Evolution

[Harry Smith]

I've always been a firm believer in Evolution, pretty much ties into the fact that I don't believe in God. But my Science teacher was having to point out to religious people explicit evidence that it has actually happened over the last x amount of years, and he mentioned how Whales who are the largest Sea mammal have a hip bone which is surrounded by 10 ft of solid muscle. If as some religious people claim God created wales why would he give them a hip bone?

I'd love to hear your views on Evolution, especially if your a christian

[britishboy]

evolution is true simple some Christians believe god created the world through evolution however most don't. if evolution isn't true why let humans have the remains of a tail (bottom of spine).

[Jess]

I firmly [-]believe[/-] accept evolution is true; there are a lot of evidence for it. Most people should know my views on a god...obviously...see sig :p

[Korashk]

I don't believe in evolution. I accept that evolution is true. When it comes to facts there is no belief and unbelief. There's only denial and acceptance.

[Human]

I think evolution is a fact, simple :D

[randomnessqueen]

evolution is not necessarily fact. there is some evidence for it, theres also some evidence for creationism. theres probably evidence for some third thing. if you look hard enough, you can find evidence for anything. i personally dont believe in evolution, its been pervaded with the modern ideals of western science, which has become too dogmatic. its filled with confirmation bias and faith, and denies it. plus, most followers of western science view science as infallible, as well as put complete faith in the words of anyone with a phd in their name. science is about testing theories by experience, and you cant experience evolution, so you can only go by speculation on what you can see, which even if repeated a thousand times is still purely inductive, and as far as im concerned, has no basis in fact.

[Korashk]

evolution is not necessarily fact.
Yes it is. We've seen it happen. Things literally don't get any more factual than that.

there is some evidence for it,
There are proverbial mountains of evidence for it. So much so that it is a theory in addition to being a fact.

theres also some evidence for creationism.
There is literally no legitimate evidence for creationism.

theres probably evidence for some third thing. if you look hard enough, you can find evidence for anything.
Your standards for what does and doesn't constitute evidence seems to be a bit low. Evidence is not something you can arbitrarily declare.

i personally dont believe in evolution, its been pervaded with the modern ideals of western science, which has become too dogmatic. its filled with confirmation bias and faith, and denies it.
Confirmation bias isn't really all that big an issue with modern science because of the peer review process and the fact that disproving evolution would probably make a person the most famous scientist in recorded history. It's not dogmatic to accept facts. Is accepting gravity dogmatic? Is accepting spacial relativity dogmatic? No.

[Ace of Spades]

evolution is not necessarily fact. there is some evidence for it, theres also some evidence for creationism. theres probably evidence for some third thing. if you look hard enough, you can find evidence for anything. i personally dont believe in evolution, its been pervaded with the modern ideals of western science, which has become too dogmatic. its filled with confirmation bias and faith, and denies it. plus, most followers of western science view science as infallible, as well as put complete faith in the words of anyone with a phd in their name. science is about testing theories by experience, and you cant experience evolution, so you can only go by speculation on what you can see, which even if repeated a thousand times is still purely inductive, and as far as im concerned, has no basis in fact.

Totally agree. We Pastafarians got it right. You can clearly see the proof of FSM. All you need to do is look at the rise in global temperatures. There is a direct correlation between the rise of global temperatures and the decrease in the number of pirates over the centuries. Pirates were the first Pastafarians, Pirate Solomon being the first. Ever since the the number of pirates started to decline, the word of FSM also declined. Therefore FSM, being upset at the decreasing number of pirates, began to heat the Earth to raise awareness.

[Southside]

Im A Christian, Hey..Evolution did happen, but I'd prefer to play it safe, what if I die and it is a God up there? If I die and its no one up there, so be it, I wont be penalized...

[Elysium]

I accept evolution to be true and have never doubted it.

[Bethany]

evolution is not necessarily fact. there is some evidence for it, theres also some evidence for creationism. theres probably evidence for some third thing. if you look hard enough, you can find evidence for anything. i personally dont believe in evolution, its been pervaded with the modern ideals of western science, which has become too dogmatic. its filled with confirmation bias and faith, and denies it. plus, most followers of western science view science as infallible, as well as put complete faith in the words of anyone with a phd in their name. science is about testing theories by experience, and you cant experience evolution, so you can only go by speculation on what you can see, which even if repeated a thousand times is still purely inductive, and as far as im concerned, has no basis in fact.

What evidence is there for creationism?

[Southside]

What evidence is there for creationism?

The Bible?

[Bethany]

The Bible?

haha good point, I didn't word that well.

I mean, is there any scientific evidence for creationism as opposed to evolution?

[Southside]

haha good point, I didn't word that well.

I mean, is there any scientific evidence for creationism as opposed to evolution?

Not that I know of, your going to put me in a Atheist chokehold, its more evidence for evolution than creationism, me personally, I believe God created the world via evolution. Sometimes..I wanna create my own break-off of Christianity which believes in that, I'd get alot of followers, but then again those hardcore Catholics would be hating..

[naglfari]

The Bible?

I don't think you understand the concept of evidence

edit:

if I say the earth is only 5000 years old I can't cite as evidence "well I just said so"

[Bethany]

Not that I know of, your going to put me in a Atheist chokehold, its more evidence for evolution than creationism, me personally, I believe God created the world via evolution. Sometimes..I wanna create my own break-off of Christianity which believes in that, I'd get alot of followers, but then again those hardcore Catholics would be hating..

I think that would be a very reasonable, successful branch of Christianity.

[Jess]

Not that I know of, your going to put me in a Atheist chokehold, its more evidence for evolution than creationism, me personally, I believe God created the world via evolution. Sometimes..I wanna create my own break-off of Christianity which believes in that, I'd get alot of followers, but then again those hardcore Catholics would be hating..

If I had a religion, I would much rather believe God created the world via evolution as well, rather than, BAM EVERYTHING'S JUST THERE :rolleyes:

[Southside]

I think that would be a very reasonable, successful branch of Christianity.

Yeah... Maybe I will do it..lol
If I had a religion, I would much rather believe God created the world via evolution as well, rather than, BAM EVERYTHING'S JUST THERE :rolleyes:

I dont believe that either..Sometimes I just dont know about religion and the spritual world. I think the idea of seeing a dead relative in paradise is what keeps me a believer. I dont care if you Atheist or Religious, I dont think anyone would pass up a chance to meet a dead grandparent or someone again.

[TheBigUnit]

I don't believe in evolution. I accept that evolution is true. When it comes to facts there is no belief and unbelief. There's only denial and acceptance.

Well said actually,


Anyway the OP has a point with animals having vestigal parts

[Sir Suomi]

Ah, for me, I accept both in some weird theory of mine. Basically, I believe that there is indeed, a God, and afterlife, etc, and that explains the "Why" and "Who" questions, and that evolution answers the "When" and "How" questions. Am I right, or am I completely off track? Meh, who cares.

[Korashk]

Not that I know of, your going to put me in a Atheist chokehold, its more evidence for evolution than creationism, me personally, I believe God created the world via evolution. Sometimes..I wanna create my own break-off of Christianity which believes in that, I'd get alot of followers, but then again those hardcore Catholics would be hating..
Most Christians in the world believe in evolution. Creationism is something that's basically only believed in America. The official stance of the Catholic church is that evolution happens.

[Harry Smith]

evolution is not necessarily fact. there is some evidence for it, theres also some evidence for creationism. theres probably evidence for some third thing. if you look hard enough, you can find evidence for anything. i personally dont believe in evolution, its been pervaded with the modern ideals of western science, which has become too dogmatic. its filled with confirmation bias and faith, and denies it. plus, most followers of western science view science as infallible, as well as put complete faith in the words of anyone with a phd in their name. science is about testing theories by experience, and you cant experience evolution, so you can only go by speculation on what you can see, which even if repeated a thousand times is still purely inductive, and as far as im concerned, has no basis in fact.

There is absolutely no credible evidence for Creationism

[Left Now]

According to my researches there were an evolution at all,but not for human beings...
Yes before Adam there were semi-humans creatures who were from recent walking animal,gorilla...
But after the Adam got created as the human(Exactly God created the world before it in my belief)
the semi-humans got advanced by god and married the children of Adam and Eve...Then the evolution stopped for those creatures..But in our belief Adam and Eve themselves were both got created by God as humans and there was no evolution in their kind...
So i believe in the evolution for humans are not right but the mind of the humans got more advanced since booooogh(means very much)years ago...

[Harry Smith]

According to my researches there were an evolution at all,but not for human beings...
Yes before Adam there were semi-humans creatures who were from recent walking animal,gorilla...
But after the Adam got created as the human(Exactly God created the world before it in my belief)
the semi-humans got advanced by god and married the children of Adam and Eve...Then the evolution stopped for those creatures..But in our belief Adam and Eve themselves were both got created by God as humans and there was no evolution in their kind...
So i believe in the evolution for humans are not right but the mind of the humans got more advanced since booooogh(means very much)years ago...

Adam and Eve didn't exist, there are no places in the world which match the the geographical range described in the bible, and evolution has not stopped at all for Humans, we are still very much evolving. The idea that a man in the sky created a human out of dust is nearly as absurd as a woman being made out of the said mans' rib.

[Left Now]

But the dust theory is still alive...
Anythings which our body is made of are in the dust...All the ions and atoms of our body are in dust...You yourself have to agree this too because in the Evolution theory the first bacteria-sized creature on the earth was made from the materials of dust...So the man is from the dust too...
However i do not know what is in the Bible completely written about Eve and Adam,but according to Islamic scholars researches,The Adam and Eve are buried in a place between Forat river and Dajle river in Iraq...
However it is your opinion and i would respect this...

[Harry Smith]

But the dust theory is still alive...
Anythings which our body is made of are in the dust...All the ions and atoms of our body are in dust...You yourself have to agree this too because in the Evolution theory the first bacteria-sized creature on the earth was made from the materials of dust...So the man is from the dust too...
However i do not know what is in the Bible completely written about Eve and Adam,but according to Islamic scholars researches,The Adam and Eve are buried in a place between Forat river and Dajle river in Iraq...
However it is your opinion and i would respect this...

The area of Iraq didn't exist when adam and eve were alive, there were no maps so how could a book written say 2,000 years later somehow confirm where they were?

[chrisawesome]

I think evolution does come into act, but It WAS GOD who started it. I mean really, how was the first creature created? There is no chance in HELL that my great great great great great great great great great grandfather was a fucking MONKEY!!!! oo oo ah ah

[Harry Smith]

I think evolution does come into act, but It WAS GOD who started it. I mean really, how was the first creature created? There is no chance in HELL that my great great great great great great great great great grandfather was a fucking MONKEY!!!! oo oo ah ah

you need a lot more greats than that, Also if we don't come from monkey's then why would we have a tail bone?

[Magus]

The area of Iraq didn't exist when adam and eve were alive, there were no maps so how could a book written say 2,000 years later somehow confirm where they were?

Some even say that Adam and Eve is an ancient Assyrian or a Mesopotamian allegorical story of some kind that has been inserted into the early Judaic codex.

But the dust theory is still alive...
Anythings which our body is made of are in the dust...All the ions and atoms of our body are in dust...You yourself have to agree this too because in the Evolution theory the first bacteria-sized creature on the earth was made from the materials of dust...So the man is from the dust too...
However i do not know what is in the Bible completely written about Eve and Adam,but according to Islamic scholars researches,The Adam and Eve are buried in a place between Forat river and Dajle river in Iraq...
However it is your opinion and i would respect this...

Dust, if you are referring to sand, contains Silica. We, on the other hand, more than just carbon and hydrogen. The first bacteria is made out of carbon and hydrogen too. Dude, learn some chemistry. Try looking at a chemical constructions of a pentose sugar, and then at a dust particle. BIG DIFFERENCE! Aye.

Read a real biology and evolution book. I bet you have a copy of Harun Yaha's snake oil book XD

[TheWaterPrince]

Not that I know of, your going to put me in a Atheist chokehold, its more evidence for evolution than creationism, me personally, I believe God created the world via evolution. Sometimes..I wanna create my own break-off of Christianity which believes in that, I'd get alot of followers, but then again those hardcore Catholics would be hating..

Willing to become a follower! :D
But seriously I agree with the idea that God created the world...and evolution along with it.

[Left Now]

Dust, if you are referring to sand, contains Silica. We, on the other hand, more than just carbon and hydrogen. The first bacteria is made out of carbon and hydrogen too. Dude, learn some chemistry. Try looking at a chemical constructions of a pentose sugar, and then at a dust particle. BIG DIFFERENCE! Aye.

Read a real biology and evolution book. I bet you have a copy of Harun Yaha's snake oil book XD
No,i mean real dust...Sand is made of destroyed dust and is not suitable for planting and living(i mean dust worm)
The materials of that first bacteria in evolution theory must be Nitrogen,(For RNA),Carbon for basic body and chlorophyll,(it must be a "Maker" prokaryote)
Carbons were not something which in that time we could find them on earth,it was in basic dust of the earth(not sand)which moved from dust to water and that first bacteria got created in there...
The secondary dust made after this and before the creation of plants...
And the dust which nowdays we have it is that second dust..

Materials of that dust is different from today dust...

[Harry Smith]

No,i mean real dust...Sand is made of destroyed dust and is not suitable for planting and living(i mean dust worm)
The materials of that first bacteria in evolution theory must be Nitrogen,(For RNA),Carbon for basic body and chlorophyll,(it must be a "Maker" prokaryote)
Carbons were not something which in that time we could find them on earth,it was in basic dust of the earth(not sand)which moved from dust to water and that first bacteria got created in there...
The secondary dust made after this and before the creation of plants...
And the dust which nowdays we have it is that second dust..

Materials of that dust is different from today dust...

Carbon has always been on the earth, hence why we can carbon date rocks back about 10,000 years ago

[Left Now]

I didn't say it didn't exist in that time,i just said it was not on the Earth and it was in the earth,(From Earth i mean ground)...In the basic dust of that time...
However,if the evolution theory is completely right,i must i way to describe the spirit too...
Spirit is not something mortal,it is immortal.We cannot discus the Spirit if we do not believe in anything immortal...

[Harry Smith]

I didn't say it didn't exist in that time,i just said it was not on the Earth and it was in the earth,(From Earth i mean ground)...In the basic dust of that time...
However,if the evolution theory is completely right,i must i way to describe the spirit too...
Spirit is not something mortal,it is immortal.We cannot discus the Spirit if we do not believe in anything immortal...

Your not making any sense about this subject, dust is dust. Adam and Eve didn't exist...

[Left Now]

We do not know...Were you on the Earth since when the first human got born or created...No.I was not there too but still the Evolution theory is not acceptable for all scientists of the Earth(Not only muslims,Some seculars do not believe in it)
Because it has some faded parts....
At last we cannot judge from this theory,Adam and Eve doesn't exist...
It is my opinion and that is yours...If you do not believe in it i will respect you but still i will have my own opinion and you do not have that right to insult it(If it doesn't hurting the society or people)
Also i've just talked about spirit in my last post.Do not you believe in that spirit shall have an evolution too?

[TheBigUnit]

Vestigial parts..... thats all i have to say

[Harry Smith]

We do not know...Were you on the Earth since when the first human got born or created...No.I was not there too but still the Evolution theory is not acceptable for all scientists of the Earth(Not only muslims,Some seculars do not believe in it)
Because it has some faded parts....
At last we cannot judge from this theory,Adam and Eve doesn't exist...
It is my opinion and that is yours...If you do not believe in it i will respect you but still i will have my own opinion and you do not have that right to insult it(If it doesn't hurting the society or people)
Also i've just talked about spirit in my last post.Do not you believe in that spirit shall have an evolution too?

I don't believe in the spirit or soul, I'm from the 1600's. Ok since Evolution is only a theory explain why Whales have a hip bone? or why do Humans have a tail bone? Why are there fossils showing Human development?

And I never insulted your religion, I merely pointed out the flaws in your argument

[britishboy]

evolution is fact scientists have got fleas changed the environment drastically and in just 30 generation's the fleas had started to change. this is PROOF and there is so much evidence if you disagree your a idiot a lot of Christians now believe god made us through evolution.

[Left Now]

The Evolution is true..I didn't disagree with it,But the theory of Evolution which is going to be discussed by us is not a completely fact...
All the things need evolution and with out it we are going to be destroyed...Evolution is a need for us but where did that happen and when is not clear for us...
The Theory of Monkey-Human evolution which was introduced by Darvin(Great English Biologist)was just a theory and we are still researching about the start point of human life.
Theory is partly-unclear but the evolution exists,it is a fact and nobody can deny this.
But i agree with completely evolution not partly...
For EX:When a kind of living creatures are in a situation which they should have an evolution,all of that kind will join and there won't be any of the past kind in the earth...
I know human got advanced by evolution but not from monkey or apes...Humans were themselves and got their evolution on their own kind not from apes or something...
According to the evolution theory the life began from water...I agree with it but not all the creatures got created by that bacteria-sized creature in the water,I believe that there were more than one creature on the earth which had different specifics from each other...And then they have got advanced and turned into new creatures or some of them choose to not change and be what they were...I believe in this...
But Human is something more...Its Evolution was more important than the evolution of monkey-humans from monkeys.
You can see still there are a very much distance between apes and monkeys and Humans...So i cannot believe our ancestors were something like them...I believe our ancestors were Adam and Eve,Two generally advanced creature in their own era,which were made from dust and Coagulum(maybe it is one of those basic creatures)and they were created by God or Allah or Dios.

[Harry Smith]

The Evolution is true..I didn't disagree with it,But the theory of Evolution which is going to be discussed by us is not a completely fact...
All the things need evolution and with out it we are going to be destroyed...Evolution is a need for us but where did that happen and when is not clear for us...
The Theory of Monkey-Human evolution which was introduced by Darvin(Great English Biologist)was just a theory and we are still researching about the start point of human life.
Theory is partly-unclear but the evolution exists,it is a fact and nobody can deny this.
But i agree with completely evolution not partly...
For EX:When a kind of living creatures are in a situation which they should have an evolution,all of that kind will join and there won't be any of the past kind in the earth...
I know human got advanced by evolution but not from monkey or apes...Humans were themselves and got their evolution on their own kind not from apes or something...
According to the evolution theory the life began from water...I agree with it but not all the creatures got created by that bacteria-sized creature in the water,I believe that there were more than one creature on the earth which had different specifics from each other...And then they have got advanced and turned into new creatures or some of them choose to not change and be what they were...I believe in this...
But Human is something more...Its Evolution was more important than the evolution of monkey-humans from monkeys.
You can see still there are a very much distance between apes and monkeys and Humans...So i cannot believe our ancestors were something like them...I believe our ancestors were Adam and Eve,Two generally advanced creature in their own era,which were made from dust and Coagulum(maybe it is one of those basic creatures)and they were created by God or Allah or Dios.

I hate to break it to you but the magic man in the sky didn't make Adam and Eve. Spoiler

[Left Now]

That is your belief,Still you are not a believer in soul and spirit so the only thing which i can say is nothing more than nothing...
However the evolution is a fact and the denier is a stupid guy,but how the evolution was,we do not know...You have your belief i have mine.

[TheBigUnit]

The Evolution is true..I didn't disagree with it,But the theory of Evolution which is going to be discussed by us is not a completely fact...
All the things need evolution and with out it we are going to be destroyed...Evolution is a need for us but where did that happen and when is not clear for us...
The Theory of Monkey-Human evolution which was introduced by Darvin(Great English Biologist)was just a theory and we are still researching about the start point of human life.
Theory is partly-unclear but the evolution exists,it is a fact and nobody can deny this.
But i agree with completely evolution not partly...
For EX:When a kind of living creatures are in a situation which they should have an evolution,all of that kind will join and there won't be any of the past kind in the earth...
I know human got advanced by evolution but not from monkey or apes...Humans were themselves and got their evolution on their own kind not from apes or something...
According to the evolution theory the life began from water...I agree with it but not all the creatures got created by that bacteria-sized creature in the water,I believe that there were more than one creature on the earth which had different specifics from each other...And then they have got advanced and turned into new creatures or some of them choose to not change and be what they were...I believe in this...
But Human is something more...Its Evolution was more important than the evolution of monkey-humans from monkeys.
You can see still there are a very much distance between apes and monkeys and Humans...So i cannot believe our ancestors were something like them...I believe our ancestors were Adam and Eve,Two generally advanced creature in their own era,which were made from dust and Coagulum(maybe it is one of those basic creatures)and they were created by God or Allah or Dios.

this obviously shows you never had a biology class, first of all theres a common ancestor, and natural selection

[Magus]

That is your belief,Still you are not a believer in soul and spirit so the only thing which i can say is nothing more than nothing...
However the evolution is a fact and the denier is a stupid guy,but how the evolution was,we do not know...You have your belief i have mine.

You're mixing your religious beliefs with science.

Evidence of Adam and Eve and their Progenies: Zero

Evidence of Humanoid Apes: Thousands, and still counting.

And science has clearly showed us both the origin and development of species. Read a book; seriously, I am not kidding.

[Left Now]

It is not completely same...Also why can't there be more than one common ancestors?
What can assure that there is just one common ancestor according to this theory?It is not logic at all.When the volcanoes began to explode the first bacteria-sized creature got created in the bubbles of the sea and water(according to this theory)why couldn't there be more than one common ancestor?...Also it is still a theory and there are many differences between we and apes...Maybe there are many similarities but our differences are more...I am studying biology...

[Ace of Spades]

It is not completely same...Also why can't there be more than one common ancestors?
What can assure that there is just one common ancestor according to this theory?It is not logic at all.When the volcanoes began to explode the first bacteria-sized creature got created in the bubbles of the sea and water(according to this theory)why couldn't there be more than one common ancestor?...Also it is still a theory and there are many differences between we and apes...Maybe there are many similarities but our differences are more...I am studying biology...

It is a well documented fact that humans share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Is that really wort arguing over?

[Magus]

It is not completely same...Also why can't there be more than one common ancestors?

All mammals are related to vertebrates, but not all vertebrates are mammal. Got this? Good.

What can assure that there is just one common ancestor according to this theory?It is not logic at all.When the volcanoes began to explode the first bacteria-sized creature got created in the bubbles of the sea and water(according to this theory)why couldn't there be more than one common ancestor?...Also it is still a theory and there are many differences between we and apes...Maybe there are many similarities but our differences are more...I am studying biology...

Also, there is a difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Both are distinct but related.

And as what has been said, we share the same anatomy and DNA with other primates. This heavily implies that we are related, and thus to every mammals, and thereby to every vertebrate.

Also, can you put spaces between paragraphs, or is that difficult for you?

We cannot read what you are saying if you keep writing like this:

apfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfj ioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioaw uihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihd ioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioaw hdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdo

[britishboy]

All mammals are related to vertebrates, but not all vertebrates are mammal. Got this? Good.



Also, there is a difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Both are distinct but related.

And as what has been said, we share the same anatomy and DNA with other primates. This heavily implies that we are related, and thus to every mammals, and thereby to every vertebrate.

Also, can you put spaces between paragraphs, or is that difficult for you?

We cannot read what you are saying if you keep writing like this:

apfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfj ioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioaw uihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihd ioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioaw hdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdoapfjioawuihdioawhdo

well said:) I ccompletely agree with you

[Harry Smith]

It is not completely same...Also why can't there be more than one common ancestors?
What can assure that there is just one common ancestor according to this theory?It is not logic at all.When the volcanoes began to explode the first bacteria-sized creature got created in the bubbles of the sea and water(according to this theory)why couldn't there be more than one common ancestor?...Also it is still a theory and there are many differences between we and apes...Maybe there are many similarities but our differences are more...I am studying biology...

If your studying Biology I hope you don't pass, your argument sounds like rhetoric mixed with a couple of out of place scientific phrases

[Left Now]

Your proofs are acceptable and i will accept them...But also there is more black fags between the organization of humans and chimps...So let us wait for other advances of the science...It is not a good era of this knowledge and chemistry is now more better...Also,in my subjects there are chemistry,physics and biology and my scores were 18 to 20 from 20 in all of them so take your hope to your grave friend because i am going to pass...
NOTE:Because of the fact you still have more information about Evolution i will fall back and for now i will agree with you...

[TheBigUnit]

Your proofs are acceptable and i will accept them...But also there is more black fags between the organization of humans and chimps...So let us wait for other advances of the science...It is not a good era of this knowledge and chemistry is now more better...Also,in my subjects there are chemistry,physics and biology and my scores were 18 to 20 from 20 in all of them so take your hope to your grave friend because i am going to pass...
NOTE:Because of the fact you still have more information about Evolution i will fall back and for now i will agree with you...

I assume you meant black flags, also are you trying to say you are being taught creationism at school?

[Left Now]

Yep...and sorry for black fag,it was black tag i mistyped it.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I accept evolution as the truth. I'm not CERTAIN though, that god doesn't exist. 99.9% sure though.

[Magus]

chemistry,physics and biology and my scores were 18 to 20 from 20 in all of them so take your hope to your grave friend because i am going to pass...

They don't teach Evolution in Iran, that's the thing.

They want you to believe in a God who brought forth a book through an Arab shepherd, and that every single human is from A couple named Adam and Eve, and that they came from dust. Oh, and that you have the follow and become a cult follower to the Saids and Imams and Mullahs.

Does this in anyway sound scientific, dear Farhang?

[Left Now]

In answer,i have to tell you today in Iran we are following the Evolution Theory,you can see this in our science olympiads and the religion nearly is forgotten in our science classes.
For example there is no track of God in our chemistry and physic and biology books,and all the things are about just Earthly science,so you cannot tell something like this.

Near 5 years ago we read about Darvin and Lamark and their theories in biology without asking only a question about the religion side of Evolution and then they made us to go and research about it in other language biology books to prove that the evolution was and is right.

From then my own researches show that the Evolution was right but not exactly that thing which they told.But still our knowledge about biology is not completely enough..So let the knowledge advance more...

However in Iran we learn using science,For example advance organization of the body and cells and ...But the evolution is what we will study it more later and in our University works...

In answer,i have to tell you today in Iran we are following the Evolution Theory,you can see this in our science olympiads and the religion nearly is forgotten in our science classes.
For example there is no track of God in our chemistry and physic and biology books,and all the things are about just Earthly science,so you cannot tell something like this.

Near 5 years ago we read about Darvin and Lamark and their theories in biology without asking only a question about the religion side of Evolution and then they made us to go and research about it in other language biology books to prove that the evolution was and is right.

From then my own researches show that the Evolution was right but not exactly that thing which they told.But still our knowledge about biology is not completely enough..So let the knowledge advance more...

However in Iran we learn using science,For example advance organization of the body and cells and ...But the evolution is what we will study it more later and in our University works...


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[randomnessqueen]

Yes it is. We've seen it happen. Things literally don't get any more factual than that.


There are proverbial mountains of evidence for it. So much so that it is a theory in addition to being a fact.


There is literally no legitimate evidence for creationism.


Your standards for what does and doesn't constitute evidence seems to be a bit low. Evidence is not something you can arbitrarily declare.


Confirmation bias isn't really all that big an issue with modern science because of the peer review process and the fact that disproving evolution would probably make a person the most famous scientist in recorded history. It's not dogmatic to accept facts. Is accepting gravity dogmatic? Is accepting spacial relativity dogmatic? No.

no, evolution has not been seen.
youre making these claims its just fact so deal with it. just saying it doesnt make that so. where are you getting your information

Totally agree. We Pastafarians got it right. You can clearly see the proof of FSM. All you need to do is look at the rise in global temperatures. There is a direct correlation between the rise of global temperatures and the decrease in the number of pirates over the centuries. Pirates were the first Pastafarians, Pirate Solomon being the first. Ever since the the number of pirates started to decline, the word of FSM also declined. Therefore FSM, being upset at the decreasing number of pirates, began to heat the Earth to raise awareness.

well, atleast someone here has some sense.

There is absolutely no credible evidence for Creationism

you find what evidence you can for evolution, so you can throw it in someones face. and then you block out anlything about creation or anything else, just so you can ignore it


-merged multiple posts. -Emerald Dream

[Jess]

no, evolution has not been seen.
youre making these claims its just fact so deal with it. just saying it doesnt make that so. where are you getting your information

Um, yes, evolution HAS been seen.

ex:

The Great Eggfly, also called the Blue Moon Butterfly, is a species of nymphalid butterfly that is found in many areas of the world including Madacascar, Southeast Asia, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. It is a black bodied butterfly with an average wing span of 7–8½ cm. The butterfly can be found in wooded country, forests, thick and moist scrub, and the greener parts of the uninhabited terrain.

In the last ten years scientists have come to realize that a parasite was killing all of the male members of hypolimnas bolina on the Samoan islands of Upolu and Savaii. The pest would infect the females and then kill the males before they were hatched. The problem was so severe that in 2001 males inhabited only 1% of the population and the species was on the verge of extinction in this area of the world.

In the span of one year and 10 generations in the hypolimnas bolina family, the male butterfly’s evolved and obtained a suppressor gene that prevented the killer bacteria from spreading. In modern days the male population has increased to 40% in the colonies on these islands. Evolution is often much more evident in insects, as a family generation and lifespan is much shorter then with primates.



Read more: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-recent-signs-evolution-is-real.php#ixzz2RgwPLd9G

well, atleast someone here has some sense.

Pretty sure Ace of Spades was being sarcastic (may be wrong though, so I apologize if I am)

[randomnessqueen]

What evidence is there for creationism?

i dont know, that not my field of study. but i know that ive heard even less plausible evidence for evolution.
what evidence have you personally experienced that leads you to believe in evolution?

[Left Now]

Ah it begins again....

[Jess]

i dont know, that not my field of study. but i know that ive heard even less plausible evidence for evolution.
what evidence have you personally experienced that leads you to believe in evolution?

Less plausible? How is it less plausible? There are so much evidence for evolution, but not a single shred of evidence for creationism (the Bible does not count).

[randomnessqueen]

Um, yes, evolution HAS been seen.

ex:





Pretty sure Ace of Spades was being sarcastic (may be wrong though, so I apologize if I am)

fair enough.
but its still been observed as just instances of evolution so far, and not as an overarcing natural force.
i would argue that it is not universal

Less plausible? How is it less plausible? There are so much evidence for evolution, but not a single shred of evidence for creationism (the Bible does not count).

you are saying theres no evidence for creation cause youve not seen it. but, you dont look for it, only evolution evidence. this is extreme confirmation bias.
and yes, i find the evidence for evolution very fical. give me an example perhaps, of something you think is good evidence cause ive not seen any.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Harry Smith]

fair enough.
but its still been observed as just instances of evolution so far, and not as an overarcing natural force.
i would argue that it is not universal



you are saying theres no evidence for creation cause youve not seen it. but, you dont look for it, only evolution evidence. this is extreme confirmation bias.
and yes, i find the evidence for evolution very fical. give me an example perhaps, of something you think is good evidence cause ive not seen any.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

Ok, explain to me why a whale, which is a purely sea based mammal has a hip bone that is surrounded by 10 ft of muscle? The whale has no need for a hip bone since it's not land based and lacks legs.

So please tell me how does this not prove evolution?

[Left Now]

Maybe it will use it in some places....

[Jess]

...Like what?

Harry is right. A whale has no need for a hip bone, yet it has one.

[Left Now]

Well humans at last didn't need any tummy they could just pass the food through the intestine without any fatal problem just some weaknesses.Maybe they will use it while we are not checking them?

[Harry Smith]

Well humans at last didn't need any tummy they could just pass the food through the intestine without any fatal problem just some weaknesses.Maybe they will use it while we are not checking them?

Why would an animal with a tail need a hip bone? It's like me having a tail bone... oh wait I already have one

[britishboy]

Why would an animal with a tail need a hip bone? It's like me having a tail bone... oh wait I already have one

haha I can't believe people are arguing about this EVOLUTION IS REAL.

[randomnessqueen]

Ok, explain to me why a whale, which is a purely sea based mammal has a hip bone that is surrounded by 10 ft of muscle? The whale has no need for a hip bone since it's not land based and lacks legs.

So please tell me how does this not prove evolution?

i dont know. i cant know, cause i dont have the ability to watch a whale evolve into having one of those. and neither can a doctor. so even if it absolutely seems to be one way, its still at best a good theory. besides, there is so much about the world that is weird and unexplainable, just cause it looks one way doesnt mean its obviously so, otherwise we would have a lot more about the world figured out.
also, you seem to assume uniformitarianism.

[Harry Smith]

i dont know. i cant know, cause i dont have the ability to watch a whale evolve into having one of those. and neither can a doctor. so even if it absolutely seems to be one way, its still at best a good theory. besides, there is so much about the world that is weird and unexplainable, just cause it looks one way doesnt mean its obviously so, otherwise we would have a lot more about the world figured out.
also, you seem to assume uniformitarianism.

So the premise of your argument is that I'm wrong because the world is weird... I presented you with a clear piece of evidence and yet you skirt around it and fall back to the typical religious rhetoric. The whale has a very clear hipbone.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_whales_have_hip_bones
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/struthers/hind_limbs.hti

[TheBigUnit]

Well humans at last didn't need any tummy they could just pass the food through the intestine without any fatal problem just some weaknesses.Maybe they will use it while we are not checking them?

If humans had no tummy we d be extinct,

[Jess]

Well humans at last didn't need any tummy they could just pass the food through the intestine without any fatal problem just some weaknesses.Maybe they will use it while we are not checking them?

Huh? Where did you get the notion that humans don't need tummies?

[Bethany]

i dont know. i cant know, cause i dont have the ability to watch a whale evolve into having one of those. and neither can a doctor. so even if it absolutely seems to be one way, its still at best a good theory. besides, there is so much about the world that is weird and unexplainable, just cause it looks one way doesnt mean its obviously so, otherwise we would have a lot more about the world figured out.
also, you seem to assume uniformitarianism.

What's your evidence for creationism, besides the Bible? Religious scriptures don't count as conclusive evidence.

There are lots of things that point to evolution, not just vestigial organs. Why do so many animals have similar genetic structures and the same types of bones? Why do isolated regions, such as Australia, have such unique species of animals, that the rest of the world doesn't have? What about anti-biotic resistance? Some bacteria that affect the body (along with organisms such as mosquitoes) were once harmed by medicines human used against them, but now are resistant to those medicines. How does anything other than evolution explain that?

Just because something looks one way doesn't mean it's so, yes. But when the majority of the evidence is constantly pointed in one direction, it's likely that a theory is true.

[britishboy]

evolution is real don't you people take science class.

[britishboy]

read this people that don't know it's real. http:// en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

[randomnessqueen]

So the premise of your argument is that I'm wrong because the world is weird... I presented you with a clear piece of evidence and yet you skirt around it and fall back to the typical religious rhetoric. The whale has a very clear hipbone.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_whales_have_hip_bones
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/struthers/hind_limbs.hti

im not saying youre wrong, in saying youre too quick to judge something that could easily have a different answer. there are some animals born with entire vestigial limbs, does that mean they evolved from having extra limbs. a six legged dog or 8 legged cow sounds about as farfetched as a legged whale.

[Harry Smith]

im not saying youre wrong, in saying youre too quick to judge something that could easily have a different answer. there are some animals born with entire vestigial limbs, does that mean they evolved from having extra limbs. a six legged dog or 8 legged cow sounds about as farfetched as a legged whale.

I'm not saying a legged whale, they come from horse like animals which use to roam near the water, then they moved into the water like a hippo does but they still kept there legs. Then as time went on they developed no need for there legs, explains the hip bone.

[randomnessqueen]

What's your evidence for creationism, besides the Bible? Religious scriptures don't count as conclusive evidence.

There are lots of things that point to evolution, not just vestigial organs. Why do so many animals have similar genetic structures and the same types of bones? Why do isolated regions, such as Australia, have such unique species of animals, that the rest of the world doesn't have? What about anti-biotic resistance? Some bacteria that affect the body (along with organisms such as mosquitoes) were once harmed by medicines human used against them, but now are resistant to those medicines. How does anything other than evolution explain that?

Just because something looks one way doesn't mean it's so, yes. But when the majority of the evidence is constantly pointed in one direction, it's likely that a theory is true.

i dont have the evidence, im not the one trying to prove it.
because animals are fairly similar, and they all have bones. that doesnt really point to evolution, its a simple case of form matches function, that kind of bone works so why would they use something different.
because animals dont appear around the world like a universal field. if its born in one place, how and why would it go somewhere else. and its already suited for its home, so there would really be no need. animals arent like seeds that blow away with the wind, theyre living, and go with whats comfortable and suited to them. if theyve no reason to leave, they wont.
to make me resistant to a virus, im given the virus. if im dripped some kind of drug or poinson, overtime i become resistant. but that doesnt move passed me, im not evolving i just get used to it.
but when someone is trying to prove something, they will try to get any evidence they can for it, but not evidence against it. if you really want to prove something, try to prove it wrong. the whole thing is confirmation biased, so i dont even see it as a plausible theory.

[Harry Smith]

i dont have the evidence, im not the one trying to prove it.
because animals are fairly similar, and they all have bones. that doesnt really point to evolution, its a simple case of form matches function, that kind of bone works so why would they use something different.
because animals dont appear around the world like a universal field. if its born in one place, how and why would it go somewhere else. and its already suited for its home, so there would really be no need. animals arent like seeds that blow away with the wind, theyre living, and go with whats comfortable and suited to them. if theyve no reason to leave, they wont.
to make me resistant to a virus, im given the virus. if im dripped some kind of drug or poinson, overtime i become resistant. but that doesnt move passed me, im not evolving i just get used to it.
but when someone is trying to prove something, they will try to get any evidence they can for it, but not evidence against it. if you really want to prove something, try to prove it wrong. the whole thing is confirmation biased, so i dont even see it as a plausible theory.

Once again Whale

[randomnessqueen]

Once again Whale

this is another reason i cant agree with evolution. whenever i make points against it, people ignore it and bring up the same things over and over. they use one point, to try and defeat my many points.
the whale has a vestigial organ, why doesnt that necessarily mean it had legs? i was just making this argument to another. their are animals born all the time witih vestigial organs, as much as even extra limbs. but i dont think dogs evolved from having six legs, or cows from having eight.

[Harry Smith]

this is another reason i cant agree with evolution. whenever i make points against it, people ignore it and bring up the same things over and over. they use one point, to try and defeat my many points.
the whale has a vestigial organ, why doesnt that necessarily mean it had legs? i was just making this argument to another. their are animals born all the time witih vestigial organs, as much as even extra limbs. but i dont think dogs evolved from having six legs, or cows from having eight.

Once again you can't specifically answer me about the Hip bone, it's not like an additional leg which could have could be used, a Hip bone is absolutely no use for something which lacks legs.

This proves that the idea of Intelligent design and thus creationism is not only flawed but wrong.

[randomnessqueen]

Once again you can't specifically answer me about the Hip bone, it's not like an additional leg which could have could be used, a Hip bone is absolutely no use for something which lacks legs.

This proves that the idea of Intelligent design and thus creationism is not only flawed but wrong.

i did, extra limbs cannot be used. theyre vestigial. and the hip bone is created the same way every bone and otherwise, is. it takes nothing at all for one to just start growing, like any other part. vestigial parts are very common, and often dont even affect the animal, extra limbs ofcourse being more extreme cases, but the point is it happens all the time, a hip bone is nothing.
and why in the world would that disprove intelligent design?

[Ace of Spades]

Intelligent design is a misnomer. Our bodies, for example, are not "intelligently designed" by any means whatsoever.

[xmojox]

i did, extra limbs cannot be used. theyre vestigial. and the hip bone is created the same way every bone and otherwise, is. it takes nothing at all for one to just start growing, like any other part. vestigial parts are very common, and often dont even affect the animal, extra limbs ofcourse being more extreme cases, but the point is it happens all the time, a hip bone is nothing.
and why in the world would that disprove intelligent design?

If only one whale, or some small number of whales, were born with a hipbone, your argument would be valid. However, as all whales seem to be born with them...not so much.

[Gigablue]

i dont have the evidence, im not the one trying to prove it.

Lots of good evidence has already been given. To disbelieve in evolution, you need to either give equally good evidence for another hypothesis, or refute every single price of evidence for evolution.

because animals are fairly similar, and they all have bones. that doesnt really point to evolution, its a simple case of form matches function, that kind of bone works so why would they use something different.
because animals dont appear around the world like a universal field. if its born in one place, how and why would it go somewhere else. and its already suited for its home, so there would really be no need. animals arent like seeds that blow away with the wind, theyre living, and go with whats comfortable and suited to them. if theyve no reason to leave, they wont.

The fact that animals are suited for their environments is evidence for evolution. They change as the environment changes. Any animals that aren't suited for their environments go extinct.

to make me resistant to a virus, im given the virus. if im dripped some kind of drug or poinson, overtime i become resistant. but that doesnt move passed me, im not evolving i just get used to it.

That's not how resistance evolved. Let's suppose a new virus breaks out. Many people die, and as a result, don't pass on their genes. A few people are naturally resistant, and they go on to have children. Over time, the percentage of people genetically resistant increases. That is how evolution works.

but when someone is trying to prove something, they will try to get any evidence they can for it, but not evidence against it. if you really want to prove something, try to prove it wrong. the whole thing is confirmation biased, so i dont even see it as a plausible theory.

People have tried to disprove evolution since Darwin first proposed it, but no one has been able to. I think that's pretty solid evidence for its veracity.

[naglfari]

i dont know. i cant know, cause i dont have the ability to watch a whale evolve into having one of those. and neither can a doctor. so even if it absolutely seems to be one way, its still at best a good theory. besides, there is so much about the world that is weird and unexplainable, just cause it looks one way doesnt mean its obviously so, otherwise we would have a lot more about the world figured out.
also, you seem to assume uniformitarianism.

this is the same as saying we don't REALLY know washington was the first president because no one today actually saw it happen

[Bethany]

i did, extra limbs cannot be used. theyre vestigial. and the hip bone is created the same way every bone and otherwise, is. it takes nothing at all for one to just start growing, like any other part. vestigial parts are very common, and often dont even affect the animal, extra limbs ofcourse being more extreme cases, but the point is it happens all the time, a hip bone is nothing.
and why in the world would that disprove intelligent design?

Why would a deity create an organism with useless parts?

[crepesuzette]

i personally don't see a contradiction between evolution and God. Sure, religion and science don't always agree, but that doesn't make the former or the latter not true. It's really just people's opinions.
I'm sort of open to the idea of evolution.

[Magus]

People have tried to disprove evolution since Darwin first proposed it, but no one has been able to. I think that's pretty solid evidence for its veracity.

Scientist said, to disprove evolution, you have to find a species that is found in a strata lower than what it is usually from.

[DoodleSnap]

People may say that evolution is a fact, but it is not. Nothing can be guaranteed, not even death. I support evolutionist views, while also being christian. Evolution has nothing to do with religion for me, based on my view that god is a being with no physical form: He is a shared idea between many, and imagined with so much depth, that he becomes his own being in essence. Anyway that is another story for another time. Evolution is just development, and the main evidence for me, is the fact that we are created from some genetic coding, but then develop ourselves and become our own beings and individuals, this in itself is practically evolution on display. Anyway, that is my view, and I thought I would share it with you.

[naglfari]

i personally don't see a contradiction between evolution and God. Sure, religion and science don't always agree, but that doesn't make the former or the latter not true. It's really just people's opinions.
I'm sort of open to the idea of evolution.

evolution is not an opinion :/

[britishboy]

evolution is FACT have you seen how scientists can change a flea in just 30 generations thats EVOLUTION.

[randomnessqueen]

If only one whale, or some small number of whales, were born with a hipbone, your argument would be valid. However, as all whales seem to be born with them...not so much.

but they idea that its all whales is an assumption. they havent looked at that many whales, because thats just not very possible. there are so many whales out there, even observing a couple hundred would be that smalll number. and even if this number were larger, its still purely inductive reasoning.

[Harry Smith]

but they idea that its all whales is an assumption. they havent looked at that many whales, because thats just not very possible. there are so many whales out there, even observing a couple hundred would be that smalll number. and even if this number were larger, its still purely inductive reasoning.

Okay, what about the evidence for the evolution of the eye across many different species? or the fact we have tail bones?

[randomnessqueen]

Lots of good evidence has already been given. To disbelieve in evolution, you need to either give equally good evidence for another hypothesis, or refute every single price of evidence for evolution.



The fact that animals are suited for their environments is evidence for evolution. They change as the environment changes. Any animals that aren't suited for their environments go extinct.



That's not how resistance evolved. Let's suppose a new virus breaks out. Many people die, and as a result, don't pass on their genes. A few people are naturally resistant, and they go on to have children. Over time, the percentage of people genetically resistant increases. That is how evolution works.



People have tried to disprove evolution since Darwin first proposed it, but no one has been able to. I think that's pretty solid evidence for its veracity.

i have been refuting each piece ive been given. though that might be with someone else, im currently having this exact conversation with 5 or 6 in this thread, so im not keeping track of what i say where.
thats not necessarily proof of evolution, infact, one could even use that as proof for creationism. if each animal fits their environment so perfectly they must have been created as so.
i was referring more to things like vaccines. however, when it comes to other things that same principle still works. there are some illnesses that you can only get once, cause once youre exposed you become resistant. and as i said before things like poisons and drugs do this to.
no, cause its confirmation biased. people ignore that evidence. even if someone had a perfectly sound argument against evolution, evolutionist would just refuse it because the idea of evolution has become such a dogmatic belief, that people will cling to the concept in spite evidence otherwise.
heres an example. scientist, whatever it is they study, will come up with evidence for it, be it strong or weak. so if people have striven so long and so hard to disprove evolution, they have clearly come up with plenty of evidence and arguments, not necessarily great ones, but noone can deny they exist. so tell me, can you name one piece of evidence against evolution.

[randomnessqueen]

this is the same as saying we don't REALLY know washington was the first president because no one today actually saw it happen

you say that as if it were farfetched. noone claims book history to infallible. lies happen, and often about much more significant things.
however, we also have some documentation that points to him being the first president, so even if we didnt see him, others have, we arent looking at this blind.

[randomnessqueen]

Why would a deity create an organism with useless parts?

why not.
the better question is why would a being beyond our physical world and wanting for our spiritual growth have any cares about our worldly pleasures and pains.

[Harry Smith]

i have been refuting each piece ive been given. though that might be with someone else, im currently having this exact conversation with 5 or 6 in this thread, so im not keeping track of what i say where.
thats not necessarily proof of evolution, infact, one could even use that as proof for creationism. if each animal fits their environment so perfectly they must have been created as so.
i was referring more to things like vaccines. however, when it comes to other things that same principle still works. there are some illnesses that you can only get once, cause once youre exposed you become resistant. and as i said before things like poisons and drugs do this to.
no, cause its confirmation biased. people ignore that evidence. even if someone had a perfectly sound argument against evolution, evolutionist would just refuse it because the idea of evolution has become such a dogmatic belief, that people will cling to the concept in spite evidence otherwise.
heres an example. scientist, whatever it is they study, will come up with evidence for it, be it strong or weak. so if people have striven so long and so hard to disprove evolution, they have clearly come up with plenty of evidence and arguments, not necessarily great ones, but noone can deny they exist. so tell me, can you name one piece of evidence against evolution.

That's the whole point, you can't find any evidence which dismisses Evolution, that's why its taught rather than creationism

[randomnessqueen]

Okay, what about the evidence for the evolution of the eye across many different species? or the fact we have tail bones?

when it comes to eyes its about form meets function. though other species have simpler eyes, doesnt mean we evolved to have a better one. its just they have no use for this kind of eye. each species has an eye that is suited to them.
a coccyx is just part of human anatomy, the base of our spine

[randomnessqueen]

That's the whole point, you can't find any evidence which dismisses Evolution, that's why its taught rather than creationism

and as i said, regardless of its value it obviously exists. however, this shows me than you ignore anything that could hinder your belief in evolution.
further shown when i make a good point against you, rather than defending yourself, you ignore it.

[Harry Smith]

and as i said, regardless of its value it obviously exists. however, this shows me than you ignore anything that could hinder your belief in evolution.
further shown when i make a good point against you, rather than defending yourself, you ignore it.

Sorry that I had to go and eat. It would be nice if I wasn't being rushed into postings.

The eye idea was that it disproves the idea of the of the watch and intelligent design because if you look at single cell bacteria some have a very small spec of light used for seeing shadows where as some fish have the basic eye's showing that it would be possible for us to evolve up towards our advanced eye.

The tailbone is the remain of a tail. Also do I have to mention that lovely sea mammal again to prove evolution?

Also I don't really understand your view... do you believe in Creationism?

[britishboy]

evolution is real and has been proved don't yoh study biology?! and other views are religious

[randomnessqueen]

Sorry that I had to go and eat. It would be nice if I wasn't being rushed into postings.

The eye idea was that it disproves the idea of the of the watch and intelligent design because if you look at single cell bacteria some have a very small spec of light used for seeing shadows where as some fish have the basic eye's showing that it would be possible for us to evolve up towards our advanced eye.

The tailbone is the remain of a tail. Also do I have to mention that lovely sea mammal again to prove evolution?

Also I don't really understand your view... do you believe in Creationism?

woops, forgot to finish answering in that last one.
but like i said, eyes are form matches function. so naturally, all eyes are going to be similar, you wont have an earlike structure used for sight. and im saying that the simpler are going to stay simple. it wouldnt evolve, cause it doesnt need to.
coccyx isnt the remainder of a tail. for animals that have a tail, coccyx is its base. tails need the coccyx but the coccyx doesnt need a tail. its just itself, its there as the base of the spine. and a tail is the extension of the spine.
as far as the whale(i must have said this to someone else) many animals grow vestigial structures and limbs. at birth when things are being triggered to grow, its nothing at all for something wrong to be triggered, of this grows entire extra limbs, let alone a single bone from that structure. this is a common occurence, but does not mean they were evloved from having use of those structures.
no, i dont believe in creationism. and im not trying to prove any certain theory, really im not even trying to disprove evolution. im just trying to say that its not necessarily true, it could be and so could something else, but we dont know.

[xmojox]

but they idea that its all whales is an assumption. they havent looked at that many whales, because thats just not very possible. there are so many whales out there, even observing a couple hundred would be that smalll number. and even if this number were larger, its still purely inductive reasoning.

I haven't seen every human on earth naked, either, but it's a safe bet that every biological male has a penis and every biological female has a vagina. Or is that purely inductive reasoning?

[Magus]

but like i said, eyes are form matches function. so naturally, all eyes are going to be similar, you wont have an earlike structure used for sight. and im saying that the simpler are going to stay simple. it wouldnt evolve, cause it doesnt need to.

Some eyes aren't similar at all. But most of the time, eyes are photosensitive receptors that reacts when light reaches them.

Ears functions completely differently. Which is why you won't find eyes similar to ears.

coccyx isnt the remainder of a tail. for animals that have a tail, coccyx is its base. tails need the coccyx but the coccyx doesnt need a tail. its just itself, its there as the base of the spine. and a tail is the extension of the spine.

That's because the tail is assimilated in the body during a certain embryonic stage. Having a coccyx, suggests that we had a functional tail once. Otherwise, we wouldn't have one.

as far as the whale(i must have said this to someone else) many animals grow vestigial structures and limbs. at birth when things are being triggered to grow, its nothing at all for something wrong to be triggered, of this grows entire extra limbs, let alone a single bone from that structure. this is a common occurence, but does not mean they were evloved from having use of those structures.

Vestigial organs are remnants of the old physiological structure of that said creature. If Whales have hip bones and hind legs, this suggests that they were once terrestrial mammals. If they weren't, then there is no purpose for them to have them in the first place. But even if they weren't evolved from using them, having them is more than enough to prove that they once belong to a similar lineage to other mammals.

Vestigial organs are not birth defects. And occurrences of birth defects are rarer as compared to vestigial organs.

[britishboy]

Some eyes aren't similar at all. But most of the time, eyes are photosensitive receptors that reacts when light reaches them.

Ears functions completely differently. Which is why you won't find eyes similar to ears.



That's because the tail is assimilated in the body during a certain embryonic stage. Having a coccyx, suggests that we had a functional tail once. Otherwise, we wouldn't have one.



Vestigial organs are remnants of the old physiological structure of that said creature. If Whales have hip bones and hind legs, this suggests that they were once terrestrial mammals. If they weren't, then there is no purpose for them to have them in the first place. But even if they weren't evolved from using them, having them is more than enough to prove that they once belong to a similar lineage to other mammals.

Vestigial organs are not birth defects. And occurrences of birth defects are rarer as compared to vestigial organs.

what do you believe in then? humanity just woke up one day? fell out the sky? grown out of the ground?

[Magus]

what do you believe in then? humanity just woke up one day? fell out the sky? grown out of the ground?

Come back when you have learned some etiquette and manners, perhaps then I will answer your questions.

[Harry Smith]

what do you believe in then? humanity just woke up one day? fell out the sky? grown out of the ground?

What do you believe?

[britishboy]

What do you believe?

me? evolution wbu?

[Zarakly]

I am a Christian and how I see it is this. I believe in the big bang theory, my opinions is that God was the reason it happened. If you look at some of of the timeline pictures of the universe there is nothing but darkness then boom, there is light. From there I believe in all the fusion and fission and stars and everything being formed to create everything as it is now. There is evidence of new planets being formed from stars and such. I believe in evolution as a single cell somehow came into contact with Earth which then underwent some mutations to have the cellular fission(?) and the duplication of the cell(I can't seem to remember what it is called right now). I still do believe in God and say I am a Christian, but when they start saying I am wrong even though we have evidence. That pisses me off. Maybe what I just said doesn't make sense? Not sure, can't really think straight right now...

[Emerald Dream]

I have deleted the unnecessary string of insults and quotes. If we cannot debate without personally insulting each other then I will be locking this.

yes, let's please stay on topic :)

[LuciferSam]

why not.


The natural world is supposedly sprung from the mind of God. God is supposed to be the perfect being. The existence of useless parts that have not been addressed indicates imperfection. This in itself does not disprove the existence of A god, but seems contradictory to the conventional image.


the better question is why would a being beyond our physical world and wanting for our spiritual growth have any cares about our worldly pleasures and pains.

Because it would be cruel not to. Not necessarily in regard to pleasure, but definitely with pain.

BTW I'm doing this under the assumption that you are a variety of Christian. Correct me if I am wrong.

I am a Christian and how I see it is this. I believe in the big bang theory, my opinions is that God was the reason it happened. If you look at some of of the timeline pictures of the universe there is nothing but darkness then boom, there is light. From there I believe in all the fusion and fission and stars and everything being formed to create everything as it is now. There is evidence of new planets being formed from stars and such. I believe in evolution as a single cell somehow came into contact with Earth which then underwent some mutations to have the cellular fission(?) and the duplication of the cell(I can't seem to remember what it is called right now). I still do believe in God and say I am a Christian, but when they start saying I am wrong even though we have evidence. That pisses me off. Maybe what I just said doesn't make sense? Not sure, can't really think straight right now...

the darkness is there because it is our best conception of nothing. also, according to quantum physics (this also relates to the idea of the multiverse) there is an expansive body of energy that exists beyond everything, and every time the particles spark with each other, a new universe is formed as matter = energy (energy is a physical item, just not in the conventional sense). Whether or not this energy is a scientific interpretation of God, I'll leave others to decide. I personally, am a blend of neopaganism and Taoism, so the existence of an energy rather than an intelligent God or Gods is not unrealistic, at least from my point of view.

Please do not double post, use the edit or multi-quote instead. ~TheMatrix

[Magus]

the darkness is there because it is our best conception of nothing. also, according to quantum physics (this also relates to the idea of the multiverse) there is an expansive body of energy that exists beyond everything, and every time the particles spark with each other, a new universe is formed as matter = energy (energy is a physical item, just not in the conventional sense). Whether or not this energy is a scientific interpretation of God, I'll leave others to decide. I personally, am a blend of neopaganism and Taoism, so the existence of an energy rather than an intelligent God or Gods is not unrealistic, at least from my point of view.

Energy is the capacity to do work. It's not a matter nor a non sentient being.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Energy

[The LOLer]

Wouldn't it make sence that both evolution and god exist? Meaning god created the first creatures and evolution evolved creatures fom then on. That's how I see it.

[Gigablue]

Wouldn't it make sence that both evolution and god exist? Meaning god created the first creatures and evolution evolved creatures fom then on. That's how I see it.

You don't need god to create the first life. It can happen on its own given the right situation. If you have the elements needed to make up a cell, enough time, and energy, life can arise spontaneously.

[The LOLer]

You don't need god to create the first life. It can happen on its own given the right situation. If you have the elements needed to make up a cell, enough time, and energy, life can arise spontaneously.

I don't feel the need to question things I can never be sure about.

[Human]

Wouldn't it make sence that both evolution and god exist? Meaning god created the first creatures and evolution evolved creatures fom then on. That's how I see it.

Not really.
It would only make sense having one or the other, why would a god want to create evolution? Couldn't he just create the fully evolved life forms?

[Gigablue]

I don't feel the need to question things I can never be sure about.

You can't really be sure of how life arose, but science can show that given the right conditions life will arise on its own, rendering a god comletely unnecessary.

[LuciferSam]

You can't really be sure of how life arose, but science can show that given the right conditions life will arise on its own, rendering a god completely unnecessary.

unnecessary, but not necessarily non-existent. It could just be that God said "here's all this stuff, now let's see what happens if it gets left alone for long enough".

Energy is the capacity to do work. It's not a matter nor a non sentient being.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Energy

http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/energy/intro.html

What I meant was that it is possible that the discovery of this energy could be science's best understanding of what God is given what it is capable of understanding. Not necessarily the personal God of Christianity, but a God.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Magus]

http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/energy/intro.html

What I meant was that it is possible that the discovery of this energy could be science's best understanding of what God is given what it is capable of understanding. Not necessarily the personal God of Christianity, but a God.

I fail to see the purpose of that link, when my link explains exactly the same thing, and in addition debunking the notion that God is some kind of Energy form.

[Celtic.]

I don't believe in evolution. I Don't accept that evolution is true. But i do see why people accept it.

[LuciferSam]

I fail to see the purpose of that link, when my link explains exactly the same thing, and in addition debunking the notion that God is some kind of Energy form.

the point is that matter is energy. I'm not trying to say that God IS energy, only that, assuming the conventional religious theories are correct, God's unknowableness, scale, and power leads science to perceive it (or him, or her) as such given it's limitations. This is just a possibility. It may very well be that the energy is just energy, but this version of things is not definitively impossible.

I probably should have said this before, but I am playing Devil's Advocate with this. It's just another possibility. I'm not completely convinced of it myself, but it has potential, at least in my eyes.

[randomnessqueen]

I haven't seen every human on earth naked, either, but it's a safe bet that every biological male has a penis and every biological female has a vagina. Or is that purely inductive reasoning?

its not. because we define ones biological sex both their genitalia, its not just an anatomical feature on predetermined sexes. so, it would be more like saying that every female on earth has a certain kind of vagina, which is ofcourse not true.
whales are not defined by the presence of a hipbone. that is just a possible anatomical structure.

Some eyes aren't similar at all. But most of the time, eyes are photosensitive receptors that reacts when light reaches them.

Ears functions completely differently. Which is why you won't find eyes similar to ears.



That's because the tail is assimilated in the body during a certain embryonic stage. Having a coccyx, suggests that we had a functional tail once. Otherwise, we wouldn't have one.



Vestigial organs are remnants of the old physiological structure of that said creature. If Whales have hip bones and hind legs, this suggests that they were once terrestrial mammals. If they weren't, then there is no purpose for them to have them in the first place. But even if they weren't evolved from using them, having them is more than enough to prove that they once belong to a similar lineage to other mammals.

Vestigial organs are not birth defects. And occurrences of birth defects are rarer as compared to vestigial organs.

that was my point about eyes, they are form matches function.
but thats not how vestigial structures work. there are animals born with 6-8 limbs, and extra facial features and so on. do you think they evolved from having all that?


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Korashk]

its not. because we define ones biological sex both their genitalia, its not just an anatomical feature on predetermined sexes. so, it would be more like saying that every female on earth has a certain kind of vagina, which is ofcourse not true.
whales are not defined by the presence of a hipbone. that is just a possible anatomical structure.



that was my point about eyes, they are form matches function.
but thats not how vestigial structures work. there are animals born with 6-8 limbs, and extra facial features and so on. do you think they evolved from having all that?


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream
If an animal is born with extra limbs those aren't vestigial structures. They're abnormal mutations probably due to a toxic chemical environment. Whales in this scenario don't just sometimes have hipbones, they aren't "a possible anatomical structure". All whales of that type are born with hipbones just like all humans are born with appendixes. For all intents and purposes whales are defined by the presence of hipbones in the same manner that humans are defined by the presence of appendixes.

[Magus]

but thats not how vestigial structures work. there are animals born with 6-8 limbs, and extra facial features and so on. do you think they evolved from having all that?

Depending on what species they are yeah. In their line of evolution, which is separate from others, could have led to have them extra facial features and extra limbs.

[Harry Smith]

its not. because we define ones biological sex both their genitalia, its not just an anatomical feature on predetermined sexes. so, it would be more like saying that every female on earth has a certain kind of vagina, which is ofcourse not true.
whales are not defined by the presence of a hipbone. that is just a possible anatomical structure.



that was my point about eyes, they are form matches function.
but thats not how vestigial structures work. there are animals born with 6-8 limbs, and extra facial features and so on. do you think they evolved from having all that?


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

you still fail to understand the difference between Mutation and vestigial body parts.

[Magus]

you still fail to understand the difference between Mutation and vestigial body parts.

Which caused me a confusion(as to what she is saying).

Aberrations from mutations and vestigial body parts are two different things. In fact, they are antithesis of each other.

[nicknack100]

Evolution is a THEORY, theory = not proven. If it were proven 99% of religions would not exist. I personally am Christian but am open to all ideas.

[britishboy]

Evolution is a THEORY, theory = not proven. If it were proven 99% of religions would not exist. I personally am Christian but am open to all ideas.

it has been proven and most christians now believe god created us through the big bang and evolution

[Magus]

Evolution is a THEORY, theory = not proven.It's a SCIENTIFIC(since you love capitalized emphasize) theory, not a "theory = not proven". There is a big difference.

And I beg of you to find the differences by yourself.

If it were proven 99% of religions would not exist. Religion thought diseases were a curse or punishment from the Pantheons, but that's proven false now. Did not help much in eradicating the religion.

I personally am Christian but am open to all ideas.Everyone says that they are open, but they prefer the bias.

[Jess]

Evolution is a THEORY, theory = not proven. If it were proven 99% of religions would not exist. I personally am Christian but am open to all ideas.

It's already been proven loads of times. -_-

[Alexwellace]

I haven't seen every human on earth naked, either, but it's a safe bet that every biological male has a penis and every biological female has a vagina. Or is that purely inductive reasoning?


Purely inductive reasoning. Because if you saw every human on earth naked, about 99% would have the genitals that belong to there gender, about 1% have both, neither or something else. Or do hermaphrodites only a theory as well?

[naglfari]

This thread is great for finding out who you can safely ignore

[nicknack100]

it has been proven and most christians now believe god created us through the big bang and evolution

It's a SCIENTIFIC(since you love capitalized emphasize)
Everyone says that they are open, but they prefer the bias.

It's already been proven loads of times. -_-

It has not been proven and I know that for fact. Yes I am biased towards the more God focused answer of course but it doesn't mean I'm not open.
I don't know ANY Christians that believe in the big bang/evolution.

[Korashk]

It has not been proven and I know that for fact.
That's funny, because something can't be a theory without being proven. Being a theory is literally as proven as something can get.

I don't know ANY Christians that believe in the big bang/evolution.
Most Christians realize that evolution and the big bang happened and still happen. Young Earth Creationism is almost exclusively believed by idiots and ignoramuses in America.

[nicknack100]

That's funny, because something can't be a theory without being proven. Being a theory is literally as proven as something can get.


Most Christians realize that evolution and the big bang happened and still happen. Young Earth Creationism is almost exclusively believed by idiots and ignoramuses in America.

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
e.g. not proven but a way to explain something.

[Korashk]

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
e.g. not proven but a way to explain something.
Yeah, you did your own research and proved me right. Thanks.

[nicknack100]

Yeah, you did your own research and proved me right. Thanks.

I never proved you right, the THEORY of evolution and THEORY of the big bang are possible ways to explain how the world began and how humanity came about.
Just as how Creationism is a theory, Christianity is in no way proven but it's what I believe in.

[naglfari]

I never proved you right, the THEORY of evolution and THEORY of the big bang are possible ways to explain how the world began and how humanity came about.
Just as how Creationism is a theory, Christianity is in no way proven but it's what I believe in.

Hahaha no

in science a theory is basically a fact. Creationism is a blind guess that goes against all reason

[nicknack100]

Hahaha no

in science a theory is basically a fact. Creationism is a blind guess that goes against all reason

There are so many THEORIES in this world, they're not all fact, they're called theories due to the fact that they haven't been proven, there wouldn't be any theories in a chosen field if there was one that was proven, that would just make each and every other theory irrelevant.
I don't believe in the big bang as such but it DID say in the bible that when the world was created there was immense light. So technically the big bang and creationism can be linked in a few ways. I still believe in Creationism predominantly obviously, and no bunch of people on a forum online will change that.

[LouBerry]

I've always been a firm believer in Evolution, pretty much ties into the fact that I don't believe in God. But my Science teacher was having to point out to religious people explicit evidence that it has actually happened over the last x amount of years, and he mentioned how Whales who are the largest Sea mammal have a hip bone which is surrounded by 10 ft of solid muscle. If as some religious people claim God created wales why would he give them a hip bone?

I'd love to hear your views on Evolution, especially if your a christian

I'm sure I'm interrupting an argument of two, I didn't read past the first page. So, I'm a Christian. And I'm very firm in my beliefs. I don't personally believe the whole, humans were once monkeys thing, but that's not because of my religious beliefs. I just hate monkeys, they freak me out. I think that it's entirely possible that there is a God and that he created the laws of science, whether it's Physics or Evolution theory or whatever, I think it could be possible. But, no one is ever going to know 100%, so I think it's a stupid thing to argue over. I mean, put the energy that is being used to determine why there isn't a God, into curing cancer or something worth while, yah know?

[Jess]

It has not been proven and I know that for fact. Yes I am biased towards the more God focused answer of course but it doesn't mean I'm not open.
I don't know ANY Christians that believe in the big bang/evolution.

Yes it HAS been proven.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

[nicknack100]

Yes it HAS been proven.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

I do believe in the evolution of man kind e.g. resistance to bacteria and such.
I just don't believe in the evolution of man kind FROM apes and I certainly don't believe in carbon dating or the millions of years old fossils.

[Jess]

I do believe in the evolution of man kind e.g. resistance to bacteria and such.
I just don't believe in the evolution of man kind FROM apes and I certainly don't believe in carbon dating or the millions of years old fossils.

Wait, you don't believe in millions of years old fossils? You think fossils are fake? And why don't you believe in carbon dating?

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not man evolving from apes but sharing a common ancestor as apes.

[naglfari]

I do believe in the evolution of man kind e.g. resistance to bacteria and such.
I just don't believe in the evolution of man kind FROM apes and I certainly don't believe in carbon dating or the millions of years old fossils.

Then you're dumb. I'm sorry there's no other way to put it.

[nicknack100]

Then you're dumb. I'm sorry there's no other way to put it.

I'm just going to leave this conversation.
I'm not dumb; I'm an honors student.
We all have different beliefs yours just conflict with my own.

[naglfari]

I'm just going to leave this conversation.
I'm not dumb; I'm an honors student.
We all have different beliefs yours just conflict with my own.

Your beliefs conflict with reality

[survivorguilt]

I do believe in the evolution of man kind e.g. resistance to bacteria and such.
I just don't believe in the evolution of man kind FROM apes and I certainly don't believe in carbon dating or the millions of years old fossils.

It's kind of hard to debate someone who throws away a fundamental aspect of science. You're literally refusing to believe in middle-high school level physics and geology.

[Magus]

It has not been proven and I know that for fact. It has been proven. It is an observable fact. Macroevolution happens because of microevolution, which extends over a period of time and population.


Yes I am biased towards the more God focused answer of course but it doesn't mean I'm not open.Yeah, you are not open. You are biased.

I don't know ANY Christians that believe in the big bang/evolution.There are a lot of religious people that accepts the scientific explanations for evolution and big bang.

The one who proposed big bang was a catholic priest

Human intelligence comes from its recognition to patterns. Can you guess what's common between the two theories? Patterns.

Just look at your vestigial organs, and your DNA. Those alone are proof. XD

Then there is no use debating with someone who claims to be open yet refuses to "believe" in scientific facts.

Whether you want to believe it or not, facts remains facts, until proven otherwise.

[britishboy]

It has not been proven and I know that for fact. Yes I am biased towards the more God focused answer of course but it doesn't mean I'm not open.
I don't know ANY Christians that believe in the big bang/evolution.

most Christian do now and proof:
scientists have put fleas in a really different environment and after 30 generations evolution started to change them.

and what about proof of god? if he is all powerful can he make a stone he can not lift? and what made god? if god is eternal why can't the universe be eternal?

[Mirage]

Cut out the name calling. I expect you guys to be able to have a civilized debate, nobody is "dumb" just because they disagree with you. I will lock this thread if it gets out of hand.

[naglfari]

Cut out the name calling. I expect you guys to be able to have a civilized debate, nobody is "dumb" just because they disagree with you. I will lock this thread if it gets out of hand.

Sorry.

They are "wrong"for disagreeing though.

[britishboy]

Sorry.

They are "wrong"for disagreeing though.

wrong for disagreeing? that sounds like a communist idea any way evolution is fact but everyone has an opinion

[naglfari]

wrong for disagreeing? that sounds like a communist idea any way evolution is fact but everyone has an opinion

If your opinion is 2+2=5 then you're wrong.

Not all opinions are valid special snowflakes

[britishboy]

If your opinion is 2+2=5 then you're wrong.

Not all opinions are valid special snowflakes

lol true but its religion it's complicated any way I know evolution is real

[randomnessqueen]

If an animal is born with extra limbs those aren't vestigial structures. They're abnormal mutations probably due to a toxic chemical environment. Whales in this scenario don't just sometimes have hipbones, they aren't "a possible anatomical structure". All whales of that type are born with hipbones just like all humans are born with appendixes. For all intents and purposes whales are defined by the presence of hipbones in the same manner that humans are defined by the presence of appendixes.

no, vestigial is just an anatomical structure that has no use. so those extra limbs are vestigial limbs that theyve mutated to have.
and all whales may not have a hipbone. we dont exactly get many chances to physically study whales, but there are tonnes of them out there. at best we can make an inductive inference, but its still only inductive.

you still fail to understand the difference between Mutation and vestigial body parts.

a mutation can cause the appearance of a vestigial body structure.
and im saying, that those cases that are thought to be consistent vestigial structures throughout the species, are actually mutations in the ones that we study.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[naglfari]

a mutation can cause the appearance of a vestigial body structure.
and im saying, that those cases that are thought to be consistent vestigial structures throughout the species, are actually mutations in the ones that we study.

Facepalm

if every whale has it is not a mutation the only way that's possible is if every whale once had feet

lol true but its religion it's complicated any way I know evolution is real

Its not complicated, people are just over sensitive. If facts say one thing and your religion says another, your religion is wrong


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Korashk]

no, vestigial is just an anatomical structure that has no use.
Read up and cure your ignorance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality)

and all whales may not have a hipbone. we dont exactly get many chances to physically study whales, but there are tonnes of them out there. at best we can make an inductive inference, but its still only inductive.
Hyper-Skepticism is always a bad thing. It serves no purpose other than to inhibit progress.

[Telkanis]

There are so many THEORIES in this world, they're not all fact, they're called theories due to the fact that they haven't been proven, there wouldn't be any theories in a chosen field if there was one that was proven, that would just make each and every other theory irrelevant.
I don't believe in the big bang as such but it DID say in the bible that when the world was created there was immense light. So technically the big bang and creationism can be linked in a few ways. I still believe in Creationism predominantly obviously, and no bunch of people on a forum online will change that.

Lol, actually in science a "theory" is basically a fact. Like they "theory of gravity" or "theory of relativity" scientific theories are a given. The word is used differently with science than normal.

[randomnessqueen]

Facepalm

if every whale has it is not a mutation the only way that's possible is if every whale once had feet

-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

im saying every whale may not have it. seeing as how weve not actually gotten that many chances to directly study whales, and there are a lot of them out there. to say so is purely inductive reasoning.

[Bethany]

im saying every whale may not have it. seeing as how weve not actually gotten that many chances to directly study whales, and there are a lot of them out there. to say so is purely inductive reasoning.

So...going by that logic...we don't know that all living humans have appendixes because there are a lot of them out there and we can't directly study all of them?

[randomnessqueen]

So...going by that logic...we don't know that all living humans have appendixes because there are a lot of them out there and we can't directly study all of them?

while weve had vastly more experience studying human bodies, thats still completely possible, because its still inductive. im not saying that is the case. just that it shouldnt be seen so dogmatically as fact. the very nature of inductive reasoning is that it is not based in fact because it cant be, it is the whole purpose of why educated guesses exist, this is how its used in science, this isnt some kind of radical antiscience point.

[whoisme]

I've always been a firm believer in Evolution, pretty much ties into the fact that I don't believe in God.
Thanks for being honest for saying that you just use this conjecture to justify your belief.

But my Science teacher was having to point out to religious people explicit evidence that it has actually happened over the last x amount of years, and he mentioned how Whales who are the largest Sea mammal have a hip bone which is surrounded by 10 ft of solid muscle. If as some religious people claim God created wales why would he give them a hip bone?

His question is irrelevant to whether God created them or not, actually the whole vestigial argument has been refuted (http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/can-so-called-vestigial-organs-be-proof.html) long time ago.
To answer your question and educate your science teacher:
Whale pelvis: These bones may look useless when you are looking at just the skeleton, but if you put flesh onto the bones you would see that they form attachment sites for the whale’s reproductiv organs & act as copulatory guide. Gingerich, et al, Science, vol. 249, pp154-157, 13 Jul 1990.


I'd love to hear your views on Evolution, especially if your a christian

:what:

It is a well documented fact that humans share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Is that really wort arguing over?

Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans (http://darwinismfact.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/dna-similarity-between-humans-apes/).


What about anti-biotic resistance? Some bacteria that affect the body (along with organisms such as mosquitoes) were once harmed by medicines human used against them, but now are resistant to those medicines. How does anything other than evolution explain that?



Darwinian Evolution needs a net gain in new genetic information for it to happen, but the example of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a loss of information. Don't be fooled by supposed 'gain of function' examples like this — what is really needed are 'gains of information'.
http://evolutiondismantled.com/resistance


Please edit your posts instead of posting consecutively. -StoppingTime

[Korashk]

the whole vestigial argument has been refuted (http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/can-so-called-vestigial-organs-be-proof.html)
I was going to refute your bullshit "source" point by point, but once I got through a few of them I found just how retarded it is. All is says is that organs once thought to be vestigial actually serve functions. It doesn't say anything about actual vestigial organs.

Plus who would honestly use a source legitimately claiming that "devolution" is a thing and is riddled with spelling errors.

Darwinian Evolution needs a net gain in new genetic information for it to happen, but the example of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a loss of information. Don't be fooled by supposed 'gain of function' examples like this — what is really needed are 'gains of information'.
http://evolutiondismantled.com/resistance
Learn what evolution actually is before you try to retardedly debunk it. This entire point is bullshit, but for argument's sake define "gains of information" from a biological standpoint.

[Jevon]

I'm a really firm believer in evolution as well

[Magus]

I was going to refute your bullshit "source" point by point, but once I got through a few of them I found just how retarded it is.

I will take the honor and refute them.

1- Devolution Not evolution !

If vestgial organs would prove anything, they prove devolution, NOT evolution !
Darwinists claim that some of our organs are falling into disuse. Yet, in contrast, they provide us with no one NEW, developing organ. The "vestigial organs" idea, if it could be true, would only prove the opposite: devolution!

There is no such thing as devolution. And no, evolution doesn't mean you will always get super powers.

In fact, you might lose some of your things. Example are those cave fishes.

They have completely lost their eyesight for a simple reason, they have adopted to their environment( i.e evolution, not devolution).

The reason the appendix isn't as it used to be, is because ancestors of Homo sapiens, decided to have food source other plants from the grass and tree. Plus, the flora of our stomach suffice to break down compounds into simpler chemicals our body can absorb.

2- Not for survival !

Not all organs are necessary for survival,this doesn't mean they are useless!
You have 2 lungs, you need one to survive. You have 2 kidneys, you need 1/10 for survival. No one claimed the other lung may be 'just for fun'.
you will survive if your eyes and arms are cut out, and they are not "vestigial," or useless organs.

This is the most stupidest statement I have ever come across.

The reason they are not vestigial, is because we make use of both of the pairs.

And no. You cannot be a cross runner if you have just one lungs.

3- Causing problems ?!

people have far more problems with their lungs, hearts and stomachs, than they have with 'vestigial' organs. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs. appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far more troublesome. If your lungs become infected, you can die but no one suggests removing the lungs as a preventive measure during surgery for another reason.


This guys is a fucking idiot. Ever heard of Pneumonia?

A person chronically afflicted with Pneumonia gets their lungs chopped off in order not to have further infections.

And yes, some parts gets more diseased than others. I don't see any thing to disprove Evolution.

That whole article is riddled with stupid.

6- HINDERS SCIENCE

Reputable scientists now recognize that the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. Instead of finding out what the appendix was for, it was called "vestigial" and was cut out. Researchers were told it was a waste of time to study any possible use for it. For the same reason, lots of children have had their tonsils removed, when they really needed them!


I don't see how that hinders science when you remove a heavily infected organ which doesn't serve a vital purpose to the body.

7- Lost primary functions !

Confronted with the fact that many previously thought to be "vestigial" organs, are now known to have functions , Darwinists made a funny conjecture that these organs "developed secondary functions", however, they didn't provide the scientific criteria to determine if a function is primary or secondary !!


I lost respect to this guy when he said "Darwinist". Anyone who says Evolutionist or Darwinist, just automatically loses the whole argument. It's like as Evolutionist are as what Creationists are.

Darwin's theory is not the one we are studying now you dumbfuck.

Darwin's theory is just an inference of an observable fact.

All right Korashk - The rest is yours. I am kinda tired right now... I think I am sick. QQ

[wally]

Of course evolution is a real thing, as a child of the 90s i've seen more then my fair share of Pokemon evolve on TV and inside my GameBoy..