Do you believe in evolution?

Ace said:
imho

it is not a matter of who is "right or wrong" or "who is more believable"

but it seems in the last few pages, it was the only thing that mattered to people.
Click to expand...

I think its a matter of not discrediting anyone but looking at both sides. How many times has something been "proven" or taught only to be proven wrong in the end? Im talking science here not religion;) One thing that comes to mind is "the earth is flat" theory. Oh wait!!!! Some ancient civilizations already knew that but some how it was lost in time or that civilization was conquered and all documents of their religions and science were destroyed like the Mayans and Spanish Conquistadors;)
 
Julirs said:
Why do you feel that this is evidence for creation? Something other than itself?
We have not created anything like it, we only "broke it down and traced it backwards", something intelligent beings do all of the time.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. DNA is the meaningful encoded information for building proteins. That information had to be produced by something and the only thing that has ever been seen to be able to produce information is an intelligence. That becomes obvious when you look at the inumerable examples of information being produced by humans as a result of our intelligence. To compound that fact, DNA isn't capable of producing the proteins it represents on it's own. A living cell is required to put the DNA through a complex process in order to get the protein it represents, so even if enough DNA could form with the information of just a single protein just by pure random chance, nothing would happen.
 
Ace said:
imho

it is not a matter of who is "right or wrong" or "who is more believable"

but it seems in the last few pages, it was the only thing that mattered to people.
Click to expand...

That's what I said in the OP, but who listens to me anyways? :) I'm just 'that kid' that no one seems to like.
 
I'm just 'that kid' that no one seems to like.

Aww, poor kid, don't think that, its not true. It's a big world out there with a whole bunch of people, all of em individuals, all of em thinking differently. What a boring place it would be if the whole world was 'care bear' land. :)
Your young and wonderful, but one day you will be old and cynical and grouchy, and some kid just like you now, will rub you the wrong way. Try to see yourself in that kid and make a difference.
:)
 
Haha. I meant on here. I dont have any issues with people not liking me in person. I've been told I am very likable. :) On here I seem to rub everyone the wrong way. Oh well.
 
21...pages. Eyes went crossed but I made it! Evolution=testable theory. Creation argument= untestable hypothesis. How about the nylon eating bacteria? There's your proof for evolution. From what I've read it seems there is a fundamental detachment here, those that are satisified with answers to questions based on repeated analysis of fact and scrutiny of supposed facts(scientific world view) and those that are satisified with answers to questions that aren't really answers at all(religious world view). There is no need for a creator for the universe, therefor there is no need for a creator of life. Under the right circumstances stars are born, under the right circumstances life is born and all life from it. Much like all the elements in our bodies and the bodies of all living beings are born inside stars. Religion exists because our primitive brains found a rationalization for our own mortality and god exists through this rationalization. For 80k to 50k years or however long depending on who you ask, god let humanity go about without any moral guide book, until one day he came down and handed a book to the most backwards and uneducated part of the developing world, I'm paraphrasing Carl Sagan but the point remains why not Asian culture? Also it is far more arrogant to assume we were created by a higher unknowable power for a higher unknowable reason than to think that we dont have one based on the evidence. I suppose I jumped into a hot debate as a newer member but I couldn't resist because this is something living in the ultra conservative south that I constantly battle, have been fired for, and will defend. It's easy to have an idea and change an idea, but don't have a belief because those are what people die for.
 
"There are many great arguments for both sides of the debate in my opinion"

i just dont see it.

and saying keep religion out of this debate is like saying this isnt a debate.
 
DekuScrub said:
"There are many great arguments for both sides of the debate in my opinion"

i just dont see it.

and saying keep religion out of this debate is like saying this isnt a debate.
Click to expand...

I can see certain arguable aspects of debating it.
Without religion.

I think the problem is its just so closely related to things like our "origins" that people cant see past the religion.

Religion being a huge self imposed blind itself.
JMO
 
I agree, I don't see the arguments on the other side. I've read my fair share of books on both sides of the issue and all the "scientific" arguments for anything other than evolution - or, let's put it this way, other than natural explanations for the world - just don't really hold up if you know anything about evolution and chemistry.

For example, the ID camp's most treasured argument that is remotely scientific - the idea of irreducible complexity. The idea that you can't have half an eye because it doesn't work, therefore you can't have a place in evolution where a creature would have half an eye because it would be useless and probably selected against. I'm paraphrasing because I have to run to class but you get the idea. Well, this simply isn't how it works! There is no such thing as half an eye for a reason, because they're right, it would be useless. What they don't understand is that that's not how evolution works, organs (eyes in this case) don't evolve with an idea of what they are going to become, it's a slow gradual process that gets worked and improved upon as time goes by if there are pressures to drive the evolution of the eye towards new and more complex purposes.

So you start off with a light sensitive patch - great, now the animal in question can tell if it's day or night, sense shadows of approaching predators, etc.
Then it gets a little more complex, now you can distinguish shapes - great, now we can sort of make out what we're seeing, big things that could be dangerous and small things that could be food.
Then more complex still, now we can see colors, clear images, ect. - Great, now we see the world around us in vivid detail.

So there isn't a point in the eye's evolution where the eye is useless. And that's the favorite argument of the ID camp, that with irreducible complexity, you couldn't have limbs or organs or whatnot in mid-way stages and have them be useful. Well this clearly isn't true! Because they aren't half-limbs, they are what they are at the time. A light-sensitive patch is better than no eye at all, so while it isn't the modern eye, it obviously attributed to the survival of species or it wouldn't have become an almost universal trait across most animals, in one shape or another.

I wish I could be more specific, but now I'm running late lol.
 
Olimpia said:
I agree, I don't see the arguments on the other side. I've read my fair share of books on both sides of the issue and all the "scientific" arguments for anything other than evolution - or, let's put it this way, other than natural explanations for the world - just don't really hold up if you know anything about evolution and chemistry.

For example, the ID camp's most treasured argument that is remotely scientific - the idea of irreducible complexity. The idea that you can't have half an eye because it doesn't work, therefore you can't have a place in evolution where a creature would have half an eye because it would be useless and probably selected against. I'm paraphrasing because I have to run to class but you get the idea. Well, this simply isn't how it works! There is no such thing as half an eye for a reason, because they're right, it would be useless. What they don't understand is that that's not how evolution works, organs (eyes in this case) don't evolve with an idea of what they are going to become, it's a slow gradual process that gets worked and improved upon as time goes by if there are pressures to drive the evolution of the eye towards new and more complex purposes.

So you start off with a light sensitive patch - great, now the animal in question can tell if it's day or night, sense shadows of approaching predators, etc.
Then it gets a little more complex, now you can distinguish shapes - great, now we can sort of make out what we're seeing, big things that could be dangerous and small things that could be food.
Then more complex still, now we can see colors, clear images, ect. - Great, now we see the world around us in vivid detail.

So there isn't a point in the eye's evolution where the eye is useless. And that's the favorite argument of the ID camp, that with irreducible complexity, you couldn't have limbs or organs or whatnot in mid-way stages and have them be useful. Well this clearly isn't true! Because they aren't half-limbs, they are what they are at the time. A light-sensitive patch is better than no eye at all, so while it isn't the modern eye, it obviously attributed to the survival of species or it wouldn't have become an almost universal trait across most animals, in one shape or another.

I wish I could be more specific, but now I'm running late lol.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying.
Its spot on.
 
Yes is do, but i think it would be ignorant for one to assume humans are the most inteligent beings there is; thus i think theres a "higher power" type thing. wether its true or not doesnt matter, the leasons i value makes me want to be a good person.

evolution seems like an obvious thing thats going on. but people who claim "we came from monkeys" dont know much about it. thats an old and useless arugment. monkeys, genticaly, are alot like us but are not the same. people didnt come from monkeys in the least but but rather are ancestors. we may not have even came from the same species as a monkeys let alone genus. as far as theres no proof of that so we did not "come from monkeys." we people, are people. and arnt apes closer to us than monkeys :confused:
 
All I gotta say is this ... I believe in evolution . BUT .... I've met many people that I sometimes think missed a few rungs on the evolutionary ladder . Ok , that is all I have ... back to responding with smileys
peace.gif
 
okiroo said:
Yes is do, but i think it would be ignorant for one to assume humans are the most inteligent beings there is; thus i think theres a "higher power" type thing. wether its true or not doesnt matter, the leasons i value makes me want to be a good person.

evolution seems like an obvious thing thats going on. but people who claim "we came from monkeys" dont know much about it. thats an old and useless arugment. monkeys, genticaly, are alot like us but are not the same. people didnt come from monkeys in the least but but rather are ancestors. we may not have even came from the same species as a monkeys let alone genus. as far as theres no proof of that so we did not "come from monkeys." we people, are people. and arnt apes closer to us than monkeys :confused:
Click to expand...

I really tried to discern what you are trying to say but I couldn't so do you mind to clarify? We did in fact come from apes, that is why we are so closely related(a matter of two chromosomes I believe) we were once all apes, we came out of trees and spent more time foraging on the ground then we evolved into several different species, eventually the most successful species were left after the others died off or were assimilated, thus we have ourselves. It is ignorant and arrogant to assume we need a designer or creator when that is not the case. If a perfect being designed us, he made a lot of mistakes with us and other creatures through disease, genetic defects, and mortality. I have seriously tried to cut the explanation as short as possible, but I hope this helps.
 
ChappyMcChap said:
I really tried to discern what you are trying to say but I couldn't so do you mind to clarify? We did in fact come from apes, that is why we are so closely related(a matter of two chromosomes I believe) we were once all apes, we came out of trees and spent more time foraging on the ground then we evolved into several different species, eventually the most successful species were left after the others died off or were assimilated, thus we have ourselves. It is ignorant and arrogant to assume we need a designer or creator when that is not the case. If a perfect being designed us, he made a lot of mistakes with us and other creatures through disease, genetic defects, and mortality. I have seriously tried to cut the explanation as short as possible, but I hope this helps.
Click to expand...

i tried to explain how i felt without throwing out my belife, wich you just did. -"It is ignorant and arrogant to assume we need a designer or creator when that is not the case. If a perfect being designed us, he made a lot of mistakes with us and other creatures through disease, genetic defects, and mortality."






prove it- "We did in fact come from apes, that is why we are so closely related"

i think evolution is real but theres no proof as far as i know of this. yes we are closely related but that doesnt mean "We came form apes" just beacuse two chams look alike doesnt mean they came from the same ancestor. DNA plays a role but if you really look apes and human dna isnt as similar as people claim it to be. they focus in one one type thats the most similar, humans cant even breed with apes.
 
Olimpia said:
I agree, I don't see the arguments on the other side. I've read my fair share of books on both sides of the issue and all the "scientific" arguments for anything other than evolution - or, let's put it this way, other than natural explanations for the world - just don't really hold up if you know anything about evolution and chemistry.

For example, the ID camp's most treasured argument that is remotely scientific - the idea of irreducible complexity. The idea that you can't have half an eye because it doesn't work, therefore you can't have a place in evolution where a creature would have half an eye because it would be useless and probably selected against. I'm paraphrasing because I have to run to class but you get the idea. Well, this simply isn't how it works! There is no such thing as half an eye for a reason, because they're right, it would be useless. What they don't understand is that that's not how evolution works, organs (eyes in this case) don't evolve with an idea of what they are going to become, it's a slow gradual process that gets worked and improved upon as time goes by if there are pressures to drive the evolution of the eye towards new and more complex purposes.

So you start off with a light sensitive patch - great, now the animal in question can tell if it's day or night, sense shadows of approaching predators, etc.
Then it gets a little more complex, now you can distinguish shapes - great, now we can sort of make out what we're seeing, big things that could be dangerous and small things that could be food.
Then more complex still, now we can see colors, clear images, ect. - Great, now we see the world around us in vivid detail.

So there isn't a point in the eye's evolution where the eye is useless.sometimes there is a point! but no reason to get rid of it completly And that's the favorite argument of the ID camp, that with irreducible complexity, you couldn't have limbs or organs or whatnot in mid-way stages and have them be useful. Well this clearly isn't true! Because they aren't half-limbs emus? trex? some snakes have those little claws. kiwis?, they are what they are at the time. A light-sensitive patch is better than no eye at all, so while it isn't the modern eye, it obviously attributed to the survival of species or it wouldn't have become an almost universal trait across most animals, in one shape or another.

I wish I could be more specific, but now I'm running late lol.
Click to expand...

nice example and i agree buuuuuut. if youre a salamander in a cave they seem to have degenerated. then eyesight is no longer a discerning factor in survivability, and they just become vestigial. no reason to pour precious energy into growing a useless organ. OR if youre a bat and youve developed overyly sensitive hearing that is much more effective in obtaining you prey selection. better hearing is now the name of the game and eyesight is put on a backburner as far as future development goes.
 
okiroo said:
i tried to explain how i felt without throwing out my belife, wich you just did. -"It is ignorant and arrogant to assume we need a designer or creator when that is not the case. If a perfect being designed us, he made a lot of mistakes with us and other creatures through disease, genetic defects, and morta


prove it- "We did in fact come from apes, that is why we are so closely related"

i think evolution is real but theres no proof as far as i know of this. yes we are closely related but that doesnt mean "We came form apes" just beacuse two chams look alike doesnt mean they came from the same ancestor. DNA plays a role but if you really look apes and human dna isnt as similar as people claim it to be. they focus in one one type thats the most similar, humans cant even breed with apes.
Click to expand...

Whoa, lots of misinformation. I don't have beliefs, I'm just stating a conclusion available evidence has led me to. The burden of proof falls to the persons making a claim about a higher power, and there is no proof. Also if you can't see the evidence, you're not looking at it objectively and without religious bias. It's from one type of ape yes, the ones we evolved from. It's very similar DNA.
 
ChappyMcChap said:
Whoa, lots of misinformation. I don't have beliefs, I'm just stating a conclusion available evidence has led me to. The burden of proof falls to the persons making a claim about a higher power, and there is no proof. Also if you can't see the evidence, you're not looking at it objectively and without religious bias. It's from one type of ape yes, the ones we evolved from. It's very similar DNA.
Click to expand...

" you're not looking at it objectively and without religious bias."

i dont have religious bias, i keep those things to myself. im stateing what i was tought and like i mentioned earlyer im no expert. i know what others have told me and what i've gatherd myself. i've seen the evidence your talking about (side my side comparason of ape/human dna) and its still imo not very similer. and again they are only looking at the most similer things we share. what about the things we dont share commonly? why is this not adressed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Please Help - Chameleon doesn't seem healthy
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
15K
Chamlover89
C
R
Sticky Request
Replies
10
Views
1K
Reddogzz
R
CraftingDreams
New, and need some advice
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Andee
Andee
Back
Top Bottom