I cant even begin to understand how anyone can deny evolution in the face of so much evidence, but apparently some people do. I was just wondering how somone can justify themselves by claiming that evolution does not exist.

anyone who whould say evolution doesn't exist is completly blind to the world.

^^Agreed

It is pretty hard to imagine that just in just 7 days the world and all the life on it as we know it today, was made.

There is one possible way for that to happen, so evolution is the only true answer.

If you completely believe the theory of evolution to be fact, you're just as close-minded as they are.

That said, I think there is some compelling evidence for natural selection, but I think the current theory of evolution is incorrect and needs to be revised. There are just too many holes.

All I'm saying is that I believe that life in all forms evolves. As for creation of the Earth and biblical aspects of such I personally don't see that evelotion negates creation.

If a god was to create the universe in its entirety, i doubt he would be limited by the human understanding of a "day". If you can stop time, why bother taking millions of years? I don't believe it happened this way, but it could be an argued possibility.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

There are just too many holes.

Please, post some of these holes. I'm interested in seeing what you find so convincing.

Same here, I'm on the edge of my seat here.

quote:Originally posted by Inside_Voices:

If a god was to create the universe in its entirety, i doubt he would be limited by the human understanding of a "day". If you can stop time, why bother taking millions of years? I don't believe it happened this way, but it could be an argued possibility.

If God exists he most likely exists outside of our universe, outside the bounds of time. A million years to him would mean nothing. It would be the same as a day, two weeks or eternity.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Please, post some of these holes. I'm interested in seeing what you find so convincing.

I'll give you an example.

While in Biology, we once watched a video that stated that fish found in a high-altitude lake in the Andes were once salt-water ocean fish, who were trapped when the mountains formed. Now, in the grand scheme of things, this happened almost instantaneously. The video stated that they gradually evolved to adapt to what was now a freshwater lake.

Now, we all know that salt water fish, save for a few, like sharks, cannot survive in freshwater sources. The theory of evolution does solve this problem initially, with the gradual changing of long periods of time.

But a problem occurs. No matter how long it's stretched out, this change from saltwater to freshwater had to occur instantaneously, over a single generation.

For natural selection to occur, there has to be a reason for a change. In the example I cited, the difference was between life and death. Saltwater fish in fresh water die. Even if the water's change into freshwater was a very gradual process, there's a generation of fish who can only survive in salt water, and then there's a generation of fish who can survive in the new water. The mutation is automatic over one generation. If it wasn't, the next generation would have the same weaknesses as the one before it.

the problem religious people have with evolution is that they don't even know what evolution is. why is it that religious people think evolution says that life came about in THIS form, yet randomly? and why do religious people think evolution tries to explain the origin of the universe?

quote:Originally posted by kevinboyd:

and why do religious people think evolution tries to explain the origin of the universe?

They don't.

But if you want to get into that, we all know where that'll lead.

One cannot ponder the origins of the universe without reaching the same conclusion, whether theist or athiest. Both inevitably come to the conclusion that you can never know.

"The Great One produces the two poles [i.e. Heaven and Earth], which in turn give rise to the energies of the dark (yin) and the light (yang). These two energies then transform themselves, one rising upwards, and the other descending downwards; they merge again and give rise to form".

This is the explantion of creation of our universe. This interaction can clearly be seen on Earth. Two poles, positive and negative, the positive is the way negative is the abyss. This interaction can clearly be witnessed in the energy of the Earth or any thing in existance. Everthing.

This is just another veiwpoint other than christian but still is describing the same thing creation. Each culture has there own explantion each one different in words but the same in meaning. They have come way before our lifetime to each & every culture. How can you deny the truth that has been known by so many for ages?

The people of Jesus's time and geogrphic location were not as technolgically knowldgeable or as advanced as ancient china, so of course there terminology reflects this in his teachings. They were taught to common pheasants who no knowledge ot things like physics and advanced concepts of the chinse, or what we now today. Had they had they knowledge we now today I'm sure these teachings would be convincing much clearer to understand for those that don't now.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

I'll give you an example.

While in Biology, we once watched a video that stated that fish found in a high-altitude lake in the Andes were once salt-water ocean fish, who were trapped when the mountains formed. Now, in the grand scheme of things, this happened almost instantaneously. The video stated that they gradually evolved to adapt to what was now a freshwater lake.

Now, we all know that salt water fish, save for a few, like sharks, cannot survive in freshwater sources. The theory of evolution does solve this problem initially, with the gradual changing of long periods of time.

But a problem occurs. No matter how long it's stretched out, this change from saltwater to freshwater had to occur instantaneously, over a single generation.

For natural selection to occur, there has to be a reason for a change. In the example I cited, the difference was between life and death. Saltwater fish in fresh water die. Even if the water's change into freshwater was a very gradual process, there's a generation of fish who can only survive in salt water, and then there's a generation of fish who can survive in the new water. The mutation is automatic over one generation. If it wasn't, the next generation would have the same weaknesses as the one before it.



aside from several shark species there are many salt water species of fish that can survive in both salt and fresh water, salmon for example and sturgeon, just to name a few. Also to imply that it would take thousands oy years for a salt water fish to adapt to fresh water is ridiculous for you are now postulating a rate of genetic change several thousand times higher than any proposed by any evolutionary biologist.Salt water fish can become freshwater fish in 4,000 years. If you have any other proposterous claims , please fell free to make them here.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

But a problem occurs. No matter how long it's stretched out, this change from saltwater to freshwater had to occur instantaneously, over a single generation.

Why do you say this? Are you implying that the Andes rose instantaneously?

quote:Saltwater fish in fresh water die.

"save for a few, like sharks"

If sharks can survive, why can't the same adaptations be made in other fish?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Why do you say this? Are you implying that the Andes rose instantaneously?

Of course not.

quote:

"save for a few, like sharks"

If sharks can survive, why can't the same adaptations be made in other fish?

Sharks have a few unique characteristics.

I'm not going to say that other creatures can't have the same characteristics. Of course they can. My argument is that, even if it appears that it is a gradual development, the change still has to occur quickly, from one generation to the next. And, if this is true, what is it that causes that change?

It hasn't been explained yet. If you say out of necessity, that's just as illogical as saying that a magic being created it out of nothingness.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Sharks have a few unique characteristics.

I'm not going to say that other creatures can't have the same characteristics. Of course they can. My argument is that, even if it appears that it is a gradual development, the change still has to occur quickly, from one generation to the next. And, if this is true, what is it that causes that change?

It hasn't been explained yet. If you say out of necessity, that's just as illogical as saying that a magic being created it out of nothingness.

please explain to me why the change would have to occur quickly from one generation to the next,

Evolution is simply the way it is. Life knows what it is supposed to do. Just as a baby forms in the womb, to await the world, our life force grows as we live, becoming it's next form, so it may enter it's next stage. Evolution Is gods seed growning from the earth.

quote:Originally posted by hand_made_attrocity:

please explain to me why the change would have to occur quickly from one generation to the next,



Because if it didn't, the new generation would have the exact same DNA as the one before it.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

My argument is that, even if it appears that it is a gradual development, the change still has to occur quickly, from one generation to the next.

As hand_made_attrocity said, why does it have to change quickly? If the mountains rise slowly, why can't the concentration of salt in the water drop slowly (less salt water from the ocean, more of the replacement water coming from fresh sources)?

quote:And, if this is true, what is it that causes that change?

Fish with adaptations that allow them to survive more easily in fresh water survive more easily and pass these adaptations to their young. Fish that can't survive don't pass on their genes.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Because if it didn't, the new generation would have the exact same DNA as the one before it.

Alright I understand now, let me explain somthing to you a saltwater fish that adapts to freshwater is not an example of evolution, its an example of adaptation, the fish might adapt to live in fresh water but its not evolving , it might after a couple million years but not in 4000. lets say you were to have two salt water lakes, and you put to identical saltwater species of fish in each lake and lets also say that over time you decreased the salt content in one lake untill the fish living within had adapted to fresh water, if you were to compare the fish from each lake they would still be the same fish.

quote:Originally posted by hand_made_attrocity:

if you were to compare the fish from each lake they would still be the same fish.

...I was with you until you said this.

If the fish in one lake can only survive in fresh water and the fish in the other lake can only survive in salt water then they're not the same fish, are they?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Originally posted by hand_made_attrocity:

if you were to compare the fish from each lake they would still be the same fish.

...I was with you until you said this.

If the fish in one lake can only survive in fresh water and the fish in the other lake can only survive in salt water then they're not the same fish, are they?

Well they would actually be the same fish, with the exception that one adapted to live in fresh water. fish dont need to evolve to be able to tolerate fresh water, im not exactly sure how it works but all they do is secrete more mucus in the gill membranes to prevent the salt from eating away at it, or somthing along those lines,and secreting more mucus is not evolving its adapting, so techincally they would still be the same fish

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Fish with adaptations that allow them to survive more easily in fresh water survive more easily and pass these adaptations to their young. Fish that can't survive don't pass on their genes.

But you don't explain where these adaptations came from and what caused them.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

But you don't explain where these adaptations came from and what caused them.

natural selection/evolution rely on random mutation resulting from environmental pressures. The basis being if one animal has a random trait that makes it better at reproducing (and surviving to reproduce) then the traits it posesses will be passed on to the new generation.

It is possible that the next generation may or may not all possess the 'new' 'better' adapatation, but those that do will produce more offspring and thus the trait will spred througout the population after a few generations.

The adapations are random mutations like red hair, left handedness, blue eyes, strong arms, being able to run fast....

just think that our ancestors who were able to run fast, were able to out run the predators (same arguement for brain size etc) then they would live longer and reproduce more children with the same traits.

all evolution is ( if you have been missing my point) is random changes in a population that make certain members more able to survive and reproduce (the key aspect, no point being able to survive but not produce enough offspring) will be passed on to others. These are the ones that are 'selected for'

the end.

and if you still dont understand where changes come from, just think, we are bombarded with radiation from space everyday. If some radiation hit some dna in a sperm or egg, this could cause a mutation in the dna. just another thought.

But that makes absoultely no sense. So illogical.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

But that makes absoultely no sense. So illogical.

Actually it makes perfect sence and could not have been put any simpler, unless you can dispute that evolution does not exist by providing some conclusive evidnce please stop wasting everyone's time.

quote:Originally posted by hand_made_attrocity:

Actually it makes perfect sence and could not have been put any simpler, unless you can dispute that evolution does not exist by providing some conclusive evidnce please stop wasting everyone's time.

Random mutations make sense?

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Random mutations make sense?

Was there somthing you didnt understand when i said stop wasting everyones time?. Also if your confused about random mutations get an education and go back to high school.

quote:Originally posted by hand_made_attrocity:

Was there somthing you didnt understand when i said stop wasting everyones time?. Also if your confused about random mutations get an education and go back to high school.

So then, I take it that you cannot answer?

EDIT: My entire point behind all of this is to prove that you cling as tighly to your beliefs as the theists you criticize. I think I proved my point. When I ask, you deny me. You don't explain, you ask why I'm wasting your time.

Random is random. It doesn't make sense. So, your answer to why, is "because," or "it just does?"

Inquiring minds ask where God came from. The theist responds "he always exists." The inquiring mind asks why God does what he does. The theist responds with "because."

You are no different from the theist, though you claim to be. Both of you arrograntly believe that you're right, and everyone else is wrong. Whereas the theist cites a book, you cite scientific evidence. But when criticism arrives about that scientific evidence, you cannot explain it. You, like the theist, get upset and defensive. Of course, everyone shows it in different ways, but the fact remains.

Why is it so difficult to say "I don't know?"





[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 01-26-2004).]

Ok i just got back from a christian festival (please please dont ask what i was doing there) and I was amazed at the arguements I got against evolution.

First of all very few actually understood the concept. The speakers exploited this and took creative liberties with darwins great theory, for example I quote "and so we are supposed to believe that the fish got sick of water and bam! there's your uncle the cockroach, then suddenly the cockroach decides to become your great granddaddy the monkey." and so on and soforth. Either these guys weren't listening in basic science or they cant cope with any theory that doesnt create new species within a working week.

Secondly nearly everone I met believed in mutation, adaption and natural selection, yet couldn't see how these combined to make evolution. I mean that's like how small changes over time become big changes.

I think the two misunderstandings may be caused and increased by each other and for some reason they see individual species as seperated and unchanging.

I really dunno, its been a long four days and I'm more than a little buggered, perhaps I'll talk again when I'm in a more coherent state of mind.

quote:Originally posted by ATypiCalStuDenT:

natural selection/evolution rely on random mutation resulting from environmental pressures.

"Random resulting from enviromental pressures."

How can it be random if it is a result of enviromental pressures?

That seems more likley attributed to cause & effect does it not?

In indeterminism, everything is supposed to be more or less "random". However, it is not clear what the term means. In everyday life, "random" just means "depending on an awful lot of practically unmeasurable factors". In that sense, rolling dice or tossing coins produces "random" outcomes. So, the more factors that need to be taken into account, the more "random" results we get.

So far, so good... but whenever indeterminists refer to "random" phenomena, they seem to imply that they don't depend on any factors *at all*! Wouldn't that produce a single outcome in every case? I mean, if something doesn't depend on anything, then it is constant...right?

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

So then, I take it that you cannot answer?

EDIT: My entire point behind all of this is to prove that you cling as tighly to your beliefs as the theists you criticize. I think I proved my point. When I ask, you deny me. You don't explain, you ask why I'm wasting your time.

Random is random. It doesn't make sense. So, your answer to why, is "because," or "it just does?"

Inquiring minds ask where God came from. The theist responds "he always exists." The inquiring mind asks why God does what he does. The theist responds with "because."

You are no different from the theist, though you claim to be. Both of you arrograntly believe that you're right, and everyone else is wrong. Whereas the theist cites a book, you cite scientific evidence. But when criticism arrives about that scientific evidence, you cannot explain it. You, like the theist, get upset and defensive. Of course, everyone shows it in different ways, but the fact remains.

Why is it so difficult to say "I don't know?"



[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 01-26-2004).]

I believe in evolution beacue there is evidence that supports its existence you however have none to prove that it is not, so really you havent made any point at all, and what critism is there of the scientific evidence, the only people who deabte evolution are idiots like your self who are blind to everything that falls out side of there religous beliefs. Also I am not arrogant, if somone can provide "scientific" evidence that can disprove the theory of evolution I will accept it with an open mind.

Also I could go in detail and explain to you what a mutation is but i have better things to do, when i said go back to high school i meant it, I learned the science behind evolution and adaptation in science 10.

No, my friend. I know what a mutation is, and I passed high-school biology.

But you didn't understand my point, while at the same time proving it with your response.

Note that I don't subscribe to any particular religious belief, I'm more of an agnostic than anything. Also note that I think there is some compelling evidence for evolution, but that it hasn't been refined to the point of 'proven' yet.

You see it as a flawless scientific fact because you want it to be so. Because you need it to, like the Christian who sees no flaw in the Bible.

You know, if you don't believe in a god in the first place, then evolution is the best theory we have going for us. Don't look at evolution as a proof or disproof of god. There's always the bullshit, face saving arguement "God caused and guided evolution". But I think the fact that science had a damn good idea of how the universe formed from the Planck time to the present is rather telling.

Also, if you're going to agree with me, please b informed and not a dumbass. Yeah, there is alot of evidence to suggest evolution, but it's not an overwhelming, and science has been proving itself wrong in the face of something that explains stuff better since Newton.

And to the people who say "what are the chances that life could have formed through chance" as a proof that evolution is wrong, consider this. You wouldn't be here ifit hadn't. Maybe we're that one lucky random chance that has the opportunity to think of these things.

Lysergamideman: Of course random mutations are not random.

Smoke coming off incense, for example; we cannot predict with any accuracy how and where it will diffuse, but nobody will deny that its movement is dependent on environmental conditions. With enough unknown contributing factors it might as well be random, because there is no way we can predict it (where & when mutations will occur, not whether mutations occur).

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Random mutations make sense?

I don't understand what your point is.

We know that mutation happens; reproduction doesn't create an exact copy of the genetic sequence.

When mutations are introduced, different traits are produced. Organisms with favourable traits are more likely to survive and pass these traits to their offspring than organisms with unfavourable traits.

What about that doesn't make sense?

quote:I think there is some compelling evidence for evolution, but that it hasn't been refined to the point of 'proven' yet.

Science never "proves" anything.

quote:You see it as a flawless scientific fact because you want it to be so.

No scientific "fact" is flawless, but to deny that populations change over time is lunacy.

ok that first sentence was a bit fucked up, but i think all of you (except the rabbi) get what i was aiming at.

there is proof of 'microevolution' such as harsh environmental conditions causing obvious changes in a few generations, like the size and colour of feral cats in australia. They were normal tabbies etc when they went feral, but now their decentents are huge mean mothers, who are often coloured similar to the habitat they ruin.

...and "macroevolution" is simply accumulated "microevolution".

(not that scientists actually use those words, they're meaningless)

What a coincidence! I'm currently working on an essay for my Biology class that compares the 2 theories.

Well, Not really a coincidence. I actually came here looking for this.

Both the bible and evolution aren't accurate. Are you saying that a Neanderthal just poped out a human or two? How would they find each other to mate? I think Darwin's theory applies to plants, not so sure about animals. As a matter of fact how is it that varieties in species occur if evreything came from single-cell organisims?

Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE

Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE

Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE

Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE

Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE

Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE

Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE

Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE

Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present

but why are there gaps?

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:

Are you saying that a Neanderthal just poped out a human or two? How would they find each other to mate?

You obviously have no understanding of evolutionary theory.

quote:I think Darwin's theory applies to plants, not so sure about animals.

Plants and animals both reproduce; neither kingdoms makes perfect reproductions; organisms of both kingdoms are more likely to survive if they have certain traits than if they have certain others (the three things necessary for a population to evolve). What makes them so different in your mind?

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:

Both the bible and evolution aren't accurate. Are you saying that a Neanderthal just poped out a human or two? How would they find each other to mate? I think Darwin's theory applies to plants, not so sure about animals. As a matter of fact how is it that varieties in species occur if evreything came from single-cell organisims?



we are not descended of neanderthals we are both descendents of different homonoid sapiens. Also if you are unfamiliar with the concept of evolution your feedback is not wanted, im tired of listning to people who think they know what there talking about... (cough)(Rabbi)(cough)

havent heard anything about dinosaurs so here goes... dinosaurs were real, we can prove that dinosaurs were real and its not somthing you can debate, is this not a contradiction with the bible, would this, among other things,not prove the bible and the christian belief to be false.

quote:Originally posted by Lysergamideman:

This is just another veiwpoint other than christian but still is describing the same thing creation. Each culture has there own explantion each one different in words but the same in meaning. They have come way before our lifetime to each & every culture. How can you deny the truth that has been known by so many for ages?

Which truth?

Or will we settle for a vague set of anthropological curiosities and interpret them to fit our own convenient conclusions?

Yes, there are a few holes, but how could you possibly expect to find EVERY fossil? every stage?? the world is a CONSTANTLY changing place, physically look at how much the world has changed in the past 4 Billion years? we can't possibly expect to find "the missing link" or a few others..

the evidence is overhwlming that Evolution is indeed fact.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

My argument is that, even if it appears that it is a gradual development, the change still has to occur quickly, from one generation to the next. And, if this is true, what is it that causes that change?

It hasn't been explained yet. If you say out of necessity, that's just as illogical as saying that a magic being created it out of nothingness.

Read up on punctuated equilibrium.

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:

but why are there gaps?

There will always be gaps. It doesn't matter if you unearth every fossil in the world, someone will be complaining about a gap between 2 or more of them.

They'd be insisting that there was a gap between one generation of a species and the generation immediately following it, and then ask where those fossils were.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 01-28-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by hand_made_attrocity:

dinosaurs were real, we can prove that dinosaurs were real and its not somthing you can debate, is this not a contradiction with the bible,

A lot of Creationists believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, and that there are still dinosaurs alive today. I think that says something right there.

Something I'd like to know.

If God really did create everything (riiiight)... when did he do it?

A rabbi or priest or somebody of that persuasion "calculated" from the geneologies given in the Old Testament that the universe was created in 4004 BC.

quote:Originally posted by hand_made_attrocity:



we are not descended of neanderthals we are both descendents of different homonoid sapiens. Also if you are unfamiliar with the concept of evolution your feedback is not wanted, im tired of listning to people who think they know what there talking about... (cough)(Rabbi)(cough)

What are these homonoids what characteristics did they possess they're nothing more than words

http://www.sciam.com

Look up 'evolution'. Read the slew of articles there, that should answer just about any answerable question you have. But like others have said, gaps will ALWAYS exist that cannot be filled, but we can make reasonable connections due to similar geneology, bone structure...yadda yadda.

quote:Originally posted by hand_made_attrocity:

I cant even begin to understand how anyone can deny evolution in the face of so much evidence, but apparently some people do. I was just wondering how somone can justify themselves by claiming that evolution does not exist.

Take a course on evolution, the evidence isn't that great. It's better than creationism, but certainly does not qualify for a good theory. It is just a theory.

quote:Originally posted by RvK:

Take a course on evolution, the evidence isn't that great.

It's better than great. It's smoking-gun evidence that can't exist if evolution is false.

Take for example endogenous retroviruses (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses), atavistic human tails (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2), and living whales with hindlimbs (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1)

quote:

It's better than creationism, but certainly does not qualify for a good theory.



It is corroborated from numerous independent fields of science. While some people have their head in the sand denying evolution, pharmeceautical companies have to battle it everyday.

quote:

It is just a theory.

So is atomic theory and germ theory. I don't see anyone denying the capabilities of atomic weaponry or that germs exist.

Many people don't understand just exactly what a theory is, and you are obviously one of them. Just because something is a theory does not mean that it isn't true or that it hasn't been proven yet.

I remember one of my teachers explaining the difference between a law and a theory, but I can't remember for my life exactly what it was. Scientific Law means that it is roughly 99.9% assured and that few exceptions exist if any, right? And theory means that is has corroborated evidence and can be tested and shown to be correct in multiple conditions, but holes still exist and exceptions could easily exist?

A hypothesis is what they're falsely considering to be a full fledged theory, right?

A law is not a higher degree of theory. A theory explains a law.

An oversimplification:

The Law of Gravity - Things fall down.

The Theory of Gravity - Things fall down because of attraction between massive bodies.

Hypothesis is an educated guess.

People have the amazing ability to dilude themselves into thinking they speak pure wisdom from their 'educated' tongue. Sadly, I do it myself quite often. Best to assume I don't know what I'm talking about and research things before speaking.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Hypothesis is an educated guess.

And a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and found to be consistent with the way things work.

evolution is not limited to life, the universe as a whole evolves.

Talking about biological evolution...just because someone doesn't specify biological evolution doesn't mean context clues shouldn't hit you.

Conclusion:

There you have it, evolution cannot be diputed and there by disproves the christian faith...

Except it doesn't.

i think the christian faith was made by some people at the time to explain why things were the way they were, and at the same time they discovered it could be used to manipulate the people and give them power.

so i guess the bible etc gives a very simplistic account of how things 'evolved' with the heavens and earth being created in 7 days and such... just now we have more knowledge and precise measurements.

and evolution is cool!

It doesn't disprove the Christian faith to those that don't take Genesis literally (anymore that is, in light of the evidence).

Anytime something comes along that would falsify a section of the Bible believed to be literal, it becomes figurative. This process continues until the whole Bible is a metaphorical figurative book of vague allegory.

It's basically DIY reality. If the holy texts are inconsistent with reality, then it has to be the interpretation of the holy text that is at fault, right?

I mean, there's no other possible explanation, right?

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 02-04-2004).]

wow, im back. Anyone miss me? (your concern keeps me warm at night...).

Again, evolution is still an incomplete theory (although i have no evidence off the top of my head so i suppose that makes it a basless assumption...), and like the_rabbi as soon as anyone questions or doubts the almighty god of evolution and darwinism (whether in the public forum, universities or wherever) the evolutionary biologists quickly close ranks, and point out how OBVIOUSLY everyone else is wrong.

Think about it, how many research papers, PhDs, books, peoples careers and reputations are tied up in this theory? If they were to admit that it was wrong or was short of fully explaining what we see, it would destroy the faith of so many people... but that people need faith to feel good about themselves and give meaning to their lives.......

Now im over being sarcastic.

Ive always steered away from this stuff- i did physics rather than biology in high school, so im not real au fai on this. But from what i have seen, both the creation scientists and the evolutionary biologists are both worthy of the same charges. Though there appears to be alot more evidence for one side...

The whole evolutionary theory is still just that, a theory. A concept used to relate the evidence that we have to our scientific understanding and gain a explanation for it. However it is not the "said and done" that it is taught (can i say indoctrinated?) into our high schoolers and university students everywhere in the western world.

Q)How does evolution prove the bible to be untruthful?

hey, found this. On totse!

This sorta lines up with my take on the whole thing, and saves me from typing a far less coherent rambling.

http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/161893.html

I would make it a proper link but i dont know ubb code.

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:

What are these homonoids what characteristics did they possess they're nothing more than words

What humans evolved from weren't that different. They were hairier and dumber and slower and shorter, but not much else. They evolved because certain traits that are favorable arose and were made prolific in the population. Less hair is more attractive to mates, so one with less hair would have more mates and pass on more genes percentagewise. Smart and fast will help you escape predators or catch prey. They were made prolific because more smart and fast ones would survive than slow and dumb ones, and hence would pass on more genes to the next generation. Tall will help you find food (fruit), and is also more attractive, and so more genes got passed on that for short ones.

It basically all boils down to gene percentages, with genes that make the organism better suited to survive or mate taking up an unproportionately large percentage in the next generation, because of the benefits.

Not that hard.

||I wrote this fast, typos may be frequent, if you can't handle that and read it then you are afraid of the truth||



First off the theory of evolution was ment to explain how we have so many different spicies of living organisms on earth.(over 300,000) Along the way of studying fossils though we found out that 99% of all organsims that used to exist are now dead.(Dinosours different types of giant fish etc) To say that evolution dosnt exist is to say we used to have over 300,000 X 99 organisms living at the same time and to think that is pure retardation.

Second if you go back to the time of anciant greece they also believed there were gods. Exceped they lived on a mountain and were used to explain day/night, rain, and natural disasters. Of course science has proven how all of these things work and at the same time proving that greek gods do not exist.

Christianity is basicly explaining how we came to be. It says a god somewhere created the earth and all living things on it. But once again science has proven this religion wrong using evolution. The Greeks faught and died for their gods, made sacrafices for them, claimd to have talked with them, recieved messages just as we did with our gods and what the bible claims. People living back then including the people who wrote the bible did not have modern science or the technology we have today and that is why they did the same thing the greeks did and creat explinations for events we could not explain at that time.

In conclusion maby our view of evolution isn't EXACTLY right but to go on claiming a chariot carries a giant burning rock accross the sky is pure stupidity. Evolution is not oppinion it is FACT you may prove a small part of evolution to be wrong but the theory as a whole that things evolve due to the wonderful procces of meosis is correct.