Evolution

[spy46]

OK so i was looking on ebaumsworld.com just to find some thing to laugh at, i found a quick *5-10 min vid* of the evolution of .... well more or less every thing. *kind of*

so i did a search, and i found a few sites where people just go off on the scientists and who ever agrees with them about it.

and I'm not just talking about the ones that say *because its not in the bible, it doesn't exist* idiots, but there were a few that were going off about it not mattering at all and its a waist of $$$$.

personally i do believe in evolution thou i know it was not as clean as TV and books make it out to be.

so I'm wondering, where do you people stand on this?

oh and please, dont go into the *its not in the bible* bit because ..... thats just a ******** excuse all around, im looking for real reasons and answers.:animesmil

[sakurasuka]

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="1"]
I'm going to warn you that starting this thread off by calling Creationists "iodiots" will get you nothing more or less than a flame-war. I reccomend you reconsider your choice of wording. Not to mention the irony of calling into question a person's intellegence in the midst of a completely incoherent post. But I digress.

Please throw away the notion that "Creation vs Evolution" means the same thing as "Religion vs Science". There is about as much scientific evidence for each side. The only difference is that one side chooses to believe that we were [i]designed[/i], and one side chooses to believe that we [i]happened[/i]. Niether side has an ironclad argument, and niether side is without holes in their theories.

There is nothing that we as humans can do to prove or disprove the existance of a God or a Creator. There is also a timeline-dispute that does not fall in line with the readings of modern-day science.

There is also no scientific evidence in the possibility of the successful reconstruction of DNA in order to support/disprove evolution. The only evience of this is in small mutations of genetic makeup that generally cause disabilies and genetic malfunction, not an evolutionary stepping-stone.



The only [i]logical[/i] idea is to realize that neither theory has substantial evidence, and that both are likely wrong.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[3minds]

I dont personally belive in evolution, but I do read about it every know and again out of intrest.

The way I see theres a possability that evolution is true, but to be fair both the bibble and evoulution have there faults in truth.

[AzureWolf]

Evolution is wrong, just like abortion, and kitteh pr0n.

And just so you know, the so-called "independent thinkers" merely follow the religion of science: whatever is said in the name of science is believed without question to them. Because "studies show" or "some study of which I understand and know no details of" were done. As a person who is forced to actually read and digest this BS, I am astonished at how ignorant this generation is. It's worse than those who blindly follow religion, seriously.

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]I believe in the self-assuredness of the people who will post in this thread in the coming weeks.

That is the only real certainty in life.[/color]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh goodness. Oh my sainted Aunt. Oh my painted pants. You ......are quite amusing.

You've decided to base your beliefs on Evolution on videos and websites you found online. I don't even know if there's an intelligence response deserved here. But since you're new, and young, and don't like to spellcheck, I suppose I should do it anyway.

As someone who has a foundation of thought rooted in old school Judeo Christian beliefs, I don't find myself to be an idiot. I also don't think there's a disconnect between Evolution and Creationism. I don't believe the universe was instantly created in 7 days but that doesn't mean I don't believe in Intelligent Design. To quote the West Wing, "I'd like to believe that God is intelligent."

And as for your demand for "real" reasons and answers?

Both Creationism and Evolution will never be fully explained for either side to be completely satisfied. The science of Evolution is a theory, just like every other concept. And Creationism requires a certain amount of faith, or a willingness to not put every ounce of your trust in science. There. Go play. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Nerdsy]

[color=deeppink]My bible says man was created by Him. That's good enough for me.[/color]

[Vicky]

[SIZE=1]I think my family evolved from goats. We've got similar characteristics =).

Anyway I do believe in evolution. Everyone says "but people believe what scientists say like the bible to!", the only difference being science actually attempts to have a logical explanation other than 'omnipotence' and what have ye. You don't even have to listen to scientists to come to your own conclusions. Besides, all those theories created years ago are taken as fact now because even simple school children can do experiments on them; you don't have the believe 'just what the study says'. Although it's quite distinctly harder to do your own experiment and investigation regarding evolution, it's not out of the question. Just because you believe in it doesn't mean you follow science blindly at all.

To be honest I'd rather believe any explanation other than 'God'. I just feel (to me) that's a silly way out of the explanation.[/SIZE]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='spy46']oh and please, dont go into the *its not in the bible* bit because ..... thats just a ******** excuse all around, im looking for real reasons and answers.:animesmil[/QUOTE]

Before I begin, I'm going to point out that this previous statement was completely uncalled for and makes you look like an overwhelming bigot. It's borderline religious bashing, is what it is.

Anyway, I personally do not believe in the typical pond scum evolution. I believe in the possibility of creatures learning to adapt to their environment over time, but primal ooze just sounds kind of stupid. Besides, science can disprove evolution just as well as it can prove it.

Example? Sure. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics"]Wikipedia on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics[/URL]

Pretty fancy language-talkin', huh? Well, here's a paraphrase: Things break down over time. Rock erodes, plants wilt, and organisms die. evolution speaks of things advancing over time, which is contradictory.

Also, evolution is based on mutations. However, most mutated animals studied today cannot reproduce.

And finally, in the vein of the mutation theory, that would mean that at some point along the line, a Manatee decided a giraffe neck would be useful.:smirk:

[Vicky]

[quote name='Aceburner']
Example? Sure. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics"]Wikipedia on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics[/URL]

Pretty fancy language-talkin', huh? Well, here's a paraphrase: Things break down over time. Rock erodes, plants wilt, and organisms die. evolution speaks of things advancing over time, which is contradictory.

Also, evolution is based on mutations. However, most mutated animals studied today cannot reproduce.

And finally, in the vein of the mutation theory, that would mean that at some point along the line, a Manatee decided a giraffe neck would be useful.:smirk:[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]It's passed on through genes and whatnot so it doesn't matter if things 'die'. The strongest survive in their environment; giraffes didn't decide they wanted long necks, the giraffes with longer necks survived because they had an advantaged and passed on that advantage to their offspring.[/SIZE]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Vicky'][SIZE=1]It's passed on through genes and whatnot so it doesn't matter if things 'die'. The strongest survive in their environment; giraffes didn't decide they wanted long necks, the giraffes with longer necks survived because they had an advantaged and passed on that advantage to their offspring.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

The giraffe thing was sarcasm. The law I quoted, however, includes genes. They break down, too. When I said everything, I meant it.

[Roxie Faye]

Evolution is not "just" a theory. It's a theory, but it's not "just" a theory. DO you know the scientific term of "Theory"? It meants it's an idea that's been tested plenty of times and/or there exists vastly numerous amounts of FACTS, DATA, and PROOF to back up the arguement.

Gravity is a theory. It's called "The Theory of Gravitation." Would you argue then, that if I'm standing up with a pencil in my hand, and I drop my pencil, that "OMFG - the pencil will float up!!!" Of course not. You will take into consideration the VERY tried and true THEORY of gravitation, and tell me the pencil will fall to the ground.

We only call it a theory of gravitation because we're not clairvoyant and we're not 100% certain that the pencil will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS fall to the ground, but we're reasonably f---ing sure it will.

It's the same with evolution. There's no time machine where we can see the fact that we evolved from apes, but we're pretty damn sure we did.

Your arguement now might be, "yeah, well, the theory of gravity is on a whole different level than evolution! That's like comparing apples to cows!" Let me assure you, it's not. Evolution has PLENTY OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE A VALID CASE. So if that's your logic, you're wrong plain and simple. You can't tell me 1+1=3 and be right. It's doesn't work. You're WRONG. Evolution has TONS AND TONS OF FACTS TO BACK UP ITS CLAIMS. (As does gravity.)

I'm tired of people dismissing evolution because it's "JUST" a theory. Go look up the way we use the word theory in the context of evolution. It's backed by enough fact for it to be an intelligent, fairly conclusive consideration.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"]I believe you're referring to Newton's theory MistressRoxie, not a theory of Gravitation per se, not the same thing really. But I digress. My whole point in this thread is if you're going to use caps and essentially shout at someone saying they are wrong, lay off the caps and actually back up the claims of there is [I]tons and tons of facts to prove it's claims.[/I] Lets not turn this into a shouting match please.[/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]Man, some people seriously need to relax.

My whole take on the evolution vs intelligent creation ? Doesn't really matter, neither of them can be proven conclusively. Until scientists can actually create a universe of their own to test theories in, it can't be proven, and when they're actually able to do that, they'll have become God, thus logically proving both theories that God created the universe, and creatures evolved into their current states of being. Kinda funny when you think about it.[/SIZE]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]I believe you're referring to Newton's theory MistressRoxie, not a theory of Gravitation per se, not the same thing really.. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Newton's theory [I]is[/I] a theory of gravitation. It's called "Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation."

[url]http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sgravity.htm[/url]

[url]http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html[/url][/color]

[The Spectacular Professor]

Anyway, I decided long ago that I don't really care how we got here. What matters is what we do now.

Now shut up. I'm watching Sesame Street. Dayle is teaching me how to type.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Newton's theory [I]is[/I] a theory of gravitation. It's called "Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation."

[url]http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sgravity.htm[/url]

[url]http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html[/url][/color][/QUOTE]That's the point silly. Theories are made by someone, they don't just stand alone. Someone comes along and says... what if? You completely missed what I was saying there. The insert more than random shouting and put a little more info into what one is talking about. :p[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='AzureWolf']And just so you know, the so-called "independent thinkers" merely follow the religion of science: whatever is said in the name of science is believed without question to them. Because "studies show" or "some study of which I understand and know no details of" were done. As a person who is forced to actually read and digest this BS, I am astonished at how ignorant this generation is. It's worse than those who blindly follow religion, seriously.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]People who lend their trust to the "religion of science" are making sound assumptions about the nature of science and the community's consensus. They assume that scientists have examined the phenomena in question with great rigor and strenuousness, and because of this their words carry more weight. They assume that these scientists are far more qualified to speak on the topic, and that they probably know more than a person who reads in a book "God made it" and believes it.

The fact of the matter is scientific investigation is far more rigorous than that of untested belief, and as a result believing in the "religion of science" is far more relevant than believing "the bible said it".

I mean, you've never researched in-depth (I assume) your brain's physical properties and processes; you've never read the studies and original findings and decided for yourself. So instead you assume that what neuroscientists say is probably closest to what is "right". Humans just operate that way, and to call it ignorant doesn't make much sense.

About "they could probably both be wrong" ... I don't see how this is relevant. I mean certainly, all our conceptions of physics and science could be totally wrong, [i]but it's the best we have[/i]. The fact is evolution has been studied, and there is a ridiculous volume of research and data on the subject documenting it. Intelligent design and/or creationism, on the other hand, is untested theory and holds about as much credence as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you want to believe and chalk it up to "a matter of faith," I've got absolutely no problem with it. But to attempt to level science and belief on the basis of "science could be wrong" seems shortsighted to me.[/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Intelligent design and/or creationism, on the other hand, is untested theory and holds about as much credence as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you want to believe and chalk it up to "a matter of faith," I've got absolutely no problem with it. But to attempt to level science and belief on the basis of "science could be wrong" seems shortsighted to me.[/font][/QUOTE]

How would one go about testing it, anyway?

And don't talk down about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may his noodly appendage smite you where you stand.

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]That's the point silly. Theories are made by someone, they don't just stand alone. Someone comes along and says... what if? You completely missed what I was saying there. The insert more than random shouting and put a little more info into what one is talking about. :p[/COLOR][/QUOTE]


[color=deeppink]I understood your point. I didn't comment on it because I had no reason to.

However, you said that Newton's theory was not "a theory of graviation per se," which was wrong. I was correcting that.[/color]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]I understood your point. I didn't comment on it because I had no reason to.

However, you said that Newton's theory was not "a theory of graviation per se," which was wrong. I was correcting that.[/color][/QUOTE]*sigh* You're still nitpicking and missing the point. I said theories don't show up on their own. Hence, it's [I]Newton's theory[/I]. Honestly, pay attention. I was saying there wasn't just some[I] 'theory of gravitation per se'[/I] I didn't say that Newton's theory wasn't just that. :rolleyes:

The only thing wrong here is you not understanding what I said the first time. [I]I believe you're referring to Newton's theory MistressRoxie, not a theory of Gravitation [U]per se[/U][/I] In other words, that theory came from Newton, it didn't just exist. So stop with the silly nitpicking.

In other words:

[B]Per Se:[/B]
[INDENT]A Latin phrase used in English arguments for "by itself"[/INDENT]

The theory of gravitation [B]per se[/B]... [translation, it doesn't stand by itself, it came from Newton.][/COLOR]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]*sigh* You're still nitpicking and missing the point. I said theories don't show up on their own. Hence, it's [I]Newton's theory[/I]. Honestly, pay attention.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Wait, what? Your point was that the Theory of Gravitation didn't just pop up out of thin air? I highly doubt that Roxie thought that the theory just existed; after all, she referred to theories as "ideas" that are frequently tested.

I see where I misunderstood here (the use of commas threw me off), but now I'm confused as to why you made the point in the first place.[/color]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]I see where I misunderstood here (the use of commas threw me off), but now I'm confused as to why you made the point in the first place.[/color][/QUOTE]I made the point because she was using caps and yelling that there were and I quote:[I] Evolution has TONS AND TONS OF FACTS TO BACK UP ITS CLAIMS.[/I] Without attempting to back up where or what these facts were. ;) I was suggesting that she do more than simply yell you're wrong, to actually say yes there are facts and these are it [insert info here; like the info that gravity is a theory from Newton] Blindly shouting you're wrong in a debate solves nothing really. [/COLOR]

[spy46]

OK to clear some thing up about my post.

what i was trying to say was that i don't want some one to just come in here and say.

*because it said so* you just sound like an idiotic child to me ... we all know the kind.

Mom/Dad: why did you do that?
Kid: because
Mom/Dad: because is not an answer.

I'm not trying to piss off any church of any kind ...... at least not in this post:animesmil

i was more asking why do all of you, believe or dis believe in evolution.

I'm looking for an explanation of why you do or don't.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I don’t really have an opinion one way or another on how humanity came to be but I find it strange when people elude that there is as much scientific evidence in creationism as there is in evolution. The theory of evolution gathers its evidence from a wide spectrum of theories that include everything from Mendelian inheritance, sexual and asexual reproduction, population genetics, natural selection, shoot even that funky law Aceburner referenced, thermodynamics, comes into play. All of these theories are then used in correlation to hypothesize and support various scientific theories on evolution, in other words science is using science to prove science.

On the other hand, many creation oriented thinkers and scientists argue just the fallacies (sometimes poignantly sometimes not) of various scientific theory in order to justify their beliefs. In other words, instead of trying to prove creationism they tend to disprove evolution in order to justify their philosophy.

Personally I doubt that any group has gotten it right. Except maybe the Mormons.[/color]


[quote name='Aceburner']
Example? Sure. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics"]Wikipedia on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics[/URL]

Pretty fancy language-talkin', huh? Well, here's a paraphrase: Things break down over time. Rock erodes, plants wilt, and organisms die. evolution speaks of things advancing over time, which is contradictory.

[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Aceburner, you have the wiki part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics down but I think you are interpreting the information in a misleading manner. Since I am not intelligent enough to clearly describe the role of thermodynamics in reproduction and evolution (micro mind you) I’ll simply quote University biology professor Peter v. Sengbusch: [/color]

[quote] The second law of thermodynamics expresses the phenomenon that the universe tends towards maximum disorder, or, in other words: the direction of all spontaneous processes is such as to increase the entropy of a system plus its surroundings ( delta S is positive). It introduces the quantity S, the entropy to describe the state of a system. The entropy is a measure for a system's degree of disorder. It increases with increasing disorder.For a system at equilibrium is the entropy of the system plus its surroundings maximal and delta S is zero.

The fact that the entropy of a system may decrease during partial processes is not inconsistent with this law. It is normal as long as the entropy of the surroundings increase in at least the same amount.

This slightly abstract law is maybe best explained with the example of the phenomenon life with all its aspects like growth, reproduction and evolution. Everybody knows that cells, cell assemblies and organisms are complex structures with processes much more complex than those taking place in the inanimate nature. Every organism represents an open system, i.e. it has continuously to take up energy from its surroundings to keep up its degree of order and the integrity of its structures. All its processes are irreversible. Organisms are thus always in a state of flow (a steady state), never at a stable equilibrium. Moreover is it generally known that most of this energy is made available by photosynthesis, which again is dependent on sun energy. The energy transformation (matter to energy) taking place at the sun's surface causes a large positive delta S. A small part of it is invested into the generation and perseverance of structures at the earth and the delta S of the sun is diminished only by this insignificant portion, but the overall entropy of sun plus organisms on earth still increases.[/quote]