Do you believe in evolution or in a god creation?
0
I know is another similar topic, but this one focuses on evolutionism, because there are people who don´t believe it, but is an undeniable fact. So, how many of you recognice evolution as a fact and not a theory?
0
What is this evolution you speak of? I mean come on the bible is a book. We all know that 50ft tall bearded wizard made earth. It's the only reasonable explanation.
0
Brittany
FAKKU Production Mngr
It's pretty hard to deny evolution. I had a conversation with an old school mate of mine who was a JW. I had asked her since she didn't believe in evolution whatsoever, what she had thought about the fish fossils and caveman drawings of people swimming found in the Sahara desert. Her answer: God put them there to test your faith in him
0
Evolution is a theory. It's just that in scientific terms applicable to the situation, a "theory of X" is something that is well supported by a large body of evidence. When people say "evolution is just a theory" they are misunderstanding what that even means in this situation.
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
When non-scientists refer to the theory of evolution they are referring to a theory in that sense.
I believe the theory of evolution because collected evidence shows a good deal of support for it.
As for Creationism, many important tenets of it are simply untestable in scientific terms. Furthermore, the question of who or what ultimately created whatever exists is usually a question addressed by philosophy or religion.
wikipedia wrote...
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
When non-scientists refer to the theory of evolution they are referring to a theory in that sense.
I believe the theory of evolution because collected evidence shows a good deal of support for it.
As for Creationism, many important tenets of it are simply untestable in scientific terms. Furthermore, the question of who or what ultimately created whatever exists is usually a question addressed by philosophy or religion.
0
Creationism is dumb.
However, evolution is not fact until we develop a time machine or until we can use it to determine future species with 100% accuracy.
However, evolution is not fact until we develop a time machine or until we can use it to determine future species with 100% accuracy.
0
The theory of evolution by Charles Darwin is not wholly accurate since it is solely defined by continuous mutations of species and survival of the fittest throughout the years. Usually, most mutations are spontaneous and negative in nature, so the theory that Charles Darwin introduced did not explain everything.
However, according to my friend, someone else made a theory regarding 'forced evolution', in which a certain change in environment would literally 'force' a certain species living within the specified environtment to change its physique to be able to adapt to it more effectively.
To answer your question, I do believe in the general idea of evolution, just not the specifics of Darwin's own theory.
However, according to my friend, someone else made a theory regarding 'forced evolution', in which a certain change in environment would literally 'force' a certain species living within the specified environtment to change its physique to be able to adapt to it more effectively.
To answer your question, I do believe in the general idea of evolution, just not the specifics of Darwin's own theory.
0
I'd believe in evolution more than creationism. At least evolution has a basis.
Not that "God created us in his likeness. Created the sun and the stars and the possibility of life in other planets just to mess with us."
Really. Why would some guy come out of nothingness and make a universe for one species in one planet?
Not that "God created us in his likeness. Created the sun and the stars and the possibility of life in other planets just to mess with us."
Really. Why would some guy come out of nothingness and make a universe for one species in one planet?
0
Kiss-Shot
Soba-Scans Staff
Evolution all the way for me. Always had difficulty believing in god as a child, but George Carlin sums it up perfectly.
Sometimes I can't fathom how someone can possibly be so devoted to religion or believe so strongly in god.
Spoiler:
Sometimes I can't fathom how someone can possibly be so devoted to religion or believe so strongly in god.
0
bowserman wrote...
evolutionismFor a moment there, I thought you wrote darwinism. Evolutionism still sounds like a fucking religion though.
I go where the scientific evidence leads, and the consensus is that evolution exists.
0
Definitely evolution. Testaments are flawed, therefore God is flawed. But "God" is supposedly a perfect being. How can someone with such a vast amount of power and intelligence not realize that the Earth he created isn't flat. Oh wait, that was to test us too right?
There's just too much evidence behind evolution, and to be truthful, religion is outdated. Religion was created from my point of view (Except for Christianity, I'm almost certain that was created by the Romans in order to control their population with fear) to explain the unexplainable. Like how the sun was carried across the sky by a deities with two horses and a chariot in the Greek religion because we didn't understand why or how it rose in the sky every morning. Now that we can explain these natural "phenomenon" there is absolutely no need to continue believe in God.
Some people still continue to stubbornly hold onto their faith however. I'm just waiting until we find another sentient species in the universe, that will surely disprove any doubts that our species may have about whether or not God does exist.
There's just too much evidence behind evolution, and to be truthful, religion is outdated. Religion was created from my point of view (Except for Christianity, I'm almost certain that was created by the Romans in order to control their population with fear) to explain the unexplainable. Like how the sun was carried across the sky by a deities with two horses and a chariot in the Greek religion because we didn't understand why or how it rose in the sky every morning. Now that we can explain these natural "phenomenon" there is absolutely no need to continue believe in God.
Some people still continue to stubbornly hold onto their faith however. I'm just waiting until we find another sentient species in the universe, that will surely disprove any doubts that our species may have about whether or not God does exist.
0
I don't believe in creationism, but I'm also not sure about theories of evolution either. Especially the Big Bang Theory and how the universe formed.
Also, if man were evolved from apes, and there were many steps of evolution in becoming a man, one would expect at least a few remnant of the in between steps if apes still remain.
Also, if man were evolved from apes, and there were many steps of evolution in becoming a man, one would expect at least a few remnant of the in between steps if apes still remain.
0
PersonDude wrote...
Also, if man were evolved from apes, and there were many steps of evolution in becoming a man, one would expect at least a few remnant of the in between steps if apes still remain.Modern apes and Humans both had a common ancestor. We didn't evolve from the apes you see today.
0
PersonDude wrote...
I don't believe in creationism, but I'm also not sure about theories of evolution either. Especially the Big Bang Theory and how the universe formed.Also, if man were evolved from apes, and there were many steps of evolution in becoming a man, one would expect at least a few remnant of the in between steps if apes still remain.
Revised: It's only a matter of time before the LHC proves the Big Bang theory.
0
St. Vitale wrote...
LHC pretty much proved the Big Bang theory.I think it would be best if you elaborate.
0
Rbz wrote...
PersonDude wrote...
Also, if man were evolved from apes, and there were many steps of evolution in becoming a man, one would expect at least a few remnant of the in between steps if apes still remain.Modern apes and Humans both had a common ancestor. We didn't evolve from the apes you see today.
I meant as in fossils or bones. It might be because I haven't paid close attention to the evolutionary world, but I can only think of one finding that was related to our ancestral links.
Just one finding isn't enough for me as their findings could have been of just one deformed man. Now if they found multiple remains of the "ape-man" with same skeletal structures, I might be more inclined to believe them.
You might say it's unfair for me to ask of scientist to stumble over remains of our evolutionary ancestors everyday, but I just can't make a clear decision without more evidence.
0
PersonDude wrote...
more evidence.More evidence, you say? If you don't mind reading a lot on the subject, then I refer you to the talk origins evidence of evolution page (which is many pages).
Fossils aren't the only evidence, as you will see.
0
Rbz wrote...
PersonDude wrote...
more evidence.More evidence, you say? If you don't mind reading a lot on the subject, then I refer you to the talk origins evidence of evolution page (which is many pages).
Fossils aren't the only evidence, as you will see.
Oh Lordy that's long. Will be reading it when I've got the time.
0
Here's a debate between a supporter of evolution and a creationist that I found online: http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=3800
It's about how birds seem to be directly linked to dinosaurs because of the discovery of an ancient bird's fossil, which seemed similar to the bone structure of a reptile.
"In fact, except for the feathers, the bird-like feet, and the fact that it had a wishbone (furcula) it didn't really look like a bird. The jaws had teeth in them, of which no bird today has. It also had the ankle bone fused to the shinbone. Clearly this bird had features of dinosaurs AND birds." -- Rob Nelson
Another theory is that if the birds did descend from the dinosaurs, it's possible that they may have dinosaur-like genes that have been simply 'switched off'. If they could somehow be turned on again, then the movie "Jurassic Park" wouldn't actually be far off from the truth...=P
It's about how birds seem to be directly linked to dinosaurs because of the discovery of an ancient bird's fossil, which seemed similar to the bone structure of a reptile.
"In fact, except for the feathers, the bird-like feet, and the fact that it had a wishbone (furcula) it didn't really look like a bird. The jaws had teeth in them, of which no bird today has. It also had the ankle bone fused to the shinbone. Clearly this bird had features of dinosaurs AND birds." -- Rob Nelson
Another theory is that if the birds did descend from the dinosaurs, it's possible that they may have dinosaur-like genes that have been simply 'switched off'. If they could somehow be turned on again, then the movie "Jurassic Park" wouldn't actually be far off from the truth...=P
0
wow, evolution. There's sooooooo much physical and genetic evidence to back it up that it's sometimes embarassing watching people argue over weather creationism is real or not. I mean some churches actually tell their congregation to read the book of genasis as a moral lesson that human beings will always corrupt rather than a depiction of how the world was created. I also read that when Darwin published his book on evolution, people didn't hate it to begin with because they saw evolution as god slowly developing man from a "lesser" for of life to a "higher". It was only after they read up to the part where Darwin dissucsses how evolution was a chaotic, unorganized, unplaned prossess that people started to flip, because they belived that god always had an orderly plan, yet the book was saying otherwise. The short of it is that people were starting to feal their religion being threattand so they decided to read into their first testaments far too litraly. e.g befor the monkey trials the idea or the world created in 7 days was taken more as an idea, with each of the days representing millions of years. After the trials, 7 days only. exactly 168 houers.