evolution

do you believe in it or not? or are you all religious and believe that God made it in "seven days"? i think that evolution occured.

Okay...
Yes, I am what you call "religious," I do believe in God and that he made everything in seven days. The reasons I believe this are very simple.

1. By just looking around I know we were created and everything I see had to be created, since it couldn't have just happened, *snap*, like that. It had to be created by someone who is very wise. There are like so many little things that couldn't just have been mistakes or something, like molecules that had to be created, not just suddenly appeared.

2. People have studied the Bible and they have found hundreds, maybe even thousands of codes that are practically impossible for humans to make in the Bible. They have found if you put together different things in the Bible it will make something God has said...things like that. That is one reason I strongly believe in God. You see he's supernatural, and no person could have ever done something like that.

3. People couldn't have come from monkeys. It's impossible. If people had come from monkeys (the theory is that monkeys slowly changed into humans) then we'd have changed into something else by now. It has been researched that people looked almost the same as now 1000 years ago, so how come during that time and the present we haven't turned into some other creature? We haven't. Which obviously shows that humans haven't come from monkeys.

That's my belief. I'm just stating what I believe is right and true.

A question: Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?

Satuxxa

change happens very slowly. that is practically the definition of evolution. it takes time for an organism to evolve into something. we arent going to change into something over night, just because we want to. it's impossible. havent you noticed that people adapt to their surroundings? some people in the mountains are shorter and have bigger lungs, its scientifically proven that they changed slowly, not right when they moved there. it took a really long time for them to have evolved. they had to adapt to their surroundings. ever heard of "charles darwin"? he has so much evidence about how the earth changes so often, its impossible for anyone , yes anyone, to change it constantly. dont get me wrong, i respect your belief, im just stating what i believe is true.

I myself am not a religous person, and I do agree with evolution, but I don't think you should use the quote of "seven days" as a use in an argument.
My parents are religous (no, they don't know I'm not, lol) and my mother actually had some good points. She explained that -God-'s time length would be on a much grander scale than that of a human being. So, seven days could mean 7,000,000 years.

But yes, I do agree with the theories of evolution. However you'd be surprised at some good arguments I've seen in the past given from believers. (no...I don't mean "where did earth come from if there is no God"...)

my biology teacher has some really good points about evolution. you should have your people, talk to my people, and we'll do lunch. ;) lol. thats a great movie, anywayz. sorry, i wont use the whole "seven days" thing n e more. i have also heard that 7 days might = 7000 years, 10,000 years, etc. i dont know, it still doesnt make much sense to me, about how one perso, created soo much, and still keeps it working.

That's the thing, blackrose. God is not a person. He is an all-powerful Deity.

I think it makes perfect sense that something with infinite power can create a universe.

~Ciao Lipton

PS: That number thing came from the Bible:
"To Him, 1 day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day..."

Taken from the Bible. It shows how God is not tethered by time.

I once saw a great theory that God was asleep for the next billion years, because a day to us is a billion years to him, perhaps it was a million, but in any regard, the earth was aprox. 6 billion years old right around the time of Jesus (according to the guy who made up this theory), so he is now on his 7th day, and he is resting.

He is therefore asleep, and we're screwed.

lilblakrosette,

Yes, I have heard of Charles Darwin. The thing is, right before he died he said that everything he had said and written, that it couldn't be true. He said that it couldn't have happened. So, there goes the whole evolution theory, because the guy who made it up decided that it couldn't work.
Oh yes, I forgot, did you answer my question? Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?

Satuxxa

I support the big bang theory along with others, considering we do not know exactly what happened, and most likely never will.

just because Darwin denounced his teachings before his death doesn't mean we throw away the evolution theory. There is still evidence leading up to it, and it is still studied and argued today.
Charles Darwin wasn't the one person who claimed that evolution was how humanity came about, he merely contributed to the theory.
And I never actually heard about him denouncing the theory. I will study it, because it's intriguing, but I've never heard of it before.

Me thinks that we're just units of survival that's adapted to our particular climate/chemistry over the thousands of years - big bang, cool down, off we trot out of the slime; each unit developing from its particular point of origin.

This might sound sad to some, but I don't believe in the notion of God as the creator. We just cannot figure out our own narrative, and so the ultimate creator has to be suffice. If we look at the structure of fiction, and, indeed, mythology, there is a hierarchical structure of characters that always exists in the layout. This needs consideration when we talk about any religious notions.

actually, i do believe in the big bang theory or whatever u guys call it. also, the only reason that darwin said that it couldnt have happened, was because he didnt have dna to prove his findings. if he had dna, he could have went so much further than he did. it didnt make sense to him, because he didnt know about dna, and when it became known, then it proved his theory to the max. dna is important, and its the basis of all life. its mitosis, miosis, and all that nifty stuff that is too complex for one being (yes, even nonhuman) to create. evolution is how this earth was made, go here: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
it says alot. also saying that it probably cant be proved, but its an idea that is out on the table, with alot of evidence. respecting both sides of the argument.

If Evolution was proven to have definitely happened, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The finding of DNA did not prove evolution.

And how can you sit there and say that something was too complex for a nonhuman to create? I'm guessing that you're talking about God here.

God is infinite in power. He can bring the existance of anything with a single thought. Do NOT tell me God couldn't do it, because He certainly could. He is infinite in all aspects.

~Ciao Lipton

haha, these religious discussions are funny, because belief will ALWAYS over ride any fact one can offer in their pursuit to prove or disprove the existance of a "God."

Have fun, I'm going to try and stay out of these discussions from now on, if I can.

so, there's white mud? and all of out cells are sand? that doesnt make sense. how can such complexity come out of sand and mud?
and by the way, if God could create us, the way he did, then why are there so many variations of theories about how the earth was created? by both adam and eve? sand and mud? 7 days?
did you know, that when adam eve had little kids, thats called incest first of all when they reproduced. and their children would have genetic problems, and it would keep going on and on like that. we would be mutated severely if that theory was true. you cant say that the early on christians and whatnot looked differently, because the pictures and whatnot in the bibles that i see, look just like you and me.
incest, theories, mud, sand, i dont know.

If we did in fact come from Adam and Eve, that would explain a lot.

OK. I tried, I simply cannot stay out of these theological discussions, even if I'm only useful for useless but thought provoking commentary.

Just because we did decend from apes, that is no reason to rub their noses in it.

I agree the story of genesis is poetic and has nothing to do with the science of today, Yet in a poetic sense it is totally true

we just recently talked about evolution in class, so ive been comptemplating it a lot. first off, i do belive in evolution and in god, im catholic. i believe that in the bible, seven is one of those special numbers, a magic number so to speak. like in the bible when jesus says 'forgive your neighbor not seven times, but seven times seventy tmes' back in those days, to them it was like infinity. so in those times, they didnt know excactly how things came about from the scientific point of view, simpliy because pretty much no one studied science. their main point was to convey that god created our souls and about our relationship with him, they knew nothing about evolution in those times, so they made some stuff up that seemed pretty logical at the time. but now we have more knowledge of things like evolution and we can begin to grasp that maybe they both fit, that we evolved from something a long time ago, but also that god perhaps stated the whole thing and that what he does is creayes the soul. and also, yes, i do whole heartedly believe in the big bang theory, infact im very interested in it and hope to research it one day, and its also interesting to think that maybe god could have started that, really mind boggling. anyway, thats where i stand on it all. and btw, we did not come from monkeys, but we did come from a common ancestor as the ape, and evolution comes about over a very long period of time involving mutations and such that take generations to fully accept it in most cases.

Did you know that Genisis was plagiarized?

That's right.

I think that every culture has their explanation for creation. Basically the stories are all similar.

chenges occur over time!! holy crap! how many times do i have to say that?! the problems that the biblical characters faced, were probably the same as ours now, but ours have more modification. im sure that they werent complaining about computer problems and such. w/e. i dont care. evolution happened, and there is enough proof to convince me.

You don't believe in evolution? wow...

Well...you see...evolution is partly a result of natural selection. For instance, take a population of 100 zebras, where half of them have genes that make them terribly poor runners. They are much more likely to be taken by lions than those with genes that make them excellent runners. Therefore, the amount of poor runners will decline slowly as time passes, and in quite some time, the population consists of only good runners. This is a proven thing. If you don't believe in it...well..it's up to you.

And by the way, scared of the dark, you can't argue against by saying that such a kind of evolution would take trillions of years. How can you possibly know that? you know, six billion years is quite some time.

And to whoever claimed that monkeys aren't related to us...come on. You say that we should have evolved into a new creature by now...to evolve into a new species takes much more than 10.000 years. And besides, we do not need to adapt to our enviroments anymore, and so evolving into a new species would be completely pointless. Natural selection is not a part of human life like it was before, and so we won't change much.

scared: I think the other way around, it's religion that is "widely accepted"
You pretty much just argued with yourself considering you used modern knowledge to critisize the thought that the earth was flat. And evolution is not accepted because it's a trend, it's accepted because there is much significant evidence and new theories now which make sense as to how humans came about.
Of course we don't know for sure if it's accurate, but there have been many studies and facts which contribute to the theory.

Finally someone not affected by religion.

Thank you man

ismail: go back to abercrombie
:) you knew I was gonna say it

ismail, the reason why I said it was the ther way around was indeed because a person was trying to make a point that evolution is widely accepted because it's what people tell them to think, and I think that is completly vise versa. So why are you "duh"ing me when I just made a point to someone who made that comment?

And jHarrison made that comment because he thought it obvious the previous comment didn't know what they were talking about. They didn't give enough facts. That's his point.
He wasn't generalizing it to everyone, the people who in fact didn't know what they were talking about, so there you go.

I beleive in creation.

Evolution is disproved by science.
The second law of thermodynamics says that things are continually running down. The evolutionist believes that things are getting better.

Charles Darwin also said that man came from monkey's but some scientific discoveries say that we may as well have come from a chicken, because the chicken has similar tears as a human.

The geologic colmn which was meant to help the evolutionists cause also doesn't work. They have as of yet to find that and 'the missing link'.

Often the evolutionist will use circular reasoning to explain how old something is. For instance Supposedly rocks date fossils while the fossil dates that rock.

If you study what they believe about the evolution of the horse you will find it to also be wrong according to their own standards.

"Evolution is disproved by science."
HA. Sorry.
"The second law of thermodynamics says that things are continually running down. The evolutionist believes that things are getting better"
Ann, scientific theories today do not relate to what is taking place at this point in time. The theory of evolution is directed towards the stages of life which have proceeded to produce species which exist today.
(and please no one try to argue with that statement. Evolution within some animal species has already been proven, over and done with.)
Not to mention
"The second law of thermodynamics says that things are continually running down."
Are you aware that this is also, indeed, a theory?

"some scientific discoveries say that we may as well have come from a chicken, because the chicken has similar tears as a human."
That's hardly the same.
The human organs are also similar to those of pigs, does that define us as having evolved from them? probably not. The reason why monkeys were presumed to be our evolutionary ancestors was because they possess our ability to learn, (though of course not to the same extent), incredibly similar bone structure, the thumb (which you shall find to be a significant fact), and the affection scale which is shared between families. Not to mention other actions which are far too long to mention.

"'the missing link'."
Yes...that's why it is indeed a theory.

"Often the evolutionist will use circular reasoning to explain how old something is. For instance supposedly rocks date fossils while the fossil dates that rock."
Apologies, for I had to laugh at this. Is this not a tactic that religious believers use when neither side has come to a conclusion?

I just ran across this quote on a website:

"Darwin's theories are being disproven

The theory of the Evolution of Species is being disproven because the DNA molecule is just too complicated to have arisen by ''natural mutations.'' Dr. Crick, one of the original discoverers of the DNA molecule, later proved mathematically that it is absolutely impossible for evolution to have ever even begun to produce DNA in the short amount of history that we have as a planet.[4]"

The source cited says this:

"Crick, Francis. 1981. Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature New York: Simon and Schuster (see Chapter 7). See Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information "

By the way, human DNA has supposedly been forming for 6000 years or so.

I dont personally believe that, but that's what science thinks.

still. there is still enough evidence about how the theory of darwin can be proved. just because a few articles says that its not, doesnt mean that its not possible for evolution. there are HUNDREDS of sites about how evolution can be proved, but maybe only a few on the opposite sides. still, evolution, oposed to the other theory, is more believable.

If anyone wants to read the entire article:

http://www.myfortress.org/evolution.html

"The question we must ask is: Is it more logical, rational, and scientific to believe in evolution, or it it more logical, rational, and scientific to believe that , "In the beginning God created?" Lets look at the evidence.

Does life arise spontaneously by chance, as evolution teaches? No! The basic axiom of all biology is biogenesis: Life only arises from life; it does not come from nonliving matter. Does this more logically fit evolution or creation.

What about the teaching of evolution that everything is evolving ever upward to greater and greater complexity, all by chance? The evidence is the second law of thermo-dynamics. The laws of physics show that everything goes from organization to chaos. This is known as entropy. Does this more logically fit evolution or the biblical account of creation and the fall?

What about the fossil record? Darwin said that if evolution were to be true we would find the evidence in the fossil records by finding millions of transitional forms or, "missing links." What we find, in fact, is everything appearing fully formed after its own kind in the fossil record with no evidence of transitions! Does this more logically fit evolution or the biblical creation? In Genesis Chapter 1 doesn't God say He created everything, "after their own kind?"

It never ceases to amaze us that when we were in kindergarten they taught us that a frog turning into a prince was a nursery fairy tale, but when we got to college they told us that a frog turning into a prince was science! The Bible says that only a fool says in his heart, "There is no God". By following evolution we have literally become a nation of fools following false, unscientific data."

LBR: That's absolute BS.

I believe in evolution because I believe in adaption, and ADAPTION throughout our species has been proven, but we simply did not sprout from something NOT human, humans are a species in themselves, we are not a form of monkey.

The theory of evolution is relatively sound, like any other scientific theory (for instance, it used to be scientifically sound that the earth was flat, because that's how it appeared, but now we have more sophisticated technology and KNOW this is false, we can see more), Darwins theory is rationalizing and reaching for a solution of how we came to be, but there are problems with his theory and it is being challenged because the theory itself does not answer all the questions we have, therefore there are holes that need to be filled.

Again, I'm a believer in adaption. It's just that if people knew of the actual theory they wouldnt be die hards for it.

By the way, I'm not a bible thumper, I am traditionally the antithesis, I just posted that article for the sake of it.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of everyone relating the theory to Darwin.
He had excellent points, and contributed much to science, but evolution cannot be based on his ideas ALONE. There were many, many scientists involved in this study, and still are. So please, do not try to base the ideals of existance on one man's work.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of semantics.

It is HIS theory. That doesnt mean he worked alone on it, but if someone refers to it as the "Darwin theory," people (who know anything about the topic) will know what theory you're talking about, the theory of evolution.

And, it doesnt matter that the article is dated. It's still correct.

Bottom line: The theory is not perfect, and it is not perfect scientific fact.

well first off, we didnt come from the monkey, we had a common ancestor. second off, there is a lot of proof for evolution such as we can see fossils over time (we can tell by carbon dating where you find the amount of carbon14 in something)and see that slight changes occured when it was needed. namely things like the ice age and other changes mostly in the environment. third, there is nothing that should keep anyone from any religion from doing science. it is not related at all and neither of them should get in the way of eachother saying that if you believe in one, you cant do the other.

People really need to look into quantum physics, but that's a whole nother topic.

Adaption is no mystery, it happens, and that's obvious, the hole in Darwins theory is where it tries to say we adapted from another species, or of a spin off species of human. We had to COME from somewhere, just like the Universe did, and no one can REALLY explain either, there are THEORIES (Big Bang "theory"), but they are nothing more than that. No one can call them "scientific fact," because they simply are not FACT, they are scientific philosophy, and they should work "theoretically."

Agreed, but anyways, I believe in the evolution theory, simply because it seems by far the most likely. Many scientific theories have been proven wrong, no doubt, but what about all the crap religion has made people believe?

I am much against christianity...and most religions really...

What about starting a post where people who hate religion can have fun???

I'll start one just now...

Kaitlin, we cannot base facts on his studies alone because he was the beginning of it, that's the whole point. Ideas progress and new evidence is found, so when a person says "Darwin denounced his theory" we cannot base the whole theory on that statement alone considering he started something that others added to. ...again.

"Bottom line: The theory is not perfect, and it is not perfect scientific fact."
And I ask what theory of development is? what pieces of evidence or ideals of how we came to be are? None. Not one. There is no such thing as a perfect, concrete theory. If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Pink: When I said "Darwins theory" it refers to the theory of evolution, I have no idea what Darwin contributed versus what any other scientist did, it's irrelevent. The theory is refered to as the theory of evolution or "Darwins" theory (because he was the one who came up with it, and it was expanded upon by others). They are the same thing, that was the context I used it in. I am not saying other scientists didnt contribute, but lets not get lost in semantics that are pointless.

And to answer your question: "I ask what theory of development is? what pieces of evidence or ideals of how we came to be are?"

I already answered you, and you repeated me:

"There are [scientific] THEORIES (Big Bang "theory"), but they are nothing more than that. No one can call them "scientific fact," because they simply are not FACT, they are scientific philosophy, and they should work, "theoretically."