thoughts on evolution

Do you fail to see that he is poking fun at creationism? It's apparent to me that he's just having fun with his amazing sense of humor.

 

Many of us have done just that, and have arrived at the very same conclusion. EVOLUTION IS TRUE. Why don't you take your own advice and actually post evidence that either supports or contradicts that claim. And by "evidence," I do NOT mean a video or text from a website that is obviously biased and religious by any means. I know that you won't do this at all, and that you will just sit and read this and think that I am a heathen and a non-believer lost from "the truth" which you fail to give.

 

a

 

Thank you pixee, for yet another outstanding post. I wonder where truth-giver is, maybe he saw the insurmountable evidence that is opposing him and decided to walk away with his pride tucked into his trousers. So much as the truth is concerned, it seems that he can't handle it.

So wherever you may be, truth-giver, I wish you the best of everything.

 

a.

 

What I do find interesting is that behind the shrill desperation of creation-fanatics, even belligerent and arrogant ones like 'truth-giver', you can often see the gradual erosion of their beliefs in action. He made a point several times of saying that he has no problem with the idea of evolution. "Oh, evolution? Of COURSE evolution happens, Jesus says about evolution in the Bible! It's just bananas turning into shrimps that I don't agree with lolz".

Fine. But wait a second - this is absurd. Here is a fundamentalist christian creation-fanatic saying he has no problem with the fact of evolution by natural selection and all the resulting phenotypic and genetic adaptations implied by it. Sure, he sticks with the unscientific notion of "kinds" and refuses to accept that evolution implies speciation, but 'microevolution', he accepts. But this in itself is a total reversal of previous christian doctrine in the face of evidence, and a great victory for reason and science. Every time a creationist comes up against counter-arguments and evidence he has to shift what he says ever so subtly so it doesn't sound ridiculous. Most believers are not intellectually sub-normal, any more so than the rest of the population. So creationists have to adapt their views so that the average christian can't see through it immediately for the nonsense it is. Every time a creationist's claim is countered with evidence, they have to change what they say, be more careful, try to fit in a bit better with what is established and common knowledge. Bit by bit, and by slow degrees, creationism as an argument and a movement is going away, quenched by the advance of knowledge. 'truth-giver' is evidence of that.

This shifting ground happens so gradually that you often can't see it happening (like evolution, ironically), but take a snapshot like this and compare it to historical creationist positions and the leap is astounding and comical.

 

a

 

a

 

ok i havent read all the posts on here so i might be repeating what others said but i need to get my 2 cents in.

First off, I will admit that evolution is not proven in the same way that Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is. It is belief. But there is a hell of a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for creation. Saying evolution is wrong because it hasn't been worked out completely yet is like watching something fall and then saying that gravity doesn't exists because it hasn't been worked out either (which it hasn't).

In my opinion, if you don't see the amazing likelihood of evolution (which could btw be incorporated into creation) you haven't yet understood what the theory really means. Go get a 1st year biology text book...

As for your un-answerable questions:

1) Yes, lots of missing links. But lots of not-missing links too. More and more evidence is being collected all the time and being fitted in to various "family trees" of evolution. The course of evolution is EXTREMELY long with billions, maybe trillions of species popping up throughout its history. You go out and find them all if that's so easy. You want a missing link? If the bible covers the entire history of the earth, why does it leave out dinosaurs? Someone would have mentioned them at some point.

2) Do you know what DNA is? How it works? Again, get a 1st year bio text book. There are tons of examples of positive genetic mutations. Understand that mutations are random, they can be good or bad. When one comes around that happens to help a creature make more offspring than its peers, its genes will be more represented in the next generation. Others here have provided some examples of positive mutations so i wont bring up more. But look into, biologists mirco-evolve populations of insects and other short life cycle organisms all the time.

3) The answer to this is implicit in the question. Thousands of years isnt long enough. Also, evolution doesn't mean that you have one species giving birth to another... thats jsut crazy talk. A horse might give birth to a horse with better energy efficiency, and that efficiency might allow that horse to survive a harsh year while the other horses die, therefore leaving his genes to reproduce more energy efficient horses. Its a build up of these mutations OVER TIME that creates new species.

4) Because we didn't record before 4000 BC. How is this relevant?

5) Because our ecosystem (the earth) could not support 100s of billions of people. Again, how is this relevant? Evolution does not contradict your claim at all, in fact it supports it.

6) Carbon dating is an estimation. Much better of an estimation than adding up the ages of people in a book that forgot to mention dinosaurs.

7) Your closed box is pretty amazing if it contains the same conditions of the universe before the big bang. The fact that it hasn't swallowed up our solar system, along with the rest of our galaxy, is incredible. Please send this box to your nearest physics department! There are people who could learn a ton from it!

Finally: im not sure about the worry of a global ruling elite but to answer your question. Humans wont evolve the modern society exists. Its not really survival of the fittest, but survival of those who make the most copies of themselves. In modern society there is no competition, so there is no evolution. Ofcourse it is possible that certain new stresses will cause us to evolve in extreme situations, but right now pretty much everyone has an equal chance of surviving to at least reproductive age.

As far as the comments at the bottom of your post, they are beyond the realm of evolution and so beyond the realm of my reply. I hope this helps to clear a few things up. Understand before you de-value.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcfHN_AJVtA

doesnt the foot look big?

 

Humans walking with dinosaurs? Oh lordy I was wrong all along!:willy_nilly: We must have kept them as pets!

This is a well-known case of misinterpretation / deliberate doctoring of the evidence so notorious that even most creationists have abandoned quoting it as "evidence"
http://toarchive.org/faqs/paluxy.html

 

lithium how could you be so wrong! when i was a little kid; every friday night at midnight, there was this horror movie program called 'project terror.'
i remember one movie, where these little kids traveled back in time and, they made friends with 'urgo' the caveman and his pet stegosaurs. and, urgo let the kids ride 'stegie' all over the place too.
now you tell me cavemen did not stegosaurses as pets?
i know your wrong! i grew up watching the fredstones on tee vee and, the fredstones had a pet dinosaur named dino, and the rubbles had a sabertooth tiger as a pet.
I WANT A SABERTOOTH TIGER AND A STEGOSAURS OF MY OWN RIGHT NOW!!!!
(falls to ground screaming and throws temper tampion)

well, what can i say, the above paragraph is an example of how the thinking processes of some creationist run.
this whole thread just shows, how low of importance, are questions of truth for most people, where strong feelings are involved.

anyhow boys and girls, do you know what happens this week?
it is the 200th. birthday of charles darwin and, it also marks, 150 years since the first publication of 'the origin of speices.'
here in the u.s.a. npr (national public radio) and pbs (public brocasting system) will be airing a number of programs dealing with evolution.
so everyone, be on the look out for these programs on tee vee and radio!
lithium, i see your over in the u.k. those of you like lithium who are outside the u.s.a. be on the lookout for similar programs in your counties

 

isnt darwin just a theory?

 

In scientific usage the word "theory" denotes a principle which adequately explains observed phenomena, makes testable predictions about them, and is supported by a body of evidence.

Yes, evolution is a scientific theory - as distinct from a hypothesis, a conjecture, or a guess (such as creationism). An exceptionally well established theory at that, with more corroborating evidence, in multiple fields, than you can shake a stick at.

 

lithium i'm going to expand on what you just said.
in science a theory carries more weight then a fact.
a theory is a model. in science a theory is always on the table to be re-examined; science has no doctrine or dogma to it.


theistic religion is doctrine and dogma.
one quick example; in the bible god says, that heaven is just above the dome of the sky. that remark was made before the first century. we now live in the 21st. century. we have sent spacecraft beyond the dome of the sky, we now even have spacecraft that have gone beyond our solar system. and heaven is not where god said it is.
this shows that the doctrine and dogma of first century theistic religion, does not fit with what has been observed and tested countless times in the 20th. and 21st. centuries
the more progessive theists have adjusted their doctrine and dogma to deal with this new knowledge.
the more conservative theists have denied and discounted this new knowledge.
sound familiar?

 

wow. this is one very very interesting thread. pixeewinged, you are amazing! really! i love you. i love reading what you said
Oh yea and i just want to throw this out there...i just watched a national geographic channel show and they proved that it was physically impossible for Noah to build an ark out of wood as large as the one "God" ordered him to construct. There is no possible way for the boat to stay in one piece due to the limited strength of the materials (their research however did not account for god's mighty power). hahahahaha random i know, but interesting.

 

whats a good evolution book?

 

Evolution is BULL SHIT

 

what makes you say that?

btw i dnt buy it either !