Poll: Evolution Yay or Nah?

[Nieroshai]

I believe in evolution. I am also a Christian. My bone to pick is the misuse of the term "evolution" to mean "the origin of life" instead of "the reason life is so diverse." Evolution explains how different species came about, and ties in with natural selection to weed out weaker mutations to aid adaptation. Where evolution fails to be more than a theory is that "scientists" use evolution as a catchall term to encompass everything conceivably biological. "How did life begin. It evolved." (nevermind that inorganic material does not evolve in the biological sense of the word) "Why did that species of insect evolve to look like a leaf? It evolved because it needed protection from predators." (nevermind that an animal can't just go "there's predators eating my species, whatever can I do? I KNOW! I'll try REAL HARD to make my kids vaguely leaf-shaped and convince them to make thheir kids more leaf-shaped until we look like our food!" Complete reversal of cause and effect) Pure and simple: there are things explained by evolution, and things that fall outside the scope of the theory. That scope is this: evolution is change over time within organic biological organisms through random mutations that are genetically inherited by their offspring. The way we use the word "evolution" today often ignores this simple definition to take the form of a scientific panacea.

Let me break this off into two pieces.

1. Evolution doesn't/shouldn't cover the origins of life. This is true. The origin of life is not covered by evolutionary theory, however once life started, everything thereafter can be explained via evolution. The theory right now that covers the origin of life is called abiogenesis.

2. Leaf shaped bug anecdote. Evolution is NOT a voluntary process where the species consciously decide to be a certain way. I don't think that you actually believe that and you were just being sarcastic, but I wanted to make that clear. Next point to make is that evolution is based upon a series of very gradual steps that take place over vast amounts of time. I don't know the actual evolutionary path of the leaf bug, but let's say that it started out as like a blue butterfly, or something. Let's also assume that this butterfly lived in an environment with lots of leaves and trees. If one of the offspring of this blue butterfly was slightly more greenish than the regular butterflies, it would blend in more with the environment, which gives it a slight edge over all the blue butterflies, and be more likely to survive to mating age and pass on this gene to its offspring. Over time, this difference in survivability would mean that more and more green butterflies would exist in the population. Another butterfly mutates again to become more green, and the cycle repeats, until it is as green as the leaves ( any greener and it becomes less fit as it cannot camouflage as well). So now we have green butterflies. Assume now that one of them mutates to that its wings look more like leaves, so it can blend in even better. the same principle applies, and natural selection selects for this trait, and it becomes more prevalent in the population, and over time the wing shape becomes more refined. Finally, let's assume that one of the species loses its ability to fly, and becomes stuck living on the branches of the trees on which it's born. This is actually good in a way, because it can go stiff and pretend its a leaf much better than a butterfly that is flying in the air. This could potentially be a speciation point, where some of the butterflies continue as they were, and a new species of flightless leaf bugs branches off from them, since both models are still quite fit for survival. so then after generations and generations of segregation and no cross group interaction between the leaf bugs and the butterflies, and they've differentiated from each other so much that they can no longer successfully breed. Ta da, you have a new species.

Keep in mind that that whole process was completely hypothetical and it probably happened differently than that, but the principles are the same.

I was being quite sarcastic. My point was that you'll often hear on documentaries or from professors that "[x] evolved this trait for [y] purpose." No it didn't! It merely evolved an adaptation that happened to serve that purpose better than other varieties! You lengthily spelled out my point exactly. I meant throughout my whole post that if evolution is to be taken seriously, it needs to be understood by its advocates before they confront its critics.

 

[Cpu46]

I dont believe in evolution. Cause that means its just something I think. I have eyes and reason though, so saying I "believe" in evolution is innacurate.

Even if you believe in God, you can know evolution. But most god fearers dont understand the middle ground.

Did you post so you could display your edgy use of semantics? If their faith requires them to believe something other than evolution, or believe their god had some hand in evolution then that is their prerogative. Sure, they CAN believe in evolution if they wanted to, but it'd nobodies business if they don't.

You seem to have some weird idea that religion is some quiet group who just sit in their corner minding themselves. Religion pushes their ways and beliefs and thinking on everyone. I choose to simply try pushing back. Maybe not the best method, but Ill be damned if Im learning creationism in my science class.

Oh, but you aren't, are you? No, YOUR RIGHT to believe what you like is defended. You're not some champion for the cause of evolution; rather than trying to infringe on the rights of people to believe what they like you should break the image of arrogant atheists and accept them for their beliefs, whether they accept you for yours.

Yeah yeah yeah. Same old song and dance. I decry religion for infringing on human rights and so forth, and that makes ME the bad guy. I dont like fighting religion. I really wish I did not even have to care about it. Now, Im not saying Im not doing the same thing as them...but if so, then im doing THE SAME THING AS THEM. Yet you arent yelling at them too now are you?

Oh sorry about them, I'll have a talk with their parents as soon as..oh that's right. You're not a Christian telling an atheist he can't believe what he wants, you're an atheist saying Christians can't believe what they want. Grow up and stop going "But she started it!", I'm not your parent. Yea, you are the bad guy here, you like your right to believe what you like? They like their rights too. Don't be a hypocrite and expect only your beliefs to be valid.

I would like to say there is a difference between a religious person saying "we should teach our beliefs in public and push them on others" and an atheist saying "We should not be taught or have beliefs forced on us if we do not wish it". One is arrogant and one is rational and a right!
I don't think Saelune is saying that they shouldn't be able to worship, I don't see anything even remotely implying that in her posts, they just shouldn't be allowed to force feed their ideology to those who don't want it.

OT: Evolution has the most evidence and is the most reasonable explanation. Belief may not be the right word for it but, yes, I believe in evolution.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I do accept evolution. I also accept that other people can make their own decisions about what they wish to believe, and it is nobody's right to belittle them for it.

 

[Sight Unseen]

I believe in evolution. I am also a Christian. My bone to pick is the misuse of the term "evolution" to mean "the origin of life" instead of "the reason life is so diverse." Evolution explains how different species came about, and ties in with natural selection to weed out weaker mutations to aid adaptation. Where evolution fails to be more than a theory is that "scientists" use evolution as a catchall term to encompass everything conceivably biological. "How did life begin. It evolved." (nevermind that inorganic material does not evolve in the biological sense of the word) "Why did that species of insect evolve to look like a leaf? It evolved because it needed protection from predators." (nevermind that an animal can't just go "there's predators eating my species, whatever can I do? I KNOW! I'll try REAL HARD to make my kids vaguely leaf-shaped and convince them to make thheir kids more leaf-shaped until we look like our food!" Complete reversal of cause and effect) Pure and simple: there are things explained by evolution, and things that fall outside the scope of the theory. That scope is this: evolution is change over time within organic biological organisms through random mutations that are genetically inherited by their offspring. The way we use the word "evolution" today often ignores this simple definition to take the form of a scientific panacea.

Let me break this off into two pieces.

1. Evolution doesn't/shouldn't cover the origins of life. This is true. The origin of life is not covered by evolutionary theory, however once life started, everything thereafter can be explained via evolution. The theory right now that covers the origin of life is called abiogenesis.

2. Leaf shaped bug anecdote. Evolution is NOT a voluntary process where the species consciously decide to be a certain way. I don't think that you actually believe that and you were just being sarcastic, but I wanted to make that clear. Next point to make is that evolution is based upon a series of very gradual steps that take place over vast amounts of time. I don't know the actual evolutionary path of the leaf bug, but let's say that it started out as like a blue butterfly, or something. Let's also assume that this butterfly lived in an environment with lots of leaves and trees. If one of the offspring of this blue butterfly was slightly more greenish than the regular butterflies, it would blend in more with the environment, which gives it a slight edge over all the blue butterflies, and be more likely to survive to mating age and pass on this gene to its offspring. Over time, this difference in survivability would mean that more and more green butterflies would exist in the population. Another butterfly mutates again to become more green, and the cycle repeats, until it is as green as the leaves ( any greener and it becomes less fit as it cannot camouflage as well). So now we have green butterflies. Assume now that one of them mutates to that its wings look more like leaves, so it can blend in even better. the same principle applies, and natural selection selects for this trait, and it becomes more prevalent in the population, and over time the wing shape becomes more refined. Finally, let's assume that one of the species loses its ability to fly, and becomes stuck living on the branches of the trees on which it's born. This is actually good in a way, because it can go stiff and pretend its a leaf much better than a butterfly that is flying in the air. This could potentially be a speciation point, where some of the butterflies continue as they were, and a new species of flightless leaf bugs branches off from them, since both models are still quite fit for survival. so then after generations and generations of segregation and no cross group interaction between the leaf bugs and the butterflies, and they've differentiated from each other so much that they can no longer successfully breed. Ta da, you have a new species.

Keep in mind that that whole process was completely hypothetical and it probably happened differently than that, but the principles are the same.

I was being quite sarcastic. My point was that you'll often hear on documentaries or from professors that "[x] evolved this trait for [y] purpose." No it didn't! It merely evolved an adaptation that happened to serve that purpose better than other varieties! You lengthily spelled out my point exactly. I meant throughout my whole post that if evolution is to be taken seriously, it needs to be understood by its advocates before they confront its critics.

Good, we're in agreement then. I had a feeling that you were sarcastic about at least part of it, but I wanted to clarify because it seems a lot of people, like you said, don't really understand evolution, and either dismiss it completely or act like experts and miscontrue the theory and make the rest of us look bad.

 

[AlexNora]

Belief and evolution should not be in the same sentence.

It makes me so sad to see the U.S. have the same evolution acceptation as Turkey.

Belief and evolution go hand in hand

the only way to know something as fact is to be in all places at all times.

example

Watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the skin(rind) prove I'm wrong.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Belief and evolution should not be in the same sentence.

It makes me so sad to see the U.S. have the same evolution acceptation as Turkey.

Belief and evolution go hand in hand

the only way to know something as fact is to be in all places at all times.

example

Watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the skin prove I'm wrong.

Science isn't about proving things wrong. It's about testing things in such a way as to gain an understanding of their underlying principles to a sufficient extent to enable scientists to make specific and accurate predictions of future events based on precedent.

speaking scientifically, I wouldn't say "I know for sure that a watermelon always red inside", but I would say that "based on all previous testing, the inside of a watermelon is red except in the case of certain circumstances, such as: rotting, tampering, etc"

Scientists never ever say with absolute certainty that something is always right. they say that based on previous research, this is what should logically happen. and if new evidence that contradicts the theories comes up, they update the theory to be more accurate.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I'm Christian, and I don't believe evolution to be true or false. I just really don't care.
Why is it such a big deal to people? It's not like proving evolution is really going to change anything. It disproves nothing, and only proves that we evolved from other animals. I don't care if my earliest ancestors were a bunch of butt-scratching primates. Their life hs no influence on mine. If evolution is proven, then I'll say "Oh, whaddaya know, the theory of evolution was proven.", and never give it a second thought.
So, to answer your question, I guess I believe in it, but all in all it has about as much relevance as asking for my favorite color, which is blue by the way. Damn, blue is a snazzy color...

 

[Kolby Jack]

I'm Christian, and I don't believe evolution to be true or false. I just really don't care.
Why is it such a big deal to people? It's not like proving evolution is really going to change anything. It disproves nothing, and only proves that we evolved from other animals. I don't care if my earliest ancestors were a bunch of butt-scratching primates. Their life hs no influence on mine. If evolution is proven, then I'll say "Oh, whaddaya know, the theory of evolution was proven.", and never give it a second thought.
So, to answer your question, I guess I believe in it, but all in all it has about as much relevance as asking for my favorite color, which is blue by the way. Damn, blue is a snazzy color...

Hey, I'm a primate and I scratch my butt all the time... EVOLUTION IS A LIE!!!!

And yes, blue is quite a color. Very relaxing, but intense at the same time.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Anyone who says "it's just a theory" doesn't know what theory means.

 

[mOoEyThEcOw]

Belief and evolution should not be in the same sentence.

It makes me so sad to see the U.S. have the same evolution acceptation as Turkey.

Belief and evolution go hand in hand

the only way to know something as fact is to be in all places at all times.

example

Watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the skin prove I'm wrong.

Not quite.
I can say, watermelons, in general, are red inside, because I have previously observed them to be so.
But I can't say watermelons, in general, are blue inside, because.

What you are suggesting is actually quite dangerous, and is a prolific problem in the United States. The onus is not on me to prove you wrong, it is on you to prove the theory correct. You can say that about watermelons, but unless you have a way to prove your reasoning (Opening the watermelon) it is meaningless. This is a fundamental problem with belief based arguments. The opposing arguer does not have to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is correct, and that evidence must support your claim. With out the evidence it is simply an opinion. After providing evidence the opposing arguer may show that your evidence is wrong, and you have returned to the beginning.

Evolution has a massive amount evidence. The belief comes in where you believe that the people reviewing this evidence, and those presenting it, are doing so truthfully, this is easier when they can prove their truth by giving evidence that they are telling the truth.

 

[FernandoV]

I dont believe in evolution. Cause that means its just something I think. I have eyes and reason though, so saying I "believe" in evolution is innacurate.

Even if you believe in God, you can know evolution. But most god fearers dont understand the middle ground.

Did you post so you could display your edgy use of semantics? If their faith requires them to believe something other than evolution, or believe their god had some hand in evolution then that is their prerogative. Sure, they CAN believe in evolution if they wanted to, but it'd nobodies business if they don't.

You seem to have some weird idea that religion is some quiet group who just sit in their corner minding themselves. Religion pushes their ways and beliefs and thinking on everyone. I choose to simply try pushing back. Maybe not the best method, but Ill be damned if Im learning creationism in my science class.

Oh, but you aren't, are you? No, YOUR RIGHT to believe what you like is defended. You're not some champion for the cause of evolution; rather than trying to infringe on the rights of people to believe what they like you should break the image of arrogant atheists and accept them for their beliefs, whether they accept you for yours.

Yeah yeah yeah. Same old song and dance. I decry religion for infringing on human rights and so forth, and that makes ME the bad guy. I dont like fighting religion. I really wish I did not even have to care about it. Now, Im not saying Im not doing the same thing as them...but if so, then im doing THE SAME THING AS THEM. Yet you arent yelling at them too now are you?

Oh sorry about them, I'll have a talk with their parents as soon as..oh that's right. You're not a Christian telling an atheist he can't believe what he wants, you're an atheist saying Christians can't believe what they want. Grow up and stop going "But she started it!", I'm not your parent. Yea, you are the bad guy here, you like your right to believe what you like? They like their rights too. Don't be a hypocrite and expect only your beliefs to be valid.

I would like to say there is a difference between a religious person saying "we should teach our beliefs in public and push them on others" and an atheist saying "We should not be taught or have beliefs forced on us if we do not wish it". One is arrogant and one is rational and a right!
I don't think Saelune is saying that they shouldn't be able to worship, I don't see anything even remotely implying that in her posts, they just shouldn't be allowed to force feed their ideology to those who don't want it.

OT: Evolution has the most evidence and is the most reasonable explanation. Belief may not be the right word for it but, yes, I believe in evolution.

Uh, no, she definitely implied it continually. I agree with not allowing them to force it on anyone, as I've obviously said time and time again, but she was going for the "Ban all christianity ever approach" which I do not agree with, if you didn't see that it's because you don't want to.

I dont believe in evolution. Cause that means its just something I think. I have eyes and reason though, so saying I "believe" in evolution is innacurate.

Even if you believe in God, you can know evolution. But most god fearers dont understand the middle ground.

Did you post so you could display your edgy use of semantics? If their faith requires them to believe something other than evolution, or believe their god had some hand in evolution then that is their prerogative. Sure, they CAN believe in evolution if they wanted to, but it'd nobodies business if they don't.

You seem to have some weird idea that religion is some quiet group who just sit in their corner minding themselves. Religion pushes their ways and beliefs and thinking on everyone. I choose to simply try pushing back. Maybe not the best method, but Ill be damned if Im learning creationism in my science class.

Oh, but you aren't, are you? No, YOUR RIGHT to believe what you like is defended. You're not some champion for the cause of evolution; rather than trying to infringe on the rights of people to believe what they like you should break the image of arrogant atheists and accept them for their beliefs, whether they accept you for yours.

Yeah yeah yeah. Same old song and dance. I decry religion for infringing on human rights and so forth, and that makes ME the bad guy. I dont like fighting religion. I really wish I did not even have to care about it. Now, Im not saying Im not doing the same thing as them...but if so, then im doing THE SAME THING AS THEM. Yet you arent yelling at them too now are you?

Oh sorry about them, I'll have a talk with their parents as soon as..oh that's right. You're not a Christian telling an atheist he can't believe what he wants, you're an atheist saying Christians can't believe what they want. Grow up and stop going "But she started it!", I'm not your parent. Yea, you are the bad guy here, you like your right to believe what you like? They like their rights too. Don't be a hypocrite and expect only your beliefs to be valid.

Im not an athiest. The FACT that people always call me an athiest in these arguments kinda makes those who call me it a hypocrite. I mean, only athiests can hate religion? Thats a narrow minded view. Shame.

I'm sorry, up to this point I thought we were debating, but I don't see any argument there so much as a distraction. No, it's a logical assumption that given the information you presented one would assume you are an atheist. It's an educated guess, they're not always right but they are definitely not unfounded. There is no hypocrisy there, I didn't go and say "only atheists are unable to determine the religion of someone based on a forum post", so try to argue something in your next post.

Well its a logical assumption that a group of people who restrict the rights of others are bigots. Im not the bad guy for wanting facts over beliefs, nor am I a bad guy for wanting to be treated like a human, which the lack of that by religious groups primarily is my main driving force in putting down religion.
People always say "They have the right to believe what they want" Fine. Sure. But What they believe has invaded our politics and negatively affected billions. But hey, if the good guy is an abusive father figure who torments people based on sexuality, race, gender, opposing beliefs, then Im proud to be the bad guy.

I dont believe in evolution. Cause that means its just something I think. I have eyes and reason though, so saying I "believe" in evolution is innacurate.

Even if you believe in God, you can know evolution. But most god fearers dont understand the middle ground.

Did you post so you could display your edgy use of semantics? If their faith requires them to believe something other than evolution, or believe their god had some hand in evolution then that is their prerogative. Sure, they CAN believe in evolution if they wanted to, but it'd nobodies business if they don't.

You seem to have some weird idea that religion is some quiet group who just sit in their corner minding themselves. Religion pushes their ways and beliefs and thinking on everyone. I choose to simply try pushing back. Maybe not the best method, but Ill be damned if Im learning creationism in my science class.

Oh, but you aren't, are you? No, YOUR RIGHT to believe what you like is defended. You're not some champion for the cause of evolution; rather than trying to infringe on the rights of people to believe what they like you should break the image of arrogant atheists and accept them for their beliefs, whether they accept you for yours.

Yeah yeah yeah. Same old song and dance. I decry religion for infringing on human rights and so forth, and that makes ME the bad guy. I dont like fighting religion. I really wish I did not even have to care about it. Now, Im not saying Im not doing the same thing as them...but if so, then im doing THE SAME THING AS THEM. Yet you arent yelling at them too now are you?

Oh sorry about them, I'll have a talk with their parents as soon as..oh that's right. You're not a Christian telling an atheist he can't believe what he wants, you're an atheist saying Christians can't believe what they want. Grow up and stop going "But she started it!", I'm not your parent. Yea, you are the bad guy here, you like your right to believe what you like? They like their rights too. Don't be a hypocrite and expect only your beliefs to be valid.

Im not an athiest. The FACT that people always call me an athiest in these arguments kinda makes those who call me it a hypocrite. I mean, only athiests can hate religion? Thats a narrow minded view. Shame.

I'm sorry, up to this point I thought we were debating, but I don't see any argument there so much as a distraction. No, it's a logical assumption that given the information you presented one would assume you are an atheist. It's an educated guess, they're not always right but they are definitely not unfounded. There is no hypocrisy there, I didn't go and say "only atheists are unable to determine the religion of someone based on a forum post", so try to argue something in your next post.

Well its a logical assumption that a group of people who restrict the rights of others are bigots. Im not the bad guy for wanting facts over beliefs, nor am I a bad guy for wanting to be treated like a human, which the lack of that by religious groups primarily is my main driving force in putting down religion.
People always say "They have the right to believe what they want" Fine. Sure. But What they believe has invaded our politics and negatively affected billions. But hey, if the good guy is an abusive father figure who torments people based on sexuality, race, gender, opposing beliefs, then Im proud to be the bad guy.

I'm sure you know that you're just indulging your own side of the story at this point and have no actual founded way of supporting the infringement of the beliefs of others. If you do believe what you're saying then give it a couple of years until you've allowed your mind to open up a little. For some reason you keep on gearing the conversation in a way that claims that Christians are not at fault for anything. Argue something I actually said, if that's the case. Stop acting so suffered, you're being treated fine, from a government standpoint, you're as protected as can be. You're not in jail for believing what you want, right? Whatever qualms you have with your local community being bigots towards you is another issue. And abuse is not mutually inclusive to religion, that depends on the individual. My parents both believe in god but I'm not abused, they are fine with my sexuality, and respect my lack of beliefs.

have you ever had your rights restricted from you? Maybe you are the one who needs an eye opener. Its never people who have been persecuted that argue your points against me. It would make a huge difference if a gay person defended christianity like you. So tell me, have you had your rights truly taken/kept from you? And how so?

So I'm not allowed to argue the merits of artwork because I've never painted? The quality of a game because I've never created one? The severity of a war crime because I've never experienced it? I think not. If you are being oppressed by religion it is not being condoned by the government, that is a problem that you deal with yourself, phasing out religion isn't helping anyone. The second you deny a person the right to believe what they like is the second that they become violent in their fervor to defend it. If you've had your rights truly taken away from you then you can sympathize with the displeasure at having them taken away. You can't only defend YOUR right to believe.

No one is taking away their right believe, simply stated Creationism has no place in a public school classroom. Why? Because it is a belief based in religion, and not a scientific theory based in fact. Its not that schools are enforcing evolution, they are simply teaching what we humans have learned through the scientific method, in science class.

As to the line "If you are being oppressed by religion it is not being condoned by the government" is sadly no longer true, we must obey religion's idea of marriage in many state governments. We have to teach creationism, and learn it, and think critically about it (Because we are taught it in school), when it is a religious belief, and not scientific theory. We are being oppressed, not only in our societal rights, but in our intellectual liberty and freedoms. School isn't meant to present things that may or may not be true and need to be believed in, it is meant to present and teach things known throughout the common knowledge of humanity as proven scientific theory and fact. Or the religious beliefs of sex, preventing well known, life (In the physical and overreaching lifestyle sense) saving measures from being taught (like condoms), because religion dictates that they are related to bad behaviors, and are therefore, bad, some even go as far as preventing access through the government.

Religions ARE oppressive in parts of the United States.

Oh, I see. I didn't understand it as simply fighting religious tyranny on more local/state levels. I wouldn't say it's condoned but I guess they turn a blind eye. Shame :\

 

[Abengoshis]

I put yes because I think you mean fact as in "it is what is true". It is both a fact and a theory, in that it is an observed occurance AND a model to explain how organisms change.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Yeah, it certainly makes more sense than some mystical being pulling us all out of his divine ass.

*intentionally trying NOT to single out anyone's beliefs.

 

[crudus]

I'm a christian
i also believe that evolution is a real thing
i don't believe that we evolved from apes
i believe that we began to evolve from the moment god created us
think about it

While I don't agree with you I just thought I would take the time to say thanks for saying "apes" instead of "monkeys". I can't tell you how many times I have heard "Humans didn't/couldn't evolve from monkeys!" from a creationist. I usually follow that statement with a short chuckle and say "I agree with you 100 percent". Although my personal favorite was "evolution says we evolved from rocks. That can't be true!". It's funny since that is almost verbatim what the Bible says happened (it says Adam was created from dust of the Earth, in some versions it says sand).

Damn, blue is a snazzy color...

From what I understand it all prevents suicides.

Belief and evolution go hand in hand

the only way to know something as fact is to be in all places at all times.

example

Watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the skin(rind) prove I'm wrong.

If you really want to go that way then I believe the burden of proof is on you. There is nothing to suggest that watermelons would change their color once being opened. Then again discussions involving epistemology get messy extremely quickly.

 

[Sarry1433]

Belief and evolution should not be in the same sentence.

It makes me so sad to see the U.S. have the same evolution acceptation as Turkey.

Can you explain that sentence?

 

[Trivea]

Evolution means 'change'. Clearly, everything evolves. To say that evolution doesn't exist at all is ignorant. Do I believe that evolution explains how everything came into being? No, because you can't shape something out of nothing. Do I know for certain where it came from? No.

And since this has gone on for four pages, I'm sure it's already been pointed out, but I just have to say... it's "yea or nay". No one can spell "yea" anymore.

 

[AlexNora]

yeah yeah i know i'm just making a silly point very little can be proven as fact its just the way things are.

as for evidence id look at all of it really closely because most of it is highly exaggerated if not blatant lies.

to evolutionist there are no absolutes anyway so they can never even be sure there sure.

ill leave you with a quote

"Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight"

 

[Kolby Jack]

Yeah, it certainly makes more sense than some mystical being pulling us all out of his divine ass.

*intentionally trying NOT to single out anyone's beliefs.

Trying to act like you are tolerant of people's beliefs by bashing all of them at once? The perfect plan! /sarcasm

Is it so hard for people to respect other people's beliefs? I've yet to meet a creationist who 's belief made them less than worthwhile. An asshole will be an asshole regardless of whether or not he believes the earth was made by God 6000 years ago or coalesced from space rocks 4.5 billion years ago. A person's actions determine his worth, not his beliefs.

 

[Sight Unseen]

as for evidence id look at all of it really closely because most of it is highly exaggerated if not blatant lies.

yeah.... no.

You may occasionally get a scientist with some kind of agenda trying to push things a certain way, but scientific publications are all peer-reviewed and would be thrown out if there was any clear bias in it. also any scientist can feel free to repeat any experiment performed if they are skeptical about it and they can call bullshit on it if necessary.

Is it so hard for people to respect other people's beliefs? I've yet to meet a creationist who 's belief made them less than worthwhile. An asshole will be an asshole regardless of whether or not he believes the earth was made by God 6000 years ago or coalesced from space rocks 4.5 billion years ago. A person's actions determine his worth, not his beliefs.

I don't have a problem with people believing what they want to believe, but I hate when people are willfully ignorant about things. If you do your homework piece together the facts and come to the conclusion that evolution guided by a creator, then that's fine all the power to you, but if you want other people to believe you you'd better be ready to support your opinion with facts.

It's people who consistently ignore the facts, or worse, keep using the same arguments that have been refuted hundreds of times that piss me off. Espescially if they have the audacity to say that I'm a bad person for being an atheist because I lack morality or some crap like that. but that's for another topic.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Macro evolution is a theory, which means nothing can conclusively prove it. ("a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. ")

Dead wrong. That's the definition of theory in common parlance, not in the context of science. Words have different meanings in different contexts.

Theory: A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

An example of another 'theory' within science is atomic theory, the theory that matter is composed of atoms. Another is cell theory, the theory that biological life forms are comprised of cells.

So far, all of the missing links and early humans, like Lucy, have been fake. (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html)

That's simply bullshit. Sorry mate, no nicer way to say it.

Carbon dating showing ages is unreliable.(http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radiocarbondating.html

Says one dubious source without providing any actual support for the claim.

The embryos shown in every textbook have been proven to be inaccurate and misleading

Most modern textbooks just use actual photographs. Unless you're accusing the scientists who write the textbooks of doctoring the images?