Do you believe in evolution?

[r_GoldRock30 68]

This actually survived

And you bumped it... *sigh*

[evil.kinevil_forum 13]

Not really, your the only one who noticed.

[r_GoldRock30 68]

Not really, your the only one who noticed.

Regardless, you still bumped it :rolleyes:

Edited January 3, 2014 by r_GoldRock30

[evil.kinevil_forum 13]

My comment didn't require a response, you decided to respond.

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

Rise from the pits of death topic...

Edited January 4, 2014 by Fen-Harel

[r_NFS_Referral0 33]

Player NFS_Referral has been banned for a MONTH. Reason: Multiple violations of forum rules. Next ban can be forever.Rules

Edited January 5, 2014 by FederalBureauFBI

[amier17 6]

there is no evidence. have you ever seen something evolve? NO. See?

 

PS: i have no intention to offend :)

What if people who believe in evolution think there is no evidence that religions aren't true.

 

Ps. There is fossil evidence and much more theory. By the way I don't believe in evolution.

[GoldRock2 290]

^Well reasoned; glad to see a non-evolutionist looking at both sides of the argument ^_^

[evil.kinevil_forum 13]

Religion is darkness. Science takes you to space, religion crashes you into a building.

[r_DidYouKnowThat0 1,662]

@Evil.Kinevil: That's from a popular meme I think . . . :huh:

[hirl123 1]

First off, I'm baptised in the Christian faith but I'm an atheist of 10 years and agnostic before that for some time.

I defend people's right to believe in whatever they want, whether it's a big invisible man in the sky, Santa or Celestial Teapots, just as long their beliefs don't affect me - carry on believing.

 

Having read the first 8 or 9 pages of this topic, here are my thoughts on Evolution in no particular order...

 

The Pope believes in Evolution as does the Catholic church. The current Pope, who I greatly admire and the best Pope ever by the way, believes God created life through evolution and has gone on record saying so.

 

While it's called a "Theory", don't confuse theory with unproven.

Darwinian Evolution is proven scientific fact due to the sheer weight of documented evidence that can back it up.

People who ask, "where is the evidence", clearly have not looked or have shut their ears and eyes to it because it conflicts with some belief or other.

 

Theory has 2 main meanings. Evolution is in the first, not the second.

1. "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

2. "A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"

 

eg, Theory of relativity fits with example no.1. Your satnav wouldn't work properly if that wasn't true.

 

Lawrence Krauss has written a book, "A Universe From Nothing". Richard Dawkins: this could potentially be the most important scientific book since Darwin's Origin of Species.

How we can get something from nothing goes to the very beginnings.

 

Evolution hasn't stopped. We are constantly evolving as are our cousins the chimps who we share more than 98% of our dna with.

You only have to look at the genome sequencing for the proof of that.

 

Creationists say there are no examples of species changing, clearly have not looked hard enough. Google "Ring species" or watch Potholer54's video on youtube explaining it citing real world examples.

 

Entropy - a regurgitated and bogus argument when trying to disprove evolution citing the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Funny how science is believed when it's to try and backup creation points of view. Sadly they conveniently forget to add the, "closed system", part of the argument.

 

Just thought I'd stick up for Goldrock... :)

 

edit: Forgot to say how disappointed I am with the poll results. Don't be afraid to come out - I know you want to!

firstly scientists are to stuck up to admit if they made a mistake and the theory of evolution was thought of by a old man. And so what if we share lots of DNA with apes listen to this word and research it ''coincidence''.

Edited January 13, 2014 by hirl123

[GoldRock2 290]

firstly scientists are to stuck up to admit if they made a mistake and the theory of evolution was thought of by a old man. And so what if we share lots of DNA with apes listen to this word and research it ''coincidence''.

Lol. I have one word for you to research first: "ignorance". At least try and find out about the theory, what it consists of, and about all of the scientific evidence which supports/does not support the claims evolution makes, before rejecting it. I'm pretty sure scientists know what they're talking about when it comes to science - that does happen to be their job, you know. And do consider that the vast majority of scientists are likely to be some of the most intelligent/intellectual people. There are scientists who don't think evolution fits the bill very well; however, the general scientific consensus is that evolution holds at least some truth, and is the most accurate theory we currently have.

 

If you're religious, go listen to the current Pope, who accepts a form of evolution and rejects the ideas intelligent design/young earth creationism.

 

P.S. Oh, and that 'old man' happened to be rather clever (statistically more so than you or I).

[DynamiteBang 119]

If you're religious, go listen to the current Pope, who accepts a form of evolution and rejects the ideas intelligent design/young earth creationism.

Not everyone believes in the pope, so that offers nothing to some.

[GoldRock2 290]

Not everyone believes in the pope, so that offers nothing to some.

I'm just taking him as an example of a religious person with a brain who accepts evolution holds at least some truth :P

[unbeatablechessqueen 0]

If god were real, then he would have been alive for trillions of trillions of years.

Nothing in the known universe can endure for that long, and even if he could endure for that long, he would have gone insane a couple trillion years ago

 

And another question, if god the great force of righteous, then there also must be a force of evil, for there is no power without its opposite, and no god without his equal

Edited January 13, 2014 by unbeatablechessqueen

[r_Contaminator0 10]

I am Communist.

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

If god were real, then he would have been alive for trillions of trillions of years.

Correct. But, he's been alive for much, much, much, much, (much infinity times more) more than that.

 

Nothing in the known universe can endure for that long

God isn't in the known universe.

he would have gone insane a couple trillion years ago

Would he now? He's God, he's not of human intellect and like. He doesn't get bored like we do. That's why we cant' think like God, we can't think like many many years without pretty much anything other than angels, because we're human. Like I just said, he did have angels.

 

And another question, if god the great force of righteous, then there also must be a force of evil, for there is no power without its opposite, and no god without his equal

You are correct, there is a force of evil. It was created when Lucifer, an angel, grew jealous of God and went, with gathered angels known as demons now and made hell. Along with the force of evil. However, you are wrong by saying "no god without his equal". Why not? Does the insane pressure have its equal in the core of earth? God is more powerful than Lucifer, known as Satan. If he created Satan, couldn't he destroy him too? It's not like they "were twin brothers who hated each other and one grew evil, one grew good".

Edited January 14, 2014 by JonathanBernatowicz

[ImBanned 18]

If there is a God, how do you know that your god is the true god.

There are thousands upon thousands of religions, what makes your god real, and all others fake?

Edited January 14, 2014 by ImBanned

[Irontank1v 836]

Can we stick to proving/disproving Evolution.

[sam131192 113]

^ .... Strike one

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

firstly scientists are to stuck up to admit if they made a mistake and the theory of evolution was thought of by a old man. And so what if we share lots of DNA with apes listen to this word and research it ''coincidence''.

Hi hirl, I'm okay with you believing in a God and all but going back to evolution, what mistake? If you highlight it here, maybe someone could publish it and win the next nobel prize in science!

[GoldRock2 290]

Personally, this is what I've assessed on this topic:

 

- Take an ordinary person

- Do not shove religion at him from a young age, and don't explain any scientific ideas to him

- Now, when this person becomes an adult, ask him:

 

"Do you think we were created as we are now by an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present force who is beyond both our senses and our understanding? Or do you think we formed from the most basic elements of matter, and developed over millions of years from simple life to the more complex life forms we are now?"

 

Well, I have a feeling that in most cases, the person could very well find the second option more feasible than the first. Now, I'm not saying that both ideas are mutually exclusive, because both could very well be 'correct' in some ways.

 

So, why do so many people automatically believe in creationism? Upbringing. There will be some people who would accept the first idea over the second - this minority has historically succeeded in spreading their chosen option to the majority, and so when science came along, the idea of creationism had already become deeply rooted within society.

 

Hence, most people are already biased towards the first option before they even hear of the second. It takes a strong mind to overcome such bias and then consider both options - it would be a lot easier to accept 'the norm'.

 

I respect those who have seriously and fairly considered both options and have chosen creationism or evolutionism a lot more than those who simply go "because my religion says so".

 

Those who do not question their own understanding are truly blind; the few who can go beyond generally accepted ideas and consider other possibilities are the sorts of people who have advanced the world over the past 100 years or so, whether they end up accepting the norms or not.

[flae88 948]

- Do not shove religion at him from a young age

Why not? At a young age it's proven that you learn better, so if you taught them at say 9 they wouldn't learn aswell and would question alot of it, but if your taught from the start it makes life for your parents and Religous Education teacher easier.

[GoldRock2 290]

Why not? At a young age it's proven that you learn better, so if you taught them at say 9 they wouldn't learn aswell and would question alot of it, but if your taught from the start it makes life for your parents and Religous Education teacher easier.

That's exactly what you don't want... Yes, it would be great to teach facts to young children, as they'll be able to absorb them better (as you said). But religion isn't fact, and as you also said, younger children are less likely to question as much. So if a parent tells his young child that there's a God who created all of us, or that it's good to be a suicide bomber as you'll become a martyr for your religion, he'll probably believe that parent without question. Which is terrible, because the young child would not be allowed to form his own independent belief on an issue if opinion has already been forced onto him as fact. Why d'you think there're so many suicide bombers? Because almost all of them were influenced to follow that path as children. Children may learn better, but children are susceptible to being brainwashed into believing what someone tells 'em to.

[flae88 948]

That's exactly what you don't want... Yes, it would be great to teach facts to young children, as they'll be able to absorb them better (as you said). But religion isn't fact, and as you also said, younger children are less likely to question as much. So if a parent tells his young child that there's a God who created all of us, or that it's good to be a suicide bomber as you'll become a martyr for your religion, he'll probably believe that parent without question. Which is terrible, because the young child would not be allowed to form his own independent belief on an issue if opinion has already been forced onto him as fact. Why d'you think there're so many suicide bombers? Because almost all of them were influenced to follow that path as children. Children may learn better, but children are susceptible to being brainwashed into believing what someone tells 'em to.

If children can be brainwashed easily, y no brainwash them with something else? -.-