We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Evolution
| 779 | 75739 |
Well a lot of people have been telling me evolution is real. They give me the most craziest surreal 'facts'. Has anyone discovered any fish with legs? Any humans with gills or fins? If you put all the pieces of a watch into you're pocket and shake it around for trillions of years, will it ever become a watch? Is there but one possibility? Or if you completely dismantle a chicken and a fish, and put it into a box, shaking it around for trillions of years. Will it ever become a fish with wings? or a chicken with fins? :l
- 779 Replies
I suggest everyone to also check out this site. http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/
I stopped reading right...here.
Although evolutionary theory is just that â" a theory â"
Which shows that they are not credible at all, because no scientist refers to a scientific theory as, "just a theory" because to BECOME a theory, it must be VERY well defined, supported, have loads of independent testing done, and have NO contradictions.
Theory: In everyday language, the word theory is often used to mean a hunch with little evidential support. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise (i.e., generally don't have a long list of exceptions and special rules), coherent, systematic, and can be used to make predictions about many different sorts of situations. A theory is most acceptable to the scientific community when it is strongly supported by many different lines of evidence â" but even theories may be modified or overturned if warranted by new evidence and perspectives. To learn more about scientific theories, visit Science at multiple levels in our section on how science works.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#a5
Evolution scientists haven't really figured out plant evolution. What does everybody have to say about plant evolution?
students continue to be taught evolution as âproven factââ"and later in life, they perpetuate this doctrine as teachers, journalists, and parents without question.
Oh I love this. Here's a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. This is what religion does. They teach others that it is fact, and later in life they perpetuate it without question.
Evolution scientists haven't really figured out plant evolution. What does everybody have to say about plant evolution?
Yes, they have. I suggest you pick up an biology textbook, or take a class, instead of getting all your info from heavily biased creationist sites which obviously are skewing facts and quotes to their own agenda.
...Yes, they can.
What is this common ancestor, then?
*laughs hysterically* I have NEVER seen any two religious people, or anyone for that matter, believe the exact same thing. This is why there's thousands of Christian denominations alone.
Denominations of christianity are stemming from minor disputes between the denominations on how particular passages in the Bible may be interpreted. For the most part, our basic beliefs are the same
Oh I love this. Here's a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. This is what religion does. They teach others that it is fact, and later in life they perpetuate it without question.
instead of getting all your info from heavily biased creationist sites which obviously are skewing facts and quotes to their own agenda.
What part of this is something that only creationists do? are you saying that evolutionists are free from all this?
Which shows that they are not credible at all, because no scientist refers to a scientific theory as, "just a theory" because to BECOME a theory, it must be VERY well defined, supported, have loads of independent testing done, and have NO contradictions.
Even if credible scientists did use the term "just a theory" this statement for evolution would still be wrong as it's not just a theory but also a fact.
Evolution: Fact and Theory
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
What is this common ancestor, then?
That's like saying at what hue is yellow orange. It also depends on which species your talking about with the other.
Denominations of christianity are stemming from minor disputes between the denominations on how particular passages in the Bible may be interpreted. For the most part, our basic beliefs are the same
Just about the only thing I've ever found the same consistently is, "God exists." for those who call themselves Christian.
What part of this is something that only creationists do? are you saying that evolutionists are free from all this?
Everyone does it to an extent. People teach what they think it true, and those who learn it do the same. However, the big difference is, religion discourages critical thinking on their own religion, not directly but by its simple nature. People are heavily indoctrinated, whilst science always has that possibility for being wrong, religion teaches that it is right no matter what, always has been right, and always will be right, in addition to being the only thing which is right.
@ freakenstein's graph: there seems to be a flaw here. just looking at the first two species, we see a large gap between the lifespan of the two. so there was a species that sprang up, then dissappeared. then another does the same? this happens twice more, where there is only one species shown. why, then is this included in a graph of our ancestors when we cannot be ancestors of a species that existed on earth by itself and then went extinct before another species arose?
religion teaches that it is right no matter what, always has been right, and always will be right, in addition to being the only thing which is right.
how do you get the idea that creationists think that their belief is the only thing that is right? creationists agree with much of science. our main dispute is with evolution
Just about the only thing I've ever found the same consistently is, "God exists." for those who call themselves Christian.
a) Jesus was a real person, b) he really died on the cross and c) the disciples truly believed they had seen him resurrected on more than one occasion in various group settings
not only do christians have a common acceptance of this, many atheists also believe this(even if they do not believe in God or that Jesus was God's son)
What part of this is something that only creationists do?
I've already been over just how dishonest creationist sites are. Please review page 44 for details.
Baptists aren't Christians. Only Pentecostals, like me, are.
Yes they are Christians.... >_>
Evolution is not a proven fact (I kind of had a hard time reading this plagiarized quote). Instead it is a THEORY. Unfortunately, it is taught as a fact. It is not a proven fact, It is more like a dis proven theory.
It very much is a fact. Refer to the link I posted.
@ freakenstein's graph: there seems to be a flaw here. just looking at the first two species, we see a large gap between the lifespan of the two. so there was a species that sprang up, then dissappeared. then another does the same? this happens twice more, where there is only one species shown. why, then is this included in a graph of our ancestors when we cannot be ancestors of a species that existed on earth by itself and then went extinct before another species arose?
1) Fossils are not that common in proportion to how many things die.
2) The older it is, the less likely we're going to find it, or a lot of it.
3) Back to my hue example, you could stick in thousands of "species" which differ in a slight way. This however would be a tremendous waste of time and so we decide points at which it is a new species.
4) Lacking the knowledge/physical fossil of just one intermediate out of thousands does not invalidate the theory, especially when we have many examples of these transitions.
5) Here is another timeline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
how do you get the idea that creationists think that their belief is the only thing that is right?
In regards to religion...I would have to say it would come from this.
Apostle's Creed
Not to mention that nearly every religion preaches that it is the only true one. Since Creationists beliefs about the world go hand in hand with their religious beliefs, they dogmatically believe that it was created and thus anything against that automatically -must- be wrong, because their view is true no matter what.
not only do christians have a common acceptance of this, many atheists also believe this(even if they do not believe in God or that Jesus was God's son)
It's certainly not impossible for someone similar to Jesus to have lived during that time period and done some of the things he did. However, as we have no way of proving/disproving this, it goes on the shelf of, "We have no evidence for it, so there is no reason to assume it is correct."
@ freakenstein's graph: there seems to be a flaw here. just looking at the first two species, we see a large gap between the lifespan of the two. so there was a species that sprang up, then dissappeared. then another does the same? this happens twice more, where there is only one species shown. why, then is this included in a graph of our ancestors when we cannot be ancestors of a species that existed on earth by itself and then went extinct before another species arose?
I wouldn't count the absence of a species on the graph to count as the extinction of the common ancestor, I would just count this as a missing piece of the vast puzzle. Second line of defense. Just because one gap is missing does not 100% discredit the idea that we are part of the process of Evolution. As I have said, this is a piece of a large puzzle that we can easily see the big picture. There is a large consistency with a small inconsistency. But this is something you would expect from something that is incomplete.
That's like saying at what hue is yellow orange. It also depends on which species your talking about with the other.
How about...
Sturnella neglecta
Homo Sapiens
Crocodylus porosus
Balaenoptera musculus
Can you name the common ancestor of these species? and if you can, do all scientists really agree on this xD
In regards to religion...I would have to say it would come from this.
Apostle's Creed
The Apostle's Creed states our basic beliefs. it does not say we do not believe anything else(we still know and believe the sky is blue and the grass is green)
And if you read what I posted, I said we believe in most of what science says. it is the evolution theory that creationists do not believe
it is the evolution theory that creationists do not believe
In many cases it's a strawman of evolution that creationists dispute.
Is this what you don't believe can happen?
Evolution is a change in alle frequency in a species over generation, or more simply put decent with modification.
The Apostle's Creed states our basic beliefs.
That is where it would originate for most people. That basic mantra, repeated every church service, is quite an effective indoctrination technique. Say it enough times, you'll eventually come to believe it, especially when you're trying to believe it and you're receiving support from those around you to believe in it. After that, being told that your god is the only true god, and you start to get concrete beliefs. That's all the starting point. Then in regards to creationists, they are applying their beliefs from the bible as is, and taking the creation story literally. Thus, their belief, which is the only true belief, has it outlined in the Bible, which is the word of the almighty, only God, must be correct, and anything which contradicts must be wrong.
How about...
Sturnella neglecta
Homo Sapiens
Crocodylus porosus
Balaenoptera musculus
I'm getting tired of this for now, so I'm not going to link anything. I'm also not familiar with some of those species off the top of my head (pretty much Homo Sapiens are the only ones I instantly recognize Xd) but if you go back far enough they all will have the same common ancestor, which would be the first life on earth.
do all scientists really agree on this xD
The vast amount. Pretty much all except Creationists, and a few other random people who just don't think it fits. However, for those who don't think it fits, I highly doubt they have an issue with evolution in general, just specific parts.
You must be logged in to post a reply!