Do you believe in evolution?

[DrSaint 176]

I am answering you for the argument’s sake.

 

It is very unwise of you to relate Evolution and Religion, they are two very different themes

 

....

 

1) What reasonable proof have you shown or any one else for that matter.  to hear it. ....

 

Respectfully DirtFighter

 

Alright, before you ask me about my evidence, why don’t you tell me WHAT evidence you have in favor of your creationism?

Hard unbiased evidence would be fine with me!

 

 

....

 

2) People don't want there to be a God because if there is then you know you will have to be accountable to him for your actions. ....

 

Respectfully DirtFighter

 

Why are you trying to impose your individual moral conscious to others?

Can it be, simply because they don’t trust what they see on religious books?

You have no idea why people believe in Evolution and you are making up these illogical reasons for them to your satisfaction. 

 

 

....

 

 

3) It seems that you blindly believe people have blind devotion. I used to believe the same as you do, .....

 

 

Respectfully DirtFighter

 

As I said up there, you got it wrong again, we are two different people with two different scientific and educational backgrounds.

 

 

 ....

 

4) Now if you would please try to continue in a respectful manner and contribute to your opinion on the subject, I would like to hear it. But if you are going to just throw out accusations of "illness" for which there is no cure then maybe this is not a conversation you should participate in.

 

Respectfully DirtFighter

 

I didn't talk to you, and i had no plans to talk to you until i saw this reply of yours to me.

 

I said what i said because that is how i feel, and i was careful enough not to address my post to anyone! 

 

Therefor I would like to ask you to not to violate my personal space since you are not the author of this topic!

 

Sincerly

DrSaint

[monkeyburn 13,560]

"Who can prove that there is a beginning, or end?"

[DirtFighter 199]

I am answering you for the argument’s sake.

 

It is very unwise of you to relate Evolution and Religion, they are two very different themes

 

 

Alright, before you ask me about my evidence, why don’t you tell me WHAT evidence you have in favor of your creationism?

Hard unbiased evidence would be fine with me!

 

 

 

Why are you trying to impose your individual moral conscious to others?

Can it be, simply because they don’t trust what they see on religious books?

You have no idea why people believe in Evolution and you are making up these illogical reasons for them to your satisfaction. 

 

 

 

As I said up there, you got it wrong again, we are two different people with two different scientific and educational backgrounds.

 

 

 

I didn't talk to you, and i had no plans to talk to you until i saw this reply of yours to me.

 

I said what i said because that is how i feel, and i was careful enough not to address my post to anyone! 

 

Therefor I would like to ask you to not to violate my personal space since you are not the author of this topic!

 

Sincerly

DrSaint

DrSaint,

 

Evolution and religion may me two differing themes but they almost go hand in hand especially in a conversation like this one.

 

1. I have presented some evidence in post             #48             and post             #56             and you still have not.

2. I am not trying to impose my moral conscious on any one. It may have been presumptuous of me to say what I said and for that I apologize. I think the same can be said for you about having no idea as to why people believe in God or dis-believe evolution and you too have come up with "an illness for which there is no cure" for your own satisfaction.

3. How do you know we have different education and back ground? It is likely very true but you don'y know that to be a fact.

4. I know you where not talking to me personally but you where talking in a public forum. For you not to expect a reply for what you post in a public place for all to read is un-realistic no matter how careful you where in not addressing any particular person. I will not violate your personal space, if you do not wish to continue a respectful debate with me then I will respect that and we can end any correspondence with each other. 

 

it is not my intention to offend you or any one else here. I will continue to offer my views on this subject though and like I said if it going to be a problem then you and I can just agree to disagree right now and avoid each other for the remainder of this thread. I would like to continue with you and I being able to respectfully debate but it makes no difference to me and i will not take it personal if you want to end talks with me in particular

 

Respectfully

DirtFighter

 

P.S. you screen name is quite ironic for your position and this topic  :D

[Reckoning 178]

why people are going off topic? are moderators willfully ignoring this?
Evolution is entirely scientific topic, there is no need to drag religion into this. people here are asked to share their opinions ON evolution so it pointless to bash religion in the light of the topic. In the science community itself the debate of evolution is ongoing,they don't bring religion as a tool of offence or defense and neither should we.
secondly a person who "believe" in evolution can also "believe" in God. its not paradoxical.
Lastly if some atheists are so found of bashing creationist basing their argument on the "blind" belief,then they are just wrong. Evolution nor any other scientific theory has any empirical data on origins of universe and life. hence by negating any possibility of a higher power or a intelligent design and believing only their version of existence to be true is following blind belief.

[GoldRock 6,165]

Macroevolution is out of the question, even downright ridiculous. Everyone has their own definition of science, but the real meaning of science is to study God's creation. Everything that scientists have found has pointed towards the proving of the existence of God. Microevolution makes sense, we call it adapting nowadays.

Wikipedia on macro-evolution:

 

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."

 

The sources for that last sentence include various well-supported books by scientists on the matter.

 

Therefore, both types of evolution actually work under the same concepts.

Considering they're pretty much the same process on a different scale, I think that it is possible that too much distinction is being made by non-evolutionists between the two.

 

But man evolving from monkeys, now there is the problem. How can an animal, that has no ability to think or reason, develop a will, an intellect, or the ability to think and reason, even speak? Nobody has a good answer for that. God, therefore, must have created man with the ability to think, reason, speak and have a will. God says himself through Moses in Genesis that he created man in his own image and likeness...

I personally believe that the ability to reason/have free will is not something you either do or don't have. I think it works with a scale; monkeys actually do have some reasoning skills, greatly inferior to those of humans but superior to those of other animals. Other animals also share this limited ability to reason; it's just that humans are more evolved (ie further down the line) than other animals, and so our ability to reason and do what we wish is much greater than that of other animals, who operate largely on instinct. However, let's not forget that we do not operate entirely on reasoning ourselves. Occasionally, in life or death situations, instinct kicks in with us too as human beings (to fight or to flee?), whether right or wrong. How would you explain this lack of total free will, if we were created in God's likeness, and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (thus claiming free will)?

[GoldRock 6,165]

why people are going off topic? are moderators willfully ignoring this?

Evolution is entirely scientific topic, there is no need to drag religion into this. people here are asked to share their opinions ON evolution so it pointless to bash religion in the light of the topic. In the science community itself the debate of evolution is ongoing,they don't bring religion as a tool of offence or defense and neither should we.

Well, from the first posts onwards (one of which was made by a moderator), religion was always going to be a key issue when discussing evolution. The two theories are just too closely intertwined.

 

secondly a person who "believe" in evolution can also "believe" in God. its not paradoxical.

Lastly if some atheists are so found of bashing creationist basing their argument on the "blind" belief,then they are just wrong. hence by negating any possibility of a higher power or a intelligent design and believing only their version of existence to be true is following blind belief.

Agreed with all of the sentences I have quoted here. No one belief should be considered to be "blind", as you said.

[Reckoning 178]

Well, from the first posts onwards (one of which was made by a moderator), religion was always going to be a key issue when discussing evolution. The two theories are just too closely intertwined.

 

No Gold, i cannot agree with you on this one. the title of the topic is "Do you believe in evolution" you cannot bring religion and base it as your argument against evolution cause its irrelevant. the debate must be based on the empirical data present in our hands.Therefore if you expunge religion from the discussion still the argument remains the same just on the basis of the evidence which we have.

As for the moderator's comment.he/she is entitled to his/her opinion and there is nothing wrong in it.but making this thread into "evolution vs religion" or "God vs atheism" is not something which i prefer to enjoy reading cause this is clearly not a place for such things to be discussed.

[GoldRock 6,165]

No Gold, i cannot agree with you on this one. the title of the topic is "Do you believe in evolution" you cannot bring religion and base it as your argument against evolution cause its irrelevant. the debate must be based on the empirical data present in our hands.Therefore if you expunge religion from the discussion still the argument remains the same just on the basis of the evidence which we have.

As for the moderator's comment.he/she is entitled to his/her opinion and there is nothing wrong in it.but making this thread into "evolution vs religion" or "God vs atheism" is not something which i prefer to enjoy reading cause this is clearly not a place for such things to be discussed.

You do know I actually support evolution, and I am an atheist? :lol: However, I think that those who are against evolution here (already.dead, DirtFighter, skitee) should be allowed to put forth religious arguments against evolution, and that is what all three of them have done. And as for "evolution vs. religion", both can work together - they're not mutually exclusive, as you pointed out.

 

Yes, this topic should stay on the discussion of evolution, but thay discussion does involve religion to an extent, IMO. And we were not debating about the existence of God; those who disagreed with evolution put forth their own religious arguments, which is what led us to discuss these particular arguments in more detail.

[already.dead 360]

Its impossible to discuss evolution without religion.

 

And i would like to see proof of evolution, so far it's only ''we have more proof'' posts...

 

also u can't believe the Bible/christian and believe evolution

Edited December 1, 2013 by already.dead

[GoldRock 6,165]

Its impossible to discuss evolution without religion.

 

And i would like to see proof of evolution, so far it's only ''we have more proof'' posts...

 

also u can't believe the Bible/christian and believe evolution

Agreed.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Go and tell the majority of Christians in the US who support evolution that they're not proper Christians, then :P

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

 

 

And i would like to see proof of evolution, so far it's only ''we have more proof'' posts...

 

 

Very well. I will try to present you as much evidence as I can:

Genetic evidence: http://biologos.org/questions/genetic-evidence

Anatomical evidence: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_anatomical_evidence_for_the_evolution_theory#slide1

List of transitional fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Questions about transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

More info: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

 

These are some of the sources I've found about evolution.

I've noticed some people see evolution only as a theory implying that it's nothing but a guess. This is not the case for a scientific theory is made by observing evidence, testing it, sharing a conclusion with other scientist who will test it for the same conclusion. After it is concluded it becomes a theory.

 

There is proof of biodiversity that is shown in the number of species that exist. It is shown that they come from a common ancestor either through genetic, anatomical or fossil evidence. Natural selection for adaption of species is happening, it has been observed and it still can be observed. Evolution does not have perfect adaptation through natural selection (see the appendix, wisdom teeth etc.) but it provides adaptation as much as possible. This shows that there is no intelligent force such as a deity controlling it.

 

Evolution is one of the strongest theories of science at this time and has been reinforced after Darwin published his findings. Our knowledge of facts increases and with it science will change it's theories, but so far there is no solid evidence that evolution doesn't happen. And I would like anyone who has evidence that claims otherwise is to show it.

[already.dead 360]

Natural selection isn't the same thing as evolution from kind/species to another

[GoldRock2 290]

Natural selection isn't the same thing as evolution from kind/species to another

But evolution from one kind/species to another occurs through the process of natural selection (a form of evolution).

[already.dead 360]

but mutations/natural selections dont make new genetics, they either remove or nothing happens to those they already have

 

 

and there is no living ''hald-evolved'' creatures now, why? so it cannot be observed

Edited December 1, 2013 by already.dead

[GoldRock2 290]

but mutations/natural selections dont make new genetics, they either remove or nothing happens to those they already have

False - the whole point of 'mutations' are that they are mutations of our genes. We all have different genes, which determine different factors (height, weight, skin colour etc.). In much the same way, mutations can lead to new gene pools being formed.

 

and there is no living ''hald-evolved'' creatures now, why? so it cannot be observed

In my opinion (and that of the majority of scientists), all animals are, in essence, half-evolved. All animals constantly continue to evolve, albeit at a very slow rate; we ourselves are half-evolved from prehistoric man, but we have yet to evolve further. In order words, all animals are constantly evolving.

 

Take the example of us. We have an appendix... but apart from having to have it removed every now and then when it becomes inflamed, what is it for? Well, nothing really, as far as doctors/scientists can tell... It's simply what remains of our old digestive systems, say scientists; as we consumed a lot more vegetables/plants than we do now, the appendix was needed to digest all that extra fibre. But once we started eating more meat, the appendix was no longer needed. In that way, we're half-evolved ourselves - we still have unnecessary bits and pieces in our bodies from the past.

 

A small example of evolution and natural selection:

 

- Take the prehistoric version of a horse-like creature, which consumed the leaves of certain trees.

- Now, those prehistoric four-legged animals that lived in hot countries had difficulty finding food; the trees there were quite tall, and so the leaves were hard to reach.

- By chance, due to a genetic mutation, a few of them were born with longer necks than the rest, and so could more easily reach the leaves closer to the top of the trees.

- These particular animals had a better chance of survival, and reproduced, producing more longer-necked horse-like creatures.

- Eventually, these particular animals evolved into its own species as their necks grew longer through each generation - the giraffe.

- The remaining, shorter-necked animals found ways of gradually changing their diet to grass (and other low-lying plants) in order to have a better chance of survival.

- There you have it - the prehistoric ancestors of giraffes and horses became two distinct species.

 

Of course, evolution is just a theory. However, I personally believe it is a well-supported, justified one.

As you can see, I already answered this question on Page 2 (you were the one who asked it!). Let's avoid going in circles please :lol:

[Jayjey419 41]

We did not evolve from anything! If we evolved from animals how come when humans die they turn to dust? .. Man was created from Dust! By GOD! :) 

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

We did not evolve from anything! If we evolved from animals how come when humans die they turn to dust? .. Man was created from Dust! By GOD! :)

How does that make any sense? When you die you decompose (cells die due to lack of oxygen, chemicals in your body then cause certain reaction etc. You can google the exact process), and there are worms and organisms who would basically eat you. You don't simply turn to dust by magic and it certainly does not prove any god. And humans did not come from dust, modern humans come after an intercourse of their biological parents. If you wish to argue how the "first" human(s) came to this planet please present evidence for it.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Fen-Harel

[Jayjey419 41]

Don't go all science on my please, because science contradicts itself, so you come with your science theories, but the truth stands! God created human being, Nobody evolved from animals, If we did, how come the evolving stopped? Hmm Explain? :) 

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

Don't go all science on my please, because science contradicts itself, so you come with your science theories, but the truth stands! God created human being, Nobody evolved from animals, If we did, how come the evolving stopped? Hmm Explain? :)

Evolution did not stop. It's still happening. Of course as the process takes millions of years it cannot be seen in such a direct way in our own lifetime. Science is a method, not a person so it can't really contradict itself, only results from the method. Can you show me some?

And again, evidence for the specific god you're talking about.

[Jayjey419 41]

If you believe in science instead of God, then you should be able to explain why it is that so much of science contradicts itself: especially in the theory of evolution.

For example, evolution states that our bodies are made from DNA, which is Deuro Neucloisic ACID. But when I took chemistry in highschool, we were taught that acid dissolves materials. How can we be made of acid? We'd dissolve.

 

Also, how can the big bang possibly be real? Again, real world experience shows that explosions destroy atoms of matter; there's no scientific example of matter being created during an explosion! Explosions by definition can only destroy, so how can anybody possibly support the Big Bang theory from a scientific perspective?

Edited December 1, 2013 by Jayjey419

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

If you believe in science instead of God, then you should be able to explain why it is that so much of science contradicts itself: especially in the theory of evolution.

For example, evolution states that our bodies are made from DNA, which is Deuro Neucloisic ACID. But when I took chemistry in highschool, we were taught that acid dissolves materials. How can we be made of acid? We'd dissolve.

 

Also, how can the big bang possibly be real? Again, real world experience shows that explosions destroy atoms of matter; there's no scientific example of matter being created during an explosion! Explosions by definition can only destroy, so how can anybody possibly support the Big Bang theory from a scientific perspective?

I really hope you're just trolling...

[Jayjey419 41]

There's a lot of questions science has not given answer to :) and never will... Face the facts, You were told all these things at some point in your life, but have you ever stop.. and think about this? i mean evolution of human from animals? well if you haven't Take your time, think about it :) Not like you were there to witness it happen but yeah, you stick to what you think's right and i'll hold on to my believe End of hopefully one day you'll discover the truth SNM  :D 

[already.dead 360]

What if something started to evolve millions of years ago? where are the half evolved? why dont we see what is ''between'' the 2 species, just what was ''before and after'' where are the middle ones?

[Jayjey419 41]

Exactly my point ^ Explanation needed from science pfft.. wait it can't be provided due to it's lack of suitable information hence its not valid

[Barghest 84]

This Topic is pointless....

 

Why do both sides need to argue???

 

If someone does or doesn't want to belive in evolution, regardless of the reason, it is that persons choice.

This is not a place were someone has to convince others about his own choice or belive.