So? Religion is based on faith, you don't proof faith, they don't mix.Any random person could make up a stupid theory without any proof. But for it to be accepted by the world as a scientific theory it needs to still have a large amount of evidence. The "theory" of evolution is so accepted that it is even taught in schools. Although evolution may not have 100% proof and is therefore still considered a "theory", it probably needed to be somewhere around 90+% proven before science would accept this theory.Where as religion or creationism has been 0% proven. 90+% beats 0%....
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#551
Guest_triplelite
Guest_triplelite
-
- Guest
Posted 20 November 2007 - 03:05 PM
#552
NameDisplay
-
- Member
-
- 435 posts
Custom Made
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 20 November 2007 - 04:10 PM
You also cannot prove faith, and to do so would give that faith no meaning. After all, you cannot have faith in something that is provable. And because you can't prove faith is the reason why it shouldn't be treated as an absolute fact, which is where a lot of the problems with faith and religion start. You get practitioners of a faith talking like their faith is an absolute and unquestionable fact, when the truth is that it isn't a fact and cannot be proved as such. When you bring up that point, some people have a tendency to get very irrational and overly defensive over it.
#553
Guest_kamiccolo
Guest_kamiccolo
-
- Guest
Posted 20 November 2007 - 11:38 PM
Before science religion didn't need proof as long as it had faith, but as NameDisplay said you cannot have faith when there is proof / facts. If there is proof of evolution, and evolution proves that creationism / religion is wrong, then there would be proof that creationism / religion is wrong. And if theres proof then there can no longer be faith. The only way to keep faith in creationism / religion is to ignore this proof. Religion is now not only based on faith, it's based on faith and ignorance.So? Religion is based on faith, you don't proof faith, they don't mix.
#554
Guest_genezizjunk
Guest_genezizjunk
-
- Guest
Posted 20 November 2007 - 11:43 PM
he's absolutly right it's a theory not a faith or something i believe in evolution because god can not be proven at least i have never seen him or whateverIf I'm interpreting your statement correctly, then I think I know how to argue against it. You make the point that, with the millions upon millions of species in the world, there should be significantly more fossils to show evolutionary progress, if they did indeed evolve over time. Okay, that seems to make sense. So what do I think is wrong with this arguement? Allow me to explain:The most important reason for the sparse nature of the fossil record is that fossils are extraordinarily rare, and many fossils are destroyed by erosion or other natural processes long before anyone even knows about them. Not only that, but a more or less precise set of circumstances are needed for a fossil to form in the first place, which is why most fossils are of sea creatures, which are more easily buried under sediment and possibly preserved.Also, what happens if the presence of fossils is approached in a different manner? Rather than using the fossil record to support the theory of evolution, how does one explain the presence of fossils, which take quite a long time to form?By the way, there is not really any such thing as believing in evolution. Belief implies that one determines an idea to be reality or truth, based on faith. As a theory, evolution is not some church of biology that scientists came up with and desperately seek evidence for so as to usurp creationist beliefs. It is merely a means of explaining why life is the way it is, without involving supernatural or unverifiable phenomena in the explanation. Some people accept evolution and concern themselves with supporting it, just like any other scientific procedure. Evolution is not a challenge against creationism, science and faith are too far distant for them to interact.Please continue, I am very interested in what else you have to say.
#555
Guest_XEnderX
Guest_XEnderX
-
- Guest
Posted 20 November 2007 - 11:53 PM
The way scientists say it is.Only living things can creat living things.And everything has to have a begining.But the thing is, if everything has to have a begining, and only living things can make more living things.Then what created the living organisms that started it all.
#556
Guest_BillDoor
Guest_BillDoor
-
- Guest
Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:15 AM
Where the first reproducing life came from is not the subject of the theory of evolution. Even Darwin agreed to this limitation. That's not the point. The theory of evolution describes how living things change, and there's a mountain of evidence for it. The question of where the first life came from is the problem of abiogenesis. As the first life existed so long ago, we may never know where it came from. That doesn't mean it was created.There are some possible scientific explanations for how life began. For example, life might have first consisted of fairly simple self-reproducing molecules in oily bubbles, which eventually became cells. It's likely that before DNA existed, life was based on RNA. But even if we showed how this could have happened, and even create life in a lab, people can always say that God did it. We can't know about the earliest life for sure - the evidence has long been lost.But ever since that point? All the evidence suggests that life evolved.
#557
Guest_XEnderX
Guest_XEnderX
-
- Guest
Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:21 AM
This thing can go on forever and well probebly not get to an answer.But it's enteresting to see people opinions.Evolution is a very posible theory, but that's what it is.It's still just a theory untill completly proven.But I dought that will ever happen.
#558
Guest_khandaker
Guest_khandaker
-
- Guest
Posted 09 December 2007 - 01:15 AM
maybe darwin evolved from an ape but the rest of us didnt
#559
Guest_venter68011
Guest_venter68011
-
- Guest
Posted 09 December 2007 - 01:45 AM
I say it makes all sense, if not, how would humans be like us today
#560
Guest_Krevin!
Guest_Krevin!
-
- Guest
Posted 09 December 2007 - 01:49 AM
There are two types of evolution: Microevolution (a species adapting to conditions in little incriments over a long period of time, which can be proven) and Macroevolution (one species evolving into another. yet to be proven or disproven)
Sure, it could have, but that brings up two pointsA.) That doesn't mean that all of them started growing the same biological route. Some could've became humans, while others became frogs, monkeys, lions, and any other species you can think of. B.) Where did they come from? If there's a divine creature powerful enough to make oily bubbles that will eventually turn into different species' than why not just skip to making the species? I can't imagine it would be much harder. The first Law of Thermodynamics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed through any natural means. This means that there is no possible way that anything exists. But we exist. I can touch my arm, and i feel it. Its real. It exists. Where did this existance come from? To put it simply, there must be something somehwhere that is so powerful that it created matter and created life. Something that powerful surely could've done a lot more then just make oily bubbles. So would somebody please explain to me what reason there could possibly be for us to have started as oily bubbles.life might have first consisted of fairly simple self-reproducing molecules in oily bubbles, which eventually became cells
#561
Guest_FinaDest3
Guest_FinaDest3
-
- Guest
Posted 09 December 2007 - 02:12 AM
I believe in god, but i think the bible is wrong, God created evolution in my opinion
#562
Guest_Krevin!
Guest_Krevin!
-
- Guest
Posted 09 December 2007 - 03:51 AM
The bible doesn't actually say that human's didn't evolve. I don't believe in the kinds of things like this:I believe in god, but i think the bible is wrong, God created evolution in my opinion
where one species will become another,but I do believe human's have adapted over time.
#563
Guest_plog
Guest_plog
-
- Guest
Posted 09 December 2007 - 03:55 AM
It can't be disproved, but it's a logical extension of the first point. Nothing can be disproved, really, if you think like that. We might just be a projection of some alien machine, a la Matrix.A) Who said they grew along the same biological route? A germ didn't turn into a frog into a shark into a bird into a human in some bizarre conga-line thing. The germ became, say, jellyfish and lichen (yeah, yeah, oversimplifying here). The jellyfish then became many different things, while the lichen became many different things. It's a tree, not a line.B) Where's the fine print saying there had to be a divine creature? You quote the First Law. True, we don't know where existence came from. It's one of those questions you can't answer, like where you go after you die. Sure, the Law means the world couldn't have come into existence for natural reasons, but it also means it couldn't have been a divine being. Think about it. Where did the being come from, if matter can't be created? How'd he/she make the world, if matter can't be created? How does an omnipotent creator, in fact, solve anything?Why did we start as oily bubbles, or whatever it is we started as? No reason. It was oily bubbles because it could have been oily bubbles. We might as well ask why a die rolls a 6, or why Hurricane Katrina happened. The die wasn't moved by a divine being, it just rolled. The hurricane wasn't stirred up by a god, it was just created by meteorological forces. There's no supernatural stuff involved.There are two types of evolution: Microevolution (a species adapting to conditions in little incriments over a long period of time, which can be proven) and Macroevolution (one species evolving into another. yet to be proven or disproven)Sure, it could have, but that brings up two pointsA.) That doesn't mean that all of them started growing the same biological route. Some could've became humans, while others became frogs, monkeys, lions, and any other species you can think of. B.) Where did they come from? If there's a divine creature powerful enough to make oily bubbles that will eventually turn into different species' than why not just skip to making the species? I can't imagine it would be much harder. The first Law of Thermodynamics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed through any natural means. This means that there is no possible way that anything exists. But we exist. I can touch my arm, and i feel it. Its real. It exists. Where did this existance come from? To put it simply, there must be something somehwhere that is so powerful that it created matter and created life. Something that powerful surely could've done a lot more then just make oily bubbles. So would somebody please explain to me what reason there could possibly be for us to have started as oily bubbles.
#564
stock
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 8,558 posts
so full of ruin
Reputation: 315
Perfected
Posted 09 December 2007 - 11:03 PM
So, if evolution is wrong, that means that God is constantly just changing animals to do things that better help them live and survive? Oh ok, that makes perfect sense.As BillDoor said, evolution is a theory on how animals change and adapt to environments and not where they come from in the first place.
#565
Guest_epithalius
Guest_epithalius
-
- Guest
Posted 09 December 2007 - 11:51 PM
First of all, I just want to say to everyone being sarcastic, it really doesn't make you sound intelligent. It's actually really annoying. Please just calm down and express your beliefs without feeling the need to be sarcastic or get angry. That being sad, there are a few views that have been expressed that I would like to take issue with. I am a Christian, however I am also open to the idea of God creating this universe with the potential for growth. It bothers me that many people act as if creationism and evolutionism are mutually exclusive, just as much as I am bothered by people who act like disproving evolution proves Christianity to be true, and vice versa. I also take issue with the way evolution is taught in public schools, as nearly every science class I've been in has treated it as a solid fact. Instead, I feel they should teach the history and development of the theory. Let's look at the evolution of evolution, if you will. Finally I'll conclude with this: the fact that two animals have a similar genetic make up does not necesarily indicate that they descended from the same ancestor. A side walk and a street would have a similar atomic make up, but to suggest that they both resulted from a large highway evolving naturally is ridiculous. It's more plausible to suggest that the same builder who made the highway used a similar method on the street and side walk because it worked once.
#566
Guest_plog
Guest_plog
-
- Guest
Posted 10 December 2007 - 02:54 AM
True. It's just that most arguments against evolution involve a creator, and that inevitably ends in a 'does god exist' war.So, if evolution is wrong, that means that God is constantly just changing animals to do things that better help them live and survive? Oh ok, that makes perfect sense.As BillDoor said, evolution is a theory on how animals change and adapt to environments and not where they come from in the first place.
First of all, I don't think anyone here is actually getting angry over this; people just like to debate is all, and their logic takes some rhetoric along.As to your points: the reason people link evolution to religious belief is that if evolution is true that's one less argument theists have that God exists. The theories are combatitive by nature, and you can't really get around that. I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching evolution as fact. We teach many things as fact. That the Sun is hot, that earthquakes are caused by tectonic plates. Scientific paradigm shifts. Back in the 16th century or whenever it is they taught that their was a substance called phlogiston that fuelled fires. People started realizing that was wrong, and taught the new theories of combustion. Evolution (like, say, gravity) has held up well as a theory and there's no reason to add a paragraph saying that it might be wrong when we don't write 'MAYBE' in giant red letters on the Bible. If scientific consensus changes then evolution will become obsolete.It is ridiculous to suggest that sidewalks evolve, yes, because to fit with evolution an object has to be able to reproduce, mutate slightly each generation, and have some sort of competitive factor to weed out the less reproductively able. Sidewalks have none of those. Yes, it does make more sense to suggest a builder (humans), but then you get to the sticky subject of where that builder came from and we're back at square one.First of all, I just want to say to everyone being sarcastic, it really doesn't make you sound intelligent. It's actually really annoying. Please just calm down and express your beliefs without feeling the need to be sarcastic or get angry. That being sad, there are a few views that have been expressed that I would like to take issue with. I am a Christian, however I am also open to the idea of God creating this universe with the potential for growth. It bothers me that many people act as if creationism and evolutionism are mutually exclusive, just as much as I am bothered by people who act like disproving evolution proves Christianity to be true, and vice versa. I also take issue with the way evolution is taught in public schools, as nearly every science class I've been in has treated it as a solid fact. Instead, I feel they should teach the history and development of the theory. Let's look at the evolution of evolution, if you will. Finally I'll conclude with this: the fact that two animals have a similar genetic make up does not necesarily indicate that they descended from the same ancestor. A side walk and a street would have a similar atomic make up, but to suggest that they both resulted from a large highway evolving naturally is ridiculous. It's more plausible to suggest that the same builder who made the highway used a similar method on the street and side walk because it worked once.
#567
Guest_mogarth123
Guest_mogarth123
-
- Guest
Posted 11 December 2007 - 03:41 AM
What other theory do you have? belief in a god? Which is even more illogical and unbelievable. Evolution makes sense. It is a theory that has been proved. And according to most religions the earth was created ___ years ago and we have carbon dating which proves that objects are from earlier times. Anyone who believes in a god is ignorant.
#568
Guest_Velour Fog
Guest_Velour Fog
-
- Guest
Posted 11 December 2007 - 03:00 PM
This being my first post, I thought I'd jump in to one of my favourite topics....."Evolution" exists whether we "believe" it or not. It was a theory that has been shown time and time again to explain phenomena that have been observed, so much so that it is no longer a "theory" at all. The only arguments are over the mechanisms involved. A creationist once said to me "If we evolved from apes, then why are apes still around?" It is this kind of ignorance of basic science and the processes involved that renders most creationist arguments completely worthless. If I decided not to believe in gravity, would I simply float away?
#569
Guest_geraldthewalrus
Guest_geraldthewalrus
-
- Guest
Posted 11 December 2007 - 09:43 PM
We can see evolution happening by looking at bacteria. They are constantly mutating and getting past the various vaccinations and drugs scientists have invented. This is because they evolve into forms of bacteria which are not affected by the drugs. They are in fact 'superior' bacteria to what they used to be. I.e they are evolving into better life forms.
#570
Guest_SKX
Guest_SKX
-
- Guest
Posted 12 December 2007 - 01:21 AM
I think something like Evolution is more about believing than knowing. I say this because the Scientific Method dictates observation and repeatability. Obviously Evolution cannot be observed beyond the microbe level, and cannot be repeated by the Scientific Method. So in this way I think it is a Conjecture, although an inspired and educated Conjecture. But, I think this holds a striking resemblance to something such as Genesis, which many people would identify as trying to explain the world without Scientific Means, basically, Conjecture. So I think each one requires Belief. However, I think the most prominent distinction between the two is that science answers how questions, while religion answers why questions. Evolution can tell us how something came about, but it does not tell us why. This is the main reason, I believe, that a lot of people find the theory unappealing.
#571
Guest_Hot Ashes
Guest_Hot Ashes
-
- Guest
Posted 12 December 2007 - 04:51 AM
So is this a discussion of macro or micro evolution?Anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution is a complete total and utter moron.Mono put it very well above me, You can believe in both, and stating that it is a documented scientific fact that evolution is true pure and is a fact, The discussion here is macro evolution can one species involve into another."Which comes first the chicken or the egg", How you answer that is which type of evolution you believe in. 
#572
Guest_tangerine237
Guest_tangerine237
-
- Guest
Posted 12 December 2007 - 01:12 PM
Evolution is, of course, true. It has been supportd with detailed scientific evidences and explained by biologists. It's clear cut already. You surely can't think that mankind appeared out of nowhere? It's pointless and unbelievable to me.
#573
Guest_Calvin Luther
Guest_Calvin Luther
-
- Guest
Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:26 PM
So was Bode's Law.Bode's Law was a astronomical theory that all the planets exist in distances from the sun defined by a special rule. Wiki on Bode's Law Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn all follow the rules. It also predicted a planet between Mars and Jupiter, but there was none, so they figured that they just hadn't found it yet (the area in question is where the asteroid belt is, by the way). It even predicted correctly where Uranus is. "Ha!" all the scientists thought. "Science wins again!"Science lost. Neptune wasn't where it was supposed to be. And Pluto (whether or not it is a planet is beside the point) was even worse.BAM! SCIENCE WAS WRONG!Evidence is great, but all evidence is circumstancal in nature. Don't just assume something is true because it hasn't been proven wrong.
#574
Guest_plog
Guest_plog
-
- Guest
Posted 13 December 2007 - 03:07 AM
Yeah, but so was the belief that witches existed. And?Science changes, yes, and things are proven wrong.But the whole point is that evolution hasn't been proven wrong yet. If you say that since one theory was proven wrong all scientific theories are wrong, well...So was Bode's Law.Bode's Law was a astronomical theory that all the planets exist in distances from the sun defined by a special rule. Wiki on Bode's Law Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn all follow the rules. It also predicted a planet between Mars and Jupiter, but there was none, so they figured that they just hadn't found it yet (the area in question is where the asteroid belt is, by the way). It even predicted correctly where Uranus is. "Ha!" all the scientists thought. "Science wins again!"Science lost. Neptune wasn't where it was supposed to be. And Pluto (whether or not it is a planet is beside the point) was even worse.BAM! SCIENCE WAS WRONG!Evidence is great, but all evidence is circumstancal in nature. Don't just assume something is true because it hasn't been proven wrong.
#575
=-/
-
- Member
-
- 2,711 posts
Ancient Dragon
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 13 December 2007 - 07:55 AM
technically, evolution has been "proven" in a study on fruit flies,The flies are kept in a glass box <-duh, the flies are kept on one side and a food source was kept on the other side.Above the food source is a fan that is strong enough to blow the flies away from the food.Some flies will be stupid enough to keep flying to the food <- these flies deserve to die from starvation...While the flies that are smart enough crawl to the food source, thus surviving long enough to reproduce...And each generation of flies produced by the flies that survived are observed to have smaller and smaller wings...After awhile the flies lose their wings, so technically, u can't call them flies anymore....more like fruit crawlier.....Well the whole point is that they actually managed to adapt, thus evolving, thus evolution exists, more or lessi like mono's view, reminds me of what stan said in Go God Go, ppl need to start realizing that evolution is part of God's plan for self-preservation, even though it doesn't make sense at times...
Edited by RzmmDX, 13 December 2007 - 07:56 AM.
I got rid of my awesome sig to mention if you collect ToyFare, SCAN ALL THE TWISTED TOYFARE THEATRE THAT YOU HAVE AND UPLOAD IT TO MEDIAFIRE OR BITTORRENT.
Hey, does anyone have a Tokusatsu userbar? Come on. There's gotta be one right? What's Tokusatsu you say? BLASPHEMY. SPACIUM RAY!
boomp3.com
Hey, does anyone have a Tokusatsu userbar? Come on. There's gotta be one right? What's Tokusatsu you say? BLASPHEMY. SPACIUM RAY!
boomp3.com
Sigs
Sosica
