Evolution

i was about to say, fossil evidence wasnt the example given.

also Afghooey... that was such an awesome strain when i first started to get shit from the club (still awesome now i just havent had it in a while)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anangrymailman

People can beleive what they want. If you wanna beleive that God set up evolution because he was too lazy to create all of the organisms he wanted, then you're entitled to your opinion (which I think is follish btw. How many times are you guys gonna change your story?). But evolution is undeniable. Lets be real here..

---

Well... i didnt mean God was too lazy, even if it seems by what ive written. My argument is: What is easier, to create an entire, adult tree, leaf by leaf, branch by branch, or create just a small seed, which contains in itself all what is needed to it become a tree by itself?

For me, it seems to create just a seed requires a far deeper wisdom and knowledge. Because creating a seed implies in knowing all the processes that will make the seed to become a tree, so when you create a seed, indirectly you are creating also a small plant, a small tree, then a complete tree. All of it contained in a single and small seed.

And i think the same about the evolution. It would be far easier create all the living beings, one by one, already ready for live in the most specialized way. But God, with His infinite wisdom, knew how to make an way for all the living beings appear by itselves, and improve by itselves. He just allowed the living things to mutate themselves, and the hardness of the life select the better ones. So simple, so wise. And so subtle we are tempted to disregard His role in all this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

the theory of evolution is based on the interpretation of the remains of real occurrences.

science is of no use if we refuse to obey its simplest laws. though evolution is the most logical and direct interpretation of the evidence, there are other possibilities that cannot be directly disproved. since there seems to be no way to come to a conclusion through direct experience, it may always be nothing more than a theory.

science is the art of questioning everything and if we are willing to blindly believe any one set of interpretations then we do science a disservice by turning it into just another sorrowfully inadequate religion. scientists are not prophets handing down the holy truth from on high. they are merely fallible men, who should be willing to question even their own conclusions and the rest of us should be just as willing to keep an open mind to all of the possibilities, tossing out only those we find to be wholly inadequate.

fact is not determined by consensus. if it were then we would probably be living on a flat earth sitting on the back of a giant turtle, while fiery chariots raced through the heavens and dragons and unicorns capered in the mist. how cool would that be?

---

Though im not against the theory of the evolution, I could not put it in better words. Science should not be trusted with a religious fervour. Science is science, not a religion.

look up the difference between microevolution and macroevolution

micro has been proven, yes

but macro an entirely different story, we cannot recreate it in a lab nor can we prove it

there is a big difference between a bacteria evoliving so it can live against an antibiotic and an ape changing into a human and becoming intelligent

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
(Source: Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History)

Observed Instances of Speciation

More information about Evolution:
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stemis516

look up the difference between microevolution and macroevolution

micro has been proven, yes

but macro an entirely different story, we cannot recreate it in a lab nor can we prove it

there is a big difference between a bacteria evoliving so it can live against an antibiotic and an ape changing into a human and becoming intelligent

---

I gave no less than 3 examples of Macroevolution a few posts up.

Seriously guys - go study molecular biology and genetics for a few years with some biochemistry and microbiology thrown in and we will have us a bunch of converts ;) Mitochondrial DNA anyone?

So again! Macroevolution is REAL and can be demostrated - I can give you a whole bunch of examples but you will still believe whatever the hell you want. The clearest one in my mind (and the xample I used) is the fact that we share the same left over virus infections as the primates we are descended from.

In fact there are tons of examples which make creationism total bunk - beleive what you want though. Evolution has evidence - creationism is a nice idea but it sure isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such.

Its that never ending qustion, if you dont belive in creation

then you belive that somthing came from nothing,

if you saw the golden gate bridge, and I told you that it was not

made, but it just apeared one day, would you belive me? of course not

that would not make any sence, and who would belive that? no one.
when we drive through the city we all know that every thing we see

had a builder. but by beliving that it does not project any threat to are
own personal belife system. but when you say that God made the heavens

and the earth, then that makes us subject to His set of rules, and none of
us want to be under someone elses authroty, we want to be are own man

(are woman), and live are lives how we see fit. the sad part of this hole thing

is, is that most of us dont understand how are why God works in are lives
most people belive that God is a kill joy, but what He has written is for are

own good and happiness. no something did not come nothing, something came
from somthing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

erm hang on there....

Evolution IS a fact - the reason so many are against it is that it fucks up their world view - so they distort facts. It isn't something that requires you to "beleive in it" - the facts are there, ignore them if you wish.

Only in the United States is evolution even "debated" - you can't compare faith and science that's like Apples & Oranges. In UK Schools this is taught as fact and not mixed up with religion - it is science after all - and not faith.

Of course there are Christian scientists - they tend to accept evolution for the most part as they wouldn't be scientists if they ignored facts. They well well "beleive" that god controls evolution - that's faith, there is no evidence of that.

You need to understand the science behind evolution before you can even begin to argue for or against it. Otherwise you are just a fundamentalist arguing over what you beleive is right.

---

Iam sorry my friend but you have no idea what you are talking about,
and you do not have your facts straight

And who's ERM? :jointsmile:

I believe in the big bang. God said, Let there be light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pass That Shit

And who's ERM? :jointsmile:

I believe in the big bang. God said, Let there be light.

---

what is erm?