Do you accept the theory of evolution?

Do you accept the theory of evolution?

  • Yes (Post your reasons below)

  • No (Post your reasons below)

  • Not sure

  • Yes (Post your reasons below)

  • No (Post your reasons below)

  • Not sure


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe in evolution. It's the only theory on our beginnings that actually has evidence.

Creationism isn't a theory, it's a belief based on a book. There is no facts or evidence. Just ones blind faith in something that cannot be proven.
 
I believe in evolution. It's the only theory on our beginnings that actually has evidence.

Creationism isn't a theory, it's a belief based on a book. There is no facts or evidence. Just ones blind faith in something that cannot be proven.

The Bible proves God's existence just in the same way a Spider-man comic proves Spider-man exists.
 
Exactly. It's a work of fiction as far as i'm concerned. And there is no way to prove otherwise.
 
I believe in god, that being said, I think that the theory of evolution is a valid one. But since it and all of science is written, understood, and explained by man, problems can and do occur that turn into "evidence" in favor of disproving evolution by those who disagree with it (converesly, people who are extreme evolutionists would deny, ignore or gloss over this mistakes). Look at dinosaurs for example. For the past two hundred years, scientists thought there were two different species of triceratops. Only in the past two years have they realized that they are the same species (young and adult). How many species in the fossil record will be shown to fall under the same category, instead of being evolutionary relatives?

Also, to the poster saying we've witnessed evolution, there is a huge difference between documenting an organism adapting to its environment, and a species evolving into another.
 
I believe in a combination of evolution and creationism. The Biblical creation story cannot be literal because it makes no sense genetically. The only reason evolution remains a theory and not a fact is because it's impossible to prove in a lab; due to it's sloooooow pace. But who's to say that God wasn't the reason behind the Big Bang? That's how I think those atoms came to smash into each other, not "coincidence".
 
I believe in god, that being said, I think that the theory of evolution is a valid one. But since it and all of science is written, understood, and explained by man, problems can and do occur that turn into "evidence" in favor of disproving evolution by those who disagree with it (converesly, people who are extreme evolutionists would deny, ignore or gloss over this mistakes). Look at dinosaurs for example. For the past two hundred years, scientists thought there were two different species of triceratops. Only in the past two years have they realized that they are the same species (young and adult). How many species in the fossil record will be shown to fall under the same category, instead of being evolutionary relatives?

Also, to the poster saying we've witnessed evolution, there is a huge difference between documenting an organism adapting to its environment, and a species evolving into another.

...and so through the power of peer review and the scientific process we have a better understanding.

I'd like to see peer review among the Creationists. But of course that won't happen.


:cap: :cap: :cap:
 
I stand for evolution. My opinion is that 'believing' and 'having faith' is something your mind creates. Evolution has been proven over and over again. There being a superiour entity that controls and makes a selection of i.e. who lives and dies, who's rich and poor makes no sense to me whatsoever. I'm of opinion you create your own life, it's not a god's will.

Having said that, I respect the people who do believe in a god and would never deem to say they are wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion/belief/faith/religion/etc. It's their own prerogative.
 
Also, to the poster saying we've witnessed evolution, there is a huge difference between documenting an organism adapting to its environment, and a species evolving into another.

Yes. That’s the difference between “evolution” - an activity that’s constantly present - and “speciation” which is a process that’s only classified as such retrospectively. There was never an animal born that was of a different species than its parents. But over very long stretches of time, an animal can belong to a different species than its great-great-great-etc. grandparents.
 
Exactly. It's a work of fiction as far as i'm concerned. And there is no way to prove otherwise.

The Bible proves God's existence just in the same way a Spider-man comic proves Spider-man exists.

No offense, but it's comments like these that make me glad I've actually taken the time to read the book and study it and other texts. These comments are the atheists' version of "Evolution? Even though I really no nothing about it, I'm going to say it's all fake!"

There's actually a lot of archeological evidence pointing to the Bible's accuracy in a historical sense (from small details to larger events). You can disbelieve the theological stuff all you want (I'm not trying to say your beliefs are wrong, anymore than I'd want you to say the same about mine), but don't let your personal beliefs fool you into believing the entire book is "fiction". I'm the type of person who thinks everyone should read the bible at least once, if not for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that it has some amazing stories in it - regardless of your personal beliefs - and the archeological record points to the truth of those stories quite often.
 
Evolution is not something you choose to accept. It just is. Scientific theory is different to hypothesis. Hypothesis is an idea that is then tested and must have evidence to corroborate it. It is a group of well established ideas that are held to be truth through method, observation and experimentation.

Gravity is called "theory" but you don't see people saying they don't believe in that.
 
...and so through the power of peer review and the scientific process we have a better understanding.

I'd like to see peer review among the Creationists. But of course that won't happen.


:cap: :cap: :cap:
Heh, even Creationists don't agree. I think they've put waaay to much thought into the story of Genesis. The point of the book isn't to show HOW God created everything, but to show that he did. It's poetic symbolism (to me), but an instance where people focus on the trivial details at the expense of the bigger picture.
 
No offense, but it's comments like these that make me glad I've actually taken the time to read the book and study it and other texts. These comments are the atheists' version of "Evolution? Even though I really no nothing about it, I'm going to say it's all fake!"

There's actually a lot of archeological evidence pointing to the Bible's accuracy in a historical sense (from small details to larger events). You can disbelieve the theological stuff all you want (I'm not trying to say your beliefs are wrong, anymore than I'd want you to say the same about mine), but don't let your personal beliefs fool you into believing the entire book is "fiction". I'm the type of person who thinks everyone should read the bible at least once, if not for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that it has some amazing stories in it - regardless of your personal beliefs - and the archeological record points to the truth of those stories quite often.

Well, I mean, I think the Spider-Man analogy is still apt. In 2,000 years time, there will probably be plenty of archeological evidence that proves New York was a real city and many of the celebrities who had cameos in Spider-Man comics over the years actually existed. But Spider-Man comics still don't prove Spider-Man existed.

I'm not even an atheist, I'm just supporting sound reasoning.

In any event, to prevent this thread from getting merged with the religion one:

I support the theory of evolution. Like, it shouldn't be a matter of debate at this point. Some fine details, like what evolved into what, may be changed with new data over time, but evolution itself has been as proven as barometric pressure.
 
Heh, even Creationists don't agree. I think they've put waaay to much thought into the story of Genesis. The point of the book isn't to show HOW God created everything, but to show that he did. It's poetic symbolism (to me), but an instance where people focus on the trivial details at the expense of the bigger picture.

When Creationist incorporate Evolution into their poem, it usually makes more sense. But of course some Christians like to cherry pick the parts that are literal and the parts that are allegorical.

Can be frustrating. It's like playing chess with a pigeon. I can use the best strategy and approach the argument very logically but the fact of the matter is that their going to knock over the pieces and **** on the board no matter what I say.


:cap: :cap: :cap:
 
Also, to the poster saying we've witnessed evolution, there is a huge difference between documenting an organism adapting to its environment, and a species evolving into another.

Scientists have witnessed speciation in our lifetime. Some examples:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)



Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.


Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)



Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719



Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.



(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)



Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41



"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."​
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both.


There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.


From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
 
I vote No because I believe in Biblical Creation and I believe there is evidence supporting that.
Even in the theory of evolution.
What is this evidence? Did this evidence lead you to believe Biblical creation was true, or did you already believe it was true before you started looking for evidence?
One must ask if there is such a thing as natural selection
then who is making the selection.
That's circular reasoning. You're assuming there must be a "who" responsible before you even set out to find your answer. Of course you will only arrive at conclusions that line up with your a priori assumptions if you approach the question that way.

You should read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, or you can watch the video documentary here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG-7SDb_8Wo&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL979AC3DF972347C4
I am not against science because I don't believe science disproves God just the method in which he does things.
However I don't want to make this into a big heated debate involving personal beliefs.
You can have your own beliefs, but you can't have your own facts. The theory of evolution is a fact. It's as much a fact as the theory of gravity. There are mountains of evidence to support it (briefly summarized here). God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, either. Many religious people believe evolution occurred, although they often try to shoe-horn in God as a sort of macro-manager of evolution to ease their cognitive dissidence.
However there is interesting movie called:Expelled with Ben Stein
http://creation.com/expelled-new-movie-exposes-persecution-of-anti-darwinists
Expelled is dishonest rubbish.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Science is coming to terms that there is a higher form of intellegence:
Quantum physics measurement problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Entanglement theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lOWZ0Wv218&feature=related
Neither of those videos have anything to do with a higher intelligence. If you assume that whatever is unexplained must be the work of God, you are setting up a God of the gaps who is bound to be continually marginalized. I don't believe in a God but if I did I would give it more credit than that.

I voted yes, by the way.
 
my point of the video is to say that there are some things that have Scientist stumped and they are now coming to terms that is some intelligence behind everything.Well have at it as you will.I knew the minute I typed.I would get hit from all all angles I just asked for people to be open minded.
It amazes me how people take things at face value by scientist who constantly
have to correct themselves on different theroies over and over again over the years.
I guess the world is still flat and the planets still rotate around us and the Dinosaurs are Lizards no wait Birds not wait....So then that means we come from Fish no wait Monkeys no wait....Sombody better tel the Chimps to hurry up and get with the program.
I'm not asking anyone to belive as I Do.I just ask that you try to be open minded.
Scientists even among Evolutionist can't agree because the have different theories of evolution so who's right?If even they can't agree.Science is always reinventing itself.
Like someone said earlier.
Remember It's called the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION"no matter how many times you say it's a fact it's still just a theory.
Why do they use the word Theory?
It's because there is not sufficent evidence to deem it as a fact.
Theory of evolution not the Fact of evolution.
It amazing me how people who don't believe in God can actually be the most Religiously minded people I have ever spoken too.
Their views are so dogmatic and they become so close minded to another's way of thinking or anothers views.The same thing they have accused Christians for doing for so many years.If some of you not all really believe in Evolution then what's taking some of you so long to evolve to the likes of Human Being and have an adult conversation and be open minded.It really is like having a conversation with a bunch of monkies who "Say this is what it is and that's that!"Maybe that's your whole argument to prove it's real.I know it's not everyone and I apologize to those who are open minded you will know who I'm speaking about when they attack me after this.Anyway even among Christians there are opposing views however this only comes about by people who refuse to listen or be open minded about another's views.
The Theory of evolution is not perfect there are alot of holes in it.
That's why I say one must ask why as a human being you owe it to yourself to take nothing at face value.These are men and man are falliable as is Science.
I would never tell anyone to believe in God because I do.Even if I can see the facts all around me.One can claim there are no facts to support it and that's fine however I can say the same about Evolution it's a theory not a fact.
As far as giving God credit in the Gaps I give him credit in the Gaps and everything else that is explained and unexplained.
Don't even bother attacking me I won't be back.
I ask no one get offended that was not my pupose.
If so I apologize.
 
Last edited:
No offense, but it's comments like these that make me glad I've actually taken the time to read the book and study it and other texts. These comments are the atheists' version of "Evolution? Even though I really no nothing about it, I'm going to say it's all fake!"
So you smugly assume that if someone doesn't believe in/dislikes the Bible, that they haven't read it? Reading the Bible in its entirety is one of the major things that turned me away from Christianity in the first place.
There's actually a lot of archeological evidence pointing to the Bible's accuracy in a historical sense (from small details to larger events). You can disbelieve the theological stuff all you want (I'm not trying to say your beliefs are wrong, anymore than I'd want you to say the same about mine), but don't let your personal beliefs fool you into believing the entire book is "fiction". I'm the type of person who thinks everyone should read the bible at least once, if not for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that it has some amazing stories in it - regardless of your personal beliefs - and the archeological record points to the truth of those stories quite often.
There is also archaeological evidence that the ancient city of Troy existed, but we don't hear people using that as evidence of the existence of cyclopes, of witches that turn men into pigs, of sirens, etc. There's also no shortage of falsehoods in the Bible... for example, the historical contradictions surrounding the birth of Jesus: was he born during the reign of Herod or during the census? Then there's the prophecy that the Nile river would dry up (Isaiah 19:3-8), which has never happened, and so forth. If you want to heap praise on the times that it's right, you also, for the sake of fairness, have to be willing to accept the times that it's wrong.
 
Last edited:
You do know that words can have more than one meaning, right? I don't want to embarrass you or make you think that I'm picking on you, but you really need to look up the term scientific theory.


:cap: :cap: :cap:
 
No one who ever met Jesus, wrote about him.

Ignoring the fact that this is wrong, what does that prove if it were true? Considering the vast majority of people back then couldn't write, and the disciples spent the rest of their lives either traveling and preaching/or imprisoned and tortured, instead of being hunkered down learning to write...That being said:

Matthew - written by Matthew, a disciple
Mark - written by Mark, based on the testimony and at the request of the disciple Peter
Luke - based on testimonies of the disciples, as recited by Paul
John - this one is generally contested, but most attribute it to the disciple John

So that's one, maybe two that were written by the disciples directly. Another that was written by a disciple's assistant because he couldn't write, and another written based on several disciples testimony.
 
No one who ever met Jesus, wrote about him.


:cap: :cap: :cap:

Jesus had them all sign non-disclosure contracts, which was just as well, because Pete had an autobiography all set to be published where he was the center of the story and Jesus was just a low cog in the machinery.


:sym: :sym: :sym:
 
Well have at it as you will.I knew the minute I typed.I would get hit from all all angles I just asked for people to be open minded.
It amazes me how people take things at face value by sceintist who constantly
have to correct themselves on different theroies over and over again over the years.
I guess the world is still flat and the planets still rotate around us and the Dinosaurs are Lizards no wait Birds not wait....So then that means we come from Fish no wait Monkeys no wait....Sombody better tel the Chimps to hurry up and get with the program.
I'm not asking anyone to belive as I Do.I just ask that you try to be open minded.
Scientists even among Evolutionist can't agree because the have different theories of evolution so who's right?If even they can't agree.Science is always reinventing itself.
Like someone said earlier.
Remember It's called the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION"no matter how many times you say it's a fact it's still just a theory.
Why do they use the word Theory?
It's because there is not sufficent evidence to deem it as a fact.
Theory of evolution not the Fact of evolution.
It amazing me how people who don't believe in God can actually be the most Religiously minded people I have ever spoken too.
Their views are so dogmatic and they become so close minded to another's way of thinking or anothers views.The same thing they have accused Christians for doing for so many years.
I know it's not everyone and even among Christians there are opposing views however this only comes about by people who refuse to listen or be open minded about anothers views.
The Theory of evolution is not perfect there are alot of holes in it.
That's why I say one must ask why as a human being you owe it to yourself to take nothing at face value.These are men and man are falliable as is Science.
I would never tell anyone to believe in God because I do.Even if I can see the facts all around me.One can claim there are no facts to support it and that's fine however I can say the same about Evolution it's a theory not a fact.
I ask no one get offended that was not my pupose.
If so I apologize.

images


Everything you just said is based on a fallacy. You have misunderstood the word "theory".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"