Who the hell would believe in evolution???

Perhaps a scientist who has devoted his life to studying it? XDHonestly, there is going to be evidence to disprove ANY theory. I happen to believe that parts of the evolutionary theory are true. (A certain Family Guy episode comes to mind lol). Seriously though, in my opinion, right now evolution fits the best out of all the current theories.

The evolution theory is by far the best theory. Or atleast better than the Adam and Eve theory. There are some bones and fossils supporting the scientist's claim.

I think it's a big statement on your part, just because there isn't many fossils it's perhaps not true....If in 100 years there is no more proof you existed does it mean you never did?And what about the moon landing, we went right, because thats on video...All I'm trying to say is you never really know but having some evidence should be at least something.And stating a comment like that I wonder how much you know about the subject and of digging up fossils.Not saying I know more, just wondering.

Yes, but that was precisely my point. The fossils that would support a recorded history of evolution are not only scarce, but entire species have probably been wiped out. Also, I don't know what you mean by "finished" creatures. There would not seem to be any such thing, since microevolution, as you call it, happens constantly with each generation. Those better adapted to their environment survive and pass those adaptations along to their young, while members of a species that cannot cope with changes in their environment will often die before they can reproduce.But micro- and macro-evolution are not really proper terms for the description of evolution. Species do not spontaneously change via macroevolution, that makes hardly any sense at all. Natural selection is the means by which a species will change, possibly becoming different enough over time that it would not be able to mate with an earlier form of the species. A dinosaur would not become a dog, but an early rodent species that survived long enough could become the ancestor to modern mice species. If one allows for the millions of years life has been around, it is not so difficult to understand the possibility of "microevolution" resulting in much larger changes.

This depends on the type of evolution you support... "Gradualism" is the slow changing of species in certain degrees (colors change, white->white with tint of red-> pink-> slightly darker pink -> red) while "punctuated equilibrium" is a series of rapid changes (colors: white (some time elapses) -> Red).

Evolution is the real truth, undisputable, irrefutable.Creationism is just a bunch of BS old people made up to answer questions they were too dumb to answer with the only true and great religion: science.Screw God. Science is the only truth.

I think it's a big statement on your part, just because there isn't many fossils it's perhaps not true....If in 100 years there is no more proof you existed does it mean you never did?And what about the moon landing, we went right, because thats on video...All I'm trying to say is you never really know but having some evidence should be at least something.And stating a comment like that I wonder how much you know about the subject and of digging up fossils.Not saying I know more, just wondering.

there's proof in almost every species' existence, you think that the fossils aren't proof enough?The fossils are our only clues to the life in the past, and it proves evolution(how living things have changed through time).Fossils are basically a preserved bone structure of an animal.And are you proving a point or just being skeptical?

I wouldn't call it "undisputable"" Especially since that isn't a word. =PYou are going to call the men who came up with Creationism dumb when you can't even use real words. I find that highly hypocritical of you.Evolution is a very interesting theory, and in some aspects I think that it is right. Organisms do change over time to suit their environment, but they don't branch off and form totally new organisms. That just isn't believable to me. I think that micro-evolution is completely true; however, macro-evolution is false.

Okay he obviously meant indisputable its a one letter difference and everyone confuses the in and un beginnings (or at least I do). Second how is macro-evolution not belivable. Theres clear evidence for it. Don't look at it as macro evolution look at it as micro evolution occuring enough times until the species has changed enough to be classified as an entirely new one.

I encourage everyone to go see the movie Expelled. It is about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. I, myself, believe in an Intelligent Designer, mine being the God of the Christian Bible.You should find this movie quite interesting as I did. Especially when you find out that Richard Dawkins can't even explain how evolution started.

Evolution is the real truth, undisputable, irrefutable.Creationism is just a bunch of BS old people made up to answer questions they were too dumb to answer with the only true and great religion: science.Screw God. Science is the only truth.

Science has its limits... I wouldn't place too much trust in the knowledge that humanity can provide on its own. And your way of calling "old people" stupid is actually quite ignorant of you. If you mean old as in the time period in their lives, maybe in their wisdom they see something that you don't... if you mean old as in ancient peoples, well...you couldn't live your life without the advances provided by these "stupid people"Another proof of your ignorance: "Evolution is the real truth, undisputable, irrefutable"...besides being bad grammar, you should know that its called the evolution THEORY for a reason. Nothing in science is absolute.

Edited by DeinKonig, 02 May 2008 - 03:04 AM.

Science has its limits... I wouldn't place too much trust in the knowledge that humanity can provide on its own. And your way of calling "old people" stupid is actually quite ignorant of you. If you mean old as in the time period in their lives, maybe in their wisdom they see something that you don't... if you mean old as in ancient peoples, well...you couldn't live your life without the advances provided by these "stupid people"Another proof of your ignorance: "Evolution is the real truth, undisputable, irrefutable"...besides being bad grammar, you should know that its called the evolution THEORY for a reason. Nothing in science is absolute.

Obviously old people aren't stupid, in the sense of ancient, they just have less knowledge. If you were saying old as in like 70's then thats pretty terrible of you since I could gaurantee that the "old stupid people" have more wisdom than you and are happier.Also while evolution is a theory it still has large bodies of evidence backing it up and it makes sense. Survival of the Fittest is the most logical explanation for change in animals over time.

Obviously old people aren't stupid, in the sense of ancient, they just have less knowledge. If you were saying old as in like 70's then thats pretty terrible of you since I could gaurantee that the "old stupid people" have more wisdom than you and are happier.Also while evolution is a theory it still has large bodies of evidence backing it up and it makes sense. Survival of the Fittest is the most logical explanation for change in animals over time.

I don't dispute that, and neither does the Church. I was just trying to point out...an ignorant person. We don't know EXACTLY how God created everything. For all we know, Adam and Eve could've been the first recognizable human beings after a long line of evolution.

Science has its limits... I wouldn't place too much trust in the knowledge that humanity can provide on its own. And your way of calling "old people" stupid is actually quite ignorant of you. If you mean old as in the time period in their lives, maybe in their wisdom they see something that you don't... if you mean old as in ancient peoples, well...you couldn't live your life without the advances provided by these "stupid people"Another proof of your ignorance: "Evolution is the real truth, undisputable, irrefutable"...besides being bad grammar, you should know that its called the evolution THEORY for a reason. Nothing in science is absolute.

Yeah, it's a theory non the less, but aren't unrecorded things about the past all theories? Atleast science is [b]trying to prove something. While in religion, it's all magical, they didn't try to know how it happened and what caused it. Well, you didn't choose a side in this statement, you just criticized, hehe, we're all philosophers here. lol

I don't dispute that, and neither does the Church. I was just trying to point out...an ignorant person. We don't know EXACTLY how God created everything. For all we know, Adam and Eve could've been the first recognizable human beings after a long line of evolution.

Adam and Eve are just the symbols for the people of God(Israelites, in the Old Testament, Jews in the New Testament). And I don't really think God created everything, it doesn't make sense, but it's a person's choice to believe.

If there is no such thing as evolution, then how come wolves turned into dogs after humans took care of them for thousands of years?Everyone KNOWS that dogs came from wolves.And how do you think that other modern species existed if they did not evolve from other primitive species? If all that happened was that the primitive species died out, then how could anything on this planet exist?

If there is no such thing as evolution, then how come wolves turned into dogs after humans took care of them for thousands of years?Everyone KNOWS that dogs came from wolves.And how do you think that other modern species existed if they did not evolve from other primitive species? If all that happened was that the primitive species died out, then how could anything on this planet exist?

Couldn't have said it better myself, evolution, the way we became as smart as we are now.

Dogs didn't evolve over a few thousand years. That's a ridiculous prospect. There were wild dogs which we tamed, yes, but we never tamed wolves. Wolves have to be raised in captivity to be tamed, and even then, their natural instincts are more than most trainers can handle. Your arguments were both void, as they could easily be explained by creationism as well. You gave no evidence for your statements, but stated them anyway- like opinions.Like we have discussed previously in this thread (obviously neither of you checked up on that), most people who think they know evolution, really don't. You are laymen, and to be frank, none of you have any good reason to believe in evolution. It doesn't seem you know what backed up the theory, and therefore, you're no further along than creationism, which is based on the same thing: faith. Evolution is an attempt at a theory not based on faith, but on empirical evidence. It's not a fact. Most sciences are merely suggestive, rather than factual, although they are more factual than suggestive most of the time. The most likely scenario is evolution, but there is still a lot we don't know about it. Lots of holes to be filled.

Dogs didn't evolve over a few thousand years. That's a ridiculous prospect. There were wild dogs which we tamed, yes, but we never tamed wolves. Wolves have to be raised in captivity to be tamed, and even then, their natural instincts are more than most trainers can handle. Your arguments were both void, as they could easily be explained by creationism as well. You gave no evidence for your statements, but stated them anyway- like opinions.Like we have discussed previously in this thread (obviously neither of you checked up on that), most people who think they know evolution, really don't. You are laymen, and to be frank, none of you have any good reason to believe in evolution. It doesn't seem you know what backed up the theory, and therefore, you're no further along than creationism, which is based on the same thing: faith. Evolution is an attempt at a theory not based on faith, but on empirical evidence. It's not a fact. Most sciences are merely suggestive, rather than factual, although they are more factual than suggestive most of the time. The most likely scenario is evolution, but there is still a lot we don't know about it. Lots of holes to be filled.

Well, the ancestors of dogs were a lot like cats, you can see from the likeness of the species, now we have different different kinds of dogs. The domesticated ones have different breeds in which we could derive that different people around the world were domesticating dogs. In the colder parts, dogs developed long fur and in the warmer parts, short fur. And in the issue of domesticating wolves aren't completely impossible, that's why it took the wolves thousands of years for us to have domesticated cats and dogs, they were wild and fierce creatures, but so were we.We are not laymen, we choose what to believe in, and so do you, you are merely criticizing not proving a point, I know it takes faith to believe in something you have not seen in your own eyes, we are just believing the ones with more proof and meaning. What do you think makes the theory of creation so believable in the 1st place? The evolution theory have fossils and the fact that there are different yet alike, in someway, animals here living today which again supports the evolution theory.And also, like the dogs, men have diversity too, skin color, eye color, average height, etc., depending on the race. This again supports the evolution theory, species adapt to their environment, like the sea snakes, the vipers, the constrictors, they all adapted to what best suites their environment. Like when the rabbit changes its color at winter(white) and in summer(brown). We also have polar bears, black bears, grizzly bears. They all evolved to survive their environment.

i personally dont believe in itPOINTS were deducted for this post by UndinePlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.

Well, the ancestors of dogs were a lot like cats, you can see from the likeness of the species, now we have different different kinds of dogs. The domesticated ones have different breeds in which we could derive that different people around the world were domesticating dogs. In the colder parts, dogs developed long fur and in the warmer parts, short fur. And in the issue of domesticating wolves aren't completely impossible, that's why it took the wolves thousands of years for us to have domesticated cats and dogs, they were wild and fierce creatures, but so were we.We are not laymen, we choose what to believe in, and so do you, you are merely criticizing not proving a point, I know it takes faith to believe in something you have not seen in your own eyes, we are just believing the ones with more proof and meaning. What do you think makes the theory of creation so believable in the 1st place? The evolution theory have fossils and the fact that there are different yet alike, in someway, animals here living today which again supports the evolution theory.And also, like the dogs, men have diversity too, skin color, eye color, average height, etc., depending on the race. This again supports the evolution theory, species adapt to their environment, like the sea snakes, the vipers, the constrictors, they all adapted to what best suites their environment. Like when the rabbit changes its color at winter(white) and in summer(brown). We also have polar bears, black bears, grizzly bears. They all evolved to survive their environment.

Yet there's still gaps. We've seen DIVERSITY among species, but no concrete signs of drastic changes. If you are citing evolution as the BEGINNING of all life, how did we get from nothingness to life? Life must come from life... If you follow it back far enough you reach a single creator who is the essence of all life.Final word: I think life began at single "creation" and continued adapting through evolution. In my opinion, that seems most logical.

Yet there's still gaps. We've seen DIVERSITY among species, but no concrete signs of drastic changes. If you are citing evolution as the BEGINNING of all life, how did we get from nothingness to life? Life must come from life... If you follow it back far enough you reach a single creator who is the essence of all life.Final word: I think life began at single "creation" and continued adapting through evolution. In my opinion, that seems most logical.

Isn't the universal gentic code enough to prove the idea of LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)? The code isn't fully universal though but when you look at the developement of other parts of life such as the use of ATP instead of other types of nitrogen bases for energy storage it also shows that they come from the same being. Your point is completely correct though.Evolution barely happens in large amounts. To dismiss evolution because there is no macroevolution examples occurring today is ignorance in my opinion. Macro evolution doesn't occur spontaneously like life. The only example of macro evolution I can think of is the change from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells where a prokaryote swallowed another and wasn't fully digested creating chloroplasts/mitochondria. This is only a theory of course though and so cannot be proved, but why would several microevolutions not be accounted for as a macroevolution?

i seriously dont believe in evolution...why? well, because if we were evolving, then some of us would still be apes and we would be able to see the defeerent forms of evolution...so...wheres the proof? if we had to go through evolution...then we would have been born apes...(ugly sight) hahaha!!!!give me someone who is in the stage of "evolving" and i will take away my clame that evolution does not exist.

Seriously do we really need another one? But I can't resist. Damn my personality!OK, first off we don't get millions of fossils because the conditions needed to form them don't come about very often, I consider us lucky that we get as many as we do, but even though there are not as many as we'd like it is still easy to see the development of many creatures. And even if the fossil record din't show evolution, I want to make quite clear that it does, we have seen speciazation happen (search google) there is a species of mosquito living under London in the sewers not found anywhere else in the world.

i seriously dont believe in evolution...why? well, because if we were evolving, then some of us would still be apes and we would be able to see the defeerent forms of evolution...so...wheres the proof? if we had to go through evolution...then we would have been born apes...(ugly sight) hahaha!!!!give me someone who is in the stage of "evolving" and i will take away my clame that evolution does not exist.

YADH look at the olyimpics how do we keep breaking records if we don't evolverunning faster is proof of micro evolutionjumping higher is proof of micro evolutionthrowing farther is proof of micro evolutionhow else do you explain itthat god created some people better than others. if so god is a cruel bastardi mean why didn't he make me so i could run 100m in under 10 seconds (i would be lucky if i could do it in 15 seconds)

When you go to an exposition of artworks, have you ever seen animals that come and take a look to them and that are inspired by the esthetic whole of it???From where does that esthetic feeling come from??? An ape???Who says we are evolved??? If we are evolved, we should have a language that is more complicated.But the first languages like hebrew and sanskrite are far more complicated and more refined than english.Piramides have hieroglyphics that are this perfect chiseles, that modern lasers can hardly do the same.Monolites. building techniques like Angkor Vat. Temples in Andes. Who has transported these monolites. Who has placed them perfectly, sometimes with eight tangent planes? Even with a hundred slaves they couldnt do it. And then evolution say that were apes... OMG...If you write the information in the DNA from one little cell , you have to write 1000 books with each 600 pages. Without one mistake, or you havent got a cell. Who has written these 1000 books without a mistake??? Whoops sorry, it was a coïncidence!!!Sorry guys, Evolution is fake and God is real.My opinion.

MasterOfDisaster: It's usually appreciated here in the debate part of the forums when your claims are substantiated, and your arguments valid. From what I just read, you supplied no real arguments, you merely stated your opinion after giving us examples you cannot prove are in fact, true.Although I am uncertain of the evolutionary reason for our developing a taste for art and so forth, this does not mean "God did it". I believe your claim is what one calls a "non sequitur". Jumping to conclusions is never good (because A is true, this does not make B true, just because A has no certain answer yet).I am confused. Can you prove that Sanskrit and Hebrew are "better" languages than those we use today? Unless you can, why would you use it as an argument? Also, can you prove Hebrew and Sanskrit were the first languages? I believe the first written language was the "cuneiform script" (naturally, spoken language came first, but you still can't prove Sanskrit and Hebrew were the first languages). Either way, why would a complicated language be beneficial? Wouldn't efficient communication be a vast improvement? Considering you seem to have trouble writing English (a language considered crude and simple by many), how would you fare writing Hebrew or Sanskrit? And don't give me the "I'm foreign" excuse, I speak and write two languages fluently, and can understand / speak quite a bit of Spanish.Still confused here. Why do you assume we were apes ten thousand years ago? We were "modern humans" in anatomical terms 200 000 years ago. I'd like an explanation as to why you presume we've changed from monkeys to humans in a few thousand years, as that would be evolution on a level so extreme it'd be scary. Should I look over my shoulder for clawed beast men evolved from rapists next?Today, we have made buildings far more advanced than we did thousands of years ago. Believe it or not, we could do mathematics back then as well. The first mathematical text is 3900 years old. Oh, and for the record: they didn't just use a few hundred people, nor did they use just a few years building these things. Thousands of people died building most of the ancient structures we admire today, and some were built in a century or two, while others in several decades. Last I checked, we knew what the wheel was 6000 years ago, so why we'd be unable to move large monoliths back then is beyond me.DNA is the result of evolution. No one has perfect DNA. Most people have hundreds if not thousands upon thousands of flaws in their genes. Where you got the idea that DNA was perfect, I have no clue. Cancer for example is the result of cellular mutation (a cellular mutation that spreads very quickly is the definition, as far as I know).Either way, you're significantly mistaken in most of your claims, and unless you can back them up, it'd be appreciated if you refrained from writing them.

I believe in a combination of God and the theoy of evolution. I think God made the theory of evolution possible and guided it for the better