Why Is It...

Padawanbater2 said:

Lmfao crackerboy proves the point of the thread!

Point is- nobody who really understands the theory of evolution disputes it. The only ones that do... Don't understand it...

Click to expand...

Please explain your side of the theory of evolution?

From what i understand is we have a very good understanding of evolution as well as the basics laws in physics, if your talking about if we were made from an Intelligent Designer, well i think its prob not true. If man could believe in Zues or Athena, God or Allah. to me its doesn't work. We lie. (When i say "We Lie" at some point we lie either to ourselves or to someone else.) it prob comes from our evolutionary state that we are like that. Survival instincts.

Padawanbater2 said:

Lmfao crackerboy proves the point of the thread!

Point is- nobody who really understands the theory of evolution disputes it. The only ones that do... Don't understand it...

Click to expand...

Thats still a negative buddy. Only an ignoramus would stand by such a broad statement. You have no clue how many people you speak for when you say BS like that. You only account for the ones that are on your side.

Evolution is defined by the changing of an organisim to better its chance of surviving. Today we can see it happening all the time, plants, animals, and yes even humans. Humans have become slowly taller, everything is changing constantly. So you cannot say that evolution is false. Now did we evolve from apes, I don't know, possibly. God said he created man, he never said what man was to look like, but years of evolution has most assuritily change us.
Creation still can exist with evolution. It does not have to be one or the other. But there needed to be a higher power, to start all of this.

My father denies the big bang and denies the theory of evolution. There's nothing "theory" about it, it's fact. It's the Science of Evolution.

I compare his believing in the magic man in the sky and disbelieving evolution the same as a child that believes in "Santa Clause Theory" or "Stork Theory". They just have to grow up still.

I do however always get confused why people compare these facts to religious beliefs. We dont know what goes on in other dimensions or after death so it's impossible to say what's really the next step. The Evolutionary developments just show how everything happened, it doesnt say that a god does or doesnt exist, it has nothing to do with the actual topic.

Evolution is NOT a faith or belief.

It's not only a fact, it's LIFE - happening TODAY. Every day. You can see it in a microscope. You can even trace the DNA, and PROVE that X was evolved before Y.
Other scientific fields overlap and prove each other. Everything we see support it.

There will always be unknowns and errors in science - which is the way we learn.

The scientific method is the best tool we humans have to figure out the world, as it is CONSTANTLY creating new FACTS... which leads to electric lights, cars, plains etc.

I do not see why religion is a topic here? Somebody enligthen me? How did this evolution-bashing start in the USA? From over here you look stupid.

krok said:

How did this evolution-bashing start in the USA? From over here you look stupid.

Click to expand...

From over here you look ignorant by bashing another country. Charles Darwin was English, and the bashing started when he published his book "On the Origin of Species" which included (and was) his Theory of Evolution in 1859. All of the press of the book was local until information spread it globally. People in England hated it just as much.

If the theory of evolution doesn't require faith or belief, then the backbone of the whole thing must be laced with pseudo-facts. That is the only logical determination I can come to when people believe in a damn theory that HAS NOT been proven.

Kartel Kriminal said:

If the theory of evolution doesn't require faith or belief, then the backbone of the whole thing must be laced with pseudo-facts. That is the only logical determination I can come to when people believe in a damn theory that HAS NOT been proven.

Click to expand...

Proof is for math and booze, science never 'proves' anything. You appear to fundamentally misunderstand what the word theory in science actually means. A theory is merely a model that ties together all of the facts, data, observations and laws. A theory is the highest level of knowledge that can be reached in science because it has explanatory power. Theories can only be disproved.

As far as evolutionary theory goes, there has never been another explanation that explains the relatedness among species that we actually observe, better than common ancestry. I guess it might be possible you could come up with an alternative explanation for the observations of relatedness but it has to be better than common ancestry for anyone to take you seriously.

mindphuk said:

Proof is for math and booze, science never 'proves' anything. You appear to fundamentally misunderstand what the word theory in science actually means. A theory is merely a model that ties together all of the facts, data, observations and laws. A theory is the highest level of knowledge that can be reached in science because it has explanatory power. Theories can only be disproved.

As far as evolutionary theory goes, there has never been another explanation that explains the relatedness among species that we actually observe, better than common ancestry. I guess it might be possible you could come up with an alternative explanation for the observations of relatedness but it has to be better than common ancestry for anyone to take you seriously.

Click to expand...

The Library of Alexandria contained a great deal of information both scientific and biblical before it was burned to the ground. How would you feel if a holy text was meant to be written with proper scientific elements but never was due to humans' destructive nature? Would you be more inclined to embrace the idea of god or a religion? Evolution begatting from creationism seems to a viable compromise between scientific and religous beliefs.

dam612 said:

View attachment 1475560
i think you have to be dumb not to believe
"

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Click to expand...

Actually even though I know evolution is what happened, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were two different creatures. They may have interbred though to create us.

Kartel Kriminal said:

The Library of Alexandria contained a great deal of information both scientific and biblical before it was burned to the ground. How would you feel if a holy text was meant to be written with proper scientific elements but never was due to humans' destructive nature? Would you be more inclined to embrace the idea of god or a religion? Evolution begatting from creationism seems to a viable compromise between scientific and religous beliefs.

Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with your incorrect assertion that evolution needs to be proven in order to say it doesn't require faith?

Evolutionary theory makes no claim about the origin of life. If life was indeed started by a god or aliens, then that does not any way change the evidence that we have for common ancestry. Science doesn't seek compromise, it seeks the truth. A compromise sounds to me like a defeatist attitude, "I guess we can never know for sure, so I will just believe that god began life and evolution took over."
That has no explanatory power, it gives us nothing to test.

Kartel Kriminal said:

If the theory of evolution doesn't require faith or belief, then the backbone of the whole thing must be laced with pseudo-facts. That is the only logical determination I can come to when people believe in a damn theory that HAS NOT been proven.

Click to expand...

This is where we differ. We show facts of why evolution happened. You just say "Oh no, cant be right". Ok, WHY? ***WHY*** is it wrong? Evolution isnt based on anything other than logical observation. There isnt even any math involved nor anything to do with a creator or any religious beliefs.

So what *exactly* makes you disbelieve this?

And a theory is never "wrong" in total most of the time. It may be wrong or inaccurate in a certain area, but then the theory is refined. Its only a theory till we find nothing new to add or to disprove about it then it's scientific fact. Our theories about atoms are still right, but the model has been revised a number of times because its not the smallest particle we know of anymore.

karri0n said:

That's pretty much exactly what causes them. Every time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Causes

Click to expand...

I feel the need to point out that genetic mutations caused by radiation and other similar things after birth are not passed onto offspring which means that it has no relation to evolution.

destructo said:

I feel the need to point out that genetic mutations caused after by radiation and other similar things after birth are not passed onto offspring which means that it has no relation to evolution.

Click to expand...

Except for mutations that occur in haploid germ cells.

destructo said:

I feel the need to point out that genetic mutations caused by radiation and other similar things after birth are not passed onto offspring which means that it has no relation to evolution.

Click to expand...

I hope you didn't think I was serious in stating that the "ninja turtle" theory was correct...

As an aside,
MP, your "God created life then evolution took over" isn't exactly a compromise. That, precisely, is why I can't understand the whole evolution - vs - creation debate. They aren't mutually exclusive, whether you believe in a form of creation or not. This is really more directed to the creationist side, as we don't have any evidence for creation using the scientific method. However, even if we embrace the concept of creation, there is plenty of evidence proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution occurs.

I'd like to assert that people who flat-out deny evolution altogether simply because they believe in a creator are the people that fall under Pad's heading of people that don't actually understand evolution, OR have been duped into believing propaganda that has been pushed by these people.

karri0n said:

I hope you didn't think I was serious in stating that the "ninja turtle" theory was correct...

As an aside,
MP, your "God created life then evolution took over" isn't exactly a compromise. That, precisely, is why I can't understand the whole evolution - vs - creation debate. They aren't mutually exclusive, whether you believe in a form of creation or not. This is really more directed to the creationist side, as we don't have any evidence for creation using the scientific method. However, even if we embrace the concept of creation, there is plenty of evidence proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution occurs.

I'd like to assert that people who flat-out deny evolution altogether simply because they believe in a creator are the people that fall under Pad's heading of people that don't actually understand evolution, OR have been duped into believing propaganda that has been pushed by these people.

Click to expand...

Very well said. It is for this reason that it becomes frustrating discussing the science with someone that continues to claim that lack of knowledge about the origin of life itself, somehow makes what we see about the life about that we find over a billion years after we find that life actually could have started. We know very little about when evolution actually began but it appears horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes means they might not have evolved the manner we usually mean when we use that term. It might be possible that early life didn't so much as evolve as just merely replicate. The thing is, it is very likely that variations still occurred, albeit much more slowly, but it means that natural selection had something to work with.

mindphuk said:

somehow makes what we see about the life about that we find over a billion years after we find that life actually could have started.

Click to expand...

uhh....
View attachment 1499526

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words

karri0n said:

uhh....
View attachment 1499526

Click to expand...

lol!!


Damn, and I usually do so well even when I'm stoned.

Basically, I'm saying that the earliest forms of life are still quite a mystery. They might leave some evidence of their existence but no information about their structure is able to fossilize so we don't know about anything much simpler than stomatolites and Archaebacteria and they are already quite complex so we can only infer that there was a common ancestor to all known lifeforms both extant and extinct. I think this is why the most exciting new research is from Jack Szostak and John Sutherland's labs. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/origins-life.html
They, among some others, will help show us examples of simpler life from the bottom up rather than keep going from the top down. Finding ways in which self-replicating molecules can form will tell us one possible way in which life can arise naturally. It still won't mean it is how we came about but IMO, if the evidence is strong that life does form spontaneously, maybe even quite readily in certain conditions giving us more certainty that extraterrestrial life has formed too, then continuing to stick god in there will be much harder to do.

mindphuk said:

Very well said. It is for this reason that it becomes frustrating discussing the science with someone that continues to claim that lack of knowledge about the origin of life itself, somehow makes what we see about the life about that we find over a billion years after we find that life actually could have started. We know very little about when evolution actually began but it appears horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes means they might not have evolved the manner we usually mean when we use that term. It might be possible that early life didn't so much as evolve as just merely replicate. The thing is, it is very likely that variations still occurred, albeit much more slowly, but it means that natural selection had something to work with.

Click to expand...

Why is it frustrating? I am that person, can you explain the start of life itself, nobody has, it would be great if you could. Evolution is a known fact. They may call it a theroy, but how can you call it a theroy when all around us evolution is happening everyday. As for myself, I also believe in Creation, untill somebody comes along and proves me wrong. I am well versed in science, so I would love to discuss this further.

Most religion nowdays sadly has nothing to do with spiritual growth.