Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Sykogenic 1333]

So, a huge question on all of our minds is how did man kind come to be. There are various theories out there, some which can be backed up and others that may or may not be of personal faith. So, I kindly ask that you discuss this here, in a mature manner.

I personally feel that man kind came to be by the process of evolution. I feel this way because there are facts, or some may say theories that possibly prove this is how we came to be.

[｡◕‿‿◕｡ Hawk Whitestorm 715]

What exactly are you asking...?

[ACanadianCraft (Nate) 682]

How about lets not start up a religious debate. It will only end in people being offended.

[Admiral_Ackbarf 67]

How about lets not start up a religious debate. It will only end in people being offended.

I totally agree with you on this.

[cometking123 236]

Evolution decides on random chance in order to make its strides. Yes, we have micro evolution, which is the passing on of traits through small minute changes, but macro evolution is dependent on mutations that happens very rarely in order to change animals from one phyla into another type of phyla.

I think that evolution is right, but some aspects of it are flawed and outdated. One significant example is the Cambrian explosion, where in the Cambrian era animals appeared unlike any others, with primitive eyes and shells in only a few centuries. A mutation is very rare, so how could these animals advance to such a degree?

[Lykos 276]

I say aliens stoked the flames, so to speak :P

[everblue2er101 906]

This might be better handled within the Debates section, where it will get constantly moderated.

[Viper3X 1056]

Evolution because it can be backed up with facts.

I'd like to see your facts, there is no proof that evolution exists.

Albeit I agree that this should be moved to the debate section as flaming is most likely to sprout up.

[Samson Option 9652]

#1: Annunaki, FTW :lol: (Decide if I am kidding or not)

#2: Add a Third Option: A Creator creating the system of evolution to synchronize mankind and animalkind with the ever-changing Earth.

Add a Fourth Option: Torus, simple.

[danic 352]

I'd like to see your facts, there is no proof that evolution exists.

Albeit I agree that this should be moved to the debate section as flaming is most likely to sprout up.

Ahem, *Evolution has facts supporting it as a theory

[Lirinya 4021]

Neither? I would move this thread but i'm on my phone and can't without a struggle.

However, my vote still stands as neither/both how ever you want to interpriet it.

[Mahoney220 6]

hahaha, this topic will get quite heated. This could be the most debated questions ever.

[Viper3X 1056]

There is absolutely no observation or experiment that proves evolution exists. Evolution is a myth, just as the past notion of a static universe was a myth. There are no missing links (transitional or intermediate life forms) in the fossil record. There are only unique, true species that are imagined to be missing links. There are no missing links alive anywhere in the modern world. Evolution is a false theory perpetuated by atheists.

A delusion is a belief, thought to be true, but without enough evidence to prove it’s true. Belief in a sun god, moon god and other gods were delusions that comforted ancient peoples by giving them the feeling that they understood something. Other delusions include: the flat earth theory, the notion that the sun revolves around the earth and the idea that mold or bacteria are generated spontaneously on rotting garbage.

The delusion that the universe is static (not expanding nor contracting) lasted for centuries among scientists as well as laypersons. The most brilliant of humans accepted that delusion as true. Einstein, one of the most eminent scientists that ever lived, believed the universe was static. Einstein developed special and general relativity, probably the greatest triumph of scientific understanding ever made. But he so deeply believed in a static universe that when his derived relativity equations indicated the universe was not static, he refused to believe his own work! He distorted his equations by adding a “cosmological constant” to them such that the distorted equations then showed a static universe. When later scientific observations and discoveries proved that the universe is expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his “greatest blunder.”

Do we still have some beliefs that might be delusions? Yes. Many of us believe in flying saucers and extra-terrestrials. And I offer another likely delusion – Darwin’s theory of evolution. Despite the fact that all species of life that exist look to be designed, atheists cannot accept that God exists, so they promote a myth, Darwinian evolution, to cover up plainly visible reality.

Darwin proposed that once life, a first cell or organism, somehow happened from mineral matter, individual organisms of any one kind of life (species) naturally varied in their characteristics (size, hairiness, intelligence, color, hardiness, attractiveness to mates, etc.). And those organisms with characteristics that favored their survival and reproduction did survive and reproduce more often than organisms that did not have the favorable characteristics. Thus eventually, the favored characteristics dominated the species. As additional, favorable characteristics naturally developed in the population, they too gradually expanded throughout the population. And as that situation repeated itself over and over again, eventually the species changed so much that it became a completely different species. That process -- of natural variation in individual characteristics and natural selection of the fittest -- then continued to produce more and more complex species until it culminated in humans.

The process described in the above paragraph is often called “Darwin’s evolution” or “survival of the fittest” or simply “evolution.” It exists within a species and supposedly can cause sufficient changes that one species can develop into another species.

But people, who don’t believe in Darwin’s evolution, argue that the natural variation and natural selection process can only operate within a species. That process can cause great changes within a species, but it can never cause so much change that it causes a new species to be created. These non-believers in evolution call this limited, within-a-species evolution “micro-evolution” and use the term “macro-evolution for Darwinian evolution. When the word “evolution” is used throughout this note, it means macro-evolution, Darwin’s evolution. The word micro-evolution is used herein for the only-within-a-species process of modification.

Breeders have intelligently selected and manipulated micro-evolution to produce a multitude of animal breeds and plant varieties. But never has a breeder produced a new species. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane look very different and cannot mate naturally, but both are still dogs.

Visit a museum and the evolution section will display example after example of micro-evolution (changes within one species) while wrongly suggesting such changes are macro-evolution (changing one species into another species). Falsely insisting that if a large amount of micro-evolution occurs it will eventually result in macro-evolution.

Darwin openly admitted that his theory was unproven when he made it. But he expected that the future discovery of additional fossils would provide evidence of missing links between modern species -- for instance the intermediate or transitional life forms that gradually, possibly, led from chimpanzees to humans. But modern fossil evidence shows no real missing links. Most of the touted, fossilized, missing links have subsequently been proven to be fakes! Modern science has discovered more fake missing links than true ones!

For there to be missing links in the fossil record the missing links must have been alive at some time in the past. If evolution existed in the past and is a natural phenomenon, there is no reason why it should not exist in the present. The presumed "missing links" were more suited to survival than their predecessors; so why aren't they still living while their “inferior” predecessors (chimpanzees for example) are still alive? If the purposeless, mindless, blind, natural process called evolution exists, why are there no examples of its work-in-progress anywhere in today's world?

Don’t tell me how one species might have changed into another species a million years ago. Show me -- in today’s world -- one member of one species that shows signs of evolving into another species. Show me one wingless insect that has half a wing or one snake or worm that is growing little legs. Can you find one squirrel or lizard, among the billions that exist, that shows sign of nascent wings? Has anyone reported one lizard that looks like it’s losing its legs, or one hippopotamus that shows signs of becoming a whale? Has anyone seen one chimpanzee whose hand-like feet show signs of development toward becoming human feet? Are there any reports of rats becoming wolf like? Of any mammals learning how to use sonar systems like bats and whales? Any humans that are losing their little toes, gaining telepathic powers, the ability to see ultraviolet or infrared light, or the talent to sense the earth’s electric and magnetic fields?

Why is there not one example of evolution acting among the existing billions of members of the millions of species currently alive on earth? The earth should be swarming with fresh missing links. Truly, evolution is the most elusive and mysterious of all conceived natural processes? It appears to have become completely extinct in the modern world. How could that happen to a presumably natural process?

Modern molecular botanists are able to take a gene from one plant species and insert it into the DNA of a different species. Occasionally that modification results in a new plant that has better characteristics than its parent plant. Then scientists exclaim: “We have created a new species.” And they are right! They (intelligent beings) have manipulated DNA to create a new species, but blind, purposeless, mindless evolution was not involved.

Still atheists cannot ever concede that evolution is false. They must always argue that eventually they will find proof that evolution exists, because evolution is the keystone of modern atheism and without evolution atheism is exposed as the lie it really is.

____________________

Note that the above was not written by me, but it sums up what I have to say quite well on the subject. (For those interested, it is from The Way [link]).

[no longer active 734]

Very well presented. I agre with it.

[AlphaCentaurus 173]

Large reply. Comments in blue.

There is absolutely no observation or experiment that proves evolution exists. Evolution is a myth, just as the past notion of a static universe was a myth. There are no missing links (transitional or intermediate life forms) in the fossil record. There are only unique, true species that are imagined to be missing links. There are no missing links alive anywhere in the modern world. Evolution is a false theory perpetuated by atheists.

Actually, a huge number of both Christians and other religious people believe in Evolution. For example, on the PBS program "Firing Line" two of the four debaters on the side of Evolution were religious. Heck, one was a reverend.

-snip, just an intro-

Do we still have some beliefs that might be delusions? Yes. Many of us believe in flying saucers and extra-terrestrials. And I offer another likely delusion – Darwin’s theory of evolution. Despite the fact that all species of life that exist look to be designed, atheists cannot accept that God exists, so they promote a myth, Darwinian evolution, to cover up plainly visible reality.

Darwin proposed that once life, a first cell or organism, somehow happened from mineral matter, individual organisms of any one kind of life (species) naturally varied in their characteristics (size, hairiness, intelligence, color, hardiness, attractiveness to mates, etc.). And those organisms with characteristics that favored their survival and reproduction did survive and reproduce more often than organisms that did not have the favorable characteristics. Thus eventually, the favored characteristics dominated the species. As additional, favorable characteristics naturally developed in the population, they too gradually expanded throughout the population. And as that situation repeated itself over and over again, eventually the species changed so much that it became a completely different species. That process -- of natural variation in individual characteristics and natural selection of the fittest -- then continued to produce more and more complex species until it culminated in humans.

The process described in the above paragraph is often called “Darwin’s evolution” or “survival of the fittest” or simply “evolution.” It exists within a species and supposedly can cause sufficient changes that one species can develop into another species.

But people, who don’t believe in Darwin’s evolution, argue that the natural variation and natural selection process can only operate within a species. That process can cause great changes within a species, but it can never cause so much change that it causes a new species to be created. These non-believers in evolution call this limited, within-a-species evolution “micro-evolution” and use the term “macro-evolution for Darwinian evolution. When the word “evolution” is used throughout this note, it means macro-evolution, Darwin’s evolution. The word micro-evolution is used herein for the only-within-a-species process of modification.

Breeders have intelligently selected and manipulated micro-evolution to produce a multitude of animal breeds and plant varieties. But never has a breeder produced a new species. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane look very different and cannot mate naturally, but both are still dogs.

This is because mutations, the foundation of what later becomes progress in a species' evolution, are not caused simply by mixing genetics. They're caused by the random changes in genes, where things don't really go according to plan. I'll give this an example, to clarify how a species evolves.

If we have a climate with large amounts of pollution, small insects will begin dying because of the poisoned air. The majority will eventually die. But perhaps some can breath this polluted air. They have a stronger immune system, anything. They won't get killed off. Meaning that while the normal insects are dying in droves, these live on happily. The only ones who have survived are those with similar mutations, meaning that they are the only options for mating. Thus, they reproduce. Their children, having the same genetic material, will then most likely also be pollution resistant, and continue to survive in the environment. And so the only surviving members of the species are this new, slightly different, evolved insect.

Visit a museum and the evolution section will display example after example of micro-evolution (changes within one species) while wrongly suggesting such changes are macro-evolution (changing one species into another species). Falsely insisting that if a large amount of micro-evolution occurs it will eventually result in macro-evolution.

Sorry if I don't really get what he's saying here, but I think this is just him not really understanding Evolution. What he describes as micro-evolution pretty much is macro-evolution, or the larger theory of evolution. I'm not sure how he's trying to argue that you can have species evolution without having... evolution.

Darwin openly admitted that his theory was unproven when he made it. But he expected that the future discovery of additional fossils would provide evidence of missing links between modern species -- for instance the intermediate or transitional life forms that gradually, possibly, led from chimpanzees to humans. But modern fossil evidence shows no real missing links. Most of the touted, fossilized, missing links have subsequently been proven to be fakes! Modern science has discovered more fake missing links than true ones!

I would love to see examples of these pieces of the fossil record being "fakes." Darwin wrote his theory with plenty of evidence in mind. For something so radical, he would have been an idiot to just make a baseless claim. He cited the Fossil Record, mentioned here. The Fossil Record is one of the largest supports for the theory of evolution. I'm not really going to even start to begin trying to counter this guy's argument because he supplies absolutely no evidence, and just makes baseless claims.

For there to be missing links in the fossil record the missing links must have been alive at some time in the past. If evolution existed in the past and is a natural phenomenon, there is no reason why it should not exist in the present. The presumed "missing links" were more suited to survival than their predecessors; so why aren't they still living while their “inferior” predecessors (chimpanzees for example) are still alive? If the purposeless, mindless, blind, natural process called evolution exists, why are there no examples of its work-in-progress anywhere in today's world?

Okay, at this point, I got very angry with this article. I felt like this guy has very little of an idea of what Evolution is, and that this entire essay has actually provided no evidence. They're just disjointed sentences and tirades. Please do not use this as a source in the future.

/end rant.

Evolution isn't about creating a generic "better" species. You can't simply blanket that this evolved species (Such as humans) is better in every way than their predecessors. It's that they've been adapted to their particular environment better. It's not worldwide. And two species can coexist - of course they can! There can be many different stems and branches of evolution, not just one straight line going up, one species at a time. Hell, there needs to be variety, or many of these won't survive. The food chain and all that?

Don’t tell me how one species might have changed into another species a million years ago. Show me -- in today’s world -- one member of one species that shows signs of evolving into another species. Show me one wingless insect that has half a wing or one snake or worm that is growing little legs. Can you find one squirrel or lizard, among the billions that exist, that shows sign of nascent wings? Has anyone reported one lizard that looks like it’s losing its legs, or one hippopotamus that shows signs of becoming a whale? Has anyone seen one chimpanzee whose hand-like feet show signs of development toward becoming human feet? Are there any reports of rats becoming wolf like? Of any mammals learning how to use sonar systems like bats and whales? Any humans that are losing their little toes, gaining telepathic powers, the ability to see ultraviolet or infrared light, or the talent to sense the earth’s electric and magnetic fields?

I don't think the writer understands the changes that evolution causes. Radical changes, such as the growing of wings, take place over thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years. It's not just *poof!* A lizard can fly!

Now, on the point of humans. Humans are a bit of a special case - no, hear me out. Humans, because of our factories and tools, have manipulated the environment to suit our current needs. We aren't really challenged in many ways. Thus, there isn't really that much of an opening for evolution to happen. This is only in relatively recent times, of course. If you look back on our history, and the history of hominids, you see massive amounts of adapting to fit our environment. A great example is bipedalism. Hominids adapted to reach higher fruit, look over the tall grass, and be able to carry tools, food, and children in our hands. We lost the hand-like feet we see in earlier hominids after we moved out of the high branches of the jungle. We don't see telekinesis and things out of movies because those are huge, supernatural shifts that are hardly in the realm of academic discussion. We certainly see mutations, however, which is what causes evolution.

Why is there not one example of evolution acting among the existing billions of members of the millions of species currently alive on earth? The earth should be swarming with fresh missing links. Truly, evolution is the most elusive and mysterious of all conceived natural processes? It appears to have become completely extinct in the modern world. How could that happen to a presumably natural process?

Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora, actually. That's one example. Second, mosquitos introduced into the London underground system have adapted to the environment. From the same mosquito, they have adapted to fit their environment - evolution in action. There are countless examples happening in the modern world, even with humans.

Another massive example is in bacteria. Every day, in hospitals, we're seeing new viruses and bacteria that counter our antibiotics and other medicines. They grow stronger, and start being resistant to the drug, meaning that we have to switch drugs. This is a part of the medical process found everywhere, noted on radio stations - this is inarguable evidence.

Modern molecular botanists are able to take a gene from one plant species and insert it into the DNA of a different species. Occasionally that modification results in a new plant that has better characteristics than its parent plant. Then scientists exclaim: “We have created a new species.” And they are right! They (intelligent beings) have manipulated DNA to create a new species, but blind, purposeless, mindless evolution was not involved.

I don't think anyone calls this "evolution." It's called genetic engineering. This doesn't have much of a place in this discussion.

Still atheists cannot ever concede that evolution is false. They must always argue that eventually they will find proof that evolution exists, because evolution is the keystone of modern atheism and without evolution atheism is exposed as the lie it really is.

There is no "proof" that Evolution exists. It is a theory, just like many things that we take for granted in the scientific world, such as gravity. It is, however, something that we can observe in everyday life and scientific experiments. That it does not have definitive proof doesn't mean that it's not true. It still has mountains of supporting evidence. By the same logic, gravity, God, and the theory of relativity are all completely untrue.

____________________

Note that the above was not written by me, but it sums up what I have to say quite well on the subject. (For those interested, it is from The Way [link]).