Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Jistuma 1996]

Evolution without a creator does need abiogenesis to be true, actually, because the life that was evolving started with those cells. This is the very beginning of the evolutionary chain. Creationism is life being created by God. The title is technically a misnomer, because evolution and creationsim could both totally be true (as I believe), but what I think the person that started this was trying to get at is more of "Life Formed With or Without a Creator."

Well then, he should have said that, because I still say that nothing is wrong with believing god or whatever placed everything in motion towards it.

I know the first experiment. However, amino acids and proteins and all that good stuff are not self-replicating cells. They are necessary ingredients, but they are certainly not cells, and my point still stands: Biologists have yet to prove the arrival of self-replicating cells without a creator.

That's the point, they have, I'll tell you one I guess.

In the volcanic chimeys in the oceans the creation of self replicating molecules has been found.

Not in a laboratory, but they have been found to be created from non replicating materials.

When scientists don't know how or why something happened because they cannot replicate it in a laboratory... Why not accept that it was a divine creator?

This is by far the WORST thing ANYONE can do. We can not say things that we do not know about are the result of a divine creator, because history has shown us, time and time again that it's wrong. With that mentality we could have NEVER found out about illnesses, about electricity, about cancer, we wouldn't improve tecnology, we wouldn't improve medicine, we wouldn't be able to acomplish nothing.

I've noticed that scientists studying the past continue to bring evidence to suggest a creator, i.e. the Big Bang theory before string theory, but then they come up with a new theory that is immediately spread throughout the scientific community as truth 100% truth. That is what bothers me about scientific theory. They take small pieces of evidence and make a conclusion based on that, when there is not enough evidence to suggest it is true.

Scientists do not go around trying to disprove god, they just do their jobs which is research. From observions and experiments they came up with the big bang theory, then after many years, they came up with string theory. Also NO, no scientist EVER considers a finding 100% true. I have said this MANY many times, in science NOTHING is 100% true. The ones that make it 100% true is the media, and then people think it's 100% true when it's not.

I know scientific method. It just seems that the scientific method used to prove, say, the existence of an ancient platypus, is slightly straining the bounds of acceptable archeology. A single jawbone with a few molars. A tiny part of a single specimen, and they got an entirely new species from that. The jaw certainly existed, but they recreated an entire skeleton using just that jawbone and a few teeth. That is what I mean by "jumping to conclusions."

Mhh... They just named an animal which had a completely different jaw then all others, they don't know how the rest of it is... They only care about the teeth, it's a paper for dental discoveries, there are no conclusions about it's eyes, it's ears, if it layed eggs, if it lived in water. It's just about teeth. They named the new specie of the fossil they found, then studied the teeth, and nothing more.

How does finding out what creatures we were descended from improve humanity? It doesn't. It widens our understanding of the world, or rather, the first-world's understanding of the universe. Third-world countries don't get that advantage. I would rather more money be spent towards building wells and schools in Africa than funding a lab to discover what animals are descendants of which creatures... That is an ethical debate, though, and we should certainly stay on topic.

Better understanding of evolution makes scienties better at fighting illnesses, at knowing how animals and humans work, at knowing what part of us does what and why, at knowing what part of the DNA has the code for protection of HIV for example. Evolution theory is used a lot, but yes, most of it is widening the understanding of the world. Now, is 1 000 000 dollars better spent on evolution study or feading the children of africa? Well... considering that feeding the children of africa will result in the food getting stolen by the dictators or the military forces (which is what normally happens, Africa countries have the potencial of being rich, they just have very bad goverments and crime.)

I never said evolution. I said abiogenesis. If the scientific community is going to criticize Christians because the Bible is unreliable, then we have full right to criticize the scientists who cannot prove abiogenesis.

Of course there is no wrong in it, you can talk about any part of the abiogenisis and say "This part seems wrong" or "This part has no proof". I've done the second example a few times, many parts of abiogenisis are still only hiphotesis, others are confirmed that could have happened, others are just ideas, some are pretty bad ideas.

[Rhonir 16]

 When scientists don't know how or why something happened because they cannot replicate it in a laboratory... Why not accept that it was a divine creator?

 

When you give up on finding something and credit it to a supernatural force, that's basically giving up. 

 

Please watch this video. Watch the entire thing. It will show you what I mean, because I cannot explain it in this text. 

 

 

If you don't believe Neil deGrasse Tyson, then look up his credentials.

[Lego XBOX 915]

So, I return after a while, and the creationists are still orbiting redundant arguments, as usual.

 

I will put it quite simply...

 

Evolution in itself has been proven by an overwhelming amount of experiments.

 

Now, that said, what are the Creationists arguing about?

 

The creation of the universe.

 

I'm not going to debate about the creation of the universe because there are plenty of theories around it, one of them being that the christian deity created it. Only thing I can say about the creation of the universe is that...

 

A deity creating it is highly unlikely because of many things that have been said to be caused by a deity have been proven not to. The probability that a deity created the universe is thus negligent.

 

I would like those still trying to disprove Evolution to take a look at the little explanation I wrote up back a couple dozen pages (About the Bacteria). If you want to try and disprove that discourse of logic, I would like to see how you do it.

 

 

On that note, none of this is directed to be offensive, thus why I didn't link Tim Minchin's introduction to a certain performance where he criticises those believing in creationism. I do however, think he represents the whole issue quite simply.

[JtPv 140]

So, I return after a while, and the creationists are still orbiting redundant arguments, as usual.

 

I will put it quite simply...

 

Evolution in itself has been proven by an overwhelming amount of experiments.

 

Now, that said, what are the Creationists arguing about?

 

The creation of the universe.

 

I'm not going to debate about the creation of the universe because there are plenty of theories around it, one of them being that the christian deity created it. Only thing I can say about the creation of the universe is that...

 

A deity creating it is highly unlikely because of many things that have been said to be caused by a deity have been proven not to. The probability that a deity created the universe is thus negligent.

 

I would like those still trying to disprove Evolution to take a look at the little explanation I wrote up back a couple dozen pages (About the Bacteria). If you want to try and disprove that discourse of logic, I would like to see how you do it.

 

 

On that note, none of this is directed to be offensive, thus why I didn't link Tim Minchin's introduction to a certain performance where he criticises those believing in creationism. I do however, think he represents the whole issue quite simply.

I may be a bit rusty, but I do believe you are mixing up Evolution and the Big Bang. And, I don't remember if I said this before, but the Big Bang is pretty much fine. Evolution cannot be accepted because of our belief of souls. The Breath of Life that was used to create us is what gave us our souls. 

[Jistuma 1996]

I may be a bit rusty, but I do believe you are mixing up Evolution and the Big Bang. And, I don't remember if I said this before, but the Big Bang is pretty much fine. Evolution cannot be accepted because of our belief of souls. The Breath of Life that was used to create us is what gave us our souls. 

What does soul have to do with evolution if I may ask?

 

Again evolution is not the creation of life, it's the evolution of it after creation.

[Lego XBOX 915]

I may be a bit rusty, but I do believe you are mixing up Evolution and the Big Bang. And, I don't remember if I said this before, but the Big Bang is pretty much fine. Evolution cannot be accepted because of our belief of souls. The Breath of Life that was used to create us is what gave us our souls. 

No, no, I was pointing out that those defending Creationism were trying to disprove Evolution by using the grey area of the Big Bang and using arguments to try and disprove the big bang theory...

I certainly am not mixing them up. I'm glad to see you say that the big bang exists, because that's good I suppose. On the matter of evolution, souls have nothing to do with genetics... We can nor prove nor disprove their existence. The use of souls to disprove evolution is a logical fallacy in itself.

[Rhonir 16]

  Evolution cannot be accepted because of our belief of souls. The Breath of Life that was used to create us is what gave us our souls.

 

What exactly is a soul? Is it what keeps you alive? What makes you run? What makes you think? That is a common argument. How can evolution explain the soul? Consciousness? Of course, the explanation is never listened to. The fossil record that we have, which is huge by the way, shows a steady increase in cranial capacity, sprouting from the closest we have to the common ancestor with chimpanzees, Sahelanthropus tchadensis to what would have looked like a bipedal chimpanzee, Australopithecus afarensis,  and moving down the line to Homo habilis, Homo Erectus, and eventually, Homo sapiens. Sadly, I will not post a full list of the fossil record, for it would be far to long to put on a forum post. 

 

Sahelanthropus tchadensis:

Austrolopithicus afarensis:

Homo habilis:

Homo erectus: 

Finally, Homo sapiens:

You cannot simply disregard this seamless transition. If you want to believe that somewhere along the line, a 'soul' was 'injected' into what would be considered Homo sapiens, be my guest. But there is no evidence for some breath of life, or against it. There is just information suggesting otherwise. If souls refers to thought processes, that that is also a misconception. What happens in our head is basically a computer. Albeit, the most powerful computer in the world. It is many neurons that send electrical signals to produce thoughts, feelings, and emotions. We also think that we are not the only ones to have consciousness. Chimpanzees share 98% of our DNA. Perhaps they also have complex thought processes as well. We cannot keep thinking of ourselves as unique creatures. We are just one of the millions of organisms on this planet, and it's time we start acting like it. If we stop feeling that we are special animals, above the others, then that will be the downfall, because ultimately, we share this planet. 

[patar15 0]

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.

this is true, but Atheists have made it up. They kept making up facts so much and used them over and over again until other religions believed them.

-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.

​Didn't he just say this in the paragraph that is red???

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.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different its not pretty much the same. micro-evolution is adaptation over time then stops until the environment changes again.

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.

you want pictures here you go! 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/images/canine_ancestry.gif

the "ancestral canine-like species" area of the picture is a missing link. Try to find that missing link and I will believe you.

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.

ok at this point I also got really mad at the guy in light blue you also have no evidence that evolution is true or not. And yes I would use this as a source in the future proving that evolution does not exist.

/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?

Ok did you just prove yourself wrong? because your right that two species can coexist. and did you also know that Males and females are sub species to every species. So if a females body is a lot more complicated than a males body it would have to developed more than thousands of years and a female's body would have to start way before a males body to coexist and this is apart of evolution. By then the Female would die before its done developing and when the male is finally just starting to develop it would live in its life time because its a very simple body and there will be no female to reproduce with because well shes dead. Then humanity would never exist.

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!

I think we all know that even the writer. so i don't know why your saying this.

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.

isn't this adapting or micro-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.

again micro-evolution!

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.

Just because we have an immune system doesn't mean viruses or bacteria doesn't either.

When we travel to a foreign country we need shots. What are those shots? Those shot is an actual disease that's in that country. Why do they give us this disease? They give it in small amounts so little that we can be immune to it and still not die from it.

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.

FYI he says its not evolution in the paragraph where its underlined. He may not have said its not evolution, but I think you can infer he is saying its not. and where is Yellow shows that he said Evolution was not involved. It literally says that.

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.

True, but people believe that its a law. Not everyone thinks its a theory. and others know its a theory, but still say its true. And he is right Evolution is the keystone to atheism.

____________________

My opinion about all of this is that God created everything. Now before you say that Christians believe 

in a stupid book or a piece of paper I want you to try to prove that stupid book wrong. until then The Bible is right!

please DO NOT COMMENT TO THIS UNTIL YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG!

and I know you can't prove it wrong.

Good luck atheists

Checkmate Christians!

[patar15 0]

This picture only prove there were 2 species that and the other one got extinct for an unknown reason. and our species which was the other one survived clearly. this picture should go at the top of your pointless and outdated list. Because scientists today don't believe in this. bring a more current picture that proves this.

 

Also I don't even believe what I just said, but scientists believe this.

[Lego XBOX 915]

please DO NOT COMMENT TO THIS UNTIL YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG!

and I know you can't prove it wrong.

 

The Genesis is by definition incorrect.

 

This covered, I'll now point out that the way you are refuting the person's comments is filled with logical fallacies. That just invalidates your argument. Furthermore, this last thing you said, about the bible being correct, that is another logical fallacy.

 

To say that it is up to us to prove you are wrong is a logical fallacy. Try to prove us wrong.

Micro-evolution in a chain = Evolution

Just because it's in a small scale, it doesn't make it micro-evolution. If you say that micro-evolution is true, then you can't say that full scale evolution is true.

 

[patar15 0]

micro-evolution=adaptation and adaptation is what I said above.

How is this evidence?

 

The post below goes with what I said in this post.

[Lego XBOX 915]

It is scientifically proven we did not come from Adam and Eve. That they even existed is highly improbable.

Thus there's one of the many things in the Bible that is wrong.

There is your proof you wanted...

Then, adaptation is the whole point of evolution. One evolves to adapt. That is exactly what Darwin talked about. Micro-evolution is just the same evolution in a tiny scale.
 

[Jistuma 1996]

this is true, but Atheists have made it up. They kept making up facts so much and used them over and over again until other religions believed them.

Please name 3 made up facts that 'atheists' have given to the population. I won't even coment that you are saying that what the 'atheists' are doing is what those that do not believe in evolution are doing...

I mean... 2º law of thermaldynamics... that's the most stupid, wrong, and unknowledgeble fact to disprove evolution I have ever seen, and I have seen them use it "over and over again until other religions believed them."

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different its not pretty much the same. micro-evolution is adaptation over time then stops until the environment changes again.

Hello... Have you ever heard of ring species? Those are the species that you can see 'micro-evolving' so much that in the end they can't even breed with eachother, and that are, and aren't at the same time the same specie. Look them up.

you want pictures here you go! 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/images/canine_ancestry.gif

the "ancestral canine-like species" area of the picture is a missing link. Try to find that missing link and I will believe you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/Prehistoric-Dogs-The-Story-Of-Dog-Evolution.htm

All I had to do was type... "Ancestors of the canines" on goggle...

ok at this point I also got really mad at the guy in light blue you also have no evidence that evolution is true or not. And yes I would use this as a source in the future proving that evolution does not exist.

I'll tell you why everything in that sentance he quoted is wrong, shall I?

For there to be missing links in the fossil record the missing links must have been alive at some time in the past. - True, 'missing links' were once alive

If evolution existed in the past and is a natural phenomenon, there is no reason why it should not exist in the present. - True, evolution still exists in the present.

The presumed "missing links" were more suited to survival than their predecessors; - True, so far so good I guess, nothing wrong so far.

so why aren't they still living while their “inferior” predecessors (chimpanzees for example) are still alive? - Wait what? Since when are chimpanzees "inferior" predecessors? Humans did NOT come from chimps btw... Why would a specie, that change from another specie, and then that changed into another specie, still exist? Well, they can actually, that is one of the ways for evolution to happen. Part of the animals, for example, move a bit in the land, and addapt to the new land, and change, and the ones that stayed behind, stay about the same. Check for ring species once more to help you understand. Also 'missing link' means the link is 'missing', which means... it hasn't been found... Finding fossils is something very very very hard, there have to be a lot of things that possibilitate the creation of a fossil. You will not dig in your backyard and find dino bones, because for dino bones to have lasted all these millions of years, something must have made them mineralized, and for that to happen, SPECIAL circunstances must of happened.

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? Mhh... Please look up one of the last pages where I responded to one of these things... There ARE examples of work-in-progress, humans have a few.

Ok did you just prove yourself wrong? because your right that two species can coexist. and did you also know that Males and females are sub species to every species. So if a females body is a lot more complicated than a males body it would have to developed more than thousands of years and a female's body would have to start way before a males body to coexist and this is apart of evolution. By then the Female would die before its done developing and when the male is finally just starting to develop it would live in its life time because its a very simple body and there will be no female to reproduce with because well shes dead. Then humanity would never exist.

Females are not a lot more complicated than the males... They are different, yes, the females have an extra half a cromosome, but most is identical (at least the important racial features). Also, females and males started out almost the same. The 'female' was just the organism where the new living creature would form in, and the 'male' gave half his genetic material to the 'female'. In microscopical terms, this is not all that hard as it is now, and it is known that 'male' and 'females' reproduction is safer for natural selection and safer for a few lot of other reasons. The example you gave is poorly made, the one you responded to said "two species can coexist", you said "Yes, they can coexists, but then they change at the same rate". No they don't. A specie changes when it needs. Even IF what you said was true about females needing more time to evolve, the male could be right besides it the whole time, slowly evolving when compared to the female.

isn't this adapting or micro-evolution?

Wait, handfeet turning to feet is micro-evolution? Walking on four limbs and starting to walk only on two is micro-evolution?

again micro-evolution!

Of course is what you guys call 'micro-evolution', we have been making these experiments for at max 300 years. What you guys like to refute so much and say it can't happen, and then ask for proof of it happening today, takes AT LEAST 10000 years to happen. It is IMPOSSIBLE to recreate a 10000 year experiment (and btw, 10000 is about the fasted rate elotion that has ever been recorded) in 100 years, that scale is of 100. And why do you say that the new mosquitos, and new insects are not new species? Are donkeys and horses not different species? They can mate and give birth with each other. Are they also the process of 'micro-evolution'? And for the love of it, if you respond 'yes', it only means that micro-evolution and macro-evolution is exacly the same thing.

Just because we have an immune system doesn't mean viruses or bacteria doesn't either.

When we travel to a foreign country we need shots. What are those shots? Those shot is an actual disease that's in that country. Why do they give us this disease? They give it in small amounts so little that we can be immune to it and still not die from it.

Virus don't have an immune system. Bacteria might, I haven't really cared much about finding out if bacteria have defenses against virus.

And the second paragraph... Mhh... what does that have to do with bacteria growing defences against anti-biotics?

FYI he says its not evolution in the paragraph where its underlined. He may not have said its not evolution, but I think you can infer he is saying its not. and where is Yellow shows that he said Evolution was not involved. It literally says that.

"But wait! They are just changing a bit the specie, that's not evolution, that's micro-evolution!" Where is that argument here? Why doesn't it exist? Only a small bit of the plant was changed, bigger changes have been seen in insects... so why are the insect changes 'micro-evolution' and the plant changes are 'new species which were made by an inteligent designer'? Because we had anything to do with it? Because we went and forced a small change into the genetic material? Are you saying that glowing in the dark chimps are a new specie, even thought that is the only change in them? But then a new specie of a bug which evolved by natural selection and that we can show you it's progress is 'micro-evolution'. These are the logical falicies that Lego talks about. You chose the logic that suits you.

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.

True, but people believe that its a law. Not everyone thinks its a theory. and others know its a theory, but still say its true. And he is right Evolution is the keystone to atheism.

Well, look there, another argument that, I'll quote you:

They kept making up facts so much and used them over and over again until other religions believed them.

A theory, is the best explanation we have on something. Like the theory of gravity, or are you saying gravity is also a theory, and shouldn't be believed by all? I have said it OVER and OVER again on this thread, a THEORY, in scientific terms, is the best explanation we have on an occorance. And I'll say this as well as I have many times. A THEORY, is NEVER 100% true. This is science, science changes, science advances, science exists for us to predict and better understand. Science is NOT 100% true, NEVER can be. Scientists know this, they keep changing a bit the theories they work on, and bit by bit the theory gets a bit more true, never 100% true, but they can add 0.01% more truthness to it. Even if a theory is only 44.78% true, means of that area of science, we're 44.78% done on didcovering everything about it.

My opinion about all of this is that God created everything. Now before you say that Christians believe in a stupid book or a piece of paper I want you to try to prove that stupid book wrong. until then The Bible is right!

We already proved that the earth is not 6000 years old, we already proved that we are not descendents from two humans, we already proved that there was no noah's flood like it says in the bibble, we already proved that the logic of the bible writings is very badly made. If you want to think that god created everything, so be it. Now disprove the muslin's, jew's, indu's, budist's, and all the other holy texts books if you please. Because I already said a few things that are wrong in the bible, but I haven't of all the others... I'll leave that job to you.

[Volutional 935]

Although it is difficult to leave a discussion, should I choose to call this such, in the air. I'm asking you all to do so, as I am locking this topic in hope that new players do not see religious debate on our forums. Our forums are not a place to flaunt religious beliefs, nor poison a fine belief with another. We are not here to sit and shout, rant or even talk about religion as it is a very controversial topic. And I do not trust many at all to keep civil and calm about it. It's difficult to even do so.

 

I'm locking this not because of what I've seen inside it, but because of the intention of it; To discuss religion. Our forums are not to do so, and I would like to end this discussion now in hope that our forums can refrain from as much arguments as possible. Civil or otherwise.

 

Yes, the debates forum is literally to do so, but a debate about Religion has been against the rules before, and I see why. Although it is not now, I am still closing this as I feel the intention of such is not what this forums wants nor needs at the moment or in the future.

 

Why it took this long for me to find this, I don't even.

[Danny 2232]

Moved to the Great Library. It shall be sorted into appropriate category shortly.