Poll: Evolution and the other side

[Blunderboy]

A thought occurs to me.
Surely the very fact that we have evidence that animals and indeed people have changed over the millennia is proof against creationism.
Assuming that a deity exists to fulfill the role of creator, aren't most such deities considered to be infallible?
It seems unlikely to me that such an all powerful, omnipotent and omnipresent figure would have to pop back after 40,000 years to attach some opposable thumbs or upgrade the neck to a longer one, because it had forgotten to do it right at the start.
Could just be me though.

except that's not what's happening? correct me if I'm wrong but evolution isn't about "upgrading" to put it that way, it's more of changing in order to fill a niche in which you succeed better and can therefor survive without the competition? I could very well be wrong I haven't had many biology classes.

OT: There are two main problems with this argument:
1) There is no way to know if God was the one who set evolution in motion or if it just happened naturally, there just isn't any way to know.
2) As alot of people seem to not realize is that as an all-powerful, all-knowing being He could just have easily created the world to appear older than it actually was. For example, yes there might be DNA proof that one species was the ancestor of another, but how do we know that both weren't created to have the similar DNA, or just the fact that the two species are so similar they are bound to have similar DNA anyways?
These are just my thoughts and speculations, I'm no expert so don't quote me on anything.

My point was that such changes would be unnecessary because surely a creator would have designed the animal to flourish in the designated habitat in the first place?
Why would a deity go to all the trouble of creating a world, it's animals and people and then not intercede if nature started to make changes to its plan?
Indeed, why should it bother to 'fake evidence' of a theory that detracts from its work? It's like a great painter creating his masterpiece, the work that will make him a name to be remembered forever, then signing it as someone else. It makes no sense.

 

[AlexNora]

*snip*

It fails as a philosophical theory just because it destroys the point of philosophy. Clarity.

Maybe a theological 'theory'?

When did philosophical become the 'can't be proved or disproved,' anyways? There are standards of proof you can set up in philosophy, as well as the entire concept of the burden of proof. There's even a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" which is covered by this 'can't be disproved or proven' angle.

This is bothering me now. -_-

that's just it i'm terrible with studying iv always disliked school

Do you have any idea how bad this makes your side of the argument look?

if you think that makes me look bad? really?

and please tell me witch side am i on. i don't remember telling anyone.

You think evolution is like a 'fairy tale.'

From a different thread, but it wasn't that long ago.

true but you learn new things everyday and i had an intelligent talk with a fellow escapist and now give the theory of evolution a little more slack. and come on i never said creation doesn't sound like one.

 

[AlexNora]

that's just it i'm terrible with studying iv always disliked school

Do you have any idea how bad this makes your side of the argument look?

if you think that makes me look bad? really?

and please tell me witch side am i on. i don't remember telling anyone.

this is the reason I don't believe evolution

yes true i don't believe evolution but i don't believe creation either i also don't believe my body determines my gender i'm just a cornucopia of skepticism but i try to direct it. anyway why are we all taking about me? tell me about your experiences i'm not interesting.

 

[Lyri]

that's really not the point his moral system is his moral system i know i know its irrelevant but at the same time it is a interesting question isnt it? you don't have to watch it or if you want skip some stuff no big deal right? the Q&A at the end is fun to watch no matter what side your on

No mention of this in the OP, I'll have to let it load then.

However he's purposefully misquoting quotes to make the arguement against creationism completely ridiculous.
Kind of annoyed because my girlfriend's family are all Evangelical Christians, I spent three months with them recently. They weren't that stupid.

Wait wtf, which side are you on? lol

He's an evolutionist.
Human evolution is the phenotypic history of the genus Homo, including the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species and as a unique category of hominids ("great apes") and mammals. The study of human evolution uses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.

We didn't evolve from the monkeys & apes you see today.

 

[Spambot 3000]

I grew up as a creationist until I was about fourteen. I had some creationist teachers and my dad subscribed to the Creation magazine and had some Ken Ham books. I didn't understand science.

What's with all the evolution vs. creation threads?
And religion vs. science/atheism threads, in general?
They're rampant. Stop making them. No-ones mind ever gets changed on the Internet.

Mine did.

I still don't think there's going to be any mind-changing happening on here any time soon.
The people here have their mindset and it's going to stay that way, no matter how many 'Poll: Are you religious?' threads appear and no matter how many arguments are presented.

 

[shadowsoul222]

A thought occurs to me.
Surely the very fact that we have evidence that animals and indeed people have changed over the millennia is proof against creationism.
Assuming that a deity exists to fulfill the role of creator, aren't most such deities considered to be infallible?
It seems unlikely to me that such an all powerful, omnipotent and omnipresent figure would have to pop back after 40,000 years to attach some opposable thumbs or upgrade the neck to a longer one, because it had forgotten to do it right at the start.
Could just be me though.

except that's not what's happening? correct me if I'm wrong but evolution isn't about "upgrading" to put it that way, it's more of changing in order to fill a niche in which you succeed better and can therefor survive without the competition? I could very well be wrong I haven't had many biology classes.

OT: There are two main problems with this argument:
1) There is no way to know if God was the one who set evolution in motion or if it just happened naturally, there just isn't any way to know.
2) As alot of people seem to not realize is that as an all-powerful, all-knowing being He could just have easily created the world to appear older than it actually was. For example, yes there might be DNA proof that one species was the ancestor of another, but how do we know that both weren't created to have the similar DNA, or just the fact that the two species are so similar they are bound to have similar DNA anyways?
These are just my thoughts and speculations, I'm no expert so don't quote me on anything.

My point was that such changes would be unnecessary because surely a creator would have designed the animal to flourish in the designated habitat in the first place?
Why would a deity go to all the trouble of creating a world, it's animals and people and then not intercede if nature started to make changes to its plan?
Indeed, why should it bother to 'fake evidence' of a theory that detracts from its work? It's like a great painter creating his masterpiece, the work that will make him a name to be remembered forever, then signing it as someone else. It makes no sense.

Alright that makes more sense. Although about the last part anonymity? There are plenty of works or art that are either anonymous by nature or were left to be hard to figure out who created it (because honestly does anyone know who created Mt. Rushmore?). And this is kinda how I've always imagined that would make the most sense for a Creator God that wants to be worshiped and loved, if He was all in our face about it it would be more of a fear thing and it wouldn't be our free-will to follow Him.

And yes I realize I'm working through your post backwards but about the part about nature making changes to the plan that could very well be part of the plan, to allow our interference on the planet shape it's course, hell that very aspect is something that video game critics adore XD

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Sadly, I have. There just wasn't much science to speak off. Actually, there wasn't any, just a whole lot of bullshit. That Dr Dino crap...

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

You know what is worse is all the people who prattle on about there being some "missing link". A single fossil that instantly proves evolution. It makes my head hurt when people talk about it. It shows just how much they don't know about the topic they are ranting about.

 

[Caverat]

I think you might want to look up a little about Kent Hovind before you suggest his videos to anyone else. I've seen his claims debunked like a million times already so I guess you could say I've looked into it.
Also don't just look at debates or videos to make up your mind about evolution or creation. It's best to read read a couple scientific papers on the topic.

Best of all: Don't bother comparing/debating the two unless you truly wish to spend your time doing so. One is a concept formulated from what we have been able to prove by studying the biology of our own species, and the many others on our world. The other is as relevant and fact based as the tales of mother goose. Guess which is which.

The world keeps spinning regardless of which fantasy figure the most people swear is responsible. So, all in all... believe what you will, fools often do.

 

[chstens]

This may sound very offensive, but it's just curiosity, I am assuming you are a young person, you obviously are on the Internet, and you actually believe that the world is 6000 years old and was made in 7 days? How and/or why?

 

[Blunderboy]

A thought occurs to me.
Surely the very fact that we have evidence that animals and indeed people have changed over the millennia is proof against creationism.
Assuming that a deity exists to fulfill the role of creator, aren't most such deities considered to be infallible?
It seems unlikely to me that such an all powerful, omnipotent and omnipresent figure would have to pop back after 40,000 years to attach some opposable thumbs or upgrade the neck to a longer one, because it had forgotten to do it right at the start.
Could just be me though.

except that's not what's happening? correct me if I'm wrong but evolution isn't about "upgrading" to put it that way, it's more of changing in order to fill a niche in which you succeed better and can therefor survive without the competition? I could very well be wrong I haven't had many biology classes.

OT: There are two main problems with this argument:
1) There is no way to know if God was the one who set evolution in motion or if it just happened naturally, there just isn't any way to know.
2) As alot of people seem to not realize is that as an all-powerful, all-knowing being He could just have easily created the world to appear older than it actually was. For example, yes there might be DNA proof that one species was the ancestor of another, but how do we know that both weren't created to have the similar DNA, or just the fact that the two species are so similar they are bound to have similar DNA anyways?
These are just my thoughts and speculations, I'm no expert so don't quote me on anything.

My point was that such changes would be unnecessary because surely a creator would have designed the animal to flourish in the designated habitat in the first place?
Why would a deity go to all the trouble of creating a world, it's animals and people and then not intercede if nature started to make changes to its plan?
Indeed, why should it bother to 'fake evidence' of a theory that detracts from its work? It's like a great painter creating his masterpiece, the work that will make him a name to be remembered forever, then signing it as someone else. It makes no sense.

Alright that makes more sense. Although about the last part anonymity? There are plenty of works or art that are either anonymous by nature or were left to be hard to figure out who created it (because honestly does anyone know who created Mt. Rushmore?). And this is kinda how I've always imagined that would make the most sense for a Creator God that wants to be worshiped and loved, if He was all in our face about it it would be more of a fear thing and it wouldn't be our free-will to follow Him.

And yes I realize I'm working through your post backwards but about the part about nature making changes to the plan that could very well be part of the plan, to allow our interference on the planet shape it's course, hell that very aspect is something that video game critics adore XD

South Dakota historian Doane Robinson is credited with conceiving the idea of carving the likenesses of famous people into the Black Hills region of South Dakota in order to promote tourism in the region.

Again, it's not something that I would claim to be a scholar on, but it seems a tad inconsistent to go from a burning bush giving out proclamations, to hiding in the shadows and trying to disprove your own existence to some people.
Also, letting nature take it's course after you spent time and effort on your creations seems like a very long winded and pointless thing to do. If you have the power to sculpt the world exactly as you see fit, why rely on the random changes nature imposes?

I'd like to thank you for actually making this a mature discussion and not just shouting "God did it." before placing your fingers in your ears and humming the Danger Mouse theme tune loudly until everyone leaves you alone.

 

[shadowsoul222]

-snip-

except that's not what's happening? correct me if I'm wrong but evolution isn't about "upgrading" to put it that way, it's more of changing in order to fill a niche in which you succeed better and can therefor survive without the competition? I could very well be wrong I haven't had many biology classes.

OT: There are two main problems with this argument:
1) There is no way to know if God was the one who set evolution in motion or if it just happened naturally, there just isn't any way to know.
2) As alot of people seem to not realize is that as an all-powerful, all-knowing being He could just have easily created the world to appear older than it actually was. For example, yes there might be DNA proof that one species was the ancestor of another, but how do we know that both weren't created to have the similar DNA, or just the fact that the two species are so similar they are bound to have similar DNA anyways?
These are just my thoughts and speculations, I'm no expert so don't quote me on anything.

My point was that such changes would be unnecessary because surely a creator would have designed the animal to flourish in the designated habitat in the first place?
Why would a deity go to all the trouble of creating a world, it's animals and people and then not intercede if nature started to make changes to its plan?
Indeed, why should it bother to 'fake evidence' of a theory that detracts from its work? It's like a great painter creating his masterpiece, the work that will make him a name to be remembered forever, then signing it as someone else. It makes no sense.

Alright that makes more sense. Although about the last part anonymity? There are plenty of works or art that are either anonymous by nature or were left to be hard to figure out who created it (because honestly does anyone know who created Mt. Rushmore?). And this is kinda how I've always imagined that would make the most sense for a Creator God that wants to be worshiped and loved, if He was all in our face about it it would be more of a fear thing and it wouldn't be our free-will to follow Him.

And yes I realize I'm working through your post backwards but about the part about nature making changes to the plan that could very well be part of the plan, to allow our interference on the planet shape it's course, hell that very aspect is something that video game critics adore XD

South Dakota historian Doane Robinson is credited with conceiving the idea of carving the likenesses of famous people into the Black Hills region of South Dakota in order to promote tourism in the region.

Again, it's not something that I would claim to be a scholar on, but it seems a tad inconsistent to go from a burning bush giving out proclamations, to hiding in the shadows and trying to disprove your own existence to some people.
Also, letting nature take it's course after you spent time and effort on your creations seems like a very long winded and pointless thing to do. If you have the power to sculpt the world exactly as you see fit, why rely on the random changes nature imposes?

I'd like to thank you for actually making this a mature discussion and not just shouting "God did it." before placing your fingers in your ears and humming the Danger Mouse theme tune loudly until everyone leaves you alone.

Yeah I try my best to have an open mind and have actual discussions. People that have no evidence and no real reason to believe what they do infuriates me, which is why I stopped going to church. I have my own personal beliefs but I refuse to be around such ignorant people all the time, I get enough of that at work.

Although it may seem to us as mortal who are affected by time to be a pointless thing to do, it might not be as pointless if you exist outside of time. Also watching a system you create do it's work is something of beauty in and of itself, even though you know the exact outcome. I'm sure that developers get a kick out of seeing the programs they spent months or years on work properly in the games they make.

EDIT: Also I honestly did not know that about Mt. Rushmore. The more you know!

 

[tweedpol]

Here's a little story for you.
At my senior school in the UK when I was about 12 or 13 we had an RS lesson where the teacher who I respected and liked gave us a lesson where he talked about evidence for creation or at least against evolution including such classics as 'it's as likely as a tornado creating a 747 in a junkyard (how could the eye appear by chance)'
'so called early human species are either indistinguishable from apes or from humans'
'there have been no transition fossils eg fish-frog found ever for anything'
Then he asked us to write an essay for homework on what we thought happened and whether we thought evolution was true or not.
Thus, wanting to please my teacher, having a 13 year old's understanding of biology and having never been taught how evolution works, and with these observations to work on, (and still being Christian) I wrote a very middle of the road essay where I said that evolution couldn't be the whole truth and that God may have intervened at points to turn fish into frogs etc.

Then I forgot about this incident for 5 years.

When I got to University to do Biology, where we were finally taught about evolution properly and given examples (although we had been taught about evolution earlier a bit), this also being a first rate uni where this research had been done first hand, I remembered this incident and felt ill. The teacher took advantage of his position and our youth and ignorance to poison our minds, simple as. The information for absolute destruction of his evidence is available and not hard to understand, but you're not taught it in schools properly until far too late. Thus the average person does not know and has no right to 'disbelieve' any more than they have for atomic theory or gravity or anything. This holds true for EVERY creationist argument I have found before or since (and I have been looking).

I wish I could write that essay again now.

 

[ZiggyE]

There is no evidence for creationism. None.

The so called 'evidence' for creationism involves taking advantage of the ignorance of others to spout bullshit faux-science and get them to believe it.

An example of this would be people claiming that fossilised shell fish appearing on mountains being evidence for a world wide flood (see Noah's Ark), however, it's accepted by modern science that such fossils are due to tectonic plate movements forming mountains over long periods of time.

I have yet to see a compelling SCIENTIFIC argument for creationism. And that includes that video you posted. If anyone were to present even the slightest compelling argument I might consider investigating further.

 

[Cowabungaa]

You know what is worse is all the people who prattle on about there being some "missing link". A single fossil that instantly proves evolution. It makes my head hurt when people talk about it. It shows just how much they don't know about the topic they are ranting about.

Gods yes, but I think we can blame scientific journalism for that. That branch likes to throw out catchy names so that regular folks read their articles as well. The fact that they're (sometimes) completely wrong is apparently less important.

Still, at least I can sorta get that. When you have one fossil and another, and you're not sure how the newer one evolved out of the older one, finding one in between could be called a 'missing link' between those two other fossils.

Of course it still implies certain misconceptions, but at least it isn't so fundamentally wrong as saying that we evolved from monkies. It's still not my biggest pet peeve about this whole spiel though, that'd be the inability of people to distinguish the fact and the theory of evolution. It's not that hard people! Really!

Seriously, the answer is that there is no answer, you can stop debating.

Ehhh, what? What nonsense is this? Of course there is an answer. This isn't some kind of floaty, spiritual stuff we're talking about. We're talking about something that has happened and is happening on this very moment, something in the real world that's there to be looked at, researched and explained. Life developed in a certain kind of way with certain mechanisms behind it. Whatever those mechanisms ultimately may be, they're the answer to the question "How did life evolve?"

 

[Blunderboy]

-snip-

except that's not what's happening? correct me if I'm wrong but evolution isn't about "upgrading" to put it that way, it's more of changing in order to fill a niche in which you succeed better and can therefor survive without the competition? I could very well be wrong I haven't had many biology classes.

OT: There are two main problems with this argument:
1) There is no way to know if God was the one who set evolution in motion or if it just happened naturally, there just isn't any way to know.
2) As alot of people seem to not realize is that as an all-powerful, all-knowing being He could just have easily created the world to appear older than it actually was. For example, yes there might be DNA proof that one species was the ancestor of another, but how do we know that both weren't created to have the similar DNA, or just the fact that the two species are so similar they are bound to have similar DNA anyways?
These are just my thoughts and speculations, I'm no expert so don't quote me on anything.

My point was that such changes would be unnecessary because surely a creator would have designed the animal to flourish in the designated habitat in the first place?
Why would a deity go to all the trouble of creating a world, it's animals and people and then not intercede if nature started to make changes to its plan?
Indeed, why should it bother to 'fake evidence' of a theory that detracts from its work? It's like a great painter creating his masterpiece, the work that will make him a name to be remembered forever, then signing it as someone else. It makes no sense.

Alright that makes more sense. Although about the last part anonymity? There are plenty of works or art that are either anonymous by nature or were left to be hard to figure out who created it (because honestly does anyone know who created Mt. Rushmore?). And this is kinda how I've always imagined that would make the most sense for a Creator God that wants to be worshiped and loved, if He was all in our face about it it would be more of a fear thing and it wouldn't be our free-will to follow Him.

And yes I realize I'm working through your post backwards but about the part about nature making changes to the plan that could very well be part of the plan, to allow our interference on the planet shape it's course, hell that very aspect is something that video game critics adore XD

South Dakota historian Doane Robinson is credited with conceiving the idea of carving the likenesses of famous people into the Black Hills region of South Dakota in order to promote tourism in the region.

Again, it's not something that I would claim to be a scholar on, but it seems a tad inconsistent to go from a burning bush giving out proclamations, to hiding in the shadows and trying to disprove your own existence to some people.
Also, letting nature take it's course after you spent time and effort on your creations seems like a very long winded and pointless thing to do. If you have the power to sculpt the world exactly as you see fit, why rely on the random changes nature imposes?

I'd like to thank you for actually making this a mature discussion and not just shouting "God did it." before placing your fingers in your ears and humming the Danger Mouse theme tune loudly until everyone leaves you alone.

Yeah I try my best to have an open mind and have actual discussions. People that have no evidence and no real reason to believe what they do infuriates me, which is why I stopped going to church. I have my own personal beliefs but I refuse to be around such ignorant people all the time, I get enough of that at work.

Although it may seem to us as mortal who are affected by time to be a pointless thing to do, it might not be as pointless if you exist outside of time. Also watching a system you create do it's work is something of beauty in and of itself, even though you know the exact outcome. I'm sure that developers get a kick out of seeing the programs they spent months or years on work properly in the games they make.

EDIT: Also I honestly did not know that about Mt. Rushmore. The more you know!

That's a very healthy attitude to have, and I do agree that if such a creator existed, his motives and reasons would be so far beyond our own comprehensions as to be indecipherable.

 

[bakan]

So, basically you ask if we read/studied a bit of the nonsense called creationism and as soon as there is a sign of discussion you only want pms?

Well, I actually did learn a fair bit about creationism and as I mentioned before it is bollocks.

Though as you don't want to discuss the matter I wont bother to write anymore.

 

[Astoria]

*snip*

It fails as a philosophical theory just because it destroys the point of philosophy. Clarity.

Maybe a theological 'theory'?

When did philosophical become the 'can't be proved or disproved,' anyways? There are standards of proof you can set up in philosophy, as well as the entire concept of the burden of proof. There's even a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" which is covered by this 'can't be disproved or proven' angle.

This is bothering me now. -_-

I did say it is a bad theory. It's called Intelligent Design theory and it basically says that because everything works together perfectly there had to be someone to make it that way. You can look it up if you want to know more about it.

 

[Togs]

Why wouldnt you? it doesnt take long and you can laugh at the fools who stubbornly cling onto the stupidity.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Yes I have. In quite a fair bit of depth from multiple sources. The arguments range from flat out ludicrous denial of the evidence, to philosophical arguments with no answer one way or the other, to outdated arguments proved wrong by newer evidence, to honest misunderstandings of the field, to legitimate points where we can't explain something (though it'd be wrong to draw an overall conclusion from those points).

So far I haven't seen anything to overthrow the current scientific consensus.

 

[Hawgh]

You cannot make scientific research into the hypothesis "I don't know how it happened, I'm assuming magic. Maybe aliens". It's laughable. If anything, it could be the start of a proof by contradiction.