The Theory of Evolution

[Anonymouse]

Begin your argument either for or against evolution. It's about time we had a serious thread for a change.

I have a hard time accepting this at face value because so much seems to be flawed with this so called theory that it's mind boggling how some people still cling to this theory to the bitter end, constantly changing it and reworking the methods in order to stand fast to an immutable theory.

Nevermind that evolution is mathematically improbable if you consider one aspect of it such as all the nucleotides arranged in a specific sequence and that randomness is not an option, nevermind that the idea of evolution through natural selection is simply logical, nothing scientific about it ( it's only logical to assert that a species who survives will pass on its genes ), nevermind the fossil record is about as silent on intermediate missing links as a mime, nevermind that beacuse of this lack of intermediate fossils another theory had to be cooked up to continue to support the flawed notion of evolution, nevermind that Darwin admitted his mistakes before he zoned out of consciousness, nevermind the fact evolution has never been empirically verified in any way the exact antithesis of anything remotely resembling science.

I think it's about time to discard this half assed theory and stop stupid focking professors verbally harassing me down because I ask questions.

[Andromida806]

You my friend, have successfully caused a brain fart. ;)

[mizzcharagigi]

hahahha.... I can't decide who's funnier... Anonymouse or that Andromeida (sorry if i misspelled your name... i don't wanna click the "back" button to copy and paste)... just as i think anonymouse is the funniest guy alive, the brain fart comment comes along... and i'm sitting in the computer lab laughing my assssss off (Anonymouse, one remark about my ass and i'm kicking yours) :P :P

[TVAdict710]

ooh, a feisty one

[mizzcharagigi]

:D :D :D he's used to it by now... i think...

[Anonymouse]

So yes, you all descended from monkies. I didn't.

[Lilya]

so what did you descend from ?

[Anonymouse]

My parents HAHAHAHAHA!


But no, on a more serious note, evolution is religion, one that cannot be question and scientific academia seems to take a very unintellectual stance regarding any scrutiny or rejection of the theory.

I havent seen so much evidence against one theory, yet people still cling to it like a bunch of bitter babies because their professional careers and reputation are at stake here. Yes, it's lovely and grand to sacrifice truth and principle on the alter of reputation.

Every evolutionist I have argued with eventually resorts to this famous line, " Well it's the closest thing we have to tell us what happened."

Hahahah I love it.

[Lilya]

yea but we had to evolve from something right?..

[Lilya]

whats your suggestion?

[Anonymouse]

Why did we have to evolve from something? Could we not just have been created? If you are talking about probability and chance then both have equal likelyhood of having occured. But you see the problem with humans is we assume things. When you start to question most 'knowledge' you will see that underneath lies nothing but mental gymnastics, beliefs, ideas, imaginations. Very few things are concrete knowledge on this planet.

I am sure you have heard of Karl Popper. If you delve into his work you will see that he briliantly displaysthe difference between science and pseudoscience. He said that one should not take refuge in the false security that comes from a worldview that explains things too easily. Evolution is a religion, it is a dogma, and to question it, opens you up to criticisms and epitheths and having to be smeared. What sort of science is that if it is not going to hold up to scrutiny and the only way to ensure the survival of the theory is to blacklist and belittle those that criticize it? Coming up with all the answers and never asking any questions is the hallmark of ignorance and arrogance. That is precisely what modern day neo Darwinists are. For these reasons I chose not to study biology because it is tainted. I found out that it doesn't really move by scientific principles but rather by bias and imagination.

[Anonymouse]

As far as evolution, that is merely an assumption. I have yet to see any evidence confirming Darwinism. I have seen some pretty good faked evidence that was passed off as missing links, like gemules, bathybius and eozoon, which turned out to be gigantic embarassments for Darwinism.

To state that we evolved is one thing. To open the theory to testability is another. It is not testable. You cannot empirically verify it. Alot of it also has to do with the misnomer of what we call "evolution". You see it is such a vague term that really anything goes and this is how evolutionists have avoided proving their claims. What does "evolution" mean anyway? If we are talking about evolution as microevolution then yes there is evidence to support it. But when we refer to it as macroevolution what evidence is there to support it? For example, after years of clinging to the gradualism that pervaded academia, the assertion that we gradually and slowly evolved from other simpler life forms to our present state, there had to be intermediate fossils to verify these claims. The fossil record lacked the evidence. For years Darwinists knew their blunder and tried to hide it by saying "the intermediate species were extinct". Finally they couldn't take it anymore and so cooked up another theory that totally contradicted Darwins assertions. They came out with another theory called 'punctuated equilibrium' which states that the jump from species to species wasn't gradual as Darwin had proposed, but rather, it was a sudden leap from species to species, nevermind how this is going to be proven empirically. It's just stated and accepted as fact.

There is more evidence to support that there was a great flood than there is for evolution. There is more evidence to support the existence of UFOs than there is for evolution. Unless there is evidence that empirically shows how evolution should be a valid explanation of our world, then I see no reason to accept it because it sounds 'logically appealing'. You see my physical anthropology teacher and I got into it in front of the whole class because she didn't like the fact that I questioned her assertions. I was only being scientific in my stance and asking a question. Somehow modern science seems to condone asking question as long as it doesn't interfere with evolutionary thought.

[Lilya]

i definitley agree with you with the intermediate fossils because without them, you got nothing. What kind of mutation would allow one species to become another? you're right, that doesnt make sense.. its just a inadequate explanation for something humans cant understand,, hmm sounds a whole lot like religion. But if we were just created, what created us? and whatever created us had to be created by something else... it gets really confusing at some point so i enjoy reading chemistry textbooks instead. ;) and as for your physical anthropology teacher ~ you should've stuck a tampon in her mouth.

[Anonymouse]

Yes I should have gagged her with a tampon and forced her to watch hours of that documentary on the Discovery Channel about Primates and how they mate.

She probably descended from them in her warped little mind anyway.

"My ancestors were monkies".

[TVAdict710]

holy crap. i never seen so many big words since...ever.

[Anonymouse]

Hey maybe your avatar is the missing link between monkies and humans.

[TVAdict710]

dont i look like a monkey?

[Anonymouse]

Yes, and the only way you would look human is if I was on acid.

[TVAdict710]

:rolleyes:

[dagchild]

Opponenets of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguements dont hold up as I will show you...

First things first:Many people view evolution as being a theory which it is, but many people also belive a theory is just a 'guess', however a theory is actually a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypothesis.

Many creationists say that evolution is unscientific , becasue it is not testable or falsifiable. but this blanket of evolution ignores important distinctions that didive the field into at least two braod areas; microevolution & macroevolution. Even these days most creationists aknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory ( as in studies of cells, plants, and fruit flies) and in the field ) as in studies of evolving beak studies within birds). Natural Selection and other mechanisms such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization can all drive profound changes in populations over time.
The only solid way of disproving the theory of evoltuon is if superintellignet aliens or God himself appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth, but No one has yet produced such evidence.

The acceptacne of evolution is a widely accpeted factual occurence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Also a key idea to note is that evolution does not teach that humans decended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The origin of life reamins very much a mysetry, but biochemists have learned about primitive nucleic acids , amino acids, and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for celular biochemistry. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origian of life. Even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin ( for instance, if aliens intorducded the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

many creationists say that evoltuon is all chance and random, but that is not the case. natural Selection, the princicple known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving ' desirble' (adaptaive) features and elimating 'undesirable" (non-adaptive) ones.

I can literally go on for pages, but ll just conclude this ...
The whole idea of 'intellignet desgin' which basicallly is what creaatinists belive that there has to and must of been an intelligence force above us that created life on earth. This offers very few answers...For example, when did a desgigning intelligence interven in lifes history ? By creating the first DNA ? the first cell ? the first human ? Believers and listeners of this idea are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituing their RELIGIOUS beliefs for SCIENTIFIC ideas. Evoltuion is doing the same with the riddle of how locing world took shape. Creationism on the other hand, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

most arguements that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution. Today, the battle of this argumenet has been won everywhere except in the public imagination. What it all comes down to folks is this ...... people who argue agaisnt evolution are very religious and CAn not accept the fact that we simply evolved as primates through antural selection and speciaition. The arguments you propse are flat out derived from ignorance, THERE IS MY FRIEND A REASON WHY evolution is taught in class...

Also....Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. All these ideas an concepts have been scientifically tested where as Your beliefs simply can not even be tested becasue they do not EXIST. So to say that evolution is non-scientific, but the mysterious creation of humans on earth is , is simply ignorant. I accpet the fact of God and a creator, but the facts of evolution cannot be erased. IF it was ever proven that there wasnt a God or higher power, 80% of this world would lose their minds and kill them selves, religion needs to stay in religion and not be confused and mixed up with science.

[TVAdict710]

dammit, another big word using person.

[mizzcharagigi]

all these SAT words i have to look up... hahaha

[Anonymouse]

Opponenets of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguements dont hold up as I will show you...

First things first:Many people view evolution as being a theory which it is, but many people also belive a theory is just a 'guess', however a theory is actually a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypothesis.


The theory is not very plausible. You make the ignorant assumption that because someone doesnt adhere to evolution they are some sort of literal Bible thumper creationist. That is not so and your assumption is unfounded. Evolutionists continually patch up their original theory and call on convoluted logic, couched in elegant and educated terminology and try to create an aura of science, changing volumes of text to hold on to an immutable theory.

Many creationists say that evolution is unscientific , becasue it is not testable or falsifiable. but this blanket of evolution ignores important distinctions that didive the field into at least two braod areas; microevolution & macroevolution. Even these days most creationists aknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory ( as in studies of cells, plants, and fruit flies) and in the field ) as in studies of evolving beak studies within birds). Natural Selection and other mechanisms such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization can all drive profound changes in populations over time.
The only solid way of disproving the theory of evoltuon is if superintellignet aliens or God himself appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth, but No one has yet produced such evidence.

No one is denying MICROEVOLUTION. Everyone knows that there are within species variation. Even the most bullheaded bible thumper will tell you. However to asser that MICROEVOLUTION leads to MACROEVOLUTION is a blanket assertion that lacks any and all evidence or empirical verification. It is simply asserted in the scientific world and believed. Evolution you see is a like class of faith yet evolutionists will coldly deny this. You seem to be arguing that evolution is already PROVEN without proving it and arguing a negative. Unless God or Aliens appear you say evolution is a fact? When was it established and proven that species change into more complex species and this was because of hapahazard random mutations? Mind you that most mutations that do occur in organisms are harmful. It is mathematically improbable for species to have evolved.

The acceptacne of evolution is a widely accpeted factual occurence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Really? Where has this been proven again I ask.

Also a key idea to note is that evolution does not teach that humans decended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

That was a joke I was pulling, I can't believe you took it literally.

The origin of life reamins very much a mysetry, but biochemists have learned about primitive nucleic acids , amino acids, and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for celular biochemistry. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origian of life. Even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin ( for instance, if aliens intorducded the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

You better believe its a mystery, and for evolutionists to sit there and explain that they have all the answer and never ask anyquestions is the hallmark of ignorance and arrogance. How did the DNA system with all its complexities, come to be, in the first place? When and how did the cell create and incorporate ribosomes, endoplasmic reticula and the Golgi apparatus? Professor Murray Eden of MIT submitted sound observations of the mathematical improbability of evolution. By applying mathematical concepts it was deduced that there would be 10^325 possible protein combinations created through the genetic code, basedon the assumption that each protein contained 250 amino acids. It was further argued that the number of different proteins that ever existed was 10^52, which means a very small fraction of the available pool of protein possibilities.Instead of searching out randomly the proper combinations of protein chains that would create life, there must have been a mechanism in nature taht was able to focus rapidly on the infinitesmially small portion of all conceivable protein chains. the theory of evolution doesnt explain to us what this mechanism was nor how it functioned to perform a statistically improbable job. Surely you cannot argue with mathematical logic can you?


many creationists say that evoltuon is all chance and random, but that is not the case. natural Selection, the princicple known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving ' desirble' (adaptaive) features and elimating 'undesirable" (non-adaptive) ones.

So youre saying that evolution isn't really random ALL the time and that some of it is intelligent thought? Hmm you seem to be sounding more like a non evolutionist in that you contradict yourself. Futuyama, Gould and Dawkins wouldn't agree I guess.

I can literally go on for pages, but ll just conclude this ...The whole idea of 'intellignet desgin' which basicallly is what creaatinists belive that there has to and must of been an intelligence force above us that created life on earth. This offers very few answers...For example, when did a desgigning intelligence interven in lifes history ? By creating the first DNA ? the first cell ? the first human ? Believers and listeners of this idea are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituing their RELIGIOUS beliefs for SCIENTIFIC ideas. Evoltuion is doing the same with the riddle of how locing world took shape. Creationism on the other hand, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort. .

These are the questions evolutionists should answer. I'll have you know there is just about as much and maybe even more evidence to suggest Alien life forms gave us our knowledge and created us than there is for evolution. And what can you go on for pages about? You haven't really presented and undeniable solid argument supporting evolution other than the usual banter.

most arguements that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution. Today, the battle of this argumenet has been won everywhere except in the public imagination. What it all comes down to folks is this ...... people who argue agaisnt evolution are very religious and CAn not accept the fact that we simply evolved as primates through antural selection and speciaition. The arguments you propse are flat out derived from ignorance, THERE IS MY FRIEND A REASON WHY evolution is taught in class....

What evidence do you have of these assertions? I am arguing against evolution and I am not religious. This proves you wrong and shows you are making invalid unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions for information you do not possess and in essence showing how evolutionists think, without being scientific and using imagination and making unsubstantiated assertion. With the logic you are using now in assuming that all those who question evolution are religious, I can see how you have "proven evolution". Up top you even argued that evolution was an already established fact by using mental gymnastics and in essence using reverse logic by stating evolution is a proven fact and we have to disprove it. How can one prove a negative? This begs the question. You can go on for pages of no substance and I can cite examples of fossil fraud like Java Man. Have you even heard of Haldane's Dilemma?

Also....Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. All these ideas an concepts have been scientifically tested where as Your beliefs simply can not even be tested becasue they do not EXIST. So to say that evolution is non-scientific, but the mysterious creation of humans on earth is , is simply ignorant. I accpet the fact of God and a creator, but the facts of evolution cannot be erased. IF it was ever proven that there wasnt a God or higher power, 80% of this world would lose their minds and kill them selves, religion needs to stay in religion and not be confused and mixed up with science.

Oh yuppeeee you have found barely one intermediate that even now is dubious and has been rumored to be a work of fiction like that of Java Man, or Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man. While you did a great copy and paste job you did nothing to prove how evolution is a plausible theory that shouldn't be discarded.

[TVAdict710]

dammit man dont u have a job or school to go to?

[Anonymouse]

no

[TVAdict710]

oh. well, that explains a lot.

[Anonymouse]

TTT.

CkBejug, please offer a rebuttal.

[jahannam]

I'm not ckbejug... but I wanna throw in my 2 cents...since I wasn't around when this thread was born...
so I'm taking this Archaeology class... and it's a nice coincidence...
we just spent SO much time talking and seeing videos about Evolution last week!
it's like I care less how the first man was brought to life, really...
but I mean... I definitely refuse to believe (and I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone here), that "God" blew some air and turned whatever into Adam???
lol anyway
according to archaeological finds, it's crystal clear...
first of all ... what dagchild has pointed out is a pretty common mistake and it's important that we clarify it... we didn't "come" from apes... humans and apes SHARE ancestors... so somewhere down the line... the line splits into humans... and apes...
anyway
back to the finds...
they not only have found full body skeletons and skulls of each of the "beings" down the line until it's evolved to homo sapien sapiens (us), but they're also working on discovering what kind of a life these beings led, what kind of animals threatened their lives at a particular time, how they hunted, and ate... all through finding stone tools they actually sharpened and used, through their bones and how they suggest what kind of a diet they had...which kind started walking like US... on 2 feet, with their hands free to carry food... the skulls and how the brain size kept getting larger and larger...
at some point, they even have proofs about Lucy's kind being scavengers instead of hunters...how?
they've found animal bones that have been opened by stone tools (microscopic searches on the scratches on the bones prove that) and the marrow in them has been eaten by "Lucies" since other animals have finished the actual meat on the dead animal's body!
anyway... all I'm suggesting is that Archaeology and carbon dating ... science overall has come a long way...
give it a couple of more decades... Evolution is not gonna be a mere "theory"...

[Anonymouse]

I'm not ckbejug... but I wanna throw in my 2 cents...since I wasn't around when this thread was born...
so I'm taking this Archaeology class... and it's a nice coincidence...
we just spent SO much time talking and seeing videos about Evolution last week!
it's like I care less how the first man was brought to life, really...
but I mean... I definitely refuse to believe (and I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone here), that "God" blew some air and turned whatever into Adam???
lol anyway
according to archaeological finds, it's crystal clear...
first of all ... what dagchild has pointed out is a pretty common mistake and it's important that we clarify it... we didn't "come" from apes... humans and apes SHARE ancestors... so somewhere down the line... the line splits into humans... and apes...
anyway
back to the finds...
they not only have found full body skeletons and skulls of each of the "beings" down the line until it's evolved to homo sapien sapiens (us), but they're also working on discovering what kind of a life these beings led, what kind of animals threatened their lives at a particular time, how they hunted, and ate... all through finding stone tools they actually sharpened and used, through their bones and how they suggest what kind of a diet they had...which kind started walking like US... on 2 feet, with their hands free to carry food... the skulls and how the brain size kept getting larger and larger...
at some point, they even have proofs about Lucy's kind being scavengers instead of hunters...how?
they've found animal bones that have been opened by stone tools (microscopic searches on the scratches on the bones prove that) and the marrow in them has been eaten by "Lucies" since other animals have finished the actual meat on the dead animal's body!
anyway... all I'm suggesting is that Archaeology and carbon dating ... science overall has come a long way...
give it a couple of more decades... Evolution is not gonna be a mere "theory"...

That doesn't prove how evolution exists.

Basically you are repeating the same party line of Darwinists.

We found fossil A then we found fossil B. Fossil B is different from fossil A so therefore it MUST have evolved.

It has always been stated, never has it been proven.

[jahannam]

first of all, the difference between fossil A and fossil B is so insignificant, that you need a phD in Anatomy to be able to tell...
second of all, the found fossils have been proven to exist at a certain time. There's a reason why homo Habilis skeletons are all some millions of years old, and then they STOP appearing... and homo erectus start without overlapping... and then THEY stop and homo sapiens start...and then homo sapien sapiens etc. etc.
what YOU're suggesting is...
"God created each of those homos and then got rid of them respectfully"???
I guess that makes sense too since God also got Mariam Asdvadzadzin Pregnant???? lol anywayyy

[Anonymouse]

first of all, the difference between fossil A and fossil B is so insignificant, that you need a phD in Anatomy to be able to tell...
second of all, the found fossils have been proven to exist at a certain time. There's a reason why homo Habilis skeletons are all some millions of years old, and then they STOP appearing... and homo erectus start without overlapping... and then THEY stop and homo sapiens start...and then homo sapien sapiens etc. etc.
what YOU're suggesting is...
"God created each of those homos and then got rid of them respectfully"???
I guess that makes sense too since God also got Mariam Asdvadzadzin Pregnant???? lol anywayyy

You see the faulty logic and the mental gymnastics displayed by those who defend the traditional theory are so hilarious, that anyone with a crash course in philosophy can prove your argument to be invalid.

Basically, what you are stating is not any fact or PROVEN empirical formula, its a theory which you constantly restate that "it MUST have happened this way".

Please address the specific points I raise throughout the post regarding the missing intermediate fossils. Why does the fossil record lack the intermediate forms? Prior to this it was thought that evolution was gradual and through time it slowly took place. Well when evolutionists couldn't find the missing fossils, people like Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge decided they would create an alternative, to validate their crumbling theory once more, and this one was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, namely that evolution wasnt slow as previously thought but was fast and drastic. I'm sure you all know all about this theory since you are studying archaeology.

There are too many gaps and contradictions both within the 'evidence' as well as the argument of evolutionists, for it to hold merit.

[jahannam]

ouh ouh.. you're scaring me.. trying to prove me wrong through throwing in some "Gould" or "Eldridge" or whatever you found from www.google.com when you typed in the word Evolution... :rolleyes:
look... if this were some "political History" thread, I'd think about taking your word... since you seem to be literate, although sometimes extremely opinionated, in that area...
but I mean come on Anon, this isn't really your field..
I know what you're trying to do here...
you, my friend, are only and only evoking arguement...
you've barely read it somewhere that "Evolution isn't necessarily the answer" and although you're totally science and reason inclined, (as we all have seen in your previous posts), your only goal here is to argue back and prove people like me wrong... simply cuz it makes you feel good about yourself!
let me ask you this...
what IS the answer Anon??
since you're saying we didn't evolve...
and I know for a fact that you're not much of an "Adam and Eve and the apple tree" believer...
you've GOT to have a theory of your own! come on... bring it on...

[Anonymouse]

ouh ouh.. you're scaring me.. trying to prove me wrong through throwing in some "Gould" or "Eldridge" or whatever you found from www.google.com when you typed in the word Evolution... :rolleyes:
look... if this were some "political History" thread, I'd think about taking your word... since you seem to be literate, although sometimes extremely opinionated, in that area...
but I mean come on Anon, this isn't really your field..
I know what you're trying to do here...
you, my friend, are only and only evoking arguement...
you've barely read it somewhere that "Evolution isn't necessarily the answer" and although you're totally science and reason inclined, (as we all have seen in your previous posts), your only goal here is to argue back and prove people like me wrong... simply cuz it makes you feel good about yourself!
let me ask you this...
what IS the answer Anon??
since you're saying we didn't evolve...
and I know for a fact that you're not much of an "Adam and Eve and the apple tree" believer...
you've GOT to have a theory of your own! come on... bring it on...

I never said it is "my field" nor is it. However you are deflecting the argument at hand with your verbal slithering.

I've read more about evolution than you ever have, otherwise you would know the names since those people are pivotal to the development of evolutionary history. You would also know about 'punctuated equilibria' if you are taking archaeology. I don't know about Niles Eldridge but Gould recently passed away.

I'm not proving you wrong, there is nothing for me to "prove wrong", on the contrary it is you who must provide PROOF of the so called theory for me to be able to prove it wrong. You don't understand do you? In order for something to be proven wrong, it must first be proven, made certain and established. So far there has not been any concrete evidence. When you bring forth "evidence" basically it doesn't stand up to scrutiny or the rules of logic. Like I said, I didn't make this up, it is the rules of science itself, that Darwinism doesn't seem to like to that one theory.

Only fools assume that because one disagrees with evolution, that makes them a bible thumper who says God made it? Those people are seriosuly weird like the evolutionists.

Only humans are stupid enough to claim to know all the answers to the mysteries of our world and life, that being, fundamentalists both in religion and science. To be honest, I don't know what is responsible for our being here. All I can do is postulate theories, but no way are they going to be "fact". Evolutionists seem to suggest otherwise.

Now run away and read before you spew more on the topic jahannamig.

Adieu.

[jahannam]

To be honest, I don't know what is responsible for our being here.

No one does...
but at least some people are EAGER to know and are working their asses off to know more and more...and what do they get?
people like you criticizing and calling them stupid...
it's easy for you to sit in front of your computer and "spew" xxxx about them... how ignorant are you...
guess what! just as they haven't been proven to be right, they haven't been proven to be wrong!
I'm not an evolutionist.. nor am I saying that evolution is the answer... and I announced that in my first post of this thread!
Evolution happens to have logical answers... according to me!
and the future might prove it...
so don't give me your "no way are they gonna be "fact""
you never know...

[ckBejug]

wowowow. I have so many responses in my mind to all of these comments that I don't think I will be able to get them all out in coherent sentences, for you see my mind has already drafted page four of my comments while my hands are still busy with line four...

First of all, let me tell you, you guys confused the heck out of me, and it seems you are the whole lot of you confused as well. Maybe with one exception, or two. First of all, you have so entwined the ideas of evolution and creationism and darwinsm and natural selection and adaptaion and common ancestry and etc etc etc that you don't when to agree with some and disagree with the others.

I basically have one question to ask you. What do YOU believe happened?

The problem with people in general is their need to believe in one thing that is fully explained 100%, no questions asked. We are human, and as such we are cynics when it comes to believing things without solid proof. We need PROOF. Simple as that. Questioning things is part of human nature. As is the fact that people like to have everything in their lives explained, labeled, packaged into easy to digest/understand little pieces, and boxed into neat little boxes for easy access. Therefor epeople are inclined to want to believe in either one of two things, two possible clear-cut answers to this question of EVOLUTION:

A. A God (God, Allah, whoever....) made us and put us here and if you don't believe that you will go to hell. Religious View[point
B. After the Big Bang occured, life arose from the primordial sea through abiogenesis. Scientific Viewpoint

:idea: am I correct in that assumption?

For the most part, I don't agree with labels too much. I think labeling something to be one way or another really restricts it and doesn't allow its full potential to show.

Is there any kind of a middle ground between those two ideas A and B? Because to tell you the truth if there was a middle point I would be there. I believe we were created by God, but I also understand the scientific data and significance of all the theories that go into the idea of evolution. And I think it is wrong to say that these theories can't be replicated because if you read up on lots of scientific literature on the subject, and by scientific literature I don't mean 'Evolution For Dummies' I mean published papers, etc. on the subject, you will see that even things as seemingly faith-based as the idea that all life began in the ocean because of chance occurences that happened one after the other, have been replicated and tested and found to be true, and you will find that life has been created in a laboratory by simulating those early conditions found in the 'primordial soup' ocean....

I don't know if this is a rebuttal of any kind. i agree and disagree with all of you. All of your pouints were as different as A and Z so it was kind of difficult for me to follow. Maybe someone can challenge something specific so i can know what you want rebutted.... :)

[ckBejug]

Also, here is that PROOF experiments etc, that made life in a lab simulating early experiments:

"Nature's ancient experiments can be recreated today in human laboratories. Glass vessels can be filled with the same chemicals present in Earth's early atmosphere: hydrogen, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and water. When sparks or ultraviolet light are added to simulate the effects of early lightning or sunlight, within minutes the vessel is coated in a substance rich in organic molecules needed for the evolution of life.

Many such experiments exist, only confirming that by simply using the gases present 4 billion years ago and any form of energy that can break chemical bonds, organic material needed by every living thing can be created. But pieces of proteins and nucleic acids are only necessary for life, the are not life itself. Other studies exist that combine the organic material found in meteorites with water, and indicate how free-floating organic compounds combine to form cell membranes. This simple evolutionary advancement immediately preceded life. "

[hyeclass]

i say all of u stop worrying and go get some fresh air

[violette829]

If any of u who are for the theory of evolution tell me that ur Christian...I will come to ur house, search for a sharp tool, and STAB u in the GROINAL (u like my word?) area. How can some armos sit and say that OH YEA VEE ARR CRISHCHIN....when they're like yea we're from monkies! WAKE UP PEOPLE..lol IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF we came from monkies, then WHY HAVEN'T the monkies that are in the zoos today evolved? Or that flocking BIG BANG THEORY, what in Christ's Bible is that? I believe that God created man. That's it, end of story my friend. I don't think I actually showed any valid evidence for my argument, but if I sit here and try to come up with some, I'm afraid MY BRAIN will fart as well..LOL Plus my boss will come here and throw me up against the wall if he sees me sitting around, using his computer, his money, to post topics on a forum. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH I LOVE WORK!

Hey what do u feed a gay horse?



HAAAAAAAAAAAAY (snap fingers)

[ckBejug]

If any of u who are for the theory of evolution tell me that ur Christian...I will come to ur house, search for a sharp tool, and STAB u in the GROINAL (u like my word?) area. How can some armos sit and say that OH YEA VEE ARR CRISHCHIN....when they're like yea we're from monkies! WAKE UP PEOPLE..lol IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF we came from monkies, then WHY HAVEN'T the monkies that are in the zoos today evolved? Or that flocking BIG BANG THEORY, what in Christ's Bible is that? I believe that God created man. That's it, end of story my friend. I don't think I actually showed any valid evidence for my argument, but if I sit here and try to come up with some, I'm afraid MY BRAIN will fart as well..LOL Plus my boss will come here and throw me up against the wall if he sees me sitting around, using his computer, his money, to post topics on a forum. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH I LOVE WORK!

Hey what do u feed a gay horse?



HAAAAAAAAAAAAY (snap fingers)


actually you must be a really sucky christian and not believe in God, because you just threatened with physical violence of the stabby kind which could lead to death. thus and so you just threatened to commit a sin, and break a commandment.

anyway. about evolution. We DIDN'T evlolve from monkeys, mokeys and humans diverged from a common ancestor, which is no longer around today because we evolved from it.

anyway. i am going to agree with hyeclass on this one (wow, i NEVER thought i would EVER say that!) lets just go enjoy the fresh air outside...

[fIReBuRntInHeLL]

If any of u who are for the theory of evolution tell me that ur Christian...I will come to ur house, search for a sharp tool, and STAB u in the GROINAL (u like my word?) area. How can some armos sit and say that OH YEA VEE ARR CRISHCHIN....when they're like yea we're from monkies!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAY (snap fingers)

the anthropologists suppose that at that time there was a certain type of monkey which evolved during millions of years to humans. All the animals
that u see at the zoos are evolved, for example, the horses and the elephants were the size of dogs, but during years they got evolved and thats what happened with that kind of monkeys. And believing in God and simlutenously believing that we came from monkeys doesnt makes us less christain.
As a matter of fact, mi havata the crap that is in the bible, because hriayakan patmuriune kap chuni with the theories of evolution. :twisted:

[anileve]

What has a beginning must come to an end; will humans eventually evolve back into apes?

[Artsakhtsi]

Originally posted by Anonymouse
So yes, you all descended from monkies. I didn't.


hej, it's not so terrible..... just look at them, don't u find them just gorgeaous?! I Do! :D

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve
What has a beginning must come to an end; will humans eventually evolve back into apes?

You mean "de-evolve"?

That is of course, assuming the theory is indeed empirical fact, then yes.

[anileve]

Anon, you don’t have to worry about this theory for now; you have yet to evolve before you think any further.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve
Anon, you don’t have to worry about this theory for now; you have yet to evolve before you think any further.

I can't remember 'debating' with an adversary as skilled as you since I tripped over a mentally-ill drunk in a wheelchair at the supermarket parking lot.

[violette829]

Newsflash....the whole ideology behind Christianity is the belief that God created mankind. HELLO? Did that not register Sunday? Well as for me threatening you, well I'm sowwy if you actually took that offensively, it was just for fun! Ok now buh bye!:D

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse
I can't remember 'debating' with an adversary as skilled as you since I tripped over a mentally-ill drunk in a wheelchair at the supermarket parking lot.

You are as a candle, the better part burnt out

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve
You are as a candle, the better part burnt out

Woe is me, that was so painful to just read that insult that I got a tear that trickled down to my big toe.

You can have just as easily said that randomly hitting the buttons on the keyboard, with that pointy forehead of course.

[jahannam]

Originally posted by violette829
If any of u who are for the theory of evolution tell me that ur Christian...I will come to ur house, search for a sharp tool, and STAB u in the GROINAL (u like my word?) area. How can some armos sit and say that OH YEA VEE ARR CRISHCHIN....when they're like yea we're from monkies! WAKE UP PEOPLE..lol IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF we came from monkies, then WHY HAVEN'T the monkies that are in the zoos today evolved? Or that flocking BIG BANG THEORY, what in Christ's Bible is that? I believe that God created man. That's it, end of story my friend. I don't think I actually showed any valid evidence for my argument, but if I sit here and try to come up with some, I'm afraid MY BRAIN will fart as well..LOL Plus my boss will come here and throw me up against the wall if he sees me sitting around, using his computer, his money, to post topics on a forum. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH I LOVE WORK!

Hey what do u feed a gay horse?



HAAAAAAAAAAAAY (snap fingers)

SHAD aboosh ess !
lol

[violette829]

Honey. did u just call me Aboosh? If u did, I will have to REGULATE!lol

[jahannam]

*taking a walk , looking up, hands in pockets, whistling...*

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse
Woe is me, that was so painful to just read that insult that I got a tear that trickled down to my big toe.

You can have just as easily said that randomly hitting the buttons on the keyboard, with that pointy forehead of course.

Ahh mousy mousy! You are the mere essence of this forum and a new addition to my life, don’t take everything I say so close to you little kind heart. http://www.stuckatwork.com/smileys/ma.gif

[Anonymouse]

Ahh little anileve, do you still think that by having 3 years on me you're ahead in the game?

MUAHAHAHAHAHA!:D

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse
Ahh little anileve, do you still think that by having 3 years on me you're ahead in the game?

MUAHAHAHAHAHA!:D

Absolutely! http://www.stuckatwork.com/smileys/slap.gif


MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA! http://www.stuckatwork.com/smileys/laughpf.gif

[Anonymouse]

I disagree. ;)

[anileve]

That is your right as a free individual, it still doesn’t eliminate a fact.

http://www.stuckatwork.com/smileys/smokin.gif

[jahannam]

age has nothing to do with anything...
and Anileve (24) and Anon (21) are living proofs
:D

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by jahannam age has nothing to do with anything...
and Anileve (24) and Anon (21) are living proofs
:D

And in your case it has everything to do with age with your very weak attempts at making posts. Just because evolution let you off the hook, doesn't mean I will. ;)

[jahannam]

ummm that was a C-O-M-P-L-I-M-E-N-T
you're supposed to compliment me back lol
khentoog

[anileve]

Being drunk rocks, how is that for evolution?

[Anonymouse]

The theory of evolution is bogus, so no need to align yourself with it or make analogies when you're drunk.

Let's acknowledge it for what it is, fundamentalism from the scientific establishment.

You have religious fundamentalism, then you have scientific fundamentalism, and it seems that you can only exist within each one of these rigid camps.

If you like any of them, I guess you'd better pitch your tent.

As for me, I'll take my chances in the woods.