I would say theres no such thing as evolution, because as most people believe, it is nothing but a theory and due to my religious beliefs i would have to say no, i don't believe in evolution. even if it was true only a freak would want to admit that he was the end result of a monkey. >.>
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#626
Fire Emblem Man
-
- Member
-
- 159 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 17 January 2008 - 12:21 AM
#627
Guest_BillDoor
Guest_BillDoor
-
- Guest
Posted 17 January 2008 - 02:27 PM
It's not freakish to find and state the facts. Whether or not you want something to be true shouldn't matter. Understanding evolution can help us understand our own biochemistry, find targets for new therapies, and reveal our origins as a species. If some people are offended by this, there's really nothing that can be done. Facts are facts.And why is it offensive to think that I had some apes in my family tree? Odds are that I had murderers and crooks in there somewhere, and I'd sooner associate with an ape than with a murderer.even if it was true only a freak would want to admit that he was the end result of a monkey.
Edited by BillDoor, 17 January 2008 - 02:32 PM.
#628
Guest_Laano
Guest_Laano
-
- Guest
Posted 17 January 2008 - 10:47 PM
Maybe evolution isn't sure, but it's the most probably theory. I believe in it because i believe in science(altough i believe in God, too).That's all.
#629
M1551n9n0
-
- Member
-
- 875 posts
Elite Dragon
Reputation: 1
Neutral
Posted 18 January 2008 - 03:48 AM
So why do humans have tailbones when they don't have tails? Something that puzzles me is that why can't we all just believein Creationism and evloution?I would say theres no such thing as evolution, because as most people believe, it is nothing but a theory and due to my religious beliefs i would have to say no, i don't believe in evolution. even if it was true only a freak would want to admit that he was the end result of a monkey. >.>
Edited by M1551n9n0, 18 January 2008 - 03:48 AM.
Artwork: Check it out Facebook fan page. -- deviantART profile
"If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change"
#630
Guest_my monkey
Guest_my monkey
-
- Guest
Posted 18 January 2008 - 04:50 AM
to me, the theory is completely logical, humans have changed to (gradually).the theory is based on survival of the fittest, therefore the stronger ones make more babies making them more like them.things change drastically over many millions of years as many small mutations occur, and if the mutation betters the "mutant" they have more babies and they gain that mutation. if the mutation makes them weaker, the holder dies and the mutation doesnt continue.we are now getting humans with fewer teeth and no wisdom teeth and have been for sometime. this is because humans dont need as many as what they used to as the adult teeth dont constantly fall out.Have you though that the reason to there not being very many fossils left due to a wonderous thing we call "here in australia atleast" EROSION.religion denies this theory to convince people that the church is right when saying "god created us in his image" or whatever they teach these days
#631
Guest_easychan
Guest_easychan
-
- Guest
Posted 18 January 2008 - 03:56 PM
I would suggest to everyone wanting to understand the theory of evolution better to read the new Dawinks book...
#632
Guest_Laano
Guest_Laano
-
- Guest
Posted 18 January 2008 - 09:04 PM
Dawkins is not a true scientist, but in fact he describes the theory really good.
#633
Guest_avatarxprime
Guest_avatarxprime
-
- Guest
Posted 19 January 2008 - 04:45 AM
Will all of you who reject evolution please stop saying "It's just a theory" as it clearly shows how little you understand what you are talking about. Unlike in conventional dialogue where it means it's a rough idea someone had and could easily be false; when talking with a scientist a theory is about as close to a fact as possible. Now if Evolution were a hypothesis rather than a theory than maybe you could get away with saying "It's just a hypothesis," but unless you have some earth-shattering new evidence to present a theory is generally assumed to be true considering the amount of testing it has undergone.
#634
Guest_Harlequin
Guest_Harlequin
-
- Guest
Posted 19 January 2008 - 07:16 AM
Exactly. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard the "only a theory" argument from a creationist, because I'd be rich enough to pay the pope to fellate me daily for a year. I'd like to point out that gravity is also "only a theory," yet we do not doubt it. It also seems that creationists who use this argument, which by the way is completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever, throw the word theory around like it completely devalues evolution. Just to set the record straight, the definition of a scientific theory is as follows:Theory - an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.Hence, we observe gravity, we reach the same conclusion, we can make reliable predictions based upon gravity. The same applies to the theory of evolution. Evolution is supported by numerous tests and a mountain of evidence. In fact, evolution is the most tested theory in all of science. If it had faults (other than "it cawntrudicts dah baaaaaah bulll" because the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally) they would have been found by now, since it is in the best interest of a scientist to disprove evolution.Will all of you who reject evolution please stop saying "It's just a theory" as it clearly shows how little you understand what you are talking about. Unlike in conventional dialogue where it means it's a rough idea someone had and could easily be false; when talking with a scientist a theory is about as close to a fact as possible. Now if Evolution were a hypothesis rather than a theory than maybe you could get away with saying "It's just a hypothesis," but unless you have some earth-shattering new evidence to present a theory is generally assumed to be true considering the amount of testing it has undergone.
#635
Guest_piggies0007
Guest_piggies0007
-
- Guest
Posted 20 January 2008 - 04:00 AM
I don't "believe" in evolution b/c i don't believe people are random products of genetic mutation. PS search up T-rex soft tissue. it' should shed light on the age of the earth since soft tissue, which was found in this fossil is impossible to preserve over millions of years. so either our dating system is wrong or soft tissue can really be preserved for that long. Also evolution is not a science. It doesn't make any predictions or do anything useful. While there's a lot of supposed evidence for it, the various fossils are more an example of sheer diversity of life on earth than daata files for evolution. Macro evolution cannot work. Most mutations are harmful. And even if there was enough time that macroevolution would produce some good things... refer to the T-rex soft tissue... it wouldn't make sense
#636
Guest_BillDoor
Guest_BillDoor
-
- Guest
Posted 20 January 2008 - 09:16 AM
Mutations are random; evolution isn't.I don't "believe" in evolution b/c i don't believe people are random products of genetic mutation.
The facts in this case have been heavily spun by the ID lobby. In fact, the tissue was hardened, had to be rehydrated, and was microscopic in quantity. The term "soft tissue" is misleading at best.PS search up T-rex soft tissue. it' should shed light on the age of the earth since soft tissue, which was found in this fossil is impossible to preserve over millions of years. so either our dating system is wrong or soft tissue can really be preserved for that long.
We use it to predict microRNA sequences by patterns of conservation. In fact, I've used it for that purpose. Note that these conservation patterns don't fall under the purview of the ID argument that "God would make things that serve similar purposes have similar genetic code," since in many cases, we see mutations that pop up and complement each other in a way that only makes sense given a line of descent.In addition, the theory of evolution makes tons of predictions every time we sequence a new genome. So far, so good!Also evolution is not a science. It doesn't make any predictions or do anything useful.
Yet, in spite of that diversity, you never see an intermediate between a bird and a mammal, or a fish and a reptile. You only see intermediates between reptiles and mammals, and between birds and reptiles, and between fish and amphibians. (The duck-billed platypus is more mammalian and reptilian than birdlike, if you're thinking of that case.)While there's a lot of supposed evidence for it, the various fossils are more an example of sheer diversity of life on earth than daata files for evolution.
Natural selection takes care of the harmful ones. All that is required is that some produce useful effects.Macro evolution cannot work. Most mutations are harmful.
Once again, the soft-tissue thing's been badly misrepresented.And even if there was enough time that macroevolution would produce some good things... refer to the T-rex soft tissue... it wouldn't make sense
Edited by BillDoor, 20 January 2008 - 08:28 PM.
#637
Guest_Jaeyoung
Guest_Jaeyoung
-
- Guest
Posted 20 January 2008 - 09:44 AM
There are so many ways how the human body adapted to its situation over time... Besides, if other animals go through evolution, what proof is there that we dont? Besides, what would be a reasonable explanation?
#638
Guest_selic
Guest_selic
-
- Guest
Posted 27 January 2008 - 03:52 PM
im in the scientific area and i must say the evolution path made by the scientist is much more acceptable than the one that says... it was godXD
#639
Guest_OverGrown Dino
Guest_OverGrown Dino
-
- Guest
Posted 28 January 2008 - 01:11 PM
I believe in evolution.There is scientific proof about evolution.Google it.
#640
Guest_iamanutterru
Guest_iamanutterru
-
- Guest
Posted 30 January 2008 - 09:55 PM
Well i have always been on the science side because to be quite honest the only real proof in god is that there is no proof he isnt real, and to me that isnt real, therefore he couldnt have created the world. but thats a bit... off topic. my point was going to be that the reason theres only "a few" fossils (you've obviously never been fossil hunting on a beach- there are litterally thousands on one beach) is because like many before me have said, not everything that dies gets fossilised. There are certain conditions required before they are fossilised and even after they are fossilised, only a fraction will survive until today
#641
Guest_Captain Rusty
Guest_Captain Rusty
-
- Guest
Posted 30 January 2008 - 11:57 PM
Even Christians believe in micro-evolution, which is more accurately labeled adaption. This influences shades of skin, length of hair, ect. But evolution? Pure evolution?People say there isn't hard evidence for it. I would like to refute this - how would you describe how Pikachu becomes a Raichu? Huh?
#642
Guest_J-Bob
Guest_J-Bob
-
- Guest
Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:31 AM
Yeah, you're right, there should be a lot more fossils, if not for the fact that the probability of a creatures remains being fossilized is astronomical. Only humans bury the dead, so the millions of samples you are referring to just rotted away instead of being fossilized. Secondly, I can prove evolution in a short paragraph. How is it that islands formed millions of years ago have more species variation and original species than islands formed thousands of years ago? If the Higher Being (personally, I'm Christian) put every animal and plantform on Earth, then why is He biased towards older, bigger islands? That means that either God is putting life on Earth in a random in biased way completely against his ways described in religious scripts, or species evolve. In fact, humans are currently evolving right now. For example, humans used to possess a gene that produced Vitamin C. Over the thousands of years Homo Sapiens have been on Earth, their diet has become more Vitamin C-enriched. Guess what? Since the Vitamin C-producing gene was now hindering by using excess energy to cause potential health problems from having too much C, they evolved beyond the need for it. The remnants of the gene are still seen in modern DNA.While I do not wish to thrust my scientifically valid views upon you, it angers me that you are insinuating that scientists are trying to conceal a truth or are being ignorant.THE BELIEF IN EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEFY FAITH, IN FACT, EVOLUTION IS SO PERFECTLY EXECUTED, IT INDICATES THAT THEIR IS A HIGHER BEING. Trust me, my career is in evolution, biodiversity, and ecology, I'm not making this up.All I'm saying is that although there is what evolutionists (in general, mind you) would like to present as substantial evidence in support of evolution, there is also an even greater amount of evidence (though oftenly suppressed or ignored) which has arisen from or been taken as a sample from those same evolutionist's findings!! Ex) the "fossil" record? evolutionists would present that from the fossil record can be found many examples of creatures "evolving" into some state we witness today. However, if a person were to use common sense, taking into account that on the basis of the evolutionists' statements every creature here today is evolved from some previous form, shouldn't we be able to find MILLIONS of such examples, and not just the few we see today???? Just one example of many. Topic open to opinions...Topic discussions include the origin of man, the theory of evolution, the origins of life, the origins of the universe, and creation theory.
Lol. Actually, Pokemon DNA is drastically different than regular DNA, in that is extremely likely to mutate dramatically. Most likely, there is a simple gene in a Pikachu that supresses transformation/evolution into Raichu. That gene is damaged by exposure to the radiation signature from a Thunder Stone.As for pure evolution, it does not defy faith. The simple fact that neither Adam nor Eve recorded the events of Genesis, due to the lack of a writing system, proves that Genesis was purely speculation. In fact, evolution is so perfect, it almost necessitates the need for a God, because the odds of random acids forming the building blocks of life which can also mutate is infinitesimally small.Even Christians believe in micro-evolution, which is more accurately labeled adaption. This influences shades of skin, length of hair, ect. But evolution? Pure evolution?People say there isn't hard evidence for it. I would like to refute this - how would you describe how Pikachu becomes a Raichu? Huh?
#643
Guest_kyeshoelaneen
Guest_kyeshoelaneen
-
- Guest
Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:39 AM
eeh somebody really mad about fantasy and cartoons. a freak basically.POINTS were deducted for this post by hookshot-Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#644
Guest_J-Bob
Guest_J-Bob
-
- Guest
Posted 31 January 2008 - 01:09 AM
Ouch. It's okay, I don't even play Pokemon anymore, it's just that my career is in genetics and evolution.Did you even look at what else I said? This is how trolling happens.eeh somebody really mad about fantasy and cartoons. a freak basically.POINTS were deducted for this post by hookshot-Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#645
···
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 928 posts
·
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 31 January 2008 - 01:22 AM
Off topic? No, I inserted the following into the first post:"Topic discussions include the origin of man, the theory of evolution, the origins of life, the origins of the universe, and creation theory."I hate the fossil argument against evolution. People act like every single animal should have been fossilized.Because, you know, nothing eats animals, and land animals always die at sea under sediment.Well i have always been on the science side because to be quite honest the only real proof in god is that there is no proof he isnt real, and to me that isnt real, therefore he couldnt have created the world. but thats a bit... off topic. my point was going to be that the reason theres only "a few" fossils (you've obviously never been fossil hunting on a beach- there are litterally thousands on one beach) is because like many before me have said, not everything that dies gets fossilised. There are certain conditions required before they are fossilised and even after they are fossilised, only a fraction will survive until today
Someone, make something better.
#646
Guest_J-Bob
Guest_J-Bob
-
- Guest
Posted 31 January 2008 - 06:15 PM
Hmm... google=scientific proof, lol. Better yet, check wikipedia. It's not like a bunch of fundamentalists with computers are gonna spam the entry. Wait...I believe in evolution.There is scientific proof about evolution.Google it.
So you're asking how things evolve? A creature's DNA mutates, resulting in a physical difference in the animal's body. If the change is advantageous, the animal is more likely to survive; thus it passes on the mutation until it becomes the norm or changes into a new species. An animal does not choose to grow wings. Are you really that uneducated?THATS WHAT I SAID!
#647
kingm
-
- Member
-
- 241 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 31 January 2008 - 06:24 PM
no!! we're not monkey.. 
POINTS were deducted for this post by LegioπPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
POINTS were deducted for this post by LegioπPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
Admins are always bossing in this site!!
Isn't it nice to break rules?!!
Isn't it nice to break rules?!!
#648
Guest_necrotechnix
Guest_necrotechnix
-
- Guest
Posted 31 January 2008 - 09:47 PM
The exact same principles are behind what people call "MACRO-evolution" as "MICRO-evolution" the only difference between the two is time. You can see and follow the path of "MICRO-evolution" in viruses and even insects because of the shorter lifespans.Though even without being able to physically observe "macro-evolution" the signs are still there, especially when you look at the big picture. But the fact is, no matter how much scientific fact and proof you have you will never be able to convince some of even the validity of evolution...
The only way to convince them would be to either invent a time machine so they can watch or else find a fossil holding a sign that says "I am a Hyracotherium and I'm evolving into a horse!" which is extremely unlikelyWe know that there was a Declaration of Independece because we have witnessed the actual document and it says right there when it was signed as well as other recorded history that says it's true.
(and for the record I do believe in God but I do believe in evolution and don't see it as an "either or" thing)
Edited by necrotechnix, 31 January 2008 - 11:16 PM.
Dude, I actually saw a sign like that.
#649
Guest_J-Bob
Guest_J-Bob
-
- Guest
Posted 01 February 2008 - 01:36 AM
You're right, we did not descend from common-day orangutans. A few million years ago, a common anscestor evolved into 2 different races: humans and chimps. That's why our DNA differs only by a few percent. The anthropological evidence is overwhelming.no!! we're not monkey..
POINTS were deducted for this post by LegioπPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
THANK YOU! Belief in evolution doesn't mean you can't believe in God. I am a Lutheran and attend Church every Sunday, but my job focuses heavily on evolution.The exact same principles are behind what people call "MACRO-evolution" as "MICRO-evolution" the only difference between the two is time. You can see and follow the path of "MICRO-evolution" in viruses and even insects because of the shorter lifespans.Though even without being able to physically observe "macro-evolution" the signs are still there, especially when you look at the big picture. But the fact is, no matter how much scientific fact and proof you have you will never be able to convince some of even the validity of evolution...The only way to convince them would be to either invent a time machine so they can watch or else find a fossil holding a sign that says "I am a Hyracotherium and I'm evolving into a horse!" which is extremely unlikely
(and for the record I do believe in God but I do believe in evolution and don't see it as an "either or" thing)
from the guy whose sig features random Pearl & Diamond pokemans.eeh somebody really mad about fantasy and cartoons. a freak basically.POINTS were deducted for this post by hookshot-Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#650
Fire Emblem Man
-
- Member
-
- 159 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 02 February 2008 - 09:45 PM
But then again its nothing more than a theory, not a fact. No one can actually prove thatIt's not freakish to find and state the facts. Whether or not you want something to be true shouldn't matter. Understanding evolution can help us understand our own biochemistry, find targets for new therapies, and reveal our origins as a species. If some people are offended by this, there's really nothing that can be done. Facts are facts.And why is it offensive to think that I had some apes in my family tree? Odds are that I had murderers and crooks in there somewhere, and I'd sooner associate with an ape than with a murderer.
