If there was no evolution, u wouldn;t be exist to write this post. U see, evolution is the changing of ones' DNA to another form. If u study bio, u will know that DNA determines what u look like and yr functions. Evoultion is required to cope up with the earth's everyday changing. Moreover, Now scientist are tampering and altering DNA of FOOD and they are now known as GM food. That is like evolution but it is not really one example.
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#877
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 29 June 2008 - 10:43 AM
Evolution is the best way to explain the diversity and relativity.
#878
Guest_Amayo
Guest_Amayo
-
- Guest
Posted 30 June 2008 - 02:47 PM
Honestly, I don't believe the slightest bit about "Evolution". Being religious, I believe that God created every species, including humans. Perhaps these creatures were mixed breeding results? If you merge a Lab with a poodle, you get a lab-poodle thing. Now, unless you want to tell me the poodle evolved.
#879
Guest_Mr Ham
Guest_Mr Ham
-
- Guest
Posted 30 June 2008 - 03:28 PM
I'm probably starting a whole new debate by asking this but isn't race a form of evolution?EDIT: After all, race represents regional sub-species developed from the environmental and cultural factors.
Edited by Mr Ham, 30 June 2008 - 03:32 PM.
#880
Guest_iamq
Guest_iamq
-
- Guest
Posted 30 June 2008 - 03:49 PM
breeding is one form of evolution. why are labs and poodles different? they are both part of the same speices so they can breed with each other. the difference is their genetics now if we combine a lab and a poodle making a labradoodle (it's what their called) thats part of the evolution process. the best genes of the lab and the best genes of a poodle making a better dog thats evolution. why do you think that we cant breed a gorrila and a whale together? their genes are incompatible. different breeds of animals are evidence of evolution lets look at the wolves.they'er a breed of dog now lets compare them to a greyhound. the shape is similar but very different the greyhound is more streamline and areodynamic whereas the wolf is more bulky and more pwoerful.the wolf has long thick fur to provide warmth for colder climates whereas the greyhound has short hair as it is not as cold where they are.all of these prove evolution is real.Honestly, I don't believe the slightest bit about "Evolution". Being religious, I believe that God created every species, including humans. Perhaps these creatures were mixed breeding results? If you merge a Lab with a poodle, you get a lab-poodle thing. Now, unless you want to tell me the poodle evolved.
#881
Guest_aoiryuukishi13
Guest_aoiryuukishi13
-
- Guest
Posted 01 July 2008 - 12:09 AM
Well, it seems improbable that things today would have simply formed instantaneously, and even more so that there would be any fossils at all if that were the case. The fact of the matter is that change can be traced from the earliest times of the earth all the way to the present, and these changes indicate that species changed. With regards to evolution as a theory, it happens in many more aspects than nature. If evolution didn't happen at all, all of us would be able to speak, read, and write old english just as well as they did over 1,500 years ago. That's evolution in language. And if it's a natural assumption, then why should evolution in nature be?
#882
Guest_HierosTheDivine
Guest_HierosTheDivine
-
- Guest
Posted 01 July 2008 - 12:56 AM
I halfway believe in evolution, and fully believe in Creationism.First I'll point out the things I agree with.One I believe that there is evolution within a species. Kind of like breeds of dogs. These groups can change slightly (color, length of blah), but cannot change majority (number of arms/legs, major modifications to the skeleton structure).The main reason that I believe this isn't because of fossil gaps (which doesn't help evolution btw), but due to the fact that we have never seen a half some currently. Also don't give me the "its to slow to see it," because all species would automatically update. we would still see a bird, with also seeing a half bird. If evolution worked like that we would have labs at school displaying the original species, and all of its changes up to the new species. Also don't say "all of the old ones died out," because then we couldn't link one species to another. Thats why I disagree with evolution on that part. Also would all half-somethings would be only 50% as good as the original, until they completely evolved? how would they survive?I completely disagree with the big bang theory though. Random dust, randomly collided together, and randomly exploded to create complex solar systems? Also how does that explain where the dust came from? why an explosion? has any explosion on earth occurs spontaneously? And even less likely has any spontaneous explosion (if you could find just one) ever created anything? Sorry, not enough evidence. Also if we are going to teach evolution in a required science class, how can we not teach Creationism at the same time? If the words "God, under God, moment of prayer, and a require religion course" is brainwashing our atheist children in schools isn't not having it brainwashing the religious children?Sorry, but I seem to have gotten off-topic. To summarize I only believe in what I can see. I can see the small differences between animals, and I can see the words on the pages of the Bible, but I haven't seen half developed animals.
#883
Guest_iamq
Guest_iamq
-
- Guest
Posted 01 July 2008 - 12:25 PM
ok so you belive in evolution of the speices but not major changes in the skeletal structure. huhhh? then how do you explain the difference in the skeletal structure from in the same speices? lets look at the cats for example. lets compare the size of different breeds on one hand we have a simple moggy and on the other hand we have a jaguar lets look the size difference. theres a massive difference in size which is prior to contary belife is a major change in the skeletal structure. how do you explain the fact that the average male hieght 100 years was about 5'5 now most males i know are atleast 5'9 and quite a few people are 6'0 plus. thats a major skeletal structure change aswell.and on the big bang (which has the nothing to do with evolution) they belive it was started by an in balence between matter and anti-matter.anti-matter basicly when matter and anti-matter they annihilate each other realesing more energy than nuclear fissionbut how the inbalence occured is still a mystery
#884
Guest_DeinKonig
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 01 July 2008 - 03:23 PM
That doesn't really follow... if there was a balance of matter and anti-matter, (I.E. them moving in space without colliding) then there should never be a change because of their inertial state.and on the big bang (which has the nothing to do with evolution) they belive it was started by an in balence between matter and anti-matter.anti-matter basicly when matter and anti-matter they annihilate each other realesing more energy than nuclear fissionbut how the inbalence occured is still a mystery
#885
Guest_szylit
Guest_szylit
-
- Guest
Posted 01 July 2008 - 07:16 PM
You talk like if you know all about what you are talking about, yet you think evolution says humans evolved directly from apes, that the big bang is really a big bang (and one with only rocks), that the sun is the center of the universe (it is not even close to being the biggest star!), that there's only one element in the universe, and that non-living things can evolve into other non-living things...Really, I don't think anyone can take your points seriously... At least, not until you actually LEARN something about evolution and the origins of universe, or even basic phisics, for that matter.Evolution is load of lies in my opinion, how could we have evolved from apes. Also has anyone noticed that people say evolution is different from mutation (if anyone understands how please tell me). Scientists say evolution is real but they also say the big bang happened which as far as I know was the something to do with the sun which made it spit out the planets as just balls of rock. If this really happened, did we evolve from rocks? I'm not religeous but I believe in god not as a being, not as someone you go to heaven and see (I also don't believe in heaven or hell) but as something thats there. Sort of like air you can't see it or feel it but you know it's there, after all no matter how far back you go something had to come from somewhere. God in my opinion is just the thing that started everything. In other words God is time. I would love to hear your opinions though.
Edited by szylit, 01 July 2008 - 07:50 PM.
#886
Guest_HierosTheDivine
Guest_HierosTheDivine
-
- Guest
Posted 01 July 2008 - 11:54 PM
Well lets break down what you said piece by piece. I'll through in some spelling corrections along the way to make it easier to read. (note to everyone else. a moggy is a common household cat if you didn't know... neither did I...)ok so you belive in evolution of the speices but not major changes in the skeletal structure. huhhh? then how do you explain the difference in the skeletal structure from in the same speices? lets look at the cats for example. lets compare the size of different breeds on one hand we have a simple moggy and on the other hand we have a jaguar lets look the size difference. theres a massive difference in size which is prior to contary belife is a major change in the skeletal structure. how do you explain the fact that the average male hieght 100 years was about 5'5 now most males i know are atleast 5'9 and quite a few people are 6'0 plus. thats a major skeletal structure change aswell.and on the big bang (which has the nothing to do with evolution) they belive it was started by an in balence between matter and anti-matter.anti-matter basicly when matter and anti-matter they annihilate each other realesing more energy than nuclear fissionbut how the inbalence occured is still a mystery
Yes I do.OK so you believe in evolution of the species but not major changes in the skeletal structure. huh?
I don't think that there are any species with different skeletal structures.then how do you explain the difference in the skeletal structure from in the same species?
Cats? which species of cats? A moggy or a jaguar isn't a breed. Cats are not a species. Its not even a Genus. Technically its a Family. Here is the biological classification of animals (with specifically cats in mind):Animal: House hold catKingdom: AnimaliaPhylum: ChordataClass: MammaliaOrder: CarnivoraFamily: FelidaeGenus: FelisSpecies: F. catusAnimal: JaguarKingdom: AnimaliaPhylum: ChordataClass: MammaliaOrder: CarnivoraFamily: FelidaeGenus: PantheraSpecies: P. oncaYour going to have to compare Genuses (plural of Genus?) if you want to compare the average household cat to Jaguar you will have to first compare their Genuses and then their species. Thus my belief still holds true. I don't think that a jaguar has evolved into a moggy, but one breed of a moggy can have evolved to something differently than another.Lets look at the cats for example. Lets compare the size of different breeds on one hand we have a simple moggy and on the other hand we have a jaguar. Lets look the size difference. There's a massive difference in size which is prior to contrary belief is a major change in the skeletal structure.
Again evolution I believe is only at the bottom of the biological classification of animals. I wouldn't call 4" a major skeletal structure change. I can defiantly see the evolution there, but major? no. Now if we were to continue this growth and grew to 7' in the next 200 years and continued on that path, I would call that a major change. If we go with your linear skeletal structure change then that would mean that the Cro-Magnon that we found that was about 10,000 to 45,000 years old would be somewhere between negative 2' feet tall to negative 144' feet tall. I think thats slightly impossible.How do you explain the fact that the average male height 100 years [ago] was about 5'5", [and] now most males I know are at least 5'9" and quite a few people are 6'0" plus. Thats a major skeletal structure change as well.
First they do relate.Here is a paragraph of comic relief for the religious, and anyone for Evolution/Big Bang should not read it. If you do read it, it shouldn't be taken seriously. None of the following in the spoiler tag is true, and should not be commented on by anyone at anytime ever, unless you decide to say something like: lol, thats funny; I wish that was how it went; or thats not that funny. I don't care if you post that you did/didn't like it, but if you say "hey, thats not how it happened" and spin off into the true story, then your just stupid.Well that was a whole lot of nonsense. I'm glad I got that out of my system. But basically I want to know how that imbalance occurred, What was the chance that it would create anything like what we have today, and where did the anti-matter/matter come from?Well, having funny at the end will lower everyones opinions about me and my posts, but I don't really care. I'm tired, bored, and hungry. I'll leave this for everyone to attack one or two words in my entire post.Enjoy,Hierosand on the big bang (which has the nothing to do with evolution) they believe it was started by an imbalance between matter and anti-matter.anti-matter basically when matter and anti-matter they annihilate each other releasing more energy than nuclear fission.but how the imbalance occurred is still a mystery
Edited by HierosTheDivine, 01 July 2008 - 11:56 PM.
#887
Guest_DeinKonig
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 02 July 2008 - 03:00 AM
I don't even deny evolution, but I'd like to point out that 100 years ago we had far worse nutrition than nowadays, and even more so from the middle ages (when people were even shorter lol)how do you explain the fact that the average male hieght 100 years was about 5'5 now most males i know are atleast 5'9 and quite a few people are 6'0 plus. thats a major skeletal structure change aswell.
#888
Guest_Mr.Pumpkin
Guest_Mr.Pumpkin
-
- Guest
Posted 03 July 2008 - 04:17 AM
One second. Woah. Let's slow down a second.dgemu is a site for emulators, correct?Used PRIMARILY (not exclusively) by geeks, correct?And geek are ALMOST exclusively rational Darwinists, correct?So how is it we have so much opposition, here? How are any of the explanations on the first two pages insuffiecient? How can a rational person repeat the same thing, over and over, hoping this will sway the people writing comprehensive arguements against them? More importantly, why do we let nine-year-olds run rampant all over these boards?Darwin was a God-fearing scientist. He continued to be so even after he pulished his book. He believed in Intelligent Design, but not a direct interpretation of Genesis.So you see, you don't have to fight unarmed in the arena of logic simply because it disagrees with your religion. Don't worry. Put a toe out of the darkness. It's nice and rational here, and we won't argue with your religion unless you're an idiot about it.tl;dr Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, put down your shotgun and get out of the rafters.Hieros, you aren't actually saying anything, I hope you realize, you contradict yourself, and you have more spelling and grammar errors than those you are criticizing. You make light of parts of your arguement to distract from the logical fallacies, and then expect to be taken seriously. You're obviously a grown man, from the amount you were able to write, so please act like it.
Edited by Mr.Pumpkin, 03 July 2008 - 04:24 AM.
#889
Guest_HierosTheDivine
Guest_HierosTheDivine
-
- Guest
Posted 03 July 2008 - 06:42 AM
Thanks for the help. I didn't even think of that.I don't even deny evolution, but I'd like to point out that 100 years ago we had far worse nutrition than nowadays, and even more so from the middle ages (when people were even shorter lol)
Exactly what I was saying. So we agree.One second. Woah. Let's slow down a second.dgemu is a site for emulators, correct?Used PRIMARILY (not exclusively) by geeks, correct?And geek are ALMOST exclusively rational Darwinists, correct?So how is it we have so much opposition, here? How are any of the explanations on the first two pages insuffiecient? How can a rational person repeat the same thing, over and over, hoping this will sway the people writing comprehensive arguements against them? More importantly, why do we let nine-year-olds run rampant all over these boards?Darwin was a God-fearing scientist. He continued to be so even after he pulished his book. He believed in Intelligent Design, but not a direct interpretation of Genesis.So you see, you don't have to fight unarmed in the arena of logic simply because it disagrees with your religion. Don't worry. Put a toe out of the darkness. It's nice and rational here, and we won't argue with your religion unless you're an idiot about it.tl;dr Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, put down your shotgun and get out of the rafters.
Whoa. I knew that I was going to be taken lightly, but I was hoping not by someone who would agree with what I believe. To tell you the truth I know that I have grammar errors, and now that I look through it I see that I spelled "that's" as "that." I just hate it when I go to quote something and my page turns up red. I got FF so I can see most spelling flaws. Now FF doesn't do grammar, and I'm not a English person, so there will be grammar errors. I can read though the grammar, but I absolute hate massive spelling problems (btw, you spelled "Woah", "insuffiecient", "arguements", "pulished", and "arguement" wrong. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself *grin*)Hieros, you aren't actually saying anything, I hope you realize, you contradict yourself, and you have more spelling and grammar errors than those you are criticizing. You make light of parts of your arguement to distract from the logical fallacies, and then expect to be taken seriously. You're obviously a grown man, from the amount you were able to write, so please act like it.
Normally I don't do that. Look at my other post, and most of them are logical, without my nonsense. Also I didn't expect to be taken seriously:You make light of parts of your arguement to distract from the logical fallacies, and then expect to be taken seriously. You're obviously a grown man, from the amount you were able to write, so please act like it.
Does it look like I cared if people took me seriously? Eventually my post will drown in the sea of other opinions. I knew it was a lost cause from the start; might as well throw in some fun while I'm at it. I don't believe that my comments will effect anyone, and it won't matter in less than a week, so lighten up. Have some fun. Why else spend your time on this board? If I just wanted roms (which I haven't downloaded a single one, btw) I would just post a single sentence and hope that its never noticed. We can disagree, but when you tell everyone to put down their shotguns and you then aim a rocket launcher at my face its slightly hypocritical. Or at least thats what it felt like.Well that was a whole lot of nonsense. I'm glad I got that out of my system. I'm tired, bored, and hungry. I'll leave this for everyone to attack one or two words in my entire post.Well, having funny at the end will lower everyones opinions about me and my posts, but I don't really care.
Now this is the part that I want to get an answer to. I would like to know where I contradicted myself. What logical fallacies did I have? Don't take this as a challenge, but I just want to know where I made mistakes. Learning from mistakes is the best way to get better at speaking and debating. So where did I fail? Thanks for the reply. Also do you consider 17 to be a grown man? nah, Neither do I. Well, thanks for responding. I enjoyed talking to ya.Thanks,HierosHieros, you aren't actually saying anything, I hope you realize, you contradict yourself...You make light of parts of your arguement to distract from the logical fallacies...
Edited by HierosTheDivine, 03 July 2008 - 06:50 AM.
#890
Guest_iamq
Guest_iamq
-
- Guest
Posted 03 July 2008 - 04:46 PM
i laughed it was good but the problem is the scientist character was smart at the start but stupid in the end. any skeptic knows when dealing with belivers that you listen to what they ask and turn it around geez. for example:When the religious person said "how did this imbalance occur? where did the stuff come from? and what was the chance of that happening?" the scientist just said "1:1", got angry, and left.would be comeWhen the scientist said "how did god create the universe? where did god come from? and what was the chance of god creating the earth?" the religous person just said "did you just insult my religion? I'll sue your ass", and took the scientist to court, when the judge (who was religous) saw this case and asked what was said. the scientist said "but he was attacking my belife in science" to which the judge replied "the anti-discrimination laws don't apply to your science" the judge passed down a record verdict for the religous man ($200,000,000 by the way) thus leaving the scientist cold and hungry as the religious bastard lives in a mansion till the scientist after having lost his wife and kids dies of the flu due to malnurishment.this was just a joke but people sue other people for discrimation of religion when they won't even acknowlage a scientific man even if he is also religious.i dont know of any one being sued for not beliving in string theory. huhh?i'm only 17 to. 4 months till i can drink legaly and the quality of my post will drop seriously hahaha
Edited by iamq, 03 July 2008 - 04:48 PM.
#891
Guest_jackparnham
Guest_jackparnham
-
- Guest
Posted 03 July 2008 - 11:23 PM
religion is just a bunch of beliefs held be peoplewhether they hold much in the way of fact holds no groundsso basically scientists are much the same as christians or any other religionsi myself believe in evolution
#892
Guest_Jouten
Guest_Jouten
-
- Guest
Posted 06 July 2008 - 12:28 AM
How the hell can't you believe in Evolution?You don't believe that Human evolved out of one or two cells?Well embryos are basicly cells that evovle out of sperm and the egg cell.A caterpillar can put itself into a cocon and will evolve into a butterfly.A Tadpole will eventually turn into a frog.All this is proven and happens every day!So if evolution can happen in a few days, why shouldn't there be evolution in the hole time earth exists.The weaklings will die and only the strongest will survive.that's nature's law.Don't ask me where everything comes from.But I think energy just existed the hole time.Since you can't create, nor destroy energy it has to be there all the time.And everyone know that you can create materia is basicly energy.so it is possible that materia was created out of energy.No god was involved in this process
#893
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 07 July 2008 - 06:03 AM
That's a claim without evidence. Please support it with at least a few rational arguments, or you're just another "religious evolutionist (believing without knowing why)".No god was involved in this process
#894
Guest_DeinKonig
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 07 July 2008 - 05:13 PM
I think he literally meant "NO god was involved with the process" So he was on your side. I believe, I have a lot of evidence, but it's not empirical like you'd like (the immense complexity of the human body, billions of different organisms all working in symbiosis to keep one body alive? Oh yeah, completely random...)That's a claim without evidence. Please support it with at least a few rational arguments, or you're just another "religious evolutionist (believing without knowing why)".
#895
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 07 July 2008 - 08:16 PM
I know perfectly well what he meant. You might get the impression I am opposed to religion: Well, I am equally opposed to Atheism, as they're both ridiculous in terms of rational thought.It's not random: What works, lives. If you adapt, you get to keep surviving. If you don't adapt, you cease to exist. The fact is, "God" provides a very simple explanation for people who don't want to think about the complexities of the issue. Saying "I think evolution is right" without knowing why evolution is right, however, is just as much 
as saying "I think creationism is right".
as saying "I think creationism is right".
#896
Guest_Jouten
Guest_Jouten
-
- Guest
Posted 08 July 2008 - 06:06 PM
I think I brought many evidence.I believe in evolution because it's STAIGHT INFRONT OF OUR NOSES.every nine months there happen to evolve two cells to a bigger organism.Cells are dividing themslves and are getting one again.Of course cells didn't do that from the very start.Metamorphosis is another evidence of evolution.Relation of other animals.Fossils, etc etc.there is enough evidence of evolution, I don'T know what's up with you?However I find no evidence that god exists.You only can believe in god, that's all.
#897
Guest_cukjaisdf
Guest_cukjaisdf
-
- Guest
Posted 11 July 2008 - 12:26 AM
i do. but i am also very religous.POINTS were deducted for this post by Daft PunkPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#898
Guest_djhieu
Guest_djhieu
-
- Guest
Posted 15 July 2008 - 06:09 AM
Evolution isn't a "belief", it's a theory. Just like gravity is a theory, but you know it exists don't you?
#899
Shai
-
- Guest
-
- 0 posts
dumbass
Reputation: 8
Neutral
Posted 15 July 2008 - 06:27 AM
What? Why do you belive in Evolution, that's the real question.What makes you belive that theory?religion is just a bunch of beliefs held be peoplewhether they hold much in the way of fact holds no groundsso basically scientists are much the same as christians or any other religionsi myself believe in evolution
#900
Guest_♠ Sucramnella
Guest_♠ Sucramnella
-
- Guest
Posted 15 July 2008 - 06:39 AM
And what do those butterflies and humans give birth to! A giant more evolved species of the creature? Or just the same thing and the process repeats itself. They are not evolving they are growing into their mature/adult form. This is no proof that I came from soup, or how the first living organism came from a non living organism.How the hell can't you believe in Evolution?You don't believe that Human evolved out of one or two cells?Well embryos are basicly cells that evovle out of sperm and the egg cell.A caterpillar can put itself into a cocon and will evolve into a butterfly.A Tadpole will eventually turn into a frog.All this is proven and happens every day!
"Dr. Jackson, how old is this petrified wood?""Oh, it's 3 million years old.""How do you know that?""Because this animal is found in this same layer of rock."-"Dr. Jackson, how old is this fossil?""Oh, it's 3 million years old.""How do you know that?"Answer 1:"Because we know how old this layer of rock is."Circular Reasoning?Answer 2:"Because we have tested it with chemicals and they tell us how old it is.""How do you know that it works, do you have any other 3 million year old fossils that you have tested it on to prove that it does work?"Metamorphosis is another evidence of evolution.Relation of other animals.Fossils, etc etc.
