to running in political matters and to run in such a fashion in which. You have to make wise decisions in everything that matters the nation, and even more to it you must show a really good figure towards the public, all the time...

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

Aug 15, 2007
Gallery

kingray100 Ryu,the half demon

Quote by DarkRoseofHell
Quote: wait wait wait!viruses dont arent even living organisms!how can they be classified as going through evolution?evolution,if im correct,only applies to the living.and you dont know if god created himself,nobody does,so get that out of your argument now since it doesnt prove anything.and the bible has everythiong to do with the world we live in,sir.I do believe God's message is to the people who roam the earth at all times until we all die off somehow.

Whoa whoa whoa, viruses and bacterias... look at them, the only reason why virus's aren't classified living is beause they don't react to the surrounding and such things. They're still organic... Oh yes, and in terms of my english language and biology knowledge, bacteria and viruses are different...

Quote: I do believe God's message is to the people who roam the earth at all times until we all die off somehow.

Believe... oh yes, believe everything, please do so, now go stone the people who work on the day of sabbath...

Umm... I don't think you understand the random mutations in a body in which allows or disallows survival, if two mothers were to born two seperate baby, they're both different, right? Saying it like you did is the same way to say that people are all the same...

Quote by kingray100Wrong,Jesus is proven to have existed,so stop picking on old news.

I'll answer the same thing I did with the other thread...

Quote by DarkRoseofHellHey, do you know jesus's DNA signature? Do you know if they found it's skeletal remains and had a DNA check to confirm it's jesus?

Quote: How can I provide the evidence that other people have done?you do realize that im not a high ranked professor who has access to all the information in the world.

Nor does a professor has access to all the information in the world, nor does anyone in the world has accessed to all the information in the world...

Quote: And i can prove that Lee was an atheist by quoting the exact words said in the book.
"For much of my life I was a skeptic.In fact,I considered myself an atheist.To me, there was far too much evidence that God was merely a product of wishful thinking,of ancient mythology,of primitive superstition.How could there be a loving God if he consigned people to hell just for not believing him?How could miracles contravene the basic laws of nature?"
There's more on how he questioned God but that was just a piece of it.Page 15 of the book if you want to be exact.

I don't know, but I do see how that adds to any of the debate, why? Cause even Program said he doesn't care about Lee, and personally, I don't care about Lee too...

Quote: To end things,the O'reilly factor is on the foxnews channel at 8pm.Its a very good show and oreilly is the smarteset guy I know.Doesnt touch on religious matters though...at least not yet.I would like it if he ran for president,hes that good.

Smart means nothing to running in political matters and to run in such a fashion in which. You have to make wise decisions in everything that matters the nation, and even more to it you must show a really good figure towards the public, all the time...

this post doesnt concern you at all,so dont intervene.and the stoned phrase you used was when god was speaking to the disciples,so obviously you dont know how to use the bible against itself,considering it cant be done in the first place.Now,make sure you dont answer a question that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Aug 15, 2007
Gallery

Mnemeth Rider of the Currents

Quote by kingray100I see your point but the change from saber tooth tiger to cat is an adaption.If the saber toothed tiger truly died off completely,there would be no adapted forms of it such as the cat.I say this evolution adapted it to a smaller feline that suits its environment.What do you say?

Actually you missed the main point. The saber-tooth was an evolutionary dead end, as far as I know no known creature evolved from the saber-tooth but there were other smaller felines around the same time that can be traced to today's cats (large and small).

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Aug 15, 2007
Gallery

DarkRoseofHell ???????

Quote: this post doesnt concern you at all,so dont intervene.and the stoned phrase you used was when god was speaking to the disciples,so obviously you dont know how to use the bible against itself,considering it cant be done in the first place.Now,make sure you dont answer a question that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Your ignorance has something do with it, I mean look at what PleaseRecycle posted in my thread... seriously, what are you thinking... You answer things that have nothing to do with you, and yet you attack me for doing the exact same thing... isn't that hypocritic...

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

Aug 15, 2007
Gallery

marfish14

It is actually under quite some debate, whether viruses are considered alive or not. They have nucleic acids, they can interact with their invironment to an extent (only in infected cells), and can reproduce (with the help of a host cell). The idea that these organisms are living also gives credit to the theory that life originated from self-assembling molecules. I dont see how the argument of how god created himself shouldnt be used. It is always questioned where the matter in the universe came from, god is supposedly one of the answers to this question. But then you have to ask yourself where he came from. Science is the knowledge and study of the world around us and the bible clashes with this knowledge.

Aug 15, 2007
Gallery

ProgramZERO The Lost Generation

Quote by kingray100Wrong,Jesus is proven to have existed,so stop picking on old news.

No he hasn't. Someone writing about him DOES NOT prove he existed. People write about dragons and leprechauns and they've yet to be proven to have existed.

Quote: How can I provide the evidence that other people have done?you do realize that im not a high ranked professor who has access to all the information in the world.your going to have to find a site on it or something because i didnt tell these scientists to do the thing that they did.

Could you then at least direct me to these professors then?

Quote: And i can prove that Lee was an atheist by quoting the exact words said in the book. "For much of my life I was a skeptic.In fact,I considered myself an atheist.To me, there was far too much evidence that God was merely a product of wishful thinking,of ancient mythology,of primitive superstition.How could there be a loving God if he consigned people to hell just for not believing him?How could miracles contravene the basic laws of nature?"

The fact that he was an Atheist doesn't interest me. It's what he had to say in this book that matters to me.

Quote: There's more on how he questioned God but that was just a piece of it.Page 15 of the book if you want to be exact. And the book does not make unwarranted mistakes just because your not there to read it.

I never said anything about mistakes.

Quote: To end things,the O'reilly factor is on the foxnews channel at 8pm.Its a very good show and oreilly is the smarteset guy I know.Doesnt touch on religious matters though...at least not yet.I would like it if he ran for president,hes that good.

Off topic. And you've yet to provide me a list of evidence that proves without a doubt Jesus's existence and his divinity.

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

Currently watching: Naruto
Aug 16, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

kingray100 Ryu,the half demon

Quote by ProgramZERO
Quote by kingray100Wrong,Jesus is proven to have existed,so stop picking on old news.
No he hasn't. Someone writing about him DOES NOT prove he existed. People write about dragons and leprechauns and they've yet to be proven to have existed.

Quote: How can I provide the evidence that other people have done?you do realize that im not a high ranked professor who has access to all the information in the world.your going to have to find a site on it or something because i didnt tell these scientists to do the thing that they did.
Could you then at least direct me to these professors then?

Quote: And i can prove that Lee was an atheist by quoting the exact words said in the book. "For much of my life I was a skeptic.In fact,I considered myself an atheist.To me, there was far too much evidence that God was merely a product of wishful thinking,of ancient mythology,of primitive superstition.How could there be a loving God if he consigned people to hell just for not believing him?How could miracles contravene the basic laws of nature?"
The fact that he was an Atheist doesn't interest me. It's what he had to say in this book that matters to me.

Quote: There's more on how he questioned God but that was just a piece of it.Page 15 of the book if you want to be exact. And the book does not make unwarranted mistakes just because your not there to read it.
I never said anything about mistakes.

Quote: To end things,the O'reilly factor is on the foxnews channel at 8pm.Its a very good show and oreilly is the smarteset guy I know.Doesnt touch on religious matters though...at least not yet.I would like it if he ran for president,hes that good.
Off topic. And you've yet to provide me a list of evidence that proves without a doubt Jesus's existence and his divinity.

its not just about the documents,program!ask the scientists who say JESUS LIVED!There is many types of evidence that supports this!they wouldnt bother to sat something they doubted or something they thought was not true!will you think?
you say you never mentioned anything about mistakes and yet you said this...
"I don't care for Lee, I care for the book which makes unwarranted assumptions."
sound familiar?and i know the foxnews subject is off topic,i just wanted to inform you on a good person's work.but it bothers me that you cant even accept jesus' existence...thats pretty bad if your going to argue on the scientific way of things...

merged: 08-16-2007 ~ 09:35am

Quote by DarkRoseofHell
Quote: this post doesnt concern you at all,so dont intervene.and the stoned phrase you used was when god was speaking to the disciples,so obviously you dont know how to use the bible against itself,considering it cant be done in the first place.Now,make sure you dont answer a question that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Your ignorance has something do with it, I mean look at what PleaseRecycle posted in my thread... seriously, what are you thinking... You answer things that have nothing to do with you, and yet you attack me for doing the exact same thing... isn't that hypocritic...

please tell me what your thread is,and also,you do this type of thing all the time,even when it says christians only,you cant resist.so by calling me a hypocrite,doesnt make you look any better.and i never intervened anyone,i started off in threads by stating my opinion and people responded,making me allowed to respond to them back.Your assumptions arent totally correct,dear.

Aug 16, 2007
Gallery

DarkRoseofHell ???????

Quote: please tell me what your thread is,and also,you do this type of thing all the time,even when it says christians only,you cant resist.

The convert thread... geez...

Quote: so by calling me a hypocrite,doesnt make you look any better.

Well, one thing is, I didn't say anything about a post that has nothing to do with you... and don't call me dear... you don't deserve to call me that. Plus, who said anything about thread interventions?

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

Aug 16, 2007
Gallery

kingray100 Ryu,the half demon

Quote by DarkRoseofHell
Quote: please tell me what your thread is,and also,you do this type of thing all the time,even when it says christians only,you cant resist.

The convert thread... geez...

Quote: so by calling me a hypocrite,doesnt make you look any better.

Well, one thing is, I didn't say anything about a post that has nothing to do with you... and don't call me dear... you don't deserve to call me that. Plus, who said anything about thread interventions?

who said anything about thread interventions?you did,darkrose!your were trying to say i intervene in threads all the time,and which i proved false.

Aug 16, 2007
Gallery

DarkRoseofHell ???????

Simple response.

Quote by kingray100this post doesnt concern you at all,so dont intervene.and the stoned phrase you used was when god was speaking to the disciples,so obviously you dont know how to use the bible against itself,considering it cant be done in the first place.Now,make sure you dont answer a question that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

I never said anything of intervention until you brought that up.

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

Aug 16, 2007
Gallery

Mnemeth Rider of the Currents

Ahem, back on subject please.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Aug 16, 2007
Gallery

DarkRoseofHell ???????

You know that anything on the Religion and Science thread goes off topic. XD Then again, going back on topic would be nice...

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

Aug 16, 2007
Gallery

yothsothgoth You came along and cut me loose

Ok, topic... evolution!

Many things can be proven about evolution and many things have yet to be proven... like many things in the universe. Evolution like anything else in the world or beyond the world can be taken seriously or not, wether the things of interest have been proven or not.

...ok, I started... lets go! XD

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 16, 2007
Gallery
Anime Watchlist

page 5 of 17 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17 Next » 386 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.