A big problem for Evolution?

[Turboyoshi]

Originally Posted by brothaice

Hmm...Evolution....Well, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes? With everything else that has "evolved," the weaker counterpart has died off. Hmm...

Yep, that pretty much explains a few things. The accuracy of the image is unknown, but still.

Now someone is going to say, "How do you know that those fossils are real?"
Well, for 1, if someone did forge the fossils, it would be found out. After the incident in the 1920s, where the skeleton of an early humanoid was faked, i would think that the scientists would test the fossils before verifying whether they are true or not. And 2, the fossils definitely give more basis than a book that i'm not even sure is true.

The thing with Natural Selection and Darwins theory of evolution, is that people don't just spontaneously aquire a new trait, (Except in the case of mutation during Meiosis at the embryonic stage). The point is that it is supposed to take a long time. Take for example, the marine iguana on the Galapagos islands. The land is inhospitable, but the sea is rich and plenty, so the Iguanas that were best suited to swim survived, and they passed that down onto their offspring, and so on for thousands and millions of years. In the case of whales, they share common ancestors with land dwelling Tetrapods.

Again, the accuracy of the image is unknown.

Probably it started out with a Tetropod that was forced into the water, and as time went by, the legs receded into almost nothingness, and arms became fins, and tails became the flippers.

The Hardy-Weinberg Genetic Equilibrium theory states that Allele frequencies in a population tend to remain the same from generation to generation unless acted on by outside influences. This is where Adaptation fits in. Organisms only Adapt if prompted to do so because of changing conditions. For example, a flock of birds gets blown off course and lands on an island where there are small flowers instead of bigger flowers like the birds were used to. So the birds with smaller beaks were the ones that would survive and pass it on to the next generation. Someone is probably going to ask, or already has, "Why haven't humans evolved if all these creatures have?"

Well, because for 1, we are one of the only species, or the only species that has the ability to manipulate our environment incredibly well. Because of advances in technology and basic knowledge, we have pretty much gained the ability to mold our environment to our will. 2nd, we could be evolving as we speak, we just wouldn't know it, because it is something that takes place over millions of years.

I'm sorry, i've been learning about Evolution and darwinism in Biology, and i had to get that out :P

[Chocaholic]

HEY!! DONT MAKE FUN OF THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! even though the Bible was writen along time ago doesnt mean that its still not true, most of those quotes were writen in the old testimont which in the new testimont were changed. if your gonna make fun of the Bible...... READ ALL OF IT!
I just cant see how evilution is true.......... its dumb how people are telling God what He did instead of Him telling them what He did. please if you have questions about this topic read Genises

[RandomPscho]

I just cant see how evilution is true.......... its dumb how people are telling God what He did instead of Him telling them what He did.

So, you will believe something with absolutely no evidence over something that actually has evidence?

[Chocaholic]

there is alot of evidents! every where!

[GuidoHunter]

Prove it. Post the evidence.

Also, you REALLY need to start using some grammar in here.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

there is alot of evidents! every where!

Your opinion means bunk. Sorry.

[butterflydude]

u people are wack evolution is not true ok tell me what u think sounds more logical 10 to the 42 billionth power of evolution actually happening or God creating the earth in 6 days I dont know hhmmmm the 2nd one DUH

[sherbtail]

Ok and what are the odds of God creating the Earth....?

Instead of just calling people stupid for not believe the same thing as you, why don't you post real evidence for your case. Oh and quoting the bible does not count for real evidence, you cant prove the bible with the bible.

However for all you mega-evolutionists

by RandomPscho
"So, you will believe something with absolutely no evidence over something that actually has evidence?"

There is actually evidence for creation, or rather evidence that descriptions of events in Genesis are true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Its quite interesting reading, and obviously it's amazingly biased, however only as biased as many websites arguing for evolution. It's so hard to find unbiased, thought out information that argues for and against evolution. If someone has a website, "giz it 'ere!" please.

For the record, I believe in God inspired evolution for the moment at least, but I could quite easily swing anywhere in my opinion

[dawgbarf]

I just had a genetics lab today, we took E.coli and exposed it to a mutagen, then we plated the same E.coli on a plate containing streptomycin (we started with a strain that was str sensitive) and some colonies survived. This is evolution as a result of random mutations (the mutagen just increases the number of mutations) and natural selection (streptomycin on the plates killed bacteria that were not streptomycin resistant--->killed non mutants).

[Reach]

Rofl...you did not just post answers in Genesis. Ken Ham is a retarded fundementalist that goes around teaching kids that evolution is false and that genesis is truth. That website is like a disease.


I think some of you seriously need to read some Richard Dawkins. Not only is he an amazing evolutionary biologist, he is a very intelligent atheist and is right in so many ways.


And the bible is a bloody story written by men. Stop treating it like it is to be taken seriously, as it is factually a mess, morally a disaster and God is just a downright bastard. The bible is not a book of facts that you can just break out in your argument to try to make a point.

This is an age of reason, yet we still have people that refuse to examine evidence and fall back to their scribbles as a defense.


There's nothing wrong with religion or spirituality, but when you let it corrupt your sense of reason then it becomes a problem.

[sherbtail]

Reach, I agree with you in everything
Sorry I haven't trawled through everything on that site because I don't personally like it either, I just posted it as an example of a counterargument, I'm sure better ones exist somewhere...

I've read some Richard Dawkins, namely, 'The Selfish Gene', and also read quite a bit about 'The God Delusion' and while he is clever, he also seems slightly up his own bottom, he refuses to believe anything else as much as a fundamentalist Christian and has no problem attacking Christian beliefs as much as Christians attack evolutionary beliefs.

And I'm not really understanding your attack on the bible, as I said before, I disagree with quotes from it being used to prove itself, because that's stupid, but I don't see how it is 'morally a disaster' or 'factually a mess'.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by sherbtail

I've read some Richard Dawkins, namely, 'The Selfish Gene', and also read quite a bit about 'The God Delusion' and while he is clever, he also seems slightly up his own bottom, he refuses to believe anything else as much as a fundamentalist Christian and has no problem attacking Christian beliefs as much as Christians attack evolutionary beliefs.

And I'm not really understanding your attack on the bible, as I said before, I disagree with quotes from it being used to prove itself, because that's stupid, but I don't see how it is 'morally a disaster' or 'factually a mess'.

The problem with relating Dawkins to a fundementalist fails though, because Dawkins is a scientist. He is changing his thoughts on subjects constantly, based on evidence. Evidence being key here, as I have never seen a fundementalist change their ideology after seriously considering some evidence. If they did well then, they'd be atheists.

Also, Dawkins critiques are again, based on evidence, history, ect. Fundementalism is based on literal interpretation of something that isn't supposed to be read literally.


Also...as I've said before, you can't cherry pick the bible. You can't ignore contradictions, moral atrocities and complete udder fallacies and then the next minute say you're going to take the bible seriously. If you are unaware of some of these moral atrocities or fallacies, I suggest some research or googling. The whole thing must not be taken seriously...and in a sense it was never supposed to be. Its a set of stories with meaning behind them, and literal interpretation is a horrible misunderstanding of the bible.

[perkeyone]

i agree with reach

Originally Posted by Reach

The whole thing must not be taken seriously...and in a sense it was never supposed to be. Its a set of stories with meaning behind them, and literal interpretation is a horrible misunderstanding of the bible.

consider this...
i do not agree with the principal that if the chances of an even happening are extreamly small that it is imposible. the random possibility for life to begin spontainiously is extreamly small, however both space and time are infinite thus the possibility of life is actually more likely than not... this includes alien life. there is almost zero possibility that we are alone and there is almost definitely intelligent life some where out in an infinite expanse and there has been instances of intelligent life before our time. however i can not comprehend the possibility of a higher being... especialy one who apparently talks to himself... "let there be light"

[sherbtail]

Originally Posted by Reach

The problem with relating Dawkins to a fundementalist fails though, because Dawkins is a scientist. He is changing his thoughts on subjects constantly, based on evidence. Evidence being key here, as I have never seen a fundementalist change their ideology after seriously considering some evidence. If they did well then, they'd be atheists.

Also, Dawkins critiques are again, based on evidence, history, ect. Fundementalism is based on literal interpretation of something that isn't supposed to be read literally.


Also...as I've said before, you can't cherry pick the bible. You can't ignore contradictions, moral atrocities and complete udder fallacies and then the next minute say you're going to take the bible seriously. If you are unaware of some of these moral atrocities or fallacies, I suggest some research or googling. The whole thing must not be taken seriously...and in a sense it was never supposed to be. Its a set of stories with meaning behind them, and literal interpretation is a horrible misunderstanding of the bible.

Is Dawkin's changing his thoughts constantly? It appears to me that he actually just makes every new bit of information tie in with his view on evolution.

The bible, whatever you may think of it, does not have any contradictions. Moral atrocities? Perhaps, although morals are opinions, so your moral atrocities may be another man's moral victory. Fallacies, I personally do not take Genesis literally as it is based on poems which would frequently use metaphors and the like. Have you actually done much research on the bible, or have you just read what you want to hear?

[Reach]

Originally Posted by sherbtail

Is Dawkin's changing his thoughts constantly? It appears to me that he actually just makes every new bit of information tie in with his view on evolution.

The bible, whatever you may think of it, does not have any contradictions. Moral atrocities? Perhaps, although morals are opinions, so your moral atrocities may be another man's moral victory. Fallacies, I personally do not take Genesis literally as it is based on poems which would frequently use metaphors and the like. Have you actually done much research on the bible, or have you just read what you want to hear?

Dawkins ties the information into his view on evolution because all of the evidence is supporting it o_O and just because the fact of evolution remains constant does not mean we are not constantly adjusting the predictions and history inside the theory based on new evidence.

I don't see any fundies out there going 'oh well egyptian history totally debunks the story of Noah's Ark, we better stop teaching it'. However, what is being taught at the university level in evolution is constantly changing (even though the premise that things evolve remains constant). As such, Dawkin is nothing like a fundie and the grounds are nowhere near even.

Also...

The bible has many contradictions, read literally. Here are three contradictions (and if you, for some reason, don't think they're contradictions they are inconsistancies at the least).

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Let me ask you, are you not familiar with the stonings in the bible, the mistreatment of women, the rapes and other things that are condoned? If you would accept these, on any grounds, as a mans victory than you are barking mad. The bible was created with the ancient mentality of the time period, and as such is full of nonsense as we would see it today.

If you were to read the piece literally then you'd have to kill me because I'm an atheist. Hell, stone your child because it talked back to you or sell your daughter because you need money.


Anyway, all this talk of the bible has nothing to do with evolution. Think what you want to think, and know that I mean no disrespect to someone that is spiritual or religious. However, believing something for the sake of believing it is hollow and lackluster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HtY1chchM says most other things I believe.

[darkdragoness]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

HEY!! DONT MAKE FUN OF THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! even though the Bible was writen along time ago doesnt mean that its still not true, most of those quotes were writen in the old testimont which in the new testimont were changed. if your gonna make fun of the Bible...... READ ALL OF IT!
I just cant see how evilution is true.......... its dumb how people are telling God what He did instead of Him telling them what He did. please if you have questions about this topic read Genises

Okay... I've had this discussion on a website called dreamersonline plenty of times... When it says that God created the Universe in 7 days, it doesn't LITERALLY mean 7 EARTH DAYS. It refers to 7 different periods of time. If God lives in the Universe, doesn't he have to abide by its laws? (i.e., everytime someone sees God he's always bright and shining, and he never ages. Speed of light, anyone?) If someone says that humans evolved, why is that going against intelligent design? Why couldn't God have put things in motion to make sure humans WOULD evolve someday?

[perkeyone]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

HEY!! DONT MAKE FUN OF THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! even though the Bible was writen along time ago doesnt mean that its still not true, most of those quotes were writen in the old testimont which in the new testimont were changed. if your gonna make fun of the Bible...... READ ALL OF IT!
I just cant see how evilution is true.......... its dumb how people are telling God what He did instead of Him telling them what He did. please if you have questions about this topic read Genises

Originally Posted by sherbtail

Have you actually done much research on the bible, or have you just read what you want to hear?

I don’t like how people assume that anyone who does not agree with them simply has not read what they have read or has an undeveloped opinion of the matter. That is not the case. The main reason most believers of scientific explanations believe in scientific theory is because the logic and evidence that is used to support it. As far as I am aware the evidence supporting the bible is lacking and some of the evidence used before is/are actually a/ spurious attempt/s to salvage a belief based on the limited knowledge of the past. I disbelieve religious explanations because I use empirical knowledge; which is only believing in things that I have personally experienced. However my beliefs in the origin of our universe are not based on actually witnessing it being created, but rather on the evidence that supports it and leaves so few questions unaswered. I believe that religion was created, by humans, to do all of the following: create a meaning for human existence, soften the harsh reality of an inevitable death by promising an afterlife, motivate peaceful behavior towards other humans by rewarding good people with heven and punishing chaotic people with hell, and provide an explanation to unanswerable questions. I feel that fossil evidence of human evolution contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible and supports evolutionary theory. The main reasons religious beliefs are so strong are: people do not want to break from their traditions, religion give them hope, people are afraid of death, and people want to think that a part of them will exist forever. Most religious people wish not to be persecuted for their beliefs but do not realize that atheist/non-religious people are, in my experience very harshly persecuted.

On a side note, I am totally in love with Reach, talisman, and jewpin (and all those who think likewise) right now
"Don't stoop to the ignorance of the theologians."!!!!

[Chocaholic]

Originally Posted by darkdragoness

Okay... I've had this discussion on a website called dreamersonline plenty of times... When it says that God created the Universe in 7 days, it doesn't LITERALLY mean 7 EARTH DAYS. It refers to 7 different periods of time. If God lives in the Universe, doesn't he have to abide by its laws? (i.e., everytime someone sees God he's always bright and shining, and he never ages. Speed of light, anyone?) If someone says that humans evolved, why is that going against intelligent design? Why couldn't God have put things in motion to make sure humans WOULD evolve someday?

the days in the Bible are the same as ours; 24 hours to a day. God made the earth in 6 days( Sunday He rested)! the Bible doesnt say that God made it in years it said DAYS!

[the_unda_doggz]

It's absolutely idiotic how Christians defend their religion.
''How are you going you going to tell God what he did?''
''Just because the Bible's old doesn't mean it's not true! *boo hoo*''
''What makes more sense: Evolution which has actual scientific evidence or a book which sounds like a bunch of stories, magic tricks, and contradicting 'facts'?''

Evolution has been proven many times and Christianity sounds like something a crazy cult leader made up.

4thi3sts pwn o_O

[darkdragoness]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

the days in the Bible are the same as ours; 24 hours to a day. God made the earth in 6 days( Sunday He rested)! the Bible doesnt say that God made it in years it said DAYS!

You didn't understand what I said.

I said it's metaphorical - but, if you want to get real technical and don't mind using the Book of Mormon for reference:

Abraham 3:3 - "And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing [stars]: and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest."

In more modern terms, that means Kolob is the closest star to God. And guess what? One day on Kolob is equal to one thousand years here on earth. So, if we assume that this is right and that Kolob's days = Heaven's days, we can say that it took at least 7,000 years to create the universe (which is much more plausible).

And I'd like you to give me reference to where it says in Genesis that God created everything in seven specific "earth days."

Info on Kolob: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob