Evolution, It's only a theory

What is the problem here? Evolution is a theory that has been tested at many levels of science and has been proven. No theory is watertight, as there are some discrepancies within the theory. However, why does it matter? Is the theory of evolution so wrong that it isn't compatible with someone's faith?

Does knowing that you're somehow related by D.N.A. to an ape and a banana so mind blowing that you have to make up some BS theory that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny?

Who's to say God isn't behind that?

Originally posted by MacDonagh
What is the problem here?

The problem is that people cannot believe in the junk science of evolution without attacking or denying the existance of God. (not a proven fact by the way----you have been brain washed into believing it is a proven fact).

You cannot staddle both sides of the fence on this issue by thinking God is behind evolution. That is just absurd.

If you don't stand for the creator behind the creation, then you will fall for anything, including falling for something as profoundly ignorant as believing evolution is a proven fact, when in FACT it is not.

reply to post by John Matrix



Please explain to me how Evolution requires blind faith?
Maybe for those who are too lazy or unwilling to actually look at the evidence.

This thread is getting repetitive, someone claims evolution has holes or "is a completely unproven theory" or requires blind faith.
I mean come on.

How many times do people have to shove the facts and links in your face before you will actually take time to read and try and understand.

Honestly, IMO, the way in which you choose to argue against Evolution clearly shows a lack of understanding in the topic, or even in the general field.
Read, re-read, absorb, comprehend, and for god sakes.

Take one single day out of yor god fearing lives, and try to understand the concept. You obviously do not.

Please please explain yourself, how is it more logical that creationism is the answer? Proof, evidence, something!!!

Quick list again for those who are too lazy to read the whole thread (like me).

Any of these topics:

Speciation
Gene Flow
Mutation
Allele
Phenotype
Genetic Drift
Hardy-Winberg
Heredity
Selection

Like honestly, go to a library, or friggen wiki, and just take some time. If you don't understand it right away, dont AUTOMATICALLY claim its BS, i'm sure someone would be happy to walk you through it.

ADDED...

I sure hate being brainwashed by years of scientific research, piles upon piles of scientific journals, and theories which just "magically" fit together. They sure know how to brainwash people, they musta set this whole thing up.

Im guessing someone went back in time, and planted all this evidence.

JUST TO FOOL YOU


Ya know, those Scientific journals which would be removed or at the very least discredited far and wide if the observed results are not repeatable.

Jesus rode dinosaurs 2000 years ago, he called them jesus horses.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by pjmcginty]

What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. For example: If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations.

Who/what else could know what the problem is and what to want to solve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection to the higher self (that what people call god...and which we are al part of) both evolution theory and religion are right but incomplete or/and manipulated.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.
And it is alsow known (but not widely accepted) that healing can occur just by sending some intention.
Some monks can materialise things in their hands like apples and such.
And Cleve Backster showed us that every living thing is connected to the consiousness network, with over 40 years of his research.
So why couldn’t it work on the body of less conscious beings such as plants and animals but somewhat slower?
I am not saying that this would be the absolute way things went, it would be unlikely that its just one way, but I think its part of it

reply to post by pjmcginty


yes isnt it funny when they think that every person who does research on evolution somehow is in on a conspiracy to make others think evolution is true. i mean come on, the evidence is there, the research is clear... read it... or go out and do the same tests yourself if you dont believe what they conlcluded.

We should list all the different methods used to find stuff in evolution, so they can go out and try them themselves, and reach the same conclusions.

Brainwashing? What are you talking about JohnMatrix.. its testable by everyone.

Talking burning bushes giving man the "laws" of god, spirits impregnating sleeping virgins...I mean what's not logical about that?

Originally posted by John Matrix

The problem is that people cannot believe in the junk science of evolution without attacking or denying the existance of God.

Wow. A theory that has been vigorously tested by countless scientists is actually "junk"? What arrogance. I assume you have proof that all their work is junk then yes?

(not a proven fact by the way----you have been brain washed into believing it is a proven fact).

Creationism. Except people are brainwashed into believing a pack of lies.

You cannot staddle both sides of the fence on this issue by thinking God is behind evolution. That is just absurd.

Why? Do you know how unique life on this planet is and that we all come from the same source? Oh right, I'm sure you do.

If you don't stand for the creator behind the creation, then you will fall for anything, including falling for something as profoundly ignorant as believing evolution is a proven fact, when in FACT it is not.

So every experiment that has ever been done by observing generations of fruit flies and apes are actually profoundly ignorant?

The arrogance, it's beyond words.

reply to post by B.A.C.


How is it that we are unable to observe evolution?

You can see it in our own species. In the case of the mandibular third molars, or "wisdom teeth."

The last few generations have had to have them extracted as our mandibles have decreased in size, and in more current generations, some people never even develop "wisdom teeth."

This is most likely caused by our diet. An organism does whatever it can to maintain homeostasis and exert as little energy as possible. Most of our diets contain foods that can be eaten without the aid of these "wisdom teeth." Over time our bodies have quit wasting the energy used to develop a larger mandible to make room for the third molar, and in current generations, the teeth themselves.

This is however, just speculation....

Originally posted by pjmcginty

Please explain to me how Evolution requires blind faith?
Maybe for those who are too lazy or unwilling to actually look at the evidence.

It's questions like this that make the thread repetitive. The Blind faith is in believing random natural processes have created life forms and especially intelligent, conscious, self aware life forms, such as humans, from non living matter

Originally posted by Daniem
i mean come on, the evidence is there, the research is clear... read it... or go out and do the same tests yourself if you dont believe what they conlcluded.

Creation scientists also examine the same facts, same evidence and do research as well. They don't get the government funding that evolution science gets either. Do the research. Google "creation science" and enjoy.

reply to post by MacDonagh


What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. For example: If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations.

Who/what else could know what the problem is and what to want to solve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection to the higher self (that what people call god...and which we are al part of) both evolution theory and religion are right but incomplete or/and manipulated.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.
And it is alsow known (but not widely accepted) that healing can occur just by sending some intention.
Some monks can materialise things in their hands like apples and such.
And Cleve Backster showed us that every living thing is connected to the consiousness network, with over 40 years of his research.
So why couldn’t it work on the body of less conscious beings such as plants and animals but somewhat slower?
I am not saying that this would be the absolute way things went, it would be unlikely that its just one way, but I think its part of it

Evolution is testable. Examples being the Flu Virus, Fruit Flies, and fish. Scientists have been doing live field examinations of certain fish. What they did was take the same group and put them in two different bodies of water out in the wild. They then protected one from predators and not the other. The ones protected eventually after several years and many generations became almost unrecognizable to the ones who weren't protected. Why? They didn't need the camoflague or any other defenses since they never dealt with predators while the other group did.

Originally posted by John Matrix


Creation scientists also examine the same facts, same evidence and do research as well. They don't get the government funding that evolution science gets either. Do the research. Google "creation science" and enjoy.

There is no such thing as a Creation Scientist. And they don't need funding because the only research they do is read the Bible. Sorry, they don't study any thing.

Originally posted by Namaste
You can see it in our own species. In the case of the mandibular third molars, or "wisdom teeth."

The last few generations have had to have them extracted as our mandibles have decreased in size, and in more current generations, some people never even develop "wisdom teeth."

This is most likely caused by our diet. An organism does whatever it can to maintain homeostasis and exert as little energy as possible. Most of our diets contain foods that can be eaten without the aid of these "wisdom teeth." Over time our bodies have quit wasting the energy used to develop a larger mandible to make room for the third molar, and in current generations, the teeth themselves.

This is however, just speculation....

Responses to diet like you mention above are not evidence of evolution. Evolution involves hundreds, even thousands of species changing into another species over a long period of time. The theory requires thousands of parallel evolutions to be going on all the time, yet we do not see any of this happening today, nor do we find transitional forms in the fossil record.

[edit on 3/3/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by andre18


Well according to Einstein, someone who knew what a scientific theory is, "Everything is an approximation." He said this in relation to physics but it equally applies to biology and the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a theory and an approximation of what scientists think happened over the past 4 billion years. The theory of evolution has changed dramatically since Darwin first conceived of the idea. In fact Darwin would hardly recognize it. It will continue to change and 500 years from now, the theory will be radically different from what it is today.

Just in the past 30 years the idea of worldwide catastrophies has become widely accepted as a catalyst to evolutionary change. This is in stark contrast of the steady state models that preceded it.

I am not that old but I can remember my 9th grade science teacher poo-pooing the idea that a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs. The conventional wisdom at that time was that volcanic activity and gradual climate change wiped out the dinos.

I really think that the argument over creationism vs evolution is a false argument. We are here. How we came to be is still an open question since science has so far failed to find our immediate ancestors. Homo Sapiens seems to suddenly appear on the scene, fully developed, walking upright, and using tools well over 200,000 years ago.

I stayed up late last night reading some of the forbidden science stuff and it is really amazing stuff. There are fossils of modern man that have been found in strata older than Neandertal. Amazing. I think that the origins of man is still something of an open question.

OH

MY

GOD


this is the most lamestest post EVER!!


its just those 2 going back and forth YOUR WRONG, NO YOURE WRONG!!

GET A LIFE!!

Evolution is a theory. its got a lot of stuff backing it up, but its not perfect. theres more to this theory other than WE CAME FROM FISH.

Religion is what people believe. I personally find it easier to think that aliens showed up and made us from monkeys, than an entity that knows when you are naughty and nice at all times, making us over night, but thats me.

I dont think evolution should be taught as a fact of nature. EVEN THOUGH, when you mate 2 animals with like characteristics, they make something that looks like them, kinda.

There is more to evolution that just mating to get something else. these changes are slow.

But in the end, WHO REALLY KNOWS??? neither one of the people who were arguing back and forth for 4 pages do ill tell you that.

In all seriousness though, evolution with the use of eugenics is just about as evil as religion is when it comes to superiority complexes.

choose wisely. if one of those beliefs turns out right... there are going to be a lot of people roastin on the bar-b-q.

but if the other one is it... what's the point in arguing. you wont be around much longer anyways.

Originally posted by griffinrl
Talking burning bushes giving man the "laws" of god, spirits impregnating sleeping virgins...I mean what's not logical about that?

Why do you keep bringing god into the argument?

You haven't stated anything useful on this thread. How about you pony up and provide some facts? Oh right you don't wanna "bore" any of us with your profound intelligence.

I can respect the people that believe in evolution and provide evidence to back themselves up.

I can respect the people that believe in creationism and provide or refute evidence to back themselves up.

What I can't do is respect a troll.

reply to post by B.A.C.


I get a rise out of you every time I post. So logically I must be touching a sensitive button.

Now I gotta go out back and burn some brush...maybe I'll get some answers that'll matter to you there

And here's and edit for ya...maybe you'll get lucky and the mod's will ban me LOL

[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

I get a rise out of you every time I post. So logically I must be touching a sensitive button.

Now I gotta go out back and burn some brush...maybe I'll get some answers that'll matter to you there

And here's and edit for ya...maybe you'll get lucky and the mod's will ban me LOL

[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]

LMAO you don't get a rise outta me, believe that. If anything I pity you.

Burn some brush? I don't even know what you're talking about, as usual.

I'll start fresh today. If anyone wants to go back and read the 100+ posts I've made in this thread explaining my stance on this subject please do so.

Anything I've said I've also explained, so no use in beating my head off the wall.

Origin Of The Species

Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"

Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.

Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.




[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]