|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Who All Believes In Evolution?
I have seen several post talking about evoltion in certain topics.
I just sat there staring at the posts, wondering how the could believe in it.
Yes, it's probably best to look on both sides here. And, obviously, they are not Christians, because the bible is completely saying something else about how us humans, and animals got here.
Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that we evolved from apes!!
Look at the animals. Some of them look the same, yes, but they are different animals. So those who believe in evolution, obviously will think it is some different way an isolated species evolved. But I don't believe that. I am not exactly a Christian. I can't really call myself that since I hardly go to church and I hardly pray. I have prayed before, and recieved what I've wanted before. I prayed that I could win a camera in this school contest. It was an easy one. Just get perfect attendance, and get your name drawn from a box! I won, obviously, as I have hinted above!
I believe in God, and I believe in the bible. I am able to look at it from my point of view, but I look at others, and even though I understand you have different beliefs, other than God, I still can't see how you believe in evolution.
A scientist has done some kind of research before, I forget exactly how they were doing this experiment, but it proved evolution absolutly CANNOT happen. If I remember what they did, I'll modify this and put it right here:
Today, scientist are finding even more proof that the bibles' stories are completely true.
So how can you still believe in evolution?
Last edited by JessieF on Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
I just sat there staring at the posts, wondering how the could believe in it.
Yes, it's probably best to look on both sides here. And, obviously, they are not Christians, because the bible is completely saying something else about how us humans, and animals got here.
Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that we evolved from apes!!
Look at the animals. Some of them look the same, yes, but they are different animals. So those who believe in evolution, obviously will think it is some different way an isolated species evolved. But I don't believe that. I am not exactly a Christian. I can't really call myself that since I hardly go to church and I hardly pray. I have prayed before, and recieved what I've wanted before. I prayed that I could win a camera in this school contest. It was an easy one. Just get perfect attendance, and get your name drawn from a box! I won, obviously, as I have hinted above!
I believe in God, and I believe in the bible. I am able to look at it from my point of view, but I look at others, and even though I understand you have different beliefs, other than God, I still can't see how you believe in evolution.
A scientist has done some kind of research before, I forget exactly how they were doing this experiment, but it proved evolution absolutly CANNOT happen. If I remember what they did, I'll modify this and put it right here:
Today, scientist are finding even more proof that the bibles' stories are completely true.
So how can you still believe in evolution?
Last edited by JessieF on Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Well, I am not a christian, but I do respect your religion, and I also believe that most of what is stated in the Bible is true. I am with you on this one, in my religion (wiccan if you must know) we have two "gods" (actually a god and a goddess) that created everything. Also, if you want to speak to a non-religious person (if they have the intellectual ability to understand evolution): if we evolved from primates, then why are there still unevolved ones? Wait, I know, those are the social outcasts. No one told them about the big "evolution party" so they missed out and are doomed to pick the lice out of family member's heads for the rest of eternity. 
humans are always evolving...
| Quote: |
| And, obviously, they are not Christians, because the bible is completely saying something else about how us humans, and animals got here. |
I'm sorry, but I'm a Christian and I can totally reconcile the first part of Genesis as being a simple collection of symbols of the Jewish faith and not a factual account.
And evolution is not as impossible as it sounds. Simple glitches in the genetic code, a attuggttu changed to attuguttu and whatnot, has been shown to cause surprisingly big mutations (Sickle-cell disease comes to mind, but larger ones are implied). That's not to say that there aren't many things about evolution that we don't understand, like most of the things that ID people bring up all the time as reasons Darwin was wrong. But simple flaws in have yet to disprove it. Once again I think that there is probably more going on her than just "survival of the fittest", more than even he writers of Genisis 1 knows, but for scientific purposes evolution is as factual as anything else.
I guess I would be half-Christian, but I believe in evolution. There are still unevolved primates because they don't need to evolve. An animal won't evolve if it doesn't have a reason to. A turtle won't grow a longer neck to reach higher plants if it doesn't need to reach higher plants because theres plenty of lower plants.
Also, I guess you could think of cancer, because it is a cell mutation, which is pretty much what evolution is except evolution is a positive change usually.
And yes, they are proving that things in the Bible are actually true, but yes evolution is real. There is fossil evidence and many other things that support evolution. I hope this helps with whatever we're arguing about.
(I would also like to say that I don't mean to say "This is that" or "That is this", but that is what I believe.)
ALSO: Sorry I jumped from topic to topic like that.
Also, I guess you could think of cancer, because it is a cell mutation, which is pretty much what evolution is except evolution is a positive change usually.
And yes, they are proving that things in the Bible are actually true, but yes evolution is real. There is fossil evidence and many other things that support evolution. I hope this helps with whatever we're arguing about.
(I would also like to say that I don't mean to say "This is that" or "That is this", but that is what I believe.)
ALSO: Sorry I jumped from topic to topic like that.
Evolution is real. It is a natural process of mutation and natural selection which causes organisms to evolve to survive better on Earth.
I don't think you can deny evolution entirely, because evidence of evolution is everywhere. The peppered moths for example, are quite famous. While humans may not have completely come from evolution, there is no doubt in my mind that what we are today is in big part a result of evolution.
I believe in evolution. I think it is a totally logical thing to believe in, as the creatures on any planet need to change as their environment changes, be it to access food (the turtle example given by jspapp), or to survive climate changes, or lack of water (camels with their hump/s).
I think evolution has made people what we are today, and I would not be surprised if we did evolve from apes, seeing as we are so similar to them in many ways. I think that the "un-evolved" apes that are around are just from a different species of ape that lived in a different climate and surroundings that didn't require any further evolution from what they had. and that humans evolved from apes that spent more time on the ground, where they no longer needed a tail and where the feet needed to be flatter and less hand-like (as they didn't need to hold branches and other things with them).
From my point of view I find it very very hard (almost impossible) to believe in any of the stories in the bible, and even harder to believe that the earth was created in 7days (or whatever) by some godly being, and that all creatures have remained un-changed since the creation of earth
languages and cultures are a great example of evolution, the way they have changed over time, adapted to other languages and cultures, I also believe that learning is a form of evolution
So, while you ask... How can you believe in evolution? I ask how can you believe in creationism?
But anyway, these are my beliefs and I am not trying to impose them on any one, nor am I trying to destroy any one elses beliefs. Sorry for the huge post
I think evolution has made people what we are today, and I would not be surprised if we did evolve from apes, seeing as we are so similar to them in many ways. I think that the "un-evolved" apes that are around are just from a different species of ape that lived in a different climate and surroundings that didn't require any further evolution from what they had. and that humans evolved from apes that spent more time on the ground, where they no longer needed a tail and where the feet needed to be flatter and less hand-like (as they didn't need to hold branches and other things with them).
From my point of view I find it very very hard (almost impossible) to believe in any of the stories in the bible, and even harder to believe that the earth was created in 7days (or whatever) by some godly being, and that all creatures have remained un-changed since the creation of earth
languages and cultures are a great example of evolution, the way they have changed over time, adapted to other languages and cultures, I also believe that learning is a form of evolution
So, while you ask... How can you believe in evolution? I ask how can you believe in creationism?
But anyway, these are my beliefs and I am not trying to impose them on any one, nor am I trying to destroy any one elses beliefs. Sorry for the huge post
Without imposing my belief on anyone, I seriously believe that evolution is real. It has been proven over and over and over again...look at the mutation of viruses that are getting more and more deadly like the bird flu.
People who can't comprehend evolution must think beyond the normal pattern of thought...just because we are so different from apes (or so they say) doesnt mean that we couldnt evolve from a common ancestor. It's not within a million years....it's a process of hundreds of millions of years. There are tribes in africa that have mutations in their gene and as a result.....they have only 2 toes!!! It's like a freakin peace sign all the time.
I think that humans evolved into their current state because of the intelligence and spirit of helping each other. Why else would we be so weak so incapable of surviving in the wild but still prosper? It's because we have used our brains to change the environment to suit OUR needs. Humans are long overdue for evolution...biologically.
People who are so against being compared with animals have a superiority problem. There's nothing so great about humans man...in the end we're all just fighting for food and to plant our seeds around.
People who can't comprehend evolution must think beyond the normal pattern of thought...just because we are so different from apes (or so they say) doesnt mean that we couldnt evolve from a common ancestor. It's not within a million years....it's a process of hundreds of millions of years. There are tribes in africa that have mutations in their gene and as a result.....they have only 2 toes!!! It's like a freakin peace sign all the time.
I think that humans evolved into their current state because of the intelligence and spirit of helping each other. Why else would we be so weak so incapable of surviving in the wild but still prosper? It's because we have used our brains to change the environment to suit OUR needs. Humans are long overdue for evolution...biologically.
People who are so against being compared with animals have a superiority problem. There's nothing so great about humans man...in the end we're all just fighting for food and to plant our seeds around.
OKAY, evolution is the only logical way we could have gotten where we are today! And im not a Christian at all, but do you need to be a non Christian to believe in evolution? HELL NO, my grandfather was the minister of his church and he believed in evolution! Also TIME once had on their cover "will we ever stop evolving?" if i track that down i will post more!
i hope we wont evolve back to monkey...
I don't really know... this evolution stuff seems kinda weird to me. I mean, we humans are too complicated to be just made from a big explosion. Meh.
My dad says we are just a part of a big "test thing". It's like, the dinosaurs were the first tested things, but they didn't "work" well, so the testers sent a meteor to clear them all out, and start a new test.
Well, I don't really care about this stuff.
My dad says we are just a part of a big "test thing". It's like, the dinosaurs were the first tested things, but they didn't "work" well, so the testers sent a meteor to clear them all out, and start a new test.
Well, I don't really care about this stuff.
of course i believe in evolution. everything around me, and even i, evolve all the time.
evolution is about as debateable scientifically as whether or not grass is green. If you want to see it, go into any lab studying a virus. virii evolve CONSTANTLY right before our eyes. If evolution didn't exist, they wouldn't have to come out with new flu shots every year. In fact, without evolution we would cure all disease and live in perfect health for the rest of our lives within a year(but we would have already done so by the seventies).
and guess what cancer is folks. thats minor variation in the genetic code. thats evolution.
humans did NOT evolve from apes. Humans evolved in a similar fashion as apes. monkeys are our distant cousins, not our grandparents.
Look at a housecat, then look at a Tiger. can you deny that they look similar? can you deny that they are related? at the same time, can you say that they are exactly the same? It is clear that a housecat it related, but different to a tiger. The only way that one species can change is evolution.
almost all the major christian religions support evolution.
The Bible isn't seen as a history book, it's seen as a religious text.
You don't HAVE to be closed-minded to be faithful to God. In fact I'd imagine Gods not a fan of closed-mindedness.
heres another one. In the bible, man created two people. Adam and Eve. If it all started with two people, how did we get so varied? Look around, look at how many colors, shapes, and sizes of humans there are in the world. If it all started with Adam and Eve, the only way to explain all the variation in the human race is via evolution.
and guess what cancer is folks. thats minor variation in the genetic code. thats evolution.
humans did NOT evolve from apes. Humans evolved in a similar fashion as apes. monkeys are our distant cousins, not our grandparents.
Look at a housecat, then look at a Tiger. can you deny that they look similar? can you deny that they are related? at the same time, can you say that they are exactly the same? It is clear that a housecat it related, but different to a tiger. The only way that one species can change is evolution.
almost all the major christian religions support evolution.
The Bible isn't seen as a history book, it's seen as a religious text.
You don't HAVE to be closed-minded to be faithful to God. In fact I'd imagine Gods not a fan of closed-mindedness.
heres another one. In the bible, man created two people. Adam and Eve. If it all started with two people, how did we get so varied? Look around, look at how many colors, shapes, and sizes of humans there are in the world. If it all started with Adam and Eve, the only way to explain all the variation in the human race is via evolution.
| jspapp wrote: |
| I guess I would be half-Christian, but I believe in evolution. There are still unevolved primates because they don't need to evolve. An animal won't evolve if it doesn't have a reason to. A turtle won't grow a longer neck to reach higher plants if it doesn't need to reach higher plants because theres plenty of lower plants. |
actually, It very well might. Evolution does not happen in response to stimulus. It is the random chance of genetic variation, mutation. when a species is on the verge of extinction, the gene pool gets very small, because it's the same familial lines just breeding back and forth. when inbreeding happens, mutation is far more likely to happen. so, if the turtles have limited food, turtles are more likely to mutate, because there are so few of them they must inbreed. that turtle might grow a long neck, but not because there are high plants, but out of sheer random chance. it might also develop some other mutation, perhaps a way to get food out of the ground, or fins on it's feet for swimming, so that it can eat waterborn prey. The mutations are not designed to do something, it's just that if the mutation proves useful, that animal will be able to use it to increase it's chances of living. That is evolution. Mutation doesn't require a small gene pool, so even if the turtle isn't dying out, a longer-necked turtle might come along that has an advantage because he has more options for food than the short-necked. He didn't need to be born, but the mutation happened, and since hes better for the environment, sooner or later his species takes over that area.
JessieF, evolution belongs to science while a belief belongs to religion. You can't compare the two of them. Saying that you don't believe in a scientific theory because it seems far-fetched in your eyes, while you have no knowledge about it is simply something you shouldn't be doing.
The evolution theory is science best guess of what happened. If you find a proof that the theory is wrong (no scientific theory is completely right) then a new theory will be created which isn't in contradiction with your proof. And every time this happens, the theory will get better and better and will get closer to reality.
I won't be giving you a ton of proofs for the evolution theory. There are millions of proofs, you can find them on the internet or learn them in biology lessons. The fact is that some people rather believe in one book and then ignore all possible proofs you may give them.
Have you ever thought of the implications of no evolution theory? Without the evolution theory, viruses wouldn't mutate. You aren't going to tell me that viruses don't mutate, right? Why are people then so afraid from the chicken flu?
<Edit: silvermesh already used that arguement while I was posting this>
The evolution theory is science best guess of what happened. If you find a proof that the theory is wrong (no scientific theory is completely right) then a new theory will be created which isn't in contradiction with your proof. And every time this happens, the theory will get better and better and will get closer to reality.
I won't be giving you a ton of proofs for the evolution theory. There are millions of proofs, you can find them on the internet or learn them in biology lessons. The fact is that some people rather believe in one book and then ignore all possible proofs you may give them.
Have you ever thought of the implications of no evolution theory? Without the evolution theory, viruses wouldn't mutate. You aren't going to tell me that viruses don't mutate, right? Why are people then so afraid from the chicken flu?
<Edit: silvermesh already used that arguement while I was posting this>
How can evolution not happen?
In general, we get smarter and faster than our previous generation; may not be major but itis evolution in itself. Now if were getting smarter and faster every generation, imagine show much could change in say a million years?
As the enviorment around us changes, so do we. If that isnt true then ask yourself why we dont see giraffes living in the artic. Exactly! The giraffes began to grow longer necks as the trees got taller and taller.
Im not trying to undermine your religon, but its impossible to think that all the animals in our world will stay the same forever. My sister is a christain and drives it into me a lot, she says the world is only 6000 yrs old. If so, what the hell happened to the dinosoaurs???
Think about it
In general, we get smarter and faster than our previous generation; may not be major but itis evolution in itself. Now if were getting smarter and faster every generation, imagine show much could change in say a million years?
As the enviorment around us changes, so do we. If that isnt true then ask yourself why we dont see giraffes living in the artic. Exactly! The giraffes began to grow longer necks as the trees got taller and taller.
Im not trying to undermine your religon, but its impossible to think that all the animals in our world will stay the same forever. My sister is a christain and drives it into me a lot, she says the world is only 6000 yrs old. If so, what the hell happened to the dinosoaurs???
Think about it
I am a believer in evolution, but at the same time I'm a strong supporter of religion. Evolution is an animals ability to adapt to changes in the environment, and there is strong evidence supporting it. Being the son of an archaeologist I was raised in a home where evolution was accepted as fact. And something like 95% of all scientists accept evolution as fact. On the other hand, I think religion is great. While I'm not a believer, I think it does a lot to help better society. religion teaches morality and respect and I think thats very important.
I believe in evolution, lets start from the beggining with Darwin (You should really listen to Mark Steels Lectures on Evolution but...) Darwin investigated and found how these birds seem to have evolved differently to suit the enviroment on each island, so when Darwins theory came out by being pushed from one of his friends writing to tell him about his theory (which was almost the same) made Darwin dcome out with his theory, but when it came out people questioned him (Mainly mocking him in saying) 'If monkeys evolved from mice then wheres the half monky half mouse?' and similar questions in jest, but even to this day the missing evidance in darwins theory are still being found nearly 20 years later. I would explain in more detail and I know this probably doesn't make much sense to you but I wrote it hurriedly.
How the humans always evolve,I think this is Rubbish!.do you accept that your ancestors don't look like you.Could you accept they look like to an animal.
| OutlawSpirit wrote: |
| humans are always evolving... |
SuperMonkey
That is because in the bible, God split the world apart, and divided the religions, and race, and languages. It talks about how in Saudia Arabia where there are different Arabic languages, they couldn't understand each other, when once they were able to.
But I guess if you looked at thinks more scientifically, you would belive some major earthquake happend, and split the world apart.
Silvermesh
I am not exactly sure where, but it talks about Adam and Eves son meeting a woman some where.
If you people would read the bible, you would find a lot of answers. You don't have to believ in everything, but it may help you out someway, somehow.
| Quote: |
| languages and cultures are a great example of evolution, the way they have changed over time, adapted to other languages and cultures |
That is because in the bible, God split the world apart, and divided the religions, and race, and languages. It talks about how in Saudia Arabia where there are different Arabic languages, they couldn't understand each other, when once they were able to.
But I guess if you looked at thinks more scientifically, you would belive some major earthquake happend, and split the world apart.
Silvermesh
| Quote: |
| In the bible, man created two people. Adam and Eve. If it all started with two people, how did we get so varied? Look around, look at how many colors, shapes, and sizes of humans there are in the world. If it all started with Adam and Eve, the only way to explain all the variation in the human race is via evolution. |
I am not exactly sure where, but it talks about Adam and Eves son meeting a woman some where.
If you people would read the bible, you would find a lot of answers. You don't have to believ in everything, but it may help you out someway, somehow.
science is the HOW.
religion is the WHY.
evolution and christianity aren't in conflict. the church has always been a little slow excepting scientific explanations of the world around us. (inquisition would be a good example) but in some ways thats a good thing, because it keeps scientific explanations in check. however, this whole evolution v ID is just plain stupid. do you hear the pope calling for id? no. this is just a small group of uninformed and somewhat pitiable people who don't realize that what they are against doesnt contradict what they believe in.
a theory is an explanation of many observations and experiments using the scientific method.
anyway my 2c and free speech for the day...
religion is the WHY.
evolution and christianity aren't in conflict. the church has always been a little slow excepting scientific explanations of the world around us. (inquisition would be a good example) but in some ways thats a good thing, because it keeps scientific explanations in check. however, this whole evolution v ID is just plain stupid. do you hear the pope calling for id? no. this is just a small group of uninformed and somewhat pitiable people who don't realize that what they are against doesnt contradict what they believe in.
a theory is an explanation of many observations and experiments using the scientific method.
anyway my 2c and free speech for the day...
Basics: EVERYTHING LEARNS BY TRIAL AND ERROR, just like we made computers 'evolve' we have evolved every animal is currently evolving I believe that we evolved from single cell organisms and then split and tried to envelope (eat, digest) another so they all evolved prey and preditor unto the various animals we have today and we are still evolving, if you don't believe in evolution how can you explain the growth of our human stature over the last 200 years, because our spine straigten outs (along with other reasons) and why is our spine not straight in the first place?, because we used to move on all fours, all abvious conclusions to even the most dim-witted of people.
Yes I know this is huge but it is mainly to state my point.
| Ian Johnston wrote: |
| We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.
Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument). The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep). The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments. The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle). Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals. To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance. |
Yes I know this is huge but it is mainly to state my point.
Another BIG point here is to make, Christians (and the religion) used to believe in no question that the univers revolved around the earth and that the sun was a few inches high, but we know as scientific fact that this is not true, now you don't here christians still stating it as a fact, why because the proof is infalable there is no debate on whether or not it is true christians just have had to accept that this is wrong, not only this but we know how quickly and dramatically religions change (C of E) for example we know how dramatically one person changed the whole religion just for his own means to an end, and how do you know that someonelse hasn't done the same and the same before that untill the whole religion is infact fals if it wasn't in the first place. second we know that there are hundreds of contradicitons in the bible of itself and if we are to take it as fact we know that the bible was written by the deciples years and years after the events in question happened, and those who have any general intelligance or have done phsycology will know how easly your brain and memorys can be manipulated, I would love to go into so much further detail about how the bible is wrong on so many accounts but I really don't have the time but what I don't understand is how you can be confrunted with indesbutable proof of evolution physics et.c and not accept any of it?
I'm pretty sure that the theory of evolution has be thrown way out of porpotion. I was watching a really stupid video about what humans evolved from and they said we evolved from sponges(I have no clue how this person got their degree). It is true that we have developed, but evolution isn't really a big thing.
with my respect to all religions, i truly believe that evolution is the only way human beings have to roam upon this earth. even though my religion too opposes it (in the rough sense, cause god is said to be the creator of all). i really dont have an idea how the world came into being, how the earth was created (whether it is big bang or god ), etc but the only way humans have come about it by evolution
i think there is enough evidence to justify this claim. and as for the believers, they are alway free to choose what they believe. just like almost all believed that the earth was the center of the universe. but in the end, it was proved to be wrong. and simlarly, its just a matter of before some conclusive evidence is found, that will make everyone believe in evolution
i think there is enough evidence to justify this claim. and as for the believers, they are alway free to choose what they believe. just like almost all believed that the earth was the center of the universe. but in the end, it was proved to be wrong. and simlarly, its just a matter of before some conclusive evidence is found, that will make everyone believe in evolution
you obviously embrace the grand religion of equivocation and fallacy
I believe in evolution. But not in a totally Darwinian sense. I believe that the environment and time has made us evolve all along. But I believe we have reached a stage in our evolution that we are countering the effects of nature and causing the natural world to evolve also.
We have also learned so much that it should be simple to direct our evolution, perhaps towards the stars or the seas?
I don't know. But evolution does take terrific struggle. Which we seem to be lacking these days. Instead of stugggle, people simply sit around and wait to be rescued. The fact that so many stupid people sit around and do nothing and die off because of it seems to re-enforce the theory if nothing else.
The unfit still do not survive at too good a rate when great struggle comes around to test their mettle.
We have also learned so much that it should be simple to direct our evolution, perhaps towards the stars or the seas?
I don't know. But evolution does take terrific struggle. Which we seem to be lacking these days. Instead of stugggle, people simply sit around and wait to be rescued. The fact that so many stupid people sit around and do nothing and die off because of it seems to re-enforce the theory if nothing else.
The unfit still do not survive at too good a rate when great struggle comes around to test their mettle.
First of all im Muslim and nothing happens before Allah wills, nor after He wills. Nothing happens more than He wills, nor less than He wills. Nothing happens in a different manner than He wills. A snowflake does not fall in the arctic except by the will of Allah; a grain of sand does not blow across the desert except by His permission. A molecular mutation in a genetic code does not occur except by His power and control. Allah alone causes life, and Allah alone causes death. Every living thing in the universe has been given life by Allah, and He alone is sustaining every second of its life. If a species survives better than another in a particular environment, it is because Allah allowed it to live more days, and He willed for its progeny to continue.
In practical terms, if we take the theory of Evolution as a means by which Allah diversifies life on earth to show us His majesty and ability, then He alone, for instance, causes a nucleotide base to be deleted or added in a DNA sequence, thereby causing a frameshift mutation, which leads to the birth of a new species, which represents an evolutionary superior to its genetic predecessor, which passes on its DNA to its progeny, which results in a subsequent mutation, ad infinitum. Furthermore, Allah not only starts this process but He also sustains and directs every second of its execution and development.
If I think that Allah created the first seeds of life and then “stepped back” from His creation, I am deluded as to the reality of my Sustainer. As such, I will not be able to worship Him correctly, with the proper level of reverence, and I may even consider there to be powers that act outside of His will. To think that something other than Allah has inherent power and can function beyond His power is a form of shirk, associating partners with Allah – the only unforgivable sin.
i believe in evolution because i believe in Allah.
In practical terms, if we take the theory of Evolution as a means by which Allah diversifies life on earth to show us His majesty and ability, then He alone, for instance, causes a nucleotide base to be deleted or added in a DNA sequence, thereby causing a frameshift mutation, which leads to the birth of a new species, which represents an evolutionary superior to its genetic predecessor, which passes on its DNA to its progeny, which results in a subsequent mutation, ad infinitum. Furthermore, Allah not only starts this process but He also sustains and directs every second of its execution and development.
If I think that Allah created the first seeds of life and then “stepped back” from His creation, I am deluded as to the reality of my Sustainer. As such, I will not be able to worship Him correctly, with the proper level of reverence, and I may even consider there to be powers that act outside of His will. To think that something other than Allah has inherent power and can function beyond His power is a form of shirk, associating partners with Allah – the only unforgivable sin.
i believe in evolution because i believe in Allah.
| un4saken wrote: |
| First of all im Muslim and nothing happens before Allah wills, nor after He wills. Nothing happens more than He wills, nor less than He wills. Nothing happens in a different manner than He wills. |
Please clarify how your position differs from predestination. Does allah allow us free will like the merciful, loving Father of the new testament indicates? Or not?
i believe in god too
so i do not believe in evolution
i think it is nonsense
so i do not believe in evolution
i think it is nonsense
I'm an athiest and I believe in evolution (interestingly, however, my dad is a christian and also believes in evolution, in any case). It is currently the best theory out there to explain how humanity came into being. Intelligent Design is just silly (no offense to any ID believers, and if you want an explanation for my opinion I'd be happy to give it) and, as I already said, I'm an athiest which essentially rules out all religious explanations. Besides being the best of the current theories evolution has enormous volumes of strong support for it. Much of it has already been mentioned, but no one has yet mentioned one of the greates pieces of evidence: ring species.
The best way to explain ring species is to give an example:
This shows macro-evoltution. As the herring gull dispersed and spread to different regions, which had different environments, it aquired new traits to better suit its new environment. Finally, when the decendant of the herring gull made it back to Great Britain it was a different species.
Last edited by Valleyman on Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:55 am; edited 1 time in total
The best way to explain ring species is to give an example:
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| The Herring gull, which lives primarily in Great Britain, can breed with the American Herring gull (living in North America), which can also breed with the Vega Herring gull, which can breed with Birula's gull, which can breed with Heuglin's gull, which can breed with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull (all four of these live across the top of Siberia), which can breed with the Lesser Black-backed Gull back in Northern Europe, including Great Britain. However, the Lesser Black-backed gull and Herring gull are sufficiently different that they cannot interbreed; thus the group of gulls forms a ring species. |
This shows macro-evoltution. As the herring gull dispersed and spread to different regions, which had different environments, it aquired new traits to better suit its new environment. Finally, when the decendant of the herring gull made it back to Great Britain it was a different species.
Last edited by Valleyman on Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:55 am; edited 1 time in total
:sigh:
animals evolve : true
life 'evolved' from non-life : false
Does the self evident nature of that escape you?
edit: size mod
Last edited by gonzo on Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:50 am; edited 1 time in total
animals evolve : true
life 'evolved' from non-life : false
Does the self evident nature of that escape you?
edit: size mod
Last edited by gonzo on Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:50 am; edited 1 time in total
Well, lets not get into a debate about how life started. This is about evolution. And i just have to say that there are people who dont believe in evolution just because of what they learnt from their religion. They dont even want to consider any other source or info!!
Maybe what one of the earlier guys mentioned was true..bout how god(or some other force of nature..i choose to think of it as chance) was managing evolution, managing the path of evolution.
And..hehe, if adam and eve's son met a woman somewhere. Then adam and eve couldn be the first humans...either that or the woman was the son's sister.
Maybe what one of the earlier guys mentioned was true..bout how god(or some other force of nature..i choose to think of it as chance) was managing evolution, managing the path of evolution.
And..hehe, if adam and eve's son met a woman somewhere. Then adam and eve couldn be the first humans...either that or the woman was the son's sister.
in my opinion evolution is just a BS way that scientists try and turn people anti religous.
^I don't know why people need to assume that science and religion are enemies. God and evolution could both exist, easily.
Yeah, I don't see why science and religion can't go together. However, I think sometimes we must think again and again before accepting something that science "proved" to be true, since science may later "proving" it to be incorrect, for example, cold fusion, etc.
| Quote: |
| Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that we evolved from apes!! |
Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that the Earth revolves around the sun!!
Evolution happens. Any anti-evolution argument you hear from the Intelligent Design enthusiasts, such as irreducible complexity, has been refuted. The problem is that it takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of words to refute it, and isn't swallowed as easily as the quick simple fallacies in the ID arguments.
Check out EvoWiki:
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Main_Page
| thegamecreator wrote: |
| in my opinion evolution is just a BS way that scientists try and turn people anti religous. |
aha?!... so what is your avatar
I just finished doing my bio project on Evolution 
Yah i definatly believe in evolution. It is a proven scientifically and it's reacurring everyday with viruses and bacteria. There are many different examples I could give examples to try and convince people but it would be hopeless becasue everyone has their own believes and it is almost impossible to break them if you were raised that way...
Evolution is scientific fact. It's been proven! I have the greatest of respect for people's religions, but for me, the bible (as thats whats mostly being discussed here) is a collection of symbols. It's been translated and reworded loads of times to suit different people's views, it's unreliable as an account of how life strarted imo, whereas science has tangiable, proveable answers.
I used to believe in God when I was younger, and I have no desire to try and dissuade anyone from their beliefs, but for me arguments against evolution are deeply flawed.
I used to believe in God when I was younger, and I have no desire to try and dissuade anyone from their beliefs, but for me arguments against evolution are deeply flawed.
I do not believe in Evolution.
I used to.
Evolution has alot of logic problems, contradictions, lack of evidence, and is unprovable. There is significant amount of conjecture, confusion and over simplification to construct a man made story many people buy into without much personal investigation.
Evolution is taken by faith even more so than most old creationists.
Peace,
Atomic
I used to.
Evolution has alot of logic problems, contradictions, lack of evidence, and is unprovable. There is significant amount of conjecture, confusion and over simplification to construct a man made story many people buy into without much personal investigation.
Evolution is taken by faith even more so than most old creationists.
Peace,
Atomic
| atomictoyz wrote: |
|
Evolution has alot of logic problems, contradictions, lack of evidence, and is unprovable. There is significant amount of conjecture, confusion and over simplification to construct a man made story many people buy into without much personal investigation. |
I've seen this paragraph, almost word for word, at least a dozen times, but I've never seen anyone even attempt to back it up with facts.
it's true that evolution is not scientific fact. the only way to prove evolution would be to discover hard literally BILLIONS of species over the billions and billions of years of earths past. As far as it goes. in science, there is no such thing as hard fact, there is only theory. Evolution is hard theory. What this means is that there is NO better theory put forth.
| JessieF wrote: |
| I am not exactly sure where, but it talks about Adam and Eves son meeting a woman some where.
If you people would read the bible, you would find a lot of answers. You don't have to believ in everything, but it may help you out someway, somehow. |
The only reason the bible could possibly be seen to contradict evolution is because of the second creation story in genesis. if there are other people, then the bible doesn't contradict evolution either...
heres one for you. the first creation story in genesis is mistranslated. the word elohim in the original hebrew text should actually be interpereted as "gods". the gods created the people of the world, then Yahweh created adam and eve, and set them apart in paradise.
I believe in both. Adam and Eve evolved!!!! Until i read this one small bible thing. You know those small ones old guys used to give out
Last edited by mceejaydee on Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:18 am; edited 1 time in total
Last edited by mceejaydee on Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:18 am; edited 1 time in total
Hello friends
Abdu´l Bahá, the son of our prophet Bahá'u'llah, said in his talks when visiting Paris in 1911:
What else could I say....
Abdu´l Bahá, the son of our prophet Bahá'u'llah, said in his talks when visiting Paris in 1911:
| Quote: |
| MAN AND EVOLUTION
Certain European philosophers agree that the species grows and develops, and that even change and alteration are also possible. One of the proofs that they give for this theory is that through the attentive study and verification of the science of geology it has become clear that the existence of the vegetable preceded that of the animal, and that of the animal preceded that of man. They admit that both the vegetable and the animal species have changed, 308 for in some of the strata of the earth they have discovered plants which existed in the past and are now extinct; they have progressed, grown in strength, their form and appearance have changed, and so the species have altered. In the same way, in the strata of the earth there are some species of animals which have changed and are transformed. One of these animals is the serpent. There are indications that the serpent once had feet; but through the lapse of time those members have disappeared. In the same way, in the vertebral column of man there is an indication which amounts to a proof that, like other animals, he once had a tail. At one time that member was useful, but when man developed it was no longer of use, and therefore it gradually disappeared. As the serpent took refuge under the ground, and became a creeping animal, it was no longer in need of feet, so they disappeared; but their traces survive. The principal argument is this: that the existence of traces of members proves that they once existed; and as now they are no longer of service, they have gradually disappeared. Therefore while the perfect and necessary members have remained, those which are unnecessary have gradually disappeared by the modification of the species, but the traces of them continue. The first answer to this argument is the fact that the animal having preceded man is not a proof of the evolution, change, and alteration of the species, nor that man was raised from the animal world to the human world. For while the individual appearance of these different beings is certain, it is possible that man came into existence after the animal. So when we examine the vegetable kingdom, we see that the fruits of the different trees do not arrive at maturity at one time; on the contrary, some come first and others afterwards. This priority does not prove that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another tree. Secondly, these slight signs and traces of members have perhaps a great reason of which the mind is not yet cognizant. How many things exist of which we do not yet know the reason! So the science of physiology, that is to say the knowledge of the composition of the members, records that the reason and cause of the difference in the colors of animals, and of the hair of men, of the 309 redness of the lips, and of the variety of the colors of birds, is still unknown; it is secret and hidden. But it is known that the pupil of the eye is black, so as to attract the rays of the sun; for if it were another color, that is, uniformly white, it would not attract the rays of the sun. Therefore, as the reason of the things we have mentioned is unknown, it is possible that the reason and the wisdom of these traces of members, whether they be in the animal or man, are equally unknown. Certainly there is a reason, even though it is not known. Thirdly, let us suppose that there was a time when some animals, or even man, possessed some members which have now disappeared; this is not a sufficient proof of the change and evolution of the species. For man, from the beginning of the embryonic period till he reaches the degree of maturity, goes through different forms and appearances. His aspect, his form, his appearance, and color change; he passes from one form to another, and from one appearance to another. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the embryonic period he is of the species of man; that is to say, an embryo of a man, and not of an animal; but this is not at first apparent, but later it becomes visible and evident. For example, let us suppose that man once resembled the animal, and that now he has progressed and changed; supposing this to be true, it is still not a proof of the change of species; no, as before mentioned, it is merely like the change and alteration of the embryo of man until it reaches the degree of reason and perfection. We will state it more clearly: let us suppose that there was a time when man walked on his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and alteration is like that of the foetus in the womb of the mother; although it changes in all ways, and grows and develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species. We also see in the vegetable kingdom that the original species of the genus do not change and alter, but the form, color, and bulk will change and alter, or even progress. To recapitulate: as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period -- in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in 310 the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species, that is, man, and has gradually evolved from one form to another. Therefore this change of appearance, this evolution of members, this development and growth, even though we admit the reality of growth and progress, does not prevent the species from being original. Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, "We will make man in Our image and likeness." He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful, and more graceful. Civilization has brought him out of his wild state, just as the wild fruits which are cultivated by a gardener became finer, sweeter, and acquire more freshness and delicacy. The gardeners of the world of humanity are the Prophets of God. |
What else could I say....
I think that evolution is very possible but I haven't found enough evidence to actually think of it being real. I do believe in Intellegent Design (Being Christian and all) due to the fact that humans are so complex right down to the molecule. I really dont think that over time, we could become what we are today because it is too complex for this to happen.
| Jayfarer wrote: | ||
Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that the Earth revolves around the sun!! |
I don't believe that Earth revolves around the sun. I was simply asking how could you believe it.
Just because it's 'normal' or 'expected' doesn't mean that Christians really believe it. 'Normally', wouldn't you think a Christian would believe in the bible? There's Christians here posting that they believe in evolution! While the bible is saying othewise!
You need to stop making assumptions.
| gonzo wrote: |
| :sigh:
animals evolve : true life 'evolved' from non-life : false Does the self evident nature of that escape you? |
| denggi wrote: |
| Well, lets not get into {the horrific flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution} . This is about {focusing on the functional parts and sweeping all diffuculties on the microscopic level or origin questions under the rug} |
| denggi wrote: |
| They dont even want to consider any other source or info!! |
wow, that sounds familiar. oh, wait, it describes YOUR position.
| silvermesh wrote: |
|
but I've never seen anyone even attempt to back it up with facts. |
| silvermesh wrote: |
|
As far as it goes. in science, there is no such thing as hard fact |
Might this be part of the problem? Facts with no facts
For a hint. A person investigating evolution not only have to do some historital research on how data was collected and interpreted but also how the scientists have struggled. Alot of what ends up in text books as been watered down to be more convincing that it really is. There is also alot of political bias and depending on what year the book was written there are alot of unknown where the scientist released to the media findings that were unsubstantiated.
I have a copy of a reseach paper somewhere that top geneticists through analyzing maternal DNA discovered that Neandertal could not have been in the existing popular lineage. One scientists response was that he did not have the money to "re-do" his exhibits. It would been a cladistical nightmare
This is only the tip of the iceberg mind you. Until popular academia comes out of the closed circuit of self reference for authentication the circle of misinformation will only get worse. The only way for this to happen is to start pulling grants.
I realize that I am fighting against nearly 80 years of dogma but I think it will be well worth it when I am done documenting my work for publication.
Evolution is not the best available, it is the only tolerable one to the materialist.
Have fun with what you believe while you stall can though...
Peace,
Atomic
Well, as long as we are going to ingnore the actual arguments and just take cheapshots:
You might want to read this, to inform you as to what you're arguing about.
Even if you do want to argue about the origins of life I have here a perfectly valid counter argument:
You honestly think that life 'evolving' from non-life is less likely than a great man in the sky conjuring it out of nothing, since that is what you're advocating.
| gonzo wrote: |
| :sigh:
animals evolve {the theory of evolution} : true life 'evolved' from non-life {a theory which is different form evolution}: false Does the self evident nature of that escape you? |
You might want to read this, to inform you as to what you're arguing about.
Even if you do want to argue about the origins of life I have here a perfectly valid counter argument:
You honestly think that life 'evolving' from non-life is less likely than a great man in the sky conjuring it out of nothing, since that is what you're advocating.
| Valleyman wrote: | ||
Well, as long as we are going to ingnore the actual arguments and just take cheapshots:
You might want to read ...to inform you as to what you're arguing about. ...perfectly valid ... .. less likely than ..... |
Speaking of cheapshots.. you might actually want to check my posts for assertions before decrying my position. Apparently the concept of 'summarizing' similarly escapes you.
Zero is not a degree of likelihood any more than a broken arm makes you more capable. You might yourself want to brush up on the distinctions between semantics and sophistry -- the latter of which you apparently enjoy employing.
Personally I am impressed by a God who can start a universe and by using some (relatively) simple rules, sit back and relax whilst evolution takes place. That, I think, is a far more powerful God than one who has to go in and build all the components manually.
Also I think we have to distinguish evolution from Darwinism. Evolution is a proven fact, Darwinism is the best theory we have to explain how evolution works. "Intelligent design", on the other hand, denies the facts of evolution. If it was an alternative explanation to Darwinism and could explain evolution, then it might be taken seriously.
Also I think we have to distinguish evolution from Darwinism. Evolution is a proven fact, Darwinism is the best theory we have to explain how evolution works. "Intelligent design", on the other hand, denies the facts of evolution. If it was an alternative explanation to Darwinism and could explain evolution, then it might be taken seriously.
I believe in Evolution. Maybe some things in the Bible are true, but I think God is not real. Maybe people just thought there was something out there that made everything because they didn't know what it was and called it God. We don't know where we will go after we die, so we think we go to God. We don't know if we evolved or where we came from, so we think God created us. I think we will never know if we evolved and Evolution is true, or that God created us. I hope I didn't insult any of you guys.
| Davidgr1200 wrote: |
| Evolution is a proven fact, Darwinism is the best theory we have to explain how evolution works. "Intelligent design", on the other hand, denies the facts of evolution. |
A majority of the data used by the Intelligent Design scientists is the same data used by Evolutionists. Alot of the Intelligent Design theory never dicusses theology. Dr. Micheal Behe in Darwins Black box discusses the biochemical limitations to evolution. His book is scientific and layouts the problems in a very easy to understand manner. I read Dawkins response and couldn't believe how incorrect he was. In fact I am quite frustrated that the "scientific" community does not even try to challenge their own research to see whether it meets the criteria of science.
Curious?
How is evolution a fact?
Peace,
Atomic
I do believe in evolution......As a matter of fact don't we think we all evolved from Ape..lol
| atomictoyz wrote: | ||
A majority of the data used by the Intelligent Design scientists is the same data used by Evolutionists. Alot of the Intelligent Design theory never dicusses theology. Dr. Micheal Behe in Darwins Black box discusses the biochemical limitations to evolution. His book is scientific and layouts the problems in a very easy to understand manner. I read Dawkins response and couldn't believe how incorrect he was. In fact I am quite frustrated that the "scientific" community does not even try to challenge their own research to see whether it meets the criteria of science. Curious? How is evolution a fact? Peace, Atomic |
So that book is talking about biochemical limitations. There is no way you can prove those things. "Too complex" really funny as a proof. Everything is possible, certainly on a few billion years. Nature will always find a way around problems.
What would you say if you work your whole life on something and you're really good at it and when you finally achieve something unique after 15 billion of years, people just tell you that it's impossible to be made by you, that it's way too complex? How can they possibly know that while you have been working on it for so long testing all possibilities which they would never even find out, not in a million years?
The difference between the two theories is that scientists try to explain what happened based on all proofs they find (yes, of course they make mistakes from time to time), while creationists/intelligent designers are searching for arguments to support their holy theory that there must be some kind of god designing it. Instead of asking themselves how nature created something, they are simply saying that God made it.
Intelligent Design is just an attempt to make religion look like science.
| Bondings wrote: |
| So that book is talking about biochemical limitations. There is no way you can prove those things. "Too complex" really funny as a proof. Everything is possible, certainly on a few billion years. Nature will always find a way around problems. |
The proof is not what he said, but in the experiments that proved there is no functionality of many of the sub-sysyems in a complex organism. He took apart organisms until there was nothing left but a pile in non-functioning individual components and compared those to natural existing processes. If you cannot observe the process and are left to rely of "giving enough time" as your answer then you are no better than creationists.
Not everything is possible with given unusually long and unmeasurable time periods. Nature does not always find away around a problem, hense the term extinction daintily adds more unknowns.
Just because a human makes a chart of "logical morphological progression" does not mean that the chart reflects reality. Cladograms are often void of biochemical relationships but are constructed from long ago, Lamark imagined something and painted a picture by simply connecting dots according to similarity of various things to his choosing. It's a tool that really has no real link to the real world. Molecular Biologists are trying to create computer programs to reduce the workload and possibility of error, but the input is still human.
| Bondings wrote: |
|
What would you say if you work your whole life on something and you're really good at it and when you finally achieve something unique after 15 billion of years, people just tell you that it's impossible to be made by you, that it's way too complex? How can they possibly know that while you have been working on it for so long testing all possibilities which they would never even find out, not in a million years? |
The problem lies again with the ability to observe. If there is no way to observe the testing then you are again stuck in the position of speculation.
When you compare real observable processes you will not see a single one to support the "anything can happen over time hypothesis. There have been experiments for decades to try and reproduce the known process with minimal human intervention.
The number of people who believe in evolution compare to those who have actually spent time experimenting and observing is quite small. Evolution is taken upon faith after reading a book or an article without 1st person knowldege. This is a charge levied against most religious people but rarely does one recognize the hypocrisy of such allegations.
| Bondings wrote: |
|
The difference between the two theories is that scientists try to explain what happened based on all proofs they find (yes, of course they make mistakes from time to time), while creationists/intelligent designers are searching for arguments to support their holy theory that there must be some kind of god designing it. Instead of asking themselves how nature created something, they are simply saying that God made it. |
Well, simply saying "evolution did it" is a metaphysical explantion because there is no current observable process. "Must have" is metaphysical. You might start counting the number of times the words "Could have" appear in scientific literature. It's a dead give away there are no supporting data, observation or facts.
Have you seen with your eyes, life as we observe it, coming from a non-living concoction of known molecular structures? Stanley Miller and many since have tried without success. But it MUST have happened if what we want to believe is to be considered factual.... right.
| Bondings wrote: |
|
Intelligent Design is just an attempt to make religion look like science. |
religious intervention. Many of the scientist came to the conclusion by looking for what Dawkins called tooling marks. Evolution is losing it's ground with alot of scientists because simple oberservation is slowly proving the predicitons to be wrong.
The most vocal and nutty people out there are doing more harm than good on both sides of the debate.
Ever read The Biotic Message? Not internet threads but the actual book?
Buy it...Read it... It's amazing what evolutionists have said about thier own "sacred" theory.
Sorry to bother you.
Peace,
Dennis
The first characteristic of science is that it will never be able to explain everything. The thing is that something we can't explain today, will be explained tomorrow, just more questions will arise. You will always find one component for which science doesn't have an explanation yet. That doesn't mean that the whole theory is wrong. It's not because you can't make or explain something at the moment or just don't have the means to make it, that it is not possible. Let's give you an example; cloning was thought to be impossible for animals till a few years ago, now it has been achieved.
Science doesn't have a good theory about how the first living things were created. This is a very interesting topic, but isn't even needed to explain/prove the rest of the evolution theory. They could have come from a comet coming from another planet/thing with other temperature/conditions. They could have been formed on earth. They could have been put here by some magician called God by some people or aliens by other people.
Just kidding about the latest part, but nobody ever claimed that creating life would be easy. By the way, only one time would have been enough.
So you observe that something is too complex to be created by nature and a few years later a valid theory is found. Just name a few arguments that were named in the past and I can tell you, most of them should easily be explained by now.
The issue of irreducible complexity, well here I go. My argument of giving it enough time was not meant to prove that it happened - certainly not, but only to prove that proving that something is impossible is very hard, if not impossible.
Let's compare it to a very complex (and important financial) computer network where somebody claims that it cannot be hacked because a million hackers tried to hack it without success. Now, after functioning thousands/millions/billions of years (just a lot compared to the testing period) some information was changed/money was stolen. A few of the options are that either someone hacked into it or that it came from inside. I am not able to hack it either, but I am able to tell you that you never can exclude that the computer network was hacked. Of course, hacking it myself would be quite an evidence. But a lack of knowledge and means doesn't prove that something is impossible
I hope you understand what I mean with this.
Neural networks are actually something I am studying a bit. They are simple, but yet amazingly intelligent systems consisting of interconnected neurons able to learn. The learning curve is giving it input and perfect output (like msn search does) or more complex; observing with a huge amount of input and not-so-perfect output. Such systems (don't really know how to call them) are able to drive cars on highways and even in busy cities without any given human input during the ride on a different road then where they learnt to drive! It is exactly as humans learnt it. In the soon future (maybe even less than 10 years, machines will easily be able to translate texts from one language to the other, just by learning different languages and write short stories themselves.
By the way, your post seems to put a lot of attention to the 'creativity' of humans. One of the reasons (evolution theory) why we became the dominant animal is because we are a copy-paste animal(look at this forum for a proof, you'll easily find identical posts, by the way please report them ), the same as monkeys. Everything we do is an exact copy of something we did before or someone else did before, just with a very small modification/improvement. Just look at simple examples of walking, talking and writing. You are not able to walk without the reflexes/copying of the movement by trying to move your leg up and down and lean forward and then put your feet forward. It's simply impossible as your balance is regulated by, again, the learnt/copied reflexes/movements.
The Intelligent Design doesn't take into consideration the fact that evolution isn't linear at all and also very complex. Going from New York to Washington might seem impossible. But nature went from New York to Mexico, to Antarctica, to Australia, to Africa, to Europe, to Asia, to Australia, back to Asia, to Alaska and then finally to Cananda and Washington. If nature is in New York, it doesn't want to go to Washington, it just gets more complex an changes and then by natural selection including a lot of luck, a few characteristics get added. Some useful, some not and a lot of them even lethal. However, for evolution all changes are useful and will keep it going.
Take the example of the human tail bone. It's what is left over from the tail of our ancestors. I won't say that evolution didn't find another way function for it, but at least it's not very useful at the moment. However, one day it will either completely disappear or be used for something completely different.
An example function could be a future cable connection for humans to get data. (please excuse me for the funny example, but I couldn't find anything better) Of course you will then say that it was always meant to be used that way, but I hope you get the point. A tail could be used for something completely different.
Or take the example of the thumb. The xbox/psp generation now has developed much bigger thumbs, especially the right one. If this continues, then evolution will find a way to make this a new characteristic of humans; a big and muscled thumb.
| Quote: |
| Have you seen with your eyes, life as we observe it, coming from a non-living concoction of known molecular structures? Stanley Miller and many since have tried without success. |
Science doesn't have a good theory about how the first living things were created. This is a very interesting topic, but isn't even needed to explain/prove the rest of the evolution theory. They could have come from a comet coming from another planet/thing with other temperature/conditions. They could have been formed on earth. They could have been put here by some magician called God by some people or aliens by other people.
Just kidding about the latest part, but nobody ever claimed that creating life would be easy. By the way, only one time would have been enough.
| Quote: |
| Evolution is losing it's ground with alot of scientists because simple oberservation is slowly proving the predicitons to be wrong. |
So you observe that something is too complex to be created by nature and a few years later a valid theory is found. Just name a few arguments that were named in the past and I can tell you, most of them should easily be explained by now.
| Quote: |
| He took apart organisms until there was nothing left but a pile in non-functioning individual components and compared those to natural existing processes. If you cannot observe the process and are left to rely of "giving enough time" as your answer then you are no better than creationists. |
The issue of irreducible complexity, well here I go. My argument of giving it enough time was not meant to prove that it happened - certainly not, but only to prove that proving that something is impossible is very hard, if not impossible.
Let's compare it to a very complex (and important financial) computer network where somebody claims that it cannot be hacked because a million hackers tried to hack it without success. Now, after functioning thousands/millions/billions of years (just a lot compared to the testing period) some information was changed/money was stolen. A few of the options are that either someone hacked into it or that it came from inside. I am not able to hack it either, but I am able to tell you that you never can exclude that the computer network was hacked. Of course, hacking it myself would be quite an evidence. But a lack of knowledge and means doesn't prove that something is impossible
I hope you understand what I mean with this.
| Quote: |
| Molecular Biologists are trying to create computer programs to reduce the workload and possibility of error, but the input is still human. |
Neural networks are actually something I am studying a bit. They are simple, but yet amazingly intelligent systems consisting of interconnected neurons able to learn. The learning curve is giving it input and perfect output (like msn search does) or more complex; observing with a huge amount of input and not-so-perfect output. Such systems (don't really know how to call them) are able to drive cars on highways and even in busy cities without any given human input during the ride on a different road then where they learnt to drive! It is exactly as humans learnt it. In the soon future (maybe even less than 10 years, machines will easily be able to translate texts from one language to the other, just by learning different languages and write short stories themselves.
By the way, your post seems to put a lot of attention to the 'creativity' of humans. One of the reasons (evolution theory) why we became the dominant animal is because we are a copy-paste animal(look at this forum for a proof, you'll easily find identical posts, by the way please report them
), the same as monkeys. Everything we do is an exact copy of something we did before or someone else did before, just with a very small modification/improvement. Just look at simple examples of walking, talking and writing. You are not able to walk without the reflexes/copying of the movement by trying to move your leg up and down and lean forward and then put your feet forward. It's simply impossible as your balance is regulated by, again, the learnt/copied reflexes/movements.
The Intelligent Design doesn't take into consideration the fact that evolution isn't linear at all and also very complex. Going from New York to Washington might seem impossible. But nature went from New York to Mexico, to Antarctica, to Australia, to Africa, to Europe, to Asia, to Australia, back to Asia, to Alaska and then finally to Cananda and Washington. If nature is in New York, it doesn't want to go to Washington, it just gets more complex an changes and then by natural selection including a lot of luck, a few characteristics get added. Some useful, some not and a lot of them even lethal. However, for evolution all changes are useful and will keep it going.
Take the example of the human tail bone. It's what is left over from the tail of our ancestors. I won't say that evolution didn't find another way function for it, but at least it's not very useful at the moment. However, one day it will either completely disappear or be used for something completely different.
An example function could be a future cable connection for humans to get data. (please excuse me for the funny example, but I couldn't find anything better) Of course you will then say that it was always meant to be used that way, but I hope you get the point. A tail could be used for something completely different.
Or take the example of the thumb. The xbox/psp generation now has developed much bigger thumbs, especially the right one. If this continues, then evolution will find a way to make this a new characteristic of humans; a big and muscled thumb.
Evolution is the only theory that has any amount of scientific proof to back it up. Creationism seems just like all the other already ruled out ancient theorys like for instance the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and so on. How can you put blind faith in an old fable?
I'd like to just point out that people have been saying that there isn't enough/any proof of evolution... Ummm well excuse me but I don't think I or anyone else can find any proof of a god or gods, or any proof that the world and life were created by a god
The proof of evolution can be found in bacteria which is constantly evolving and in fossils, comparing them to the creatures of today.
you can't say there is no proof of evolution (I know someone is gonna say "you can't say there is no proof of creationism") well at least there is physical proof of evolution and that the world has been around a very long time (several billions of years) and I have to say that is a very long time for creatures to inhabit a planet and it is also a very long time for evolution to take place. Just because we are unable to observe life over billions of years, that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is false. If that was the case then the ID/creationism theory and the idea of a god are just as false (if not even more so) as there is no one that saw the creation of the earth and/or life, and there is no one that has seen god.
Evolution is taking place right in front of us, and it has done so since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so until the end of time (if there is an end)
The proof of evolution can be found in bacteria which is constantly evolving and in fossils, comparing them to the creatures of today.
you can't say there is no proof of evolution (I know someone is gonna say "you can't say there is no proof of creationism"
) well at least there is physical proof of evolution and that the world has been around a very long time (several billions of years) and I have to say that is a very long time for creatures to inhabit a planet and it is also a very long time for evolution to take place. Just because we are unable to observe life over billions of years, that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is false. If that was the case then the ID/creationism theory and the idea of a god are just as false (if not even more so) as there is no one that saw the creation of the earth and/or life, and there is no one that has seen god.
Evolution is taking place right in front of us, and it has done so since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so until the end of time (if there is an end
)You know in the Bible where it says 6 days? (don't we all?) Well I believe that during those '6' days, it was really around 4.6 Billion years in human mindset. when God said to write down 4.6 billion years, it may of gotten tranlated into something else~6 days? Or it may have just been what it seemed like to God. So I believe in what is scientifically proven and what my religion supports. A Crevolution if you will.
| Lamp wrote: |
| You know in the Bible where it says 6 days? (don't we all?) Well I believe that during those '6' days, it was really around 4.6 Billion years in human mindset. when God said to write down 4.6 billion years, it may of gotten tranlated into something else~6 days? Or it may have just been what it seemed like to God. So I believe in what is scientifically proven and what my religion supports. A Crevolution if you will. |
Make it that god planned the creation of the universe and it took 14.6 years to take place, just like science/evolution explains it.
| Bondings wrote: |
| The first characteristic of science is that it will never be able to explain everything. The thing is that something we can't explain today, will be explained tomorrow, just more questions will arise. You will always find one component for which science doesn't have an explanation yet. That doesn't mean that the whole theory is wrong. It's not because you can't make or explain something at the moment or just don't have the means to make it, that it is not possible. Let's give you an example; cloning was thought to be impossible for animals till a few years ago, now it has been achieved. |
| Quote: |
| Have you seen with your eyes, life as we observe it, coming from a non-living concoction of known molecular structures? Stanley Miller and many since have tried without success. |
| Bondings wrote: |
|
Science doesn't have a good theory about how the first living things were created. This is a very interesting topic, but isn't even needed to explain/prove the rest of the evolution theory. They could have come from a comet coming from another planet/thing with other temperature/conditions. They could have been formed on earth. They could have been put here by some magician called God by some people or aliens by other people.
Just kidding about the latest part, but nobody ever claimed that creating life would be easy. By the way, only one time would have been enough. |
Where something comes from is very important to the discussion. But a good theory based upon observation is/should be able to make predictions that do not contradict the premise of the theory. I really enjoy theories but when someone tries to tell me the theory is something more I have to go farther and investigate whether it deserves being elevated to Law. I’ve come of with a lot of theories myself and debunked a good portion of them by trying to. I observe change in nature but I do not attribute change to being a synonym to evolution. Change can happen for a lot of reasons, but nowadays every change is automatically labeled evidence of evolution without trying to disprove it. If scientists want to reduce it that far and then go ahead and say water evolves and dirt evolves. Dead things evolve and even maybe there is no such thing as non living.
| Quote: |
| Evolution is losing it's ground with alot of scientists because simple oberservation is slowly proving the predicitons to be wrong. |
| Bondings wrote: |
|
So you observe that something is too complex to be created by nature and a few years later a valid theory is found. Just name a few arguments that were named in the past and I can tell you, most of them should easily be explained by now. |
| Quote: |
| He took apart organisms until there was nothing left but a pile in non-functioning individual components and compared those to natural existing processes. If you cannot observe the process and are left to rely of "giving enough time" as your answer then you are no better than creationists. |
| Bondings wrote: |
|
The issue of irreducible complexity, well here I go. My argument of giving it enough time was not meant to prove that it happened - certainly not, but only to prove that proving that something is impossible is very hard, if not impossible. Let's compare it to a very complex (and important financial) computer network where somebody claims that it cannot be hacked because a million hackers tried to hack it without success. Now, after functioning thousands/millions/billions of years (just a lot compared to the testing period) some information was changed/money was stolen. A few of the options are that either someone hacked into it or that it came from inside. I am not able to hack it either, but I am able to tell you that you never can exclude that the computer network was hacked. Of course, hacking it myself would be quite an evidence. But a lack of knowledge and means doesn't prove that something is impossible I hope you understand what I mean with this. |
Irreducibly Complex means simply that there is a level of complexity in which a system can no longer function. The level of functionality is difference for every system of systems and we can readily observe these limitations. For your network to be hacked you network requires a minimum number of components to be called a network. If all the Cat5 cables, routers, cards, silicon chips and electricity were in separate boxes, you may have parts of a network but not a functioning network. How long could those components sit in their boxes before they begin to interconnect themselves into a functioning network? What processes would cause the router to unwrap itself and jump of the shelf to go interconnect with a host? How long would one have sit in Circuit City before observing such activity?
| Quote: |
| Molecular Biologists are trying to create computer programs to reduce the workload and possibility of error, but the input is still human. |
| Bondings wrote: |
|
Neural networks are actually something I am studying a bit. They are simple, but yet amazingly intelligent systems consisting of interconnected neurons able to learn. The learning curve is giving it input and perfect output (like msn search does) or more complex; observing with a huge amount of input and not-so-perfect output. Such systems (don't really know how to call them) are able to drive cars on highways and even in busy cities without any given human input during the ride on a different road then where they learnt to drive! It is exactly as humans learnt it. In the soon future (maybe even less than 10 years, machines will easily be able to translate texts from one language to the other, just by learning different languages and write short stories themselves. |
A learning Neural Network implies intelligent intervention. It also implies creative intervention because even if we ignore how a silicon chip could come about via natural processes you still have to deal with where cars and highways come from without intelligent intervention. We have not observed programs being written and executed without some level of intelligent input from man. Your analogy actually gives more credence to Intelligent Design than unguided evolutionary processes.
| Bondings wrote: |
|
By the way, your post seems to put a lot of attention to the 'creativity' of humans. One of the reasons (evolution theory) why we became the dominant animal is because we are a copy-paste animal (look at this forum for a proof, you'll easily find identical posts, by the way please report them ), the same as monkeys. Everything we do is an exact copy of something we did before or someone else did before, just with a very small modification/improvement. Just look at simple examples of walking, talking and writing. You are not able to walk without the reflexes/copying of the movement by trying to move your leg up and down and lean forward and then put your feet forward. It's simply impossible as your balance is regulated by, again, the learnt/copied reflexes/movements. |
Copy and Pasting is proof of Intelligence. “Knowledge transfer” is an interesting subject
because we keep reinventing the wheel right? Copying and Pasting also proves that deleterious mutations are diluting the gene pool. No new information but a lot of watered down misinformation. Creativity is a sign of intelligence.
| Bondings wrote: |
|
The Intelligent Design doesn't take into consideration the fact that evolution isn't linear at all and also very complex. Going from New York to Washington might seem impossible. But nature went from New York to Mexico, to Antarctica, to Australia, to Africa, to Europe, to Asia, to Australia, back to Asia, to Alaska and then finally to Canada and Washington. If nature is in New York, it doesn't want to go to Washington, it just gets more complex an changes and then by natural selection including a lot of luck, a few characteristics get added. Some useful, some not and a lot of them even lethal. However, for evolution all changes are useful and will keep it going. |
You mention “want” and ” luck”. It’s interesting that you mention words that have been banned by scientists when discussing evolution theory. After accidentally invoking those words in the late 70’s to explain evolution that had to quickly redefine evolution to something simple and bullet proof.
| Bondings wrote: |
| Take the example of the human tail bone. It's what is left over from the tail of our ancestors. I won't say that evolution didn't find another way function for it, but at least it's not very useful at the moment. However, one day it will either completely disappear or be used for something completely different. |
Vestiges are an offshoot of Lamarckism’s recapitulation theory where “man” tries to determine the function of something he doesn’t fully understand because lack of investigation. Even recently I was told by a Doctor that my Uvula was useless and should have it removed. Yet the insurance company nurse informed me that it performs great during acid reflux incidents.
| Bondings wrote: |
| An example function could be a future cable connection for humans to get data. (please excuse me for the funny example, but I couldn't find anything better) Of course you will then say that it was always meant to be used that way, but I hope you get the point. A tail could be used for something completely different. |
| Bondings wrote: |
| Or take the example of the thumb. The xbox/psp generation now has developed much bigger thumbs, especially the right one. If this continues, then evolution will find a way to make this a new characteristic of humans; a big and muscled thumb. |
I like that you are trying to use analogies to help sort out and relate to the subject. Analogies are very useful tools for helping or killing a concept. Scientist often use them to describe a thought in common terms. For me, analogies are how I kill most theories.
Keep up the good work.
Happy Thanks Giving! Gobble Gobble
Peace,
Dennis (aka Atomic)
| Bondings wrote: |
| The issue of irreducible complexity, well here I go. My argument of giving it enough time was not meant to prove that it happened - certainly not, but only to prove that proving that something is impossible is very hard, if not impossible.
Let's compare it to a very complex (and important financial) computer network where somebody claims that it cannot be hacked because a million hackers tried to hack it without success. Now, after functioning thousands/millions/billions of years (just a lot compared to the testing period) some information was changed/money was stolen. A few of the options are that either someone hacked into it or that it came from inside. I am not able to hack it either, but I am able to tell you that you never can exclude that the computer network was hacked. Of course, hacking it myself would be quite an evidence. But a lack of knowledge and means doesn't prove that something is impossible I hope you understand what I mean with this. |
| atomictoyz wrote: |
| I understand what you mean. But the same argument could be used in support of creationists. “We know God exists scientifically even though the technology and knowledge to prove it does not exist yet” |
No, that's not true, the same argument would be that you can't prove that god does not exist. I was using this as an argument against ID instead of an argument for evolution.
| Quote: |
| Irreducibly Complex means simply that there is a level of complexity in which a system can no longer function. The level of functionality is difference for every system of systems and we can readily observe these limitations. For your network to be hacked you network requires a minimum number of components to be called a network. If all the Cat5 cables, routers, cards, silicon chips and electricity were in separate boxes, you may have parts of a network but not a functioning network. How long could those components sit in their boxes before they begin to interconnect themselves into a functioning network? What processes would cause the router to unwrap itself and jump of the shelf to go interconnect with a host? How long would one have sit in Circuit City before observing such activity? |
This is quite the metaphor you guys have got going here.
But basically, what most scientsists say, is that the purpose of the Cat5 cables, routers, etc. wold not necessarily have always remained the same. Their importance in being part of the network has evolved over time. Their function has changed over time until it is as integral as we see it today.
| Bondings wrote: |
| But a lack of knowledge and means doesn't prove that something is impossible.
|
This is the main point of what you were trying to say.
You were saying that ID is wrong because it points to the impossible as evidence against evolution without intelligent intervention. But you aretrying to downplay impossible by using the hopeful monster technique which refers to some future knowledge revealing that the impossible is quite common.
My point is that irregardless of what the future may hold it's still is not science until then. Evolution and ID cannot refer to future data as fact.
The metaphor I used for the networks is the same metaphor used in convincing people the transition from micro to macro. The metaphor works because there is no data and no observation of small to large changes. It is quite evident on the other hand from breeding and hybridization experiments that most changes beyond a certain point are fatal. The number of non-viable offspring in these experiments are astoundingly high.
But even though the data says no, scientist jump to some future possibility or revelation without dealing with the reality of the data.
Science is about what you can prove and not what you can imagine.
Nobody has ever seen a functioning network come about from "observing" the IT section in Best Buy.
If you want to do a scientific experiment for your self then go buy a router, cat5, server, host, and power supply and throw them into a kiddy pool. Stir it, shake it, burn it but do not touch the boxes once inside the pool. Let me know by email when your server is up. You can't refer to enourmos amount of time passing because that isn't science that is speculation. There is nothing wrong with making assumptions but they have to be proven.
For a fun part of the experiment you have to drive to best buy blinfolded and pickout the parts blindfolded.
Lets go eat some turkey.
Peace,
Dennis
You know it is so weird that you mention this because NPR just had a special podcast the day before yesterday on the development of the theory of evolution. One major point that they guest speaker made was that people often confuse the notions of evolution and those of natural selection. There are still many scientists who believe in evolution but disagree with evolution through natural selection - which explains how one could plausibly believe in creationism and evolution; nature could have been created through intelligent design and then simply evolved into varying species, as opposed species beginning from microscopic origins and "fighting" their way to the top and once reaching there, evolving into even more advantageous and well-adapted species relevant to their environment.
I'm pretty skeptical about the whole intelligent design bit, but I have to claim ignorance when it comes to the evolution controversy, seeing how I am pitifully informed compared to scientist and religious figures who have been studying and debating the issue for a greater part of their lives.
I'm pretty skeptical about the whole intelligent design bit, but I have to claim ignorance when it comes to the evolution controversy, seeing how I am pitifully informed compared to scientist and religious figures who have been studying and debating the issue for a greater part of their lives.
| atomictoyz wrote: |
| You were saying that ID is wrong because it points to the impossible as evidence against evolution without intelligent intervention. But you aretrying to downplay impossible by using the hopeful monster technique which refers to some future knowledge revealing that the impossible is quite common. |
The only argument I know that is used for Intelligent Design is that life is too be complex to be made by evolution. I'm not really referring to future knowledge, I'm just saying that there is completely no way to prove such a claim.
The problem with your network metaphor is that you imply that evolution would be linear. It isn't. First of all, evolution never created a computer network. If it would create one, it would look way more complex and be much less efficient if you compare it with its complexity. If you think evolution takes a head, two hands, ... and stir it till a human comes out, then sure I agree that it isn't possible. Just read a science book about evolution not written by someone who supports ID and no, not the bible. Unlike human inventions, body parts have several functions which change over time. To get back to your network metaphor, a cable could easily switch into two separte cables and become a router over time.
Also, you never mentioned a specific example of why life should be too complex to be formed by evolution. I'm sure I can find an answer on most of those examples.
I am not a Christian AND I believe in evolution. Have you read Charles Darwin??? You should. The bible tells many things that are uncertain, and other are just an explanation that society needs. The more-than-2000-years-ago society didn't know many things that we know know, like the Earth is not flat. That society wondered where did they come, and tried to solve that question by saying "we came from nothing". But think that something can't come from nothing. Just looking at the phisics, "enery doesn't create nor destroy, it only transforms". We and the whole world is enery. Matter is just a type of enery. It think that that creation thing was ok for that society, but not for ours, because we have more knowledge about our world than then.
I also wanted to tell you just an example about an uncertain thing that the bible says. It says that Herodes told someone to kill Jesus, and the truth is that Herodes was dead by the time Jesus was born. AND THE CHURH HAS RECOGNISED IT!!! You just can't believe what a book says without any proofs of it. Modern science have proofs. Get informed.
Love, Lena
Last edited by solomagos on Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
I also wanted to tell you just an example about an uncertain thing that the bible says. It says that Herodes told someone to kill Jesus, and the truth is that Herodes was dead by the time Jesus was born. AND THE CHURH HAS RECOGNISED IT!!! You just can't believe what a book says without any proofs of it. Modern science have proofs. Get informed.
Love, Lena
Last edited by solomagos on Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/wackyevolutionists.html
--------------------------------------------------------]
"Lord protect me from your followers"
--------------------------------------------------------]
"Lord protect me from your followers"
i know that a lot of people have said this already, and i truly don't want to offend anyone, but i believe in evolution too. i know that the argument against evolution is that god created all life, and so if you believe in evolution you don't believe in god.
although i'm an atheist/agnostic, i have no problem with religious people and many aspects of religion. however, this makes no sense to me. the only reason that the bible doesn't mention evolution is that the people who wrote it (yes, i do believe that people wrote the bible, and put down all they knew about their god) didn't know about evolution yet!
think about it. can't our beliefs change [evolve, as it were] just as people do? just because god didn't dream up everything doesn't mean there can't be one!
again, this is just what i think, but doesn't it make sense?
although i'm an atheist/agnostic, i have no problem with religious people and many aspects of religion. however, this makes no sense to me. the only reason that the bible doesn't mention evolution is that the people who wrote it (yes, i do believe that people wrote the bible, and put down all they knew about their god) didn't know about evolution yet!
think about it. can't our beliefs change [evolve, as it were] just as people do? just because god didn't dream up everything doesn't mean there can't be one!
again, this is just what i think, but doesn't it make sense?
| dpsthree wrote: |
| http://objectiveministries.org/creation/wackyevolutionists.html
--------------------------------------------------------] "Lord protect me from your followers" |
I first didn't realize you named it "The craziest website ever".
Anyway, this is what they tell about "Evolutionism Propaganda":
| objectiveministries.org wrote: |
| However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known |