Evolution?

[SpiritWolf77]

Hey guys, I know I don't post on this forum much, and almost every time I do, it's to jump into some debate. I bet you guys all think I'm overly argumentative and I apologize for that. I swear I'm a nice amicable person most of the time, I just really enjoy debate. It's a hobby of mine. And here I go again with more debate topics. :uhno: But I was bored, what can I say?

Anyway, I'm curious about the opinions people here have on evolution? I personally see it as a well-established and well-supported scientific theory but I know many people still disagree. If you're up for it, I'd love a little banter about the subject. I like learning more about reasons why people don't agree with it and I really enjoy offering information about it to people who may not know as much about the subject, since evolutionary study and debate is sort of a side hobby of mine.

So, what are your views?

[SpiritWolf77]

Hmm, no one?

[Azerane]

I thought you brought up a good topic but I just personally couldn't think of anything remarkably in-depth to say :p

Though I will say now, that as a christian I'm often told that you shouldn't really believe in evolution... I think that silly, hehe. Ok, God created the earth in 6 days and all that and he created all the animals and stars and humans. Though it does not really specify how long this took and it could refer to evolution. I mean, I for one can't not believe that evolution occured, as you said, the scientific evidence really is there and as a biology and conservation student I do learn a bit about it in some of my classes. And I do find evolution quite fascinating along with the role of natural selection and all that.

So yes, evolution happened. :cheese:

[SpiritWolf77]

*nods* I agree. I am an atheist, but I feel if there was a God, he would have designed a system to make sure all of his creatures were able to progress and survive. I see evolution as that system. :)

[Azerane]

ahhh... *nods* I see. Another thing I think, if that everywhere you look, when you look at animals and things in nature, you notice that most animals have a specialistion for aquiring food or surviving in their habitat, that is also evolution and there's no ignoring that. If animals hadn't evolved in these ways then they would have died.

By the way, were you reffering to evolution of the human race, as I know that's generally the big issue, or just evolution in general?

[King Simba]

Originally posted by Azerane
Ok, God created the earth in 6 days and all that and he created all the animals and stars and humans. Though it does not really specify how long this took and it could refer to evolution.
Yeah, I got taught about that during Religious Education a few years ago. I did not really believe that fact to the full effect when I got taught it because I didn't see how all of that could've happened in just 6 days. I guess I found it to be kinda weird at the time and I found it hard to understand... I dunno.

I'm kind of half and half when it comes to these beliefs... there's a chance all of that could have happened though since there is obviously no logical fact that it didn't happen. Though I do think it does refer to the facts of evolution and how it happened, because it's specifying the growth of the world and how it all started. If this theory is true, it's pretty much telling us that evolution occured when the Earth was created, so I do think evolution happened to some extent. Come on... let's face it, if it didn't, why would we be here? :p

That's just my views on it anyway.


Originally posted by Azerane
ahhh... *nods* I see. Another thing I think, if that everywhere you look, when you look at animals and things in nature, you notice that most animals have a specialistion for aquiring food or surviving in their habitat, that is also evolution and there's no ignoring that. If animals hadn't evolved in these ways then they would have died.
Yeah, that is true. :)

[Azerane]

Originally posted by King Simba
Yeah, I got taught about that during Religious Education a few years ago. I did not really believe that fact to the full effect when I got taught it because I didn't see how all of that could've happened in just 6 days. I guess I found it to be kinda weird at the time and I found it hard to understand... I dunno.

See that's the thing with the Bible and christianity is that you're not supposed to take it literally or word for word (I don't mean to purposly start talking about all this when we're on about evolution but it kinda pops up). It's something that you have to interpret which is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, there's so many different 'types' of christians, like lutherans and catholics and anglicans and all that. I'm doubtful that evolution, as in creation would have happened in 6 'real' days, especially when you consider that fossil records of evolutions reach back hundreds of millions of years. It's just doesn't line up (I could get into another rant about how that doesn't really line up with christianity stuff but I won't :p)

But then of course, when you really do think back to the beggining of evolution, and I mean... WAY back.. technically everything evolved from almost one thing, or at least probably one type of thing, you know the whole slime crawling outta the sea type theory :p

[LunarCat]

I am a Christian, but I also believe in evolution. like Azzy, i don't really have an i depth conversation topic to go in to :p

[Darkslash]

On a small scale, evolution happens, and is in fact provable, but the grand theory of one common ancestor is far more difficult to prove, and IMO, did not happen.

[Only-now]

I used to believe fully in evolution..but after some talks with my father..I feel a bit differently. I am not Christian...and you must first realize that beleiving that evolution did not happen does not immediately mean you think a God created everything. It could be something that we have not discoved yet.

Although many sources would lead you to believe that they have much proof of evolution, the truth is that there really isn't much. There isn't enough to say it happened..and there are certain things against it. Many of the pictures and things learned in school were actually lies and falsifications. There have been many fossils that have been faked to look as if they were a missing link, and even in the scientific community...people are shunned and even have their careers ruined because they question evolution.

Everyone must also realize that evoltion and adaptation are two different things. Evolution refers to one species changing into a completely new one..NOT that animals adapt to their environments. That is just where it starts and is supposed to continue...but in fact animals will switch back and forth between desirable traits. If evolution did occur, you would expect to find many of the fossils of the species' that existed in between the first life and all the various ones we have today..yet that is NOT the case. There are hardly any, IF any that show this. Finally...geological records show that during the course of the Earth...we went from no life...to every species on earth at once..it wasn't gradual.

Now..as I said..I'm not Christian..and I am not stating this to say that God created everything. Disproving something doesn't automatically prove the other side. I tend to not know where to stand on this..as there is SOME evidence..and some logical-sense to evolution...yet there are also things that are lacking..and proof against it.

What I am saying is do not take evolution as a proven fact..or as one that is supported as well as people make it out to be. It is actually still very much a mystery of how we got here..and there is a possibily it could have been evolution, God, or something we haven't discovered yet.

~Kiva

[LunarCat]

^ i thought evolution was based on adaptation. the species' genes somehow, over a long period of time, changed their make-up to benefit their position in the world/habitat. Evolution doesn't happen with a single mutation and everything else follows suit.

[Darkslash]

Originally posted by Lunarcat
^ i thought evolution was based on adaptation. the species' genes somehow, over a long period of time, changed their make-up to benefit their position in the world/habitat. Evolution doesn't happen with a single mutation and everything else follows suit.
Adaptation is a provable fact, the "small-scale" evolution I mentioned above.

"Macro-Evolution," the wholescale transformation from one species to another, is another story.

[HasiraKali]

Oh goodness... I really shouldn't be in this topic. :lol: I believe in evolution. I get into arguements with people over it all the time, especially my dad. People are undereducated when it comes to evolution, so they tend to make assumptions about what it means. Adaptation can lead to evolution but it doesn't have to. There are fossils that show the gradual shift from one form to another, horses for example. There are also cetacean fossils that show this steady change. The reason that it appears that there was no life and then, boom, every species is because the first life forms were single celled and had a slimmer chance of becoming fossilized. Finally, the chance than an organism will die in a situation favourable to fossilization is unlikely. We're lucky we have the fossils that we do have.

Now, having said that, I will leave this thread before I get in trouble. :lol:

[Kapasa]

I used to be completly in agreement with evolution due to the overwhelming evidence for it. It made sense every living thing fits in perfectabely.

But then I relized a small fraction of the beauty of life and how complex it is. And I had a thought is it possible for this drangon fly's wing to be made by pure chance? Then I thought umm...well let me put it this way, I thought it cant be, its impossible. Then my fragile/ non- existent belief in a God suddenly changed. If this was made by chance, were the dimesions in this universe created buy chance to support life, the structure of an atom chance? There are so many things I could put here that dont add up for me at least, in a world without a God.

And steadidly I relized just how mind blowing this thought was. Hold on a sec. the universe created by chance, this dragon fly made by chance, myself existing chance?, the forces of gravity not too strong not too weak to support life.

I struggled to argue with the complexitity and beauty of a simple drangon fly to not be made by a God, let alone everything else that makes this universe so finely tuned to support life.

And so my belief in a God came about, with evolution the method he/she/it? used to create the dragon fly and all other life forms.

[Nephilim]

Do they teach evolution in America?

[Dyani]

My belief is that everyone is heading in the same direction, just from different angles and different types of walks. I'm not religious, just vaguely open-minded :p

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Do they teach evolution in America?

Yes they do, Usually in Science classes (Duh)

8th grade, or 7th grade Sciences, again in Biology, and once more in Earth Science (But not a lot of concepts)

I've nothing really else to say in this thread as I pretty much believe that we're here from the begining, Lets just move on and forget it XD (though its good to know where you come from, I fear that to much knowledge will be the end of mankind as we know it)

Kovu

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Yes they do, Usually in Science classes (Duh)

Interesting. I'd heard that they didn't in all schools.

[Melody of Scar]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Interesting. I'd heard that they didn't in all schools.

Some of the schools in the southern parts of the nation teach creationism, but a majority of the schools ( at least that I know of ) teach evolution.

Some teach both, somehow.

[Only-now]

I sort of believe both should be taught..as both can be looked at as theories and to a point...religions.

I am going to post a link to some scientific facts that go AGAINST what evolution believes. I am not posting this as proof...but simply as facts to support my claim that the Cambrain Explosion, lack of transitional fossils etc is actually a valid argument against evolution.

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

To give a breif summary for those who do not want to read it all:

Cambrian Explosion: This a period in Earth's history in which ALL of the 26 phyla we now have suddenly appeared at once. During the Precambrian period, there was only single-celled organisms, but when the Cambrian Explosion occuerd we had all the phyla appear simultaneously..and they haven't changed at all in comparison to today.

Fossil Record: The fossil record of many animals and plants shows that in the various layers of Earth's surface..the organisms HAVE NOT become more complex over time. Examples are listed in the linked site...but it states that if you take a fossil from (for a number) 10 million years ago..and compare it to a newer layer of 7 million years ago (of the same creature) you won't see a change in complexity with the newer fossil being more complex than the older one.

Transitional Fossils: Darwin himself said that this was the biggest argument against his theory..and to this day still is. There is a MAJOR lack of any fossils that show the change between not only human and whatever our previous form was...but also between other animals. It should also be noted that macro and micro evolution are NOT the same thing..and that small adaptations are not proof of evolution on a macro-scale. Here is a quote written by a paleontologist in a book supporting evolution. He wrote this in reply to a reader's comment on why he hadn't provided any transitional fossils: ?I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ?. I will lay it on the line ? there is not one fossil which one could make a watertight argument.?

The link also uses genetics, physics, and astronomy to shoe evidence that evolution is not as acceptable as it is made to seem.

That facts are this: Evolution and Creationism have not been proven or disproven. Evolution DOES NOT have ANY substantial proof behind it to make it anymore plausible than Creationism. This fact does not PROVE that God created anything, etc...it only shows that evolution should NOT be accepted as fact..nor should it be claimed to be so supported. Many lies and hoaxs have been used to support Evolution in the form of illustrations, fake fossils, and random wild assumptions. If you look at the facts, you will see that Evolution is JUST a theory..and has very little proof at all. In the end...this is all more complex than once thought. If you care to argue about this..than make sure you keep an open mind..and I hope I don't here any of the claims that anyone who disagrees with evolution doesn't understand science...or must be a fundamentalist religious person.

~Kiva

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Interesting. I'd heard that they didn't in all schools.

Many parents are trying to get it so that they don't teach it in some of the school's because America is based upon "religious" virtues as Christianity, and not evolution, so they don't like them filling there kids heads with 'lies' about Evolution

but that's all I know, Don't really want to put this in the debate but if ya wanna go ahead,
I'm just here answering questions that I know :p

Kovu

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Many parents are trying to get it so that they don't teach it in some of the school's because America is based upon "religious" virtues as Christianity, and not evolution, so they don't like them filling there kids heads with 'lies' about Evolution

Hahaha, oh wow.

That's one of the best things I've heard all day. =]

Thanks MoS, that's what I was thinking of.

[Dare]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Interesting. I'd heard that they didn't in all schools.

Lucky me, I got to go to both private and public schools.
In the public school, I was taught the theory of evolution - note how I said "theory", because that's how it was taught to us. It wasn't taught to me with a "this is how things happened and anyone who doesn't believe it is wrong" attitude.

It was a different story when I went to one private school. There, they only taught me the Christian Creationism myth/story/whatever and their entire spiel was that the Book of Genesis was law. LAW I SAY! The entire concept of evolution is a lie, the Christian story is the only correct one, blah blah blah.
*dons a nun's habit and brandishes a ruler*

I didn't stay in that school long.
:evilgrin:

In yet another private school, I was taught both, once again in a "this is what some people believe - you're free to make up your own mind" attitude.

So I suppose it varies from school to school. Personally, for various reasons, I'd rather Creationism stay out of public schools, that is if it's just going to focus on the traditional Christian idea of Creationism.
Most of the time, when people speak of Creationism, it seems they're only referring to the entire Genesis belief/myth/whatever, when there are actually many different kinds. I imagine it could take a while to go through all of them -
If public schools are going to teach that kind of thing, they'd probably be better off offering an optional elective philosophy/theology class as opposed to attempting to teach it in a science class...
:hmm:

[Melody of Scar]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Hahaha, oh wow.

That's one of the best things I've heard all day. =]

Thanks MoS, that's what I was thinking of.

*dips a bow* Anytime. 'Tis why I'm here.

My ex-girlfriend is taught evolution in her private school. :confused: I guess Wicked is right in saying it varies - even my sister's old private school taught evolution.

Maybe it's more of a religious-based vs. non religious-based sort of thing? That's a huge generalization, I s'pose, but it may be the underlying difference between evolution and creationism.

I personally lean towards evolution - the study of ancient beasties and how they became what they are today/failed to adapt and died out interests me. I just don't think things appeared out of thin air... Something happened.

[Only-now]

Well..then you don't believe in evolution. I don't think that many people even looked at the link I left...but that is because everyone still feels comfortable that evolution is correct..when they don't even understand how many flaws are in the idea of it.

~Kiva

[Azerane]

In my school, which was a private school, we had Christian Living/Religion classes, though we weren't really taught what to accept, we just taught things and if we wanted to accept them then I guess we could. And then, in Biology, my teacher put it well. She said that you may have christian(or other) beliefs about the creation or evolution of life, but in biology, if you write about those, it's incorrect. You have to believe or at least accept evolution as a theory in biology class. ...soemthing like that anyway :p

And I believe Hasira made a good point on the last page... where was it...?..

There are fossils that show the gradual shift from one form to another, horses for example. There are also cetacean fossils that show this steady change. The reason that it appears that there was no life and then, boom, every species is because the first life forms were single celled and had a slimmer chance of becoming fossilized. Finally, the chance than an organism will die in a situation favourable to fossilization is unlikely. We're lucky we have the fossils that we do have.
We were learning about that the other week in class, our lecturer said that the reason it seems like life just suddenly appears is because before then, the forms of life that were there were not easily fossilised. He used the example that before there were forms of life with shells and things, like they were just soft matter... if that makes sense. It's the bones and shells and things that leave an imprint and are left fossilsed. Other things are not.

And Only_Now.. about what you were saying... you also made a good point how there are missing fossil links between evolution of species, which is right. So.. if that didn't occur and it wasn't creation... then do you have a theory for how species like modern humans and things came to be? i'm just interested to know another perspective.

[Only-now]

No..I can't say that I have a theory...that would take a lot of knowledge I don't have..and I don't really have any religious beliefs at the moment. My point here is to express that evolution is not that strongly supported as many think it is..and if anyone would look at the link..etc...you would see that I think.

That is my point though...the single celled organisms existed in the Precambrian age...but then suddenly..there was a burst or ALL the phyla we have at once..simultaneously. So how can evolution be supported by this when you have many different phyla appearing at exactly the same time..when evolution teaches (in the most common form) that everything came from a "soup" (the same common ancestor)? That should show that the organisms gradually changed into the various phyla over time and not all at once. So...we obviously have some evidence to support this claim. The Cambrian Explosion consisted of many multi-celled organisms and not single-celled. So the sudden explosion of multi-celled and all 26 phyla at the same time is some evidence against evoltution..or at least points out a flaw. Read the link and it can explain it better.

There aren't any fossils that show the transition between any one species to another etc.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
[B]Although many sources would lead you to believe that they have much proof of evolution, the truth is that there really isn't much. There isn't enough to say it happened..and there are certain things against it. Many of the pictures and things learned in school were actually lies and falsifications. There have been many fossils that have been faked to look as if they were a missing link,
Can you give specific examples? As far as I know, there are plenty of actual fossils out there that support the theory.


Everyone must also realize that evoltion and adaptation are two different things. Evolution refers to one species changing into a completely new one..NOT that animals adapt to their environments. That is just where it starts and is supposed to continue...but in fact animals will switch back and forth between desirable traits. If evolution did occur, you would expect to find many of the fossils of the species' that existed in between the first life and all the various ones we have today..yet that is NOT the case. There are hardly any, IF any that show this. Finally...geological records show that during the course of the Earth...we went from no life...to every species on earth at once..it wasn't gradual.
Evolution doesn't require a species to change into a new one, by definition. It just predicts that such a thing will happen occasionally.

And I was under the impression that despite the gaps, there are quite a few transitional fossils.

And...the geological record does show a rather gradual change, at least as gradual as is predicted by evolution.


I sort of believe both should be taught..as both can be looked at as theories and to a point...religions.
I'm fine with creationism being taught in a religion class, but not a science class, since it is not a science. Neither is intelligent design.


Cambrian Explosion: This a period in Earth's history in which ALL of the 26 phyla we now have suddenly appeared at once. During the Precambrian period, there was only single-celled organisms, but when the Cambrian Explosion occuerd we had all the phyla appear simultaneously..and they haven't changed at all in comparison to today.
Are you saying evolution just -stopped- after the Cambrian Explosion? Because that is entirely incorrect. The Cambrian Explosion is not evidence against evolution. The rapid evolution of a variety of organisms can be attributed to quite a number of things including climate change, increased atmospheric oxygen levels, genetic complexity having reached a level that allowed for more varied rapid change, etc.


Fossil Record: The fossil record of many animals and plants shows that in the various layers of Earth's surface..the organisms HAVE NOT become more complex over time. Examples are listed in the linked site...but it states that if you take a fossil from (for a number) 10 million years ago..and compare it to a newer layer of 7 million years ago (of the same creature) you won't see a change in complexity with the newer fossil being more complex than the older one.
Evolution does not mandate that organisms become more complex. This is a very common misconception and causes me to question this site's credibility if it is making that claim because it shows a lack of understanding of the subject. Evolution is not about creating "more advanced" lifeforms. All evolution states is that organisms which are well adapted to their environment will survive, while organisms that are not will die out which may result in changes (not necessarily "advancements" by our standards) over time.


Transitional Fossils: Darwin himself said that this was the biggest argument against his theory..and to this day still is. There is a MAJOR lack of any fossils that show the change between not only human and whatever our previous form was...but also between other animals. It should also be noted that macro and micro evolution are NOT the same thing..and that small adaptations are not proof of evolution on a macro-scale. Here is a quote written by a paleontologist in a book supporting evolution. He wrote this in reply to a reader's comment on why he hadn't provided any transitional fossils: ?I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ?. I will lay it on the line ? there is not one fossil which one could make a watertight argument.?
I believe someone else already commented on the very obvious reasons for lack of transitional fossils. Fossil preservation is not necessarily a common occurence. I mean, look at the art history record. Human art has been around relatively recently in thr grand timeline, yet many pieces are recovered damaged and many pieces written about are never recovered at all (such as most of the Etruscan temples, for example).

And if you're arguing here that "macroevolution" (i.e. speciation) has never occured, you're wrong. It has and it has been observed.

Evolution has quite a lot of substantial proof behind it. Most doubt about it results in reluctancy to accept scientific evidence as valid, or simple lack of information/misunderstandings, as this site seems to suffer from a great deal, considering they don't really seem to understand what evolution even is.


There aren't any fossils that show the transition between any one species to another etc.
I'm not even sure how you can make this claim because it is -entirely- false. There are quite a few. Here's a long list of some of them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[Only-now]

No..you are wrong on all those points actually. Have you looked at the site I listed at all yet?

1) I did give specific examples of certain lies and such that they had taught in textbookes. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, the ancient horse illustrations etc etc. In fact..most of what has been said as "fact" is not at all.

2) No...evolution DOES require a change. Stating that something like this will occur over time is exactly what I mean. Evolution is NOT adaptation, or organisms changing to fit their environment. The finches that Darwin observed grew longer beaks because it helped them with food consumption...but we have also figured out that as the seasons change there, the beaks will change back and forth from long to short (in terms of which birds survive and which die). Now..this is micro-evoltuion. Darwin would have theorized that those birds would change into a completely different species of birds and that the survival of the fittest was just a catalyst.

There are NO transitional bones. If you look it up, you will see so yourself. Not to mention I must point out the quote I listed in which a paleantologist who supported evolution stated that very thing.

The Cambrian explosion shows that 26 different phyla all appeared at the same time....with NO evolutionary ancestors. They also remained unchanged to this day. The other problem is that there are no new body plans in any layers of rock following the Cambrian. That means that there are no rapid changes that would have to occur in order for amoeba's to evolve into man. That IS what evolution teaches...everything came from the same "soup". So..the Cambrian explosion is evidence agianst evolution. How can only single-celled organisms simultaneously change into 26 DIFFERENT phyla..when evolution would have each one come from another? Also..I am saying that evolution must have stopped..because we haven't seen anything evolve in the whole time we have been studying this. It wouldn't be such an argument if this was an observable thing.


Evolution is NOT about adaptation. That is the most common misconception. adaptation is part of this theory..and no one even argues about that. It HAS been observed...we are arguing over macro evolution. Evolution DOES require that one creature change into a completely new one..not that it simply has small changes within its body structure that help it survive. Evolution does require that organisms become more complex by its very happening. Evolution would have us believe that a single cell was what created us all. Now...can you argue with me that humans are not the most complex creatures on Earth? Every change would show a change in body structure...and result in a new species that is more complex than the last one. That is how it is stated to have occured in evolution. I think many evolutionists would like to fall back on the whole "gradual small changes" but in fact..that is not what evolution is. They state this to be less radical and because then they can use other facts for proof of their theory. Evolution DOES require a change from one organism to another. Micro and macro are not the same things.

Why is it that every time one of these discussions comes up..and someone goes against evolution..the people supporting it always say "there must be a lack of understanding of evolution for you to make that claim" etc? No...maybe it is that there is a PROBLEM with the theory of evolution.

No..it isn't common...but one would think that if everything had evolved from one common ancestor..that there would be a much larger amount of bones and fossils than we currently have. Not to mention, did you also know that it is impossible to actually prove if one bone is related to another? You can make that assumption...but it isn't proven. What I mean is that I looked at parts of that list you have...and that is fine and dandy....but similarities in structure and small changes does not show evolution. I mean...that although there may be one fish fossil that looks one way..and then another fish fossil that has slightly different features..there is NO way to prove that the older one is related to the newer one. If you read the site that I posted...you might see what I mean. What the problems are with that type of assumption.

Macro evolution has NOT occured..otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing over this.

I really get tired of people saying that if one questions something such as evolution, they are just misinformed or stubborn. That is NOT the case whatsoever. It isn't about reluctancy to accept scientific fact..because it isn't a fact! It has so many holes and flaws in it. That site does not suffer from it at all..and I can bet you hadn't even read it when you said that. The more I discuss this, the more I see what my father was saying. If you try and argue with someone who believes in evolution...they will always say the same thing: "You must be a religious zealot who thinks the Earth is flat!". By that I mean, they will always criticize you as being too religious (although that hasn't happened because I stated I am not arguing for creationism) and they will say you are uniformed/don't understand/stubborn, etc etc.

Of course it is impossible to question a THEORY because you will always be ridiculed for it. Evolution is NOT a fact...and it does NOT have a lot of proof behind it. Now...notice how I even mentioned that it is not proven evolution is wrong...but that is not how the opponents view it. They believe they are RIGHT..COMPLETELY...that there is tons of evidence..and that there couldn't possibly be another way. Well..maybe if the world wasn't so saturated with the falsifications of evolution, and there were more well-informed people...we would have a chance...but instead we will continue to point out the flaws...and they will continue to hold it up as if it were true in the fullest.

~Kiva

[Ghamu]

So, Kiva, why did you link to a site that in the first ten lines of its introduction manages to confuse biology with astronomy and geology?

[Only-now]

Maybe you are confused. Why don't you read more than just the introduction? Not to mention, you mentioning that does not refute the facts whatsoever.

~Kiva

[Ghamu]

Not really confused, no. I'm pretty familiar with christian creationist lingo and how they like to invent terms that they pretend are scientific. But if you don't want to tell me why you didn't link to a site that keeps to the biology of it, I guess that's fine. *shrug*

[Only-now]

*sighs* See...the point here is you aren't refuting ANY of the scientific things listed. Not to mention, that he doesn't give one biblical reason as to why it is not to be trusted. All the reasons are scientific. Not to mention, once again we have a liberal who is pointing out that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution MUST be a Christian who can't POSSIBLY comprehend science like you all-knowing evolutionist.

Maybe when you can actually refute the facts instead of just insulting..we can get somewhere...but so far you are just playing "make-believe" that you know what is going on.

~Kiva

[Ghamu]

I didn't post here to refute anything, actually. I was just curious. But obviously, you are in no mood to humour me, so I shall take my leave. See you 'round, Kiv.

[Only-now]

Please do...this is for discussion of evolution..and your statement that it does not stick to the biology of it IS true...it also uses physics, atronomy, geology, paleontology etc etc. It is a scientific site that uses facts to show flaws in evolution. It is not religious in the least bit. He believes in creationism..and that is fine. But..regardless of whether you do or don't...the evidence agianst evolution is still there. I don't see what you are talking about other than doing exactly what he stated in his intro: Evolutionists will always say that creationists are less scientific and not smart enough to understand the "science" of it. Which is what you said with the "...invent terms that they pretend are scientific."

There is evolution in the working! See..the evolutionists are the evolved form of the creationists/anyone-who-disagrees and are more complex. We lower life forms are simply incapable of understanding such "science".

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Um, I'm sorry, but everything you are saying to refute my comments is incorrect. I even provided you with a link that lists found transitional fossils yet you still claim there are none.

Do a little research online or in a science text or journal. You'll find everything I've mentioned.

What is your background in evolution, I must ask? Is it just this site? Because you're very confidently saying you know all of these things to be fact, such as the "fact" that speciation has not occured when I can provide you dozens of articles on observed instances of speciation.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are misinformed or lacking an understanding of it because you provide a single web page on the internet to back up your claims which conflicts with some of the basic definitions of evolution. And you claim things have never happened that actually have.

I'll come back to address specifics later, but you really would benefit from reading a few other sources besides this one site and looking at a scientific journal or two.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Only-now
Maybe you are confused. Why don't you read more than just the introduction? Not to mention, you mentioning that does not refute the facts whatsoever.

~Kiva

I think his point is that your source is unreliable.

[Only-now]

*sighs* Why would I benefit from reading those sites when it is my argument that those sites provide the WRONG information? You provided me a link to a site that lists fossils found and states out of pure speculation that those are related to one another. How does that prove anything..or help out? My argument is that ASSUMING that those are linked with very little evidence (which you can find in my article) is wrong..and is not valid.

What you are saying is that all the things that are supposed to be evidence for evolution are indeed correct..when it is my argument that those things...that very evidence is false..and the information to support that is found on the site which I have listed.

Also...the site you posted I have seen in many discussions..and it is even mentioned on the website I posted near the end. All those fossil transitions you listed are refuted in the article I stated. Not to mention I put out the TRUE FACT (which even evolutionists know)..that simply finding fossils that have similarities with one another with various changes..it is not possible to prove they are actually related to one another. Doesn't that make sense to you? That makes your page on transitional fossils obsolete because it cannot be proven that they actually are related and transitioned as so. Have you even looked at the site I listed at all? I mean..I at least looked at the list etc that you provided.

You say use a text or journal...but I am not arguing that people don't THINK there is proof. I am saying that the evidence that you think is fact...that is correct and that if I look at it will convince me is actually erroneous. Do you see what I am saying? It isn't that I am misinformed about the theory and that I am just assuming that it is wrong without reading the right material. If you look back..I said I actually used to think evolution is right...but I am saying that there is evidence AGAINST evolution...scientific facts that put holes in that theory. That is NOT misinformation..it is valid and should be looked into.

I doubt you would ask anyone who blatantly stated that evolution occured what their background was....because apparently that is something that is just a fact that some "less intelligent" or "misinformed" people don't understand. What you fail to realize is that it is NOT a fact that is misunderstood...it is a theory with very little proof behind it and if you actually look at the facts instead of what many would LIKE to believe you would see this. Why do I need a background? Are you a scientist? I think that reading up on various sides of the argument is just as trustworthy as you blindly believing that there are no errors with this theory simply because you want to and because the "scientists" said so. If YOU would go a little further..and read what that site has to say...maybe that would make you at least QUESTION whether it is correct or not. Instead however...this is treated like a religion. Although no one who believes it can see it, or has...and although there is very little proof...you put your full faith in it as if it were completely true.

What I believed has happened is that you are actually the misinformed one that believes evolution is one thing instead of another..and that one definition of it fits for all.

Well..if that is the case Neph than he is wrong...they site where everything comes from..including many books that are in support of evolution. That statement that something is being confused is wrong..and the fact that he didn't explain is even more questionable.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

You see, here is the fundamental difference between our opposing claims. Mine are backed by science journals and the scientific community. Mine have reputable sources cited. Mine are based on study and observation.

Basically, you believe an unsourced paper (the only sources I'm seeing in it are quotes taken out of context, which is a very poor way to support an argument) on the internet intended to give Christians arguments to use to refute evolution (many of the arguments brought up are some of the most-common misunderstandings about evolution out there), over the qualified scientific community. Over the encyclopdeia and dictionary even.

"In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (note it says "can" not "must")

"Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

So, I guess you and that website must be right, and the scientific community and the dictionary and the enclopedia are all wrong. Seeing as all of these things contradict the single source you provided and the arguments you are making.

I have actually taken a university-level class on evolution and done extensive reading on my own time. I've read all sides of the argument. So don't even try to say I need to do more reading on the subject because I am blindly believing it without bothering to look at all sides.

I ask again, what is your background? It does matter. You don't necessarily need to be a scientist. I am not. But if your background knowledge of evolution consists of "I learned about it in high school and then I read this article refuting it and I believed everything it said instantly," then I'm sorry, I have to question who is misinformed and immediately latching onto an opinion without bothering to look into it further.

Once again, I will get back to all your specific comments and the specific arguments of the article when I have more time. I was hoping that wouldn't be necessary because that's going to take a really long time for me to type up, so I was trying to persuade you to realize that looking at other sources may provide you with any of the answers I could give you. But apparently that's not going to happen since you are convinced this article must be right and refuse to look further into its claims.

So, please be patient and I'll return with a lengthy post going over all the major details as soon as I have some free time (which is not now because I have a project to finish for class and that takes priority over internet debates).

[Pnt]

Though I think that you should never start accepting a scientific hypothesis, theory, or law as fact and should always continue testing such things, even when they seem concrete, I do think that the mere fact that evolution is considered a Theory of Science has some weight towards its validity. Contrary to it's popular use, an official theory in science has been supported by evidence for at least around 15-20 years (sometimes much longer) without good, credible evidence disproving it. A theory of science is as close to fact as one can get without such theory becoming a scientific law. I guess what bothers me is all the people going around saying "It's just a theory", when a theory is in fact a very well supported claim. Evolution, not including abiogenesis*, was declared a scientific theory in the late 90's.

Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that non-organic chemicals can, over time, arrange themselves into organic substances or organisms.

[Only-now]

Well..although evolution SHOULD be treated as a theory..SHOULD be tested, and SHOULD be questioned etc...it is not treated as such even within the scientific community. There is a difference between a theory and a law...and we have both.

Definition:

1) My site: Macroevolution ? The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
Microevolution ? The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.

I must also point out this about Creationism or Evolution even being a theory:

The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

The postulate must be observable.
The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

Another good quote: "As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five!"

So..evolution isn't even a theory as in all three of those must be true before it is even a theory..and no one has observed macroevolution (which is what we are discussing).

There are also many types of evolution...and we are discussing MACRO..which would be species change etc. Your definition sounds more like microevolution to me...expecially with this definition at hand:

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift. (Wikipedia).

Sounds an awful lot like your definition of evolution in general..which is wrong...and isn't even what we are discussing. We are discussing this:

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, over long periods of time, that leads to speciation, in contrast to microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population (Wikipedia)

Now..you can see the difference. How macroevolution is NOT micro..though you are using micro as the definition.

What is funny is that I am using YOUR source for that info..not mine. I am also using scientific facts determined by the same community you support.

Read the area of the paper on genetics and tell me what you think? It doesn't what source we look at on either side...everyone will be untrustworthy.

My paper is sourced..and it does not take things out of context. I think anyone who reads it would think it was very fair and valuable. Now..I haven't taken any classes on evolution..and as I said I USED to have full faith in it...but that has been shaken. So...I am not someone who comes in on one side of the argument the whole time. Also..I have just used everything you gave me to show you that you are using the wrong definition to refute me. The other funny thing is that the article that is supposedly so untrustworthy says that evolutionists will do exactly that.

Why exactly should I be so ready to look at the other side again when everything that I am reading..and looking at seems to be happening as such?

Don't get me wrong..I don't think the idea of evolution is dumb...and I haven't even said that it didn't happen. My whole point here is that it shouldn't be so readily accepted as if it were fact...or as if it were supported enough to even be such? Why is there such a push behind evolution? Because it rules out a God I think....and if you take a look at the lower portion of the site you can see what that can lead to. I am not blaming evolution..but I am saying "Idea's have consequences" and the ones from this are not beneficial to humanity. The more readily we accpet them..the more dangerous it becomes.

I simply want SOMEONE who is agianst me to admit that evolution could be wrong..

But..I have to say too..that I might not post on this thread anymore. Just..because I am getting tired of typing so much..and at the moment I am losing interest..but..I might come back and such later. I just don't feel like reading a lot etc.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now
My paper is sourced..and it does not take things out of context. I think anyone who reads it would think it was very fair and valuable.


To be honest, I would find another source of information to base your claims off of. I was studying the site your article is on and it seems to have a high chance at being biased. I wouldn't use it as a source in any research paper. The site is obviously in support of one particular ideology, it is poorly constructed, and seems to make quite a few typos and grammar/spelling errors. I would find it to be a poor and biased source of information. That does not say the information is wrong, but it does say that the credibility of your source is pretty questionable.

On evolution itself, I don't have enough knowledge to form a solid opinion on this theory at this time. But I agree with Pnt on scientific theories.

[SpiritWolf77]

Alright, I have some time to reply now. Just for the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that Gravity is still classified as a theory. You still seem to be unclear on the definition of a scientific theory. Pnt said it better than I could, including the portion about evolution itself being a provable fact while the idea of evolution being responsible for the progression of life up until now is the "theory" part.

Right off the bat this site improperly defines evolution. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, how the universe came into being, etc. This site claims that evolutionists are referring to all of these things which is not the case. Someone who claims evolution has to do with cosmology doesn't understand what evolution is.

It is also unclear on the acutal definitions of "macro" and "micro" evolution which, by the way, are deceptive to begin with. They're used in debate to clarify things, but any evolutionist will tell you that these terms aren't really good terms to describe evolution, as they are essentially the same thing. Just one is the other on a grander scale. Seperating them into two different terms provides the misconception that they are two different things, or two different types of evolution.

Here is the definition this site provides for macroevolution:

The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
That is not the definition of macroevolution. Not according to any science text, professor, dictionary, or encyclopedia I have ever read. Macro evolution is simply the term used to refer to evolution above the species level (i.e. dinosaur species to transitional species to bird species), whereas microevolution refers to evolution within a single species (i.e. wolf to domestic dog).

But I stress these are not two seperate processes as this site and you seem to be claiming. There is only one kind of evolution. Microevolution is to macroevolution as centimeters are to meters. Evolution does not work in terms of "Here's a dinosaur population. Poof! The dinosaur population turned into a bird population!" It works as "Here's a dinosaur. The dinosaur population slowly changes over generations due to natural selection. Eventually the "dinosaur" population looks different and would not even be able to produce viable offspring with earlier generations. Since it can no longer reproduce with this species, we need to classify it as a new species."

"Microevolution" is the incremented evolution that makes up the grand scale of "macroevolution." We're probably better off just not using these terms at all because they cause more confusion than anything else.


As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five!
Referring to the four things this site claims make up the theory of evolution. I'm not going to talk about the first three since they are not part of the theory of evolution. I've already been over the mistaken definitions of/distinctions between the last two, but to use the actual definition of "macroevolution" (being the evolution of one species into another), they are wrong. Speciation (the more scientifically accepted term for macroevolution) has been observed. I already said this once but you seemed to ignore that statement so this time I will provide a link as well: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.
Well, this site is correct (although mutations are not solely responsible for genetic changes, just one of the factors involved). That is the definition of evolution, as is supported by the dictionary and encyclopedia links I provided. I will point out that I did not look up the definition of "microevolution." I looked up the definition of evolution. The definitions of evolution that I provided are the ones accepted (and originally proposed) by the scientific community.


Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no ?mutations? in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.
If they are claiming that microevolution occurs mostly due to artificial human influence (I assume so since they use the term "selective breeding") then they are very wrong. Although the last sentence suggests to me that they're simply using the wrong term since they seem to acknowlege the fact that microevolution occurs due to environmental pressures. I'm guessing the term they meant to use was "natural selection." Not really making themselves look very reputable by not even using the correct terminology. I also hope they're not trying to claim mutations simply do not happen, as this is quite obviously false.


This has since been proven to have 'staged' photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks - so much for evolutionists objectivity
Referring to the peppered moth example. Way to not do their background research! I'm well-aware of what they're trying to refer to. Yes, the photographs were staged for the purposes of getting a good photograph (anyone who has tried to photograph a moth or a butterfly in their own backyard knows it is extremely difficult because they won't sit still). The studies conducted were not done based on the photographs. They were done based on observation. The observations of natural occurences in nature support the claims made about the peppered moth population. Photos taken under artificial conditions for press purposes do not invalidate the actual observations. Ex: My dog likes to sleep on pillows. If I am writing an article about this, and he is not sleeping on a pillow at the particular time I wish to take a photograph, and I actively put him on a pillow for the purposes of the photograph, does this invalidate all of my claims? Obviously not. Anyone can spend an extended amount of time around him and see that he'll go sleep on the pillows on his own.


In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, will really cause enough positive changes to move one species to another. Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly. To date no success.
That's funny, seeing as the link I provided with a list of observed speciation events includes the first observed speciation event of the fruit fly and dates it between 1958-1963.


Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success.
Not "much" sucess? Well, I guess at least they're trying to cover their bases here, since if they had said "no sucess" they'd be quite mistakn again.
"12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment." Just one of the many instances of beneficial mutations observed in bacteria, from this site: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

By the way, I just got to the part where they cite a comment on TalkOrigins (since you seemed to indicate there was something in this article that destroyed TalkOrigins' reputability). That was from a debate on the TalkOrigins newsgroup. Not from one of their articles which are written based on scientific sources (journals, articles, texts, etc.) So, don't try to use something some kid shouted angrily in a debate to discredit an entire webpage of source material.

The section on genetics makes a lot of incorrect statements about genetics and evolution (such as: "mutations almost always involve a loss of information"). It looks like they don't really understand what they are talking about.

[SpiritWolf77]

Contiued because it wouldn't fit in a single reply...

Alright, this is taking way too long to go through and refute each section, bit by bit. I've been at this for two hours already and I really do not have the time to devote to this in one large block. I'm going to address specific things you have alread brought up (such as transitional fossils) and leave it at that for now.

They open their argument on transitional fossils with quotes no more recent than 1988. 1-Quoting someone saying, "There aren't very many transitional fossils," doesn't mean there aren't. Regardless of their qualifications. Observation is what is important. Quote mining is a poor argumentation tactic. 2-Quite a few transitional fossil discoveries have been made since those statements were made. 3-Finding transitional fossils depends on their being preserved and accessible, which is not something that happens with astounding frequency, especially considering how old many of the fossils we're searching for would be. You're not exactly going to find ancient fossils just laying around to be picked up like a buffet table.

Nonetheless, transitional fossils have been found.

On the Archaeopteryx: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html

I'm curious, have you ever done any reading on the Tiktaalik, which was discovered last year? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
I'm going to guess the site you're referencing was written before this discovery, since it's claiming such a thing has never been found.

The section about whales just seems to assume land mammal to whale evolution is impossible because the morphology changes required (they specifically mention size and skull structure) couldn't have happened. Well, then the chihuahua must not be related to the wolf afterall, then, if such morphology change is impossible!

On horse evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html

On the several of the hoaxes you mentioned:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC003.html

Of course, this website's only support for the claim that humanoid evolution didn't happen as described is to cite several hoaxes (and make one false claim). They conveniently ignore all the fossils that have been discovered that are not hoaxes. Way to provide a convincing argument! (not)

If you have more specific questions about things this site has to say, feel free to bring them up, but considering I've already pointed out a plethora of false information, poor argumentation tactics, and misassumptions, if I were you, I'd stop considering this site a reputable source and do some actual varied research on the subject.

[Only-now]

I also have a lot to say..and I am doing my own research. I want to say though, that I already have much to say to correct your statements...though it is a lot to type and I would also like to gain more understanding before I do so. I hope no one is ignorant and takes this as me losing this debate. I shall post more information later...I might just link to the sites which list the facts againt what has been stated etc. I also want to refrain from the snotty attitude I am recieving...so I don't feel it would be right to reply at this time.

~Kiva

[Only-now]

Sorry to double post..but I wanted to state a few things to correct them before I go with posting more info:

1) Of course my site is biased..it is AGAINST evolution..it isn't a comparison of the two.

2) Notice that you are using one site in particular as well..and that I also didn't use anything to say that the site "talk-origins" is not reputable. I never stated that..I simply said they mentioned some quotes from the site..I never said that made it less reputable.

3) This site is reputable...and it was actually updated in 2006 as it states on the page. It does list examples from 2002/2003 so it isn't that old. Also..you cannot rule out statements and facts or quotes from before because that doesn't make them any less true. If you want to "play" that way then...then lets not include any of your fossils or any pro-evolution statements...not even Darwin coming up with it since that was "long ago".

4) When it was showing the variety of evolutions...it was not stating that they are all part of the evolutionary theory we are discussing. He is a creationist..I am not...so those other forms of cosmic and steller evolution also come into question for him..that is why they are listed. Those however WOULD be supported by biological evolutionists...and thus that is why he included them. They are not however the topic of THIS discussion.

5) If you were really so informed about this subject..and really were so interested in it..you would be looking at both sides yourself. The truth I have seen however is that you are not interested in any ideas that could be against what you believe to be true. So..you aren't interested in the origins of life..only in proving what you THINK is fact..to be fact. I support this claim also by the snotty attitude I am recieving from you, which is very apparent in your posts. I don't think I have displayed this..and I didn't start talking about this with the intent to get sarcastic etc. I am sure it can happen..I apologize if it did. I just wanted to point some of this out while I do some research and then post either my own speech...of the links. Though..the areas I am reading in are VERY VERY long...so I doubt there would be time to read it all.

Finally just to give one bit of info..I have looked all over google..and I find strong evidence to support the claim that it is very rare that beneficial changes come from mutations..and that there is almost ALWAYS a loss of information. This requires more research..but I can say that your blatant claim that that statement is wrong...is wrong itself. Not to mention, beneficial and positive do not mean the same things.

I also find that you seem to use only specific sources as well. I mean..when I look up things, only talk-origins and that gate site come up to support you...though when I look elsewhere I see mentionings of how those supported ideas are not valid etc. What I am saying is that you seem to just use that site and never question its information. It seems as if the questioning of this is new to you...though there are MANY sites on the net that are reputable in which people argue various aspects of these "theories" with great knowledge of both sides. You seem to have overlooked this however..in that you have not even stated that there is a possibilty that evolution is flawed.

I would also like to state that evolution seems to be in abundance because of the ignorance of many people..and the fact that if evolution is questioned...ridicule and career loss proceed. Not to mention that the scientific community has done a good job of presenting evolution as fact..when it is not. So..it would be easy to find so many articles supporting it with the same, skewed info.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now


1) Of course my site is biased..it is AGAINST evolution..it isn't a comparison of the two.

Well the site being biased has not to do with the information as much as it has to do with the credibility of its source. It is better to back up your position with resources that have more credibility in the topic of which they cover. I did not find much to assume the website of the article you link to has much credibility in this particular topic due to the reasons I pointed out earlier.

[Only-now]

Well, you will find that much of what it lists is cited as coming from various books, articles, and scientific fact..many of which are stated by evolutionists themselves.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
2) Notice that you are using one site in particular as well.
Yes, but I don't link that site and assume everything it has to say is correct just because I like what it has to say. You'll notice that every TalkOrigins article has citations at the end of it. I check the credibility of those citations before assuming what the site has to say is correct. Your site made numerous claims without even bothering to cite sources at all in many instances.


3) This site is reputable...and it was actually updated in 2006 as it states on the page. It does list examples from 2002/2003 so it isn't that old. Also..you cannot rule out statements and facts or quotes from before because that doesn't make them any less true. If you want to "play" that way then...then lets not include any of your fossils or any pro-evolution statements...not even Darwin coming up with it since that was "long ago".
How do you know it's reputable? Being recently updated doesn't make something credible...it just makes it recently updated. You say you're not a Creationist, yet you know this site is arguing from a Creationist perspective. Why do you trust whomever wrote this site to have a better understanding of evolution than actual scientists? And my point about the old quotations was that if someone claims something is lacking evidence, and then several years later, that missing evidence is found, do you just ignore the new evidence because at one point in time someone was quoted as saying it is lacking?


4) When it was showing the variety of evolutions...it was not stating that they are all part of the evolutionary theory we are discussing. He is a creationist..I am not...so those other forms of cosmic and steller evolution also come into question for him..that is why they are listed. Those however WOULD be supported by biological evolutionists...and thus that is why he included them. They are not however the topic of THIS discussion.
He was not just listing them because he wanted to argue against them. He specifically said those were the things evolutionists supposedly mean when they use the term "evolution." He was claiming evolutionists consider those a part of evolutionary theory, and my point was that anyone who actually understands evolution knows that they are not. Either he is unclear on the theory or unclear about the views of his opposition.


5) If you were really so informed about this subject..and really were so interested in it..you would be looking at both sides yourself. The truth I have seen however is that you are not interested in any ideas that could be against what you believe to be true. So..you aren't interested in the origins of life..only in proving what you THINK is fact..to be fact. I support this claim also by the snotty attitude I am recieving from you, which is very apparent in your posts. I don't think I have displayed this..and I didn't start talking about this with the intent to get sarcastic etc. I am sure it can happen..I apologize if it did. I just wanted to point some of this out while I do some research and then post either my own speech...of the links. Though..the areas I am reading in are VERY VERY long...so I doubt there would be time to read it all.
Did you read the post where I said I have researched multiple sides of the argument? I did read that site you sent me, despite my doubts about its credibility. Heck, I've even done extensive reading at AnswersInGenesis.org. If I were really so narrow-minded, why would I bother to do that? I have read the information multiple sides of the argument have presented and I have come to my conclusions based on how well-supported the claims being made are. I have found the scientific community's views on evolution to be the most well-supported, backed by the most evidence.

Ironically, it sounds like you're describing yourself here. I keep providing reasons this site is not reputable. I've pointed out a number of the false claims it makes and misunderstandings it presents. I've provided you with multiple reputable sources, including the dictionary and an encyclopedia entry, which support my claims. But you keep steadfastedly sticking by this single website, despite the fact that it contradicts the views of the entire scientific community and the plentiful observable and testable evidence out there. And you also accuse me of being more concerned with proving that I'm right and being snotty...when a post ago, you're the one saying "I hope no one is ignorant and takes this as me losing this debate."

I don't think I was being "snotty" at all. Do feel free to tell me where I was doing so. I am always open to reading things that might contradict with my views. If I feel they seem well-supported and factual, I won't immediately dismiss them. I'll look into them, and maybe even change my views if they are well-supported enough. My dismissing the site you provided has nothing to do with me being single-minded, it has everything to do with the site not supporting its own claims.


Finally just to give one bit of info..I have looked all over google..and I find strong evidence to support the claim that it is very rare that beneficial changes come from mutations..and that there is almost ALWAYS a loss of information. This requires more research..but I can say that your blatant claim that that statement is wrong...is wrong itself. Not to mention, beneficial and positive do not mean the same things.
Can you provide me with actual sources? Reputable sources? Because I can look all over Google and find dozens of webpages claiming vampires and unicorns are real. The sources I provided on mutations give citations to actual scientific studies.


I also find that you seem to use only specific sources as well. I mean..when I look up things, only talk-origins and that gate site come up to support you...though when I look elsewhere I see mentionings of how those supported ideas are not valid etc. What I am saying is that you seem to just use that site and never question its information. It seems as if the questioning of this is new to you...though there are MANY sites on the net that are reputable in which people argue various aspects of these "theories" with great knowledge of both sides. You seem to have overlooked this however..in that you have not even stated that there is a possibilty that evolution is flawed.
I used several other sites as well actually. I use TalkOrigins mostly because of all the sites I've come across on the subject, it is the most well-organized. It's easy to find information and it provides quick and clear answers, as well as credible citations, usually to actual scientific journals, articles, and studies. Give me a claim and I can cross-check it with other sites as well. The key here is to make sure your sources are reputable. You don't have to have any qualifications to post something on the internet. You need to check where the site is getting its information and make sure it is from qualified sources. I do that. The sites I provide you even have the sources right there on the page for you to check out yourself. Have you done that on the many sites you say refute the claims I've been making?

Questioning of evolution is most certainly not new to me. This is certainly not the first time I've debated the subject. I don't mean to come off as rude here, but the majority of the arguments you're giving me are actually some of the simpler and more common ones I've seen. I've come up against far more challenging arguments to debate against. I don't say this to belittle you, just to point out that I'm not scrambling at straws here because for the first time ever, someone is challenging evolution and my claims about it. This is nothing new to me.

I never said evolution had no flaws. Not once did I say that. I said I believe it to be the best-supported explanation out there for how life developed to the state it's currently in. I said the fact that it happens is a fact. I said that the claims that site is making to refute it are full of holes and do not discredit the theory. But I never once said it's a flawless perfected theory. I imagine there are certainly many more things we have to figure out about it and I imagine we may have gotten some things wrong. I just don't forsee the entire theory itself being tossed out/proven wrong because there's enough evidence supporting it that it must have happened in a rather similar fashion to the way we currently view it.

[Stormfury]

Here's some extra reading material [ http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm .]

[Only-now]

1) I said it was updated because you made the claim it was old and using old information. That is not true, because I can find those same arguments and debates elsewhere on the net...not to mention that it does not matter when a problem has been discovered with the idea...if that problem has still not been solved. The more I look..the more I find that evolution does not have an answer for it..or it is assumed. Not to mention, I don't see why you tend to believe that someone cannot be a scientist and a creationist at the same time? We are all humans..just as capable of understanding science as anyone else. Not to mention, pretty much all of the great scientists responsible for physics, etc etc were religious in nature..and that didn't stop them.

2) The "old" quotes are not only relevant back then..as if the lack of evidence has been gotten rid of these days..and those quotes are obsolete. That isn't the case actually. Many of the same quotes and arguments made back then still hold up today..and they still have the speculative or no answers. In fact..I see it ending with a refutation from the anti-evolution side before I do the evolutionists. What I mean, is that I see the anti-evolutionists say one thing...then the evolutionists respond...and then the anti-evolutionists do and that is where it stops.

3) I believe he is being more general about HIS definition of evolution...but that doesn't make his knowledge..or his statements on biological evolution any less correct. I haven't been using his other arguments in this thread...so I think we can differentiate.

4) I think there is a misunderstanding between us as well. We both think there are flase claims..because when I look at some of te aruguments you give me..and I look at the site I orginally used answer..and then I look elsewhere..I find that same argument. That tells me that this is NOT a false fact..nor is it incorrect because it is actually showing up elsewhere in the same contexts etc. You keep saying you provide me with these links and info that will clear everything up...but I don't TRUST that these things are correct. If I were studying the solar system..I could trust sources from the "scientific community"...yet with this I find more and more people are seeing flaws...saying something..various hoaxes..and the fact that accepting evolution as what happened is not really the best for OTHER reasons. So...when I do look at your sites...and find their arguments...it doesn't change my mind about it. I still feel that there is something wrong..and if I look I find what the problem is many a time. The only bad thing is that since evolution has been held up by the scientific community for so long...and has been so "accepted" without much room for any idea it may be wrong...there is an abundance of topics on how "evolution is right" and only a small emerging number that questions it.

5) Well..one I can find your site on Google..so I don't think that is a bad way to search. Two..of course you have all your links to scientific study..because no one questions it anymore...apparently it is fact. So..you have other people..who DO know what they are talking about just as much as any evolutionist (such as yourself) who question it and bring up valuable ideas...but until anyone in the scientific community is "brave" enough to actually point out this etc...we will have no "studies" etc etc. The thing is though, is that the information is scientific fact gathered by the same community you are using..so though people make mistakes..to question all of it because of no link..when you can find those same ideas ALL throughout the scientific community would be wrong. I too would LOVE to find plenty of great websites that list out all the problems etc and have links. I suppose the best I can do is post quotes and excerpts from scientists, Scientific American, various evolution books, that show what even the evolutionary community admits to...and says about its own theory.

6) I would have to disagree..that I do believe a theory can be tossed out..and I believe this one might undergo that treatment if enough people realize that it to has plenty of holes and flaws at the moment. The problem is that instead of admitting that...and saying that it is just a theory...we think it might be right..but we are open to question etc...it is NOT treated like that by the majority of people nor the majority of scientists. Apparently there is no room for question anymore...people lose their jobs because they question it, and people teach it as fact..when it should not be considered as such. I find that THIS is the problem..because I too never said EVERYTHING was wrong with evolution...that is didnt happen, or that it is a dumb idea. I feel..and have stated many a time that it is not being treated the right way..and is instead being preached as more of a religion than a theory. As far as I have seen..the scientific community hasn't given any room to any other ideas...nor do they want to. It is funny because scientists were SO opposed to evolution in the beginning.

7) I didn't think this was your first time arguing it..and I am sure that you have had tougher arguments. The more abstract I can get..the harder it will be for you to give me facts that prove something like that wrong. That is why you cannot disprove religion..no matter what you come up with. Faith is stronger than fact I'm afraid..and that is apparent with evolutionists as well. I hope that as I read more and such I will be able to challenge you more..but I am new to this...and apparently you have taken you college class etc.

~Kiva

[Lamby]

Just for interest sakes I found a list of well known scientists that did not support evolution

Sir Isaac Newton
Michael Faraday
James Clerk Maxwell
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin
Robert Boyle
John Dalton
Sir William Ramsay
John Ray
Carolus Linnaeus
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
Rudolf Virchow
Louis Agassiz
Nicolas Steno
Nicolaus Copernicus
Galileo Galilei
Johannes Kepler
Blaise Pascal
Sir Frederick William Herschel
Leonhard Euler

These were all very smart guys. I mean Isaac Newton for one has many LAWS to his name, compared to Darwin who has a theory. Even though Isaac Newton was before the theory of evolution was put forward he certainly wasnt restricted to the beliefs at that time. He came up with new ideas himself, a fair few of them. So if he did see any evidence or even thought about the possibility of creatures evolving etc. he would've mentioned it. And same goes for most of those I have listed above.

Anyway just a different perspective on things :Psst:

[Nephilim]

Lamby, your example is kind of moot, seeing as Newton was a physicist, not a biologist, so he studied a completely different field.

[Only-now]

That doesn't change the fact that he was a creationist..which reagradless of whether evolution was around or not shows that creationism is NOT for the "dumb" as many evolutionists would put off. You can be a great scientist and believe in God and that He created Earth and us at the same time. If it was such a dumb idea, then I suppose that many of those scientists would have looked to something else for beliefs...yet they didn't.

There are also many scientists alive today...reputable ones with academic backgrounds that also don't agree with evolution for many reasons...mostly scientific.

~Kiva

[Darkslash]

Oh, the good old days, during the scientific revolution and before, when real science was done...

[SpiritWolf77]

Not to mention the time periods when all of those people lived...

Y'know during Copernicus' era, the scientific community found his heliocentric views to be questionable and blasphemous.

Saying "The famous historical scientists didn't believe in evolution, even though many of them died before evolution was even proposed!" is a really really poor argument, sorry.

I'm sure you could find plenty of scientists today that are creationists as well, but you then have to ask what their qualifications are...unless they're well-educated biologists, or have studied evolution, I wouldn't necessarily take their word for it that evolution but be false, because they're scientists and they say so.

I'm an artist, specifically an illustrator. Does this mean I am qualified to discuss sculpture? Of course not! I learned the basic principles, but it's not my field of study so I don't know very much about it. A mathemetician or a physicist is no more qualified to discuss evolution based solely on their credentials than I am to discuss sculpture based on mine.

Furthermore, if your argument is, "Look at ALL these scientists that don't/didn't support evolution!" then couldn't I just come back and say, "Look at all these hundreds more scientists that DO!" You're only looking at half the picture here. You can't use the belief of the minority as proof that the majority is wrong. That's faulty logic.

And, I have never heard a solid scientific argument against evolution. Only-now, can you provide some examples of the scientific arguments that reputable, qualified scientists have against evolution?

[Only-now]

Alright..I just typed a whole long response and it got deleted somehow..so now I have to type up a short one.

1) We are not trying to disprove your theory with that list. We are simply showing that although many evolutionists would like to believe that only misinformed/unintelligent people and "FAKE" scientists would believe in creationism..it just isn't the case. That list shows that many great, REAL scientists...who were very intelligent chose to believe in a God and a creation. You might try and say that is because evolution wasn't around..but that isn't a cause. Creationism has been the same since it began...and if those men were so intelligent..they might have chose NOT to believe in it if it were such an impossible idea. There were atheists and people looking for ways to disprove God back then as well...but they chose to still believe. That shows that a real scientist CAN believe in a God and creation at the same time. Evolutionists would like everyone to believe that any scientist who believe in creationism can't possibly be reputable..or have the right education or credentials. That is simply untrue...but you can see how Spirit stated that: "you then have to ask what their qualifications are...unless they're well-educated biologists, or have studied evolution, I wouldn't necessarily take their word for it that evolution but be false, because they're scientists and they say so."

Now..the funny thing about that is..that I guess we cannot beleive what YOU have to say then. You aren't a scientist..you only read about it and took a class. That isn't enough to prove what you are saying to be true...so how can we take your word for it? Do you consider a highschool teacher who teaches evolution a scientist that can be trusted? Many of them have tried to bring up the holes in evolution and were fired for it. The scientific community says they aren't real scientists. Well, if that is the case..then all those who do teach evolution and agree with it don't know what they are talking about either! By your logic...your own teachers of your theory can't be trusted to be telling us the truth..and the fact is that those teachers and your scientific community ISN'T telling us the truth. You either accept that those who believe in creationism or don't agree with evolution are real scientists..and have a valid argument..and are just as intelligent as any evolutionists....or your very theory falls into a bunch of lies and bad info told to our children by "NON-SCIENTISTS". Either way you lose some ground...

Once again..no one is using this as evidence against evolution being possible or true. Of course you believe that that is the only way to attack it. It also ruins morals, causes deaths and atrocities, and changes the way society works. There are MANY levels on which evolution can be argued.

Anyways..that is all from me for now.

~Kiva

[Malicious]

Hmmm...meh. I could go on and make myself a long and well thought out reply to all of this, you know...with 10$ scientific words, sources, and what-not, but I must digress from debating(arguing, striving, etc.). I'll just say this much, I do believe in Creationism and Evolution. You see, one came before the other, which therefore allowed the other one to exist.
Now I'm sure some of you will be saying to yourself(or maybe even me!), "Now John, where is the logic in and proof in that response?"
Well my friends, the proof is in the pudding...wait, that saying probably doesn't fit very well here in this discussion. Oh well. Anyway, that's my thoughts on this, and I am sticking to them. Hopefully none of you will come and bring your 'unsticking solution' and try to separate us. It's my opinion, and you can't have it! (+
Trying to un-glue me from it is sort of like trying to take the cake from the fat kid. And all know how dangerous and tricky a situation like that can become. :E

[Lamby]

Ditto to Only-Now

I didnt post that list to disprove evolution but simply to say that just because you dont believe in evolution doesnt mean you are misinformed when it comes to science


Lamby, your example is kind of moot, seeing as Newton was a physicist, not a biologist, so he studied a completely different field.

Thank-you but I already knew Isaac Newton was a Physicist however I did also list a number of Biologists who were also very intelligent. Only-Now also pointed out why i still listed Newton and the others who werent direct biologists.


Saying "The famous historical scientists didn't believe in evolution, even though many of them died before evolution was even proposed!" is a really really poor argument, sorry.

Im sorry SpiritWolf77 arguing wasnt my intention, I found this list and thought it was interesting so I decided to show it to you all
I am not naive enough to think that posting a few famous names is going to change your mind. I thought that since you were all so interested in evolution etc you might want to do some extra research.

But anyway that is me :fini:

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
Alright..I just typed a whole long response and it got deleted somehow..so now I have to type up a short one.

1) We are not trying to disprove your theory with that list. We are simply showing that although many evolutionists would like to believe that only misinformed/unintelligent people and "FAKE" scientists would believe in creationism..it just isn't the case. That list shows that many great, REAL scientists...who were very intelligent chose to believe in a God and a creation. You might try and say that is because evolution wasn't around..but that isn't a cause. Creationism has been the same since it began...and if those men were so intelligent..they might have chose NOT to believe in it if it were such an impossible idea. There were atheists and people looking for ways to disprove God back then as well...but they chose to still believe. That shows that a real scientist CAN believe in a God and creation at the same time. Evolutionists would like everyone to believe that any scientist who believe in creationism can't possibly be reputable..or have the right education or credentials. That is simply untrue...but you can see how Spirit stated that: "you then have to ask what their qualifications are...unless they're well-educated biologists, or have studied evolution, I wouldn't necessarily take their word for it that evolution but be false, because they're scientists and they say so."
Precisely, Creationism is the same since it began. Religion is not science. It does not come to conclusions based on observation and correct and update itself when the evidence suggests otherwise. It steadfastedly sticks with a single idea, unchanging, regardless of any opposing evidence. Religion is not science. It never will be. Don't try to suggest it is.

And I never once said these people were unintelligent. I simply said they didn't necessarily know what they were talking about. You can't very well make a claim that something is true or untrue if you've barely studied it at all.

Once again, I remind you, that there were many (primarily religious) naysayers about heliocentricm. They made precisely the same sorts of arguments against that, claiming those progressive scientists were jumping to conclusions about the evidence, claiming the Bible says otherwise and should be trusted, claiming that many intelligent educated people believed the sun orbited the Earth.

You can't simply ignore evidence because it makes you more comfortable, or because the truth frightens you, or because you feel it contradicts with your religious beliefs. And you can't claim that a well-supported theory is entirely false because a few intelligent people (who may or may not even be qualified to speak on the subject) disagree.


Now..the funny thing about that is..that I guess we cannot beleive what YOU have to say then. You aren't a scientist..you only read about it and took a class. That isn't enough to prove what you are saying to be true...so how can we take your word for it? Do you consider a highschool teacher who teaches evolution a scientist that can be trusted? Many of them have tried to bring up the holes in evolution and were fired for it. The scientific community says they aren't real scientists. Well, if that is the case..then all those who do teach evolution and agree with it don't know what they are talking about either! By your logic...your own teachers of your theory can't be trusted to be telling us the truth..and the fact is that those teachers and your scientific community ISN'T telling us the truth. You either accept that those who believe in creationism or don't agree with evolution are real scientists..and have a valid argument..and are just as intelligent as any evolutionists....or your very theory falls into a bunch of lies and bad info told to our children by "NON-SCIENTISTS". Either way you lose some ground...

And congratulations, you have just destroyed your entire argument. No, I'm not a scientist. But neither are you. Neither was the person that wrote that webpage you linked. So if my views are to be discredited by lack of scientific qualifications, then so are yours and his and anyone other than the actual scientific community. And the majority of the scientific community considers evolution obviously observable and a very well-supported theory which explains the history of life on Earth.

Here's what I do: I read scientific journals, I look at the facts, I educate myself using a variety of sources, look at all sides of the argument, and come to conclusions based on what I've seen and what seems to make the most sense to me. I am certainly by no means an authority on evolution. I am not here to say, "I am an expert on evolution so what I say must be true." All I'm trying to do is provide the actual FACTS in the hope people will come to the same obvious conclusions as I have, instead of blatently ignoring the evidence and trusting misinformed propaganda (i.e. that increadibly erroneous website you touted as a valid argument against evolution). It just really saddens me to see people whom I am sure are intelligent individuals instantly latching on to something like that and instantly believing it to be truth without even bothering to cross check the facts, look at the qualifications of the author, and even look at the argumentation tactics and apriori knowledge of the author (the man...or woman...can't even manage to use the correct terms to describe things, so if I'm not a qualified source, then that author most certainly is not. At least I've made sure I actually know what I'm talking about).


Once again..no one is using this as evidence against evolution being possible or true. Of course you believe that that is the only way to attack it. It also ruins morals, causes deaths and atrocities, and changes the way society works. There are MANY levels on which evolution can be argued.

Anyways..that is all from me for now.

~Kiva
Ruins morals eh? Do tell...wait, let me guess...you're going to use the social Darwinism argument? Evolution must be scientifically wrong because it's immoral because it was part of the reasoning behind Hitler's halocaust? Yes, I've heard that argument before and I saw the portion of that webpage which discussed it.

Last I checked, one of the primary motivation for Hitler's atrocities...aside from probable insanity, were that he considered the Jews to be an inferior people. If you're going to point fingers and blame evolution for that, then I can just as easily point fingers and blame Christianity for that. Seeing as Hitler was a Christian...

That is, of course, obviously absurd...to blame an entire religion for the faults of a single sick and twisted man. Should Christianity itself be held accountable for all the murder and atrocities commited in its name? Those far outweigh anything commited in the name of evolution. If I'm not mistaken, very few, if practically NO atrocities have ever actually been committed in the name of evolution, simply used similar ideas.

Knocking someone off of a cliff is using gravity to the attacker's advantage. The people who attacked the World Trade Center used physics and chemistry to their advantage. Should we attack all the natural laws and theories of life since, really, each one of them could be "blamed" for some atrocity that has been commited?

Natural laws and theories cannot be immoral. Gravity cannot be immoral. The theory of relativity cannot be immoral. Actions, thoughts, or feelings by living beings can be immoral, but simple properties of nature cannot.

I'm sorry, but, trying to say evolution must not exist in the natural world because it's immoral is totally and utterly absurd.

[Only-now]

No one was stating religion is science either. It is not based on evidence or observation...it is based on faith. Now if you look at the other sciences, such as physics, and chemistry, etc. They have no problem working with religion. In fact, you can look at it as it being the deciphering of what a God might have thought up to govern this universe. No one has been trying to prove creationism, because most people realize it CANNOT be proven scientifically. It is a faith, and they stick to that. Their job however, is to show all the flaws and problems with evolution, and that is what they do. They also have very many valid arguments and ideas that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY decides to ignore. Once again, no one stated or treated religion like a science. It is different of course. Your scientific theory of evolution however contradicts the main points of many religions and so obviously those people are not going to easily believe in it. Now sometimes they are wrong..and science prevails..but this time is doesn't seem as such.

You say you didn't say people were unintelligent? Well..it sure seems that comments questioning whether a scientist can be trusted if he believes in creationsim sure sounds something like it. You also said that people who don't believe in evolution are misinformed, or uneducated about the subject. I don't think that is the case at all. I think I have carried on this argument with you for pages now without feeling lost myself..and I haven't taken one class on evolution etc. I do HONESTLY think that you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is lacking something compared to evolutionists...maybe not intelligence..but something..and that is wrong. It may not be a scientific theory (creationism) but it is an alternative to a flawed and dangerous theory..and I see no illogical reasoning in that.

You say that it was religious people who were against the heliocentric idea. That is very true...the church and religious things have been the cause of a lot of bad things...but a HUGE amount of good that far surpasses that. Now...if you look at today and compare evolutionists to that previous church you will see many similarities. One is that anyone who questions evolution within the scientific community either loses his job, is ridiculed, has his education and credentials checked, etc. Sounds like persecution to me? Next we have the evidece that supports your theory. As much as you would like to think I am being stubborn and not wanting to accept evidence that isn't the case. I feel the opposite. That that evidence is wrong and I have reasons why. Now if I am correct,which I feel I am and there are many scientific ideas to back that up, then your evolutionists are beleiving in something VERY strongly (like fact) without their being evidence to support it. Now that is exactly what faith is. I can support this because if you look back to when evolution was first accepted, and the fossil record was much less complete and things were more primitive they STILL believed just as strongly in their theory as they do now. It hasn't gotten any stronger! It has been the same forever (aside from when the scientific community first accepted it) which obviously shows if any evidence was important, it isn't making a difference in how much or little "faith" an evolutionist has in his/her theory.

I want to also state again since you said that I blindly went into believing what I did that I used to believe in evolution fully. That I would have come into this thread and looked up info to support your side. Now what would you have done had that been the case? Patted me on the back and said "good job". I would have been using your websites, etc etc with just as little knowledge about evolution, and without looking at any of the flaws. You would have supported me. Well I was on the evolutionary side and I now feel it isn't such a great theory to put my beliefs in. I FOUND those flaws and I decided NOT to support it to the extent which I had. So I WAS on the other side, the side in which I would have been supported by you here simply because I argued your side. Well now I am arguing the other side, and I am using what scientists HAVE said...REAL scientists. Of course you will never believe that a REAL scientist could not believe in evolution. I'm just showing that you say I am just jumping on one side simply because I am against you. You wouldn't say the same had I done it for your side.

I didn't destroy my argument. What I was showing is that if you don't consider certain people scientists..or reputable in explaining evolution..then you have to admit that they don't know what they are talking about when they teach evolution because they aren't REAL scientists. I use that because many people have said they disagree with evolution....people who DO understand it..and who are REAL scientists...yet every time they do, they are questioned as to whether or not they are reputable. So...if they are NOT reputable..and can't be listened to...then the other's who share those same credentials and qualifications must also not be listened to. What I am showing is that it is a double standard. You are allowed to have any credentials...education and be trusted fully if you teach that evolution is correct. But if that same scientist or teacher/professor changed his mind..he would instantly NOT be a REAL scientist or reputable source anymore. Just because the majority of the scientific community supports something doesn't mean that it is true. A minority can be correct as well..and the amount of scientists who DON'T agree with evolution is growing. Take your Darwin for example. If you think his theory is so correct...then you must imagine what it was like for him. Here he is..with the "truth" and the MAJORITY of the scientific community doesn't agree with him. The same with those with the heliocentric views. Before that minority of scientists came up with that new idea...most did not question it. That doesn't mean that the minority is wrong. You treat the minority though....as many evolutionists do, as if they are not able to be a REAL scientist and question evolution at the same time..and that is just totally false. It isn't even if they believe in creationism or not...it is ANYONE who disagrees with evolution.

You keep coming back and saying my site is wrong. It isn't whatsoever! How did you come to the conclusion that person wasn't a scientist? You said it was "incrediably" erroneous? Maybe by YOUR standards..because you disagree...but when I look back on it I find much of that info elsewhere. If you are referring to some spelling mistakes, etc...I don't think that should disqualify a page from being an argument against something. Not to mention, much of what is listed I found elsewhere..and many of the arguments he stated that evolutionists use etc...actually came up in our talk...and on the internet. Everytime I go back and read that site..I find the language and ideas are just as suitable as any brought up on your websites.

I'm not JUST talking about Social Darwinism, and not JUST Hitler. Many dictators can be accused of the same. I am also not BLAMING evolution for them...as a reason why it should be thrown out. It is more the fact that ideas have consequences. Of course Hitler was crazy..and I highly doubt that evolution was his driving force...but it was essential. You want to say that you can blame Christianity because he was a Christian? Well..lets see..what does Christianity teach? Love, Kindness, Forgiveness, Mercy, Faith, Moral values, etc. Now...does any of what Hitler did match those teachings? I think not! Now..as I said I am not BLAMING evolution...but this does have a role to play in his ideas. Evolution teaches..that organisms evolve...and change..and that we evolved from lesser life forms into more complex ones (so you don't get too upset..I know that isn't the "definition", but it is part). Well...can you see how that leads to someone such as Hitler..who DID believe in evolution and was a supporter of Darwin showing that Germans were a superior race...better than the Jews and blacks, and handicaps etc? I mean..can you see the connection? How can Christianity be a backing for it? Shouldn't all the handicapped people be weeded out because they are unable to survive etc? Whether that is true or not, evolution was a basis for their twisted beliefs. Stalin had the same ideals, and Mao from China. It is NOT about BLAMING the idea of evolution for those atrocities, because there are plenty of people who believe in evolution and wouldn't do anything like that, and disagree with it as much as I do. But had the idea of evolution not existed it wouldn't have been a backing for those things. No one stated that the the actual theory was immoral, it is what ideas come from it, what can be applied, etc. Can you take gravity and apply it with new ideas that lead to it supporting something like the holocaust? Not at all, but you can with evolution. Gravity, physics, and chemistry CANNOT be blamed because they are merely workings. No ideas can come from them off which those acts could be based. Those attackers didn't say "Well, see gravity shows that things are pulled toward the center of the Earth..and chemistry shows blah blah blah" and then use that to support and justify their attacks. However Hitler DID use evolution and its conclusions and ideas to support his acts.

I can make a very long list of all the great things religion in general has done for the world and people. Can you name one positive thing that the idea of evolution has backed or done for us?

All I see is that many dictators supported it,and many bad ideas (even here in the US like the sterilization of people etc), as well as the idea of genocide supported by it. I see it ensuring that no man must answer to a higher power..and thus there is no reason to uphold those moral values.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now No one was stating religion is science either. It is not based on evidence or observation...it is based on faith. Now if you look at the other sciences, such as physics, and chemistry, etc. They have no problem working with religion. In fact, you can look at it as it being the deciphering of what a God might have thought up to govern this universe. No one has been trying to prove creationism, because most people realize it CANNOT be proven scientifically. It is a faith, and they stick to that. Their job however, is to show all the flaws and problems with evolution, and that is what they do.
I was under the impression that the "job" of a Christian was to be a good Christian, follow God's will, and spread his words...not to argue that a well-supported scientifc theory is false...when it doesn't even contradict with their religion unless they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (which not all Christians do).


They also have very many valid arguments and ideas that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY decides to ignore. Once again, no one stated or treated religion like a science. It is different of course. Your scientific theory of evolution however contradicts the main points of many religions and so obviously those people are not going to easily believe in it. Now sometimes they are wrong..and science prevails..but this time is doesn't seem as such.
I've never heard a valid (as in not based on faulty assumptions or incorrect information) scientific argument against evolution. The scientific community is not out to prove evolution right...they're out to find the answers. A good scientist is just as happy to have his theory disproven, because then he's learned something. If there really were valid scientific arguments out there, why would the scientific community ignore them? I don't understand this conspiracy mindset so many people seem to have about how the scientifc community is trying to cover up evidence against evolution.


You say you didn't say people were unintelligent? Well..it sure seems that comments questioning whether a scientist can be trusted if he believes in creationsim sure sounds something like it. You also said that people who don't believe in evolution are misinformed, or uneducated about the subject. I don't think that is the case at all. I think I have carried on this argument with you for pages now without feeling lost myself..and I haven't taken one class on evolution etc. I do HONESTLY think that you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is lacking something compared to evolutionists...maybe not intelligence..but something..and that is wrong. It may not be a scientific theory (creationism) but it is an alternative to a flawed and dangerous theory..and I see no illogical reasoning in that.
Good job twisting my words around. :) I did not say I feel Creationists are intelligent or cannot be trusted. I simply said that it's important to see whether or not someone actually understands what they are talking about when they make claims about something. I believe what I specifically said was that in my experience, anyone no believing in evolution either doesn't know very much about it or are misinformed about some basic facts. This is not my questioning their intelligence, it's simply my questioning what they're basing their assumptions on. The fact that the source you provided me with to argue against evolution makes some very basic mistakes in discussing the topic supports my argument.


You say that it was religious people who were against the heliocentric idea. That is very true...the church and religious things have been the cause of a lot of bad things...but a HUGE amount of good that far surpasses that. Now...if you look at today and compare evolutionists to that previous church you will see many similarities. One is that anyone who questions evolution within the scientific community either loses his job, is ridiculed, has his education and credentials checked, etc. Sounds like persecution to me?
Have a source that states a scientist presenting a valid scientific argument against evolution lost his job and was ridiculed?


Next we have the evidece that supports your theory. As much as you would like to think I am being stubborn and not wanting to accept evidence that isn't the case. I feel the opposite. That that evidence is wrong and I have reasons why. Now if I am correct,which I feel I am and there are many scientific ideas to back that up, then your evolutionists are beleiving in something VERY strongly (like fact) without their being evidence to support it. Now that is exactly what faith is. I can support this because if you look back to when evolution was first accepted, and the fossil record was much less complete and things were more primitive they STILL believed just as strongly in their theory as they do now.
You're kidding, right? When Darwin first published The Origin of Species, he was widely ridiculed. As the evidence for it increases, support by people increases, but the scientific community as a whole originally considered evolution to be rather absurd because it contradicted everything that was previously believed about the origins of life. Eventually, as more evidence showed up, they could no longer deny the truth.


I want to also state again since you said that I blindly went into believing what I did that I used to believe in evolution fully. That I would have come into this thread and looked up info to support your side. Now what would you have done had that been the case? Patted me on the back and said "good job". I would have been using your websites, etc etc with just as little knowledge about evolution, and without looking at any of the flaws. You would have supported me.
Had you been using the same sort of scientifically flawed arguments in support of evolution, I'd be contradicting you, regardless of whose side you were on. I said you were blindly clinging to these views because you decided all of evolution must be false simply because this website said so, without bothering to cross-check this site against reliable scientific sources. I already pointed out a massive number of the flaws with that site, I notice you didn't have much comment on that.


You are allowed to have any credentials...education and be trusted fully if you teach that evolution is correct. But if that same scientist or teacher/professor changed his mind..he would instantly NOT be a REAL scientist or reputable source anymore. Just because the majority of the scientific community supports something doesn't mean that it is true.
Teachers arr required to teach the scientific ideas accepted as true by the scientific community. Assuming they are simply passing on the information provided by the scientific community, then what they are saying can be considered reputable. If they're deciding for themselves, without the proper background, that the current status quo of what is considered scientifically correct is in fact wrong, and begin teaching that in their classroom, of course they are going to be questioned. Science teachers don't make up what they teach. They're not supposed to. They're supposed to teach what is already out there.


You keep coming back and saying my site is wrong. It isn't whatsoever! How did you come to the conclusion that person wasn't a scientist? You said it was "incrediably" erroneous? Maybe by YOUR standards..because you disagree...but when I look back on it I find much of that info elsewhere.
Did you read my long post where I went bit-by-bit and pointed out all the specific problems in the first several sections of that website? I was not just referring to spelling mistakes (actually what I said about that particular instance was improper word usage, which is far more severe, they're using the wrong terms to describe what they're talking about). It was not just erroneous by MY standards...the things I found problematic are errors and misunderstandings about basic scientific principles.


I'm not JUST talking about Social Darwinism, and not JUST Hitler. Many dictators can be accused of the same. I am also not BLAMING evolution for them...as a reason why it should be thrown out. It is more the fact that ideas have consequences.
Of course ideas have consequences. That's a given for anything. But what are you arguing? That evolution should not be taught in schools because it spreads evil ideas? What was the point of even mentioning Social Darwinism (which is really NOT the same thing as evolution at all)?


You want to say that you can blame Christianity because he was a Christian? Well..lets see..what does Christianity teach? Love, Kindness, Forgiveness, Mercy, Faith, Moral values, etc. Now...does any of what Hitler did match those teachings? I think not!
You completely missed my point. My point was that evil things have been done using the ideas of Chrisitanity, but we obviously shouldn't say, "Christianity ought to be never taught to anyone because people might take those ideas and twist them and do terrible things with them!" I was making an analogy. You can clearly see the absurdity of the comparison using Christianity, now look at what you're saying about the social impact of evolution.

[SpiritWolf77]

Continued...


Evolution teaches..that organisms evolve...and change..and that we evolved from lesser life forms into more complex ones (so you don't get too upset..I know that isn't the "definition", but it is part).
That's incorrect. Evolution does not mandate that things become better. Or that things become more complex. That's a misconception. It only states that things may change over time to become more well-adapted to their environment as a result of natural selection. They are only "better" based on current evironmental standards.


It is NOT about BLAMING the idea of evolution for those atrocities, because there are plenty of people who believe in evolution and wouldn't do anything like that, and disagree with it as much as I do. But had the idea of evolution not existed it wouldn't have been a backing for those things.
Sure, and had the idea of religion never existed, there never would have been any sacrifices performed in the name of God.

Once again, I ask, what's your point? Why even bring this up if you're claiming you're not trying to use this as a statement against evolution?


Can you name one positive thing that the idea of evolution has backed or done for us?
Evolution is not a moral philosophy. It's a principle of biology. Can you name one positive thing that photosynthesis has done for us?

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Only-now
I see it ensuring that no man must answer to a higher power..and thus there is no reason to uphold those moral values.

~Kiva

That belongs in philosophy, not science.


The "Idea" of evolution has made people think, and I'd call that positive.

[Only-now]

I will be honest with you. I don't even have an interest in discussing this anymore. There are a couple reasons for that. One..we keep having these same misunderstandings...and I keep having to repeat things..or clarify..or you do, etc. It is kind of annoying. Secondly...this won't go anywhere. Were you ever against evolution? I am now..but I wasn't always. If we keep having this talk it is going to end up the same way as all the other arguments across the net..with no progress.

You don't seem to understand that I think evolution is supported by the scientific community..not because there is a lot of evidence..but for other reasons. I believe that many people who support it don't understand it. I don't trust your journals and essays..because I feel that they are not actually the truth. That is why I don't cross examine them.

It is like this: Pretend we are back in time. Everyone thinks that the Sun circles the Earth...even science. I however...don't believe that. I think it is the other way around...and I have people who support me. So..I talk about it...and then someone such as yourself..who believes that the Sun does circle the Earth tells me I need to check my finding against the scientific journals. Would that clear things up? No..because those journals are wrong...they are flawed and that is the very idea I am fighting against. Do you understand now..how I am not someone who instantly thought evolution was wrong without checking the "facts"? I don't trust those "facts". I did read those same things...I have now...and I look them up and I find that there are flaws. I find that people are ridiculed, insulted, and pretty much everything else because they question that theory. There is NOTHING WRONG with questioning...or being on the opposite side..but the scientific community actually PUNISHES that...not disagrees with it..but PUNISHES it.

I don't think you have been on both sides. I don't think you looked at both sides equally. You wanted to believe evolution..learned it..and THEN looked at the other side. So..instead of me arguing anymore what others have written..and you doing the same. Why don't you go out..and pretend you are me? Pretend you don't believe in evolution..and start searching for info. Go to your sites..and read the info without the mindset that it is right. Question it...AGAIN if necessary and see what you find? It would make this all the better if I knew someone else would actually question it. I have been an evolutionist..and I disagree with it now. You have only been an evolutionist it seems. If you really want to get the best you can at disproving those who argue against you..look at their side of the argument. I would like to see what you think when you pretend you believe the opposite of what you do.

I believe you are looking at things the wrong way...and that is a reason why I don't want to have this discussion. Not because you believe in evolution and all..but I think we are arguing on different levels. In fact I think that even the evolution you are arguing is different from what I am..and I think that over time that is what has been conjured up to rope in more events as evidence.

We can't discuss things that are on two different levels...etc. I am not going to refute ANYTHING you said. I am not going to post on this thread anymore simply because I don't want to. It is tiring arguing..lose or win. I don't think we can properly have a discussion about this in the right way. Now..what came of this is nothing. You still think you are correct..and I still think I am. I don't think many people have an interest in this. I want to refute and argue a lot of what you said. Half of what we are arguing about is how we said something, what we meant, etc etc.

I just challenge you to go out..for ONE day...and pretend you don't think evolution is correct. Not that you believe in creation..but that you just don't think evolution is right. Go to some of your websites...the ones that support evolution and post this sentence. "I don't think evolution is right, I think something else happened to get us here". Just make that your first post..and see how people respond. Look up info against evolution...just for one day. I just want to see what you find..what you think, etc. If you enjoy science so much..and only believe the facts etc...then you would like this little experiment. Of course if you do do it..you have to pretend you are someone else..I mean..if you have an account make a new one. Maybe I shall go do it and see what reactions I get.

Anyways..I just wanted to say that I don't have a lot of interest in this topic anymore. It is going no where..and I think we are arguing different things on different levels..that then lead to misunderstandings that then take longer to explain. It isn't enjoyable to me. This "backing out" can be taken however you like. Maybe one day I shall come back and talk to you about it again.

Later.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

I have looked at both sides...the difference here, is every time I contradict some statement you make, you ignore the contradiction or simply repeat it. You have yet to contradict any of the statements I have made against things like that site.

You claim I'm the one not looking at both sides...sure, you may have once believed in evolution, but that doesn't mean you're looking at both sides. You're sticking by faulty logic because...why? Because you want evolution to be wrong? Because you just aren't reading the things that say otherwise?

I'm just confused as to why you claim you are so convinced evolution is flawed, yet aren't able to reply to the points I make which contradict the ones you're providing. I gave point-by-point contradictions of your arguments against evolution. You have yet to provide a response to those or provide me with another argument against it. It seems like any time I make a statement refuting one of yours, you just drop that part of the conversation and try something new.

But if you wish to step out of this debate, that's fine. I agree, this isn't going anywhere...

[Only-now]

I am not ignoring your contradictions. I didn't reply to the ones in the last post before I left for a while because I grew uninterested while away. I had not intention of refuting them...but someone made a post about something else and now we are having this discussion. I think we did a good deal of going back and forth with each other's ideas. So...I don't think you can say I haven't challenged any of your facts at all (as in bringing up my side against them).

I have looked at both sides. I'm not unintelligent. I am very intelligent I believe...but why then would I just overlook all the evidence? It is because I honestly feel it is wrong..and I have my reasons for that. I said many a time my point here was not even to disprove evolution...it was to show it shouldnt be trusted. So...it isn't that I have a faith to support...it is that I am convinced that evolution is not as supported as people make it out to be. I have believed in evolution..and I wanted God to not exist..but I am on the other side...I feel evolution is wrong..and God is viable. There is nothing wrong with that. But like I said..I am not arguing evolution CANNOT be true..I am saying there are problems with it. I still believe it..and I still have science that we could argue over.

You can't say that I haven't argued against your points. Go back and read the posts. I DID do that...we STARTED arguing science back and forth. I just didn't respond to your last "point-by-point" post. I already explained why. We started arguing over other things instead after I came back. That is easy to see if you go back and read the posts. I think I have done a good job of addressing most if not all the points you made. Not proving them wrong..but answering them. I think a lot of what we were doing was misunderstanding.

In fact, I went to some other sites after my last post..and found something interesting. There were evolutionists arguing that the definition you gave me of evolution..which is supposedly the right one...was wrong. A Creationist said he believed in evolution..just not the molecule to man idea. They told him that he didn't believe in evolution then. He posted the definition you gave me..and they said that it was wrong...and not the grand scale. They said that molecule to man was part of it...yet back in our discussion, you insisted that that didn't even have to occur for evolution to be proven. I see a lot of wishy-washy-ness in all of this...and it makes it hard to argue. I mean..how can you debate something when the definition isn't even clear?

Anyways..yes, I am done. Maybe we can continue this in the future. Nice having this chat though.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Really? Because my definition of evolution correlates with that in the dictionary, encyclopdeia, and any science text I have ever read. Where are they getting their definitions?

[Only-now]

You would have to ask them. I forgot which site it was one..but I searched under "Evolution Forums" on Google. I believe they like to change thier definition of evolution so that it best fits either the evidence or the argument.

~Kiva

[Darkslash]

I guess what would be a good question to re-guide discussion (and one I would like to see discussed) is "what is the value of evolution to the human race?"

I.E., if we had no knowledge of the theory/concept, would life be any different?

I mean, we can still pursue science, and genetics/biology can progress in application, without an evolutionary theory, right?

[Pnt]

Yes, it would be vastly different. The theory of evolution lead to numerous changes in society, such as a more defined line before religion and law (Scope monkey trials) and popularizing a concept of change being inevitable over time. At this point in time, to not pursue it, we'd have to censor it. We would have to rape science.

The world would still spin if we thought it was flat. We could go about our happy little lives content with the knowledge of our planar planet, and the majority of science could continue to work its magic. We could still cure diseases, use blenders, and make plastics; except for one issue: the Earth's still not flat.

The differences if evolution were never suggested may be a bit more subtle, but that concept still applied. If the theory of evolution is correct to some degree, but every single person on earth had no concept of evolution, it would continue to be correct to some degree.

[flukey77]

I have been watching this forum with strong interest recently and would like to add a little something. Firstly I will let you know that I am a committed christian, so yes my opinion on the matter will contain a degree of bias. Obviously I believe in divine creation by God. I realise that this may not be the direction this forum intended to pursue, but bringing up the topic of evolution will automatically also bring up the alternatives, that being intelligent design. As belief in intelligent design is often difficult without belief in an intelligent designer, that being God or which ever deity a person so chooses, I have chosen to highlight my faith to you. The intent of this thread is not to disprove any ideas, but to explain why I personally believe in creation.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This is the basics of what I believe as a Christian. I believe in the literal death and resurrection of Christ, therefore I believe in a literal 6 day creation. If i were to reinterpret any aspect of the bible I would be questioning the very validity of what it is that I believe. Therefore, the overriding reason of why I believe in creation and not in evolution is because of this fact. When I talk to friends about creation, they usually find it difficult to accept, unless they already hold a belief in a divine designer/creator. If someone would like to know, I can highlight more reasons for why I am a christian, but in the context of this thread I wont take up too much more of your time.

The second reason is because I personally refuse to believe that I am as a person, just a freak of nature, as evolution would have me believe. Evolution makes us no different to the animals, but I look at humans as a race compared to animals and see no comparison. Our level of intelligence is far superior, as is obvious by seeing what we have developed, observing our way of life. Whereas the animals are still living the way they were created. The fact that humans have religions and belief in divine beings tells me that humans have a spiritual side to their thinking that animals dont experience. Therefore I believe that everything was created with an order and an intent. I realise that that order is not as perfect as it was, but at the point of creation it was perfect.

But yeh, thats me, thats what I believe. I realise that many of you wont agree with me, and fair enough, everyone is entitled to his or her own belief. I hope that I havent offended anyone with this post, as that was not my intent, please let me know if I have.

Luke

[Darkslash]

OK, perhaps to clarify a bit... what if we took to be true what we knew for sure about evolution -- microevolution (change) over time, and "discarded" as inherently flawed the more specious claim of evolutionary theory (common ancestor / macroevolution)?

Are the two intertwined to the extent that we must have all or nothing?

[SpiritWolf77]

On the subject of value, that depends on individual perspective. Is knowledge of gravity, photosynthesis, and plate tectonics necessary for happy an comfortable surivival? Of course not. Value depends on how much you want to analyze the world around you. Some people don't like this kind of in-depth analysis, because frankly, it can get depressing and existential at times, and that's understandable. I think the value of evolutionary knowledge should be left up to each person to decide on their own.

On the subject of macroevolution vs. microevolution, yes, the two are intertwined to that extent. Because the concept of "species" is a human contruct, just as much as time. To assume that evolution simply stops under the species level assumes that nature works on human-defined terms, which is obviously not the case.

Plus, speciation has been proven. That shouldn't be in question.

I suppose common ancestory has more questions that arise, but some common ancestories are rather well-supported by fossil, observational, and genetic evidence.

I'm actually curious if scientists have ever thought about a "single origin" theory but slightly different, with multiple "origin" lifeforms. But then again, I'm less familiar with the concept of abiogenesis so I don't know how plausible multiple occurances of it are within the accepted timeframe.

Plus, the evolutionary tree as it is seems pretty sensible to me...

[SpiritWolf77]

An additional note for those of you who remain convinced that evolution makes no sense or couldn't have happened or whatever, I'm reading a very interesting book right now called Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer. It was written by a former Creationist whose views changed once he began studying evolution.

It puts the theory in simple terms and provides answers to a lot of the questioms Creationists and ID-theorists usually pose.