Oh atheism is a mental disability? Just because we can listen to all the scientific theories, facts and developments and decide whether the existence of god is feasable and see that it isn’t? Shut the hell up “Redneck_Rebel’
no, it is a theory. It has just held up for every situation possible so far, so it is generally accepted as a law. There are no laws in science as nothing is ever 100% proven. It can be proven to such an extent as to be considered a truth, but can never be. The absence of contradicting evidence is not proof.
A law (in scientific terms) is simply an observable pattern in nature.
A theory is used to explain how/why that pattern exists.
Most people think that a theory can be proven enough to turn into a law, but that’s not really true. They’re not the same thing.
Really evolution in its simplest form should be a law. Due to genetics and mutations, species change all the time. It’s an observable pattern. But it’s probably not a law because of how controversial it is.
I am a creationist. But even I know that species change.
The “theory” part of Darwin’s evolution is natural selection. Having a theory just means it is explaining the pattern of evolution…and if it’s a theory, then it has never been proven false with any legitimate evidence.
What creationists mostly have a problem with is the way people use it to try to say there is no God. I don’t believe that’s so. I also don’t believe we evolved from monkeys. Although evolution is true, it does not change species as drastically as people think. For the most part, it’s adaptations. Like with the Gallapagos finches or with different colored moths. That is a perfect example of species changing and adapting in order to survive. It’s a gift God gave them. But it hardly means everything evolved from a single cell.
There are a number of ways evolution is used negatively. However, there are quite a few ways religion is used negatively…so it’s a difficult debate.
Overall, not all creationists are so ignorant. But she’s got a start, perhaps. She just has to educate herself a little more so she doesn’t sound so naive.
I have also seen many comments about Newton and Einstein.
Let me explain. Newton was first to analyze gravity. He observed the pattern.
THEN he came up with a theory for why and how gravity exists.
Years later. That theory was proven wrong. And Einstein gave his own theory about why and how gravity exists.
Then when that was proven wrong…other scientists step up.
Gravity itself has never changed. It IS a law. It’s an observable pattern in nature. There’s no way you can deny it because it’s holding you to your chair this very moment.
However, people continue to theorize why it exists. That is not as easy to explain.
Actually no, gravity is simply a thing. It exists. It isn’t a law. That’s like saying “Apple is a law”. It isn’t. Its a thing.
And yeah, philosophically speaking, nothing in sciene is a law, nor is it certain. Its merely happened many more times before, but that doesn’t guarantee it will happen again of course.
Scientifically speaking however, there are laws, truths, and certainties. But where’s the fun in certainty?!
UMMM humans did not evolve from monkeys we had a common ancestor which is why human DNA is 99% IDENTICAL to Chimpanzee DNA WE HAVE THE SAME ANCESTRAL TRAITS FROM THE SAME ANCESTOR WE ARE A MONOPHYLETIC GROUP!!!!
Wrong. We have fossils. They are clear and irrefutable evidence that evolution on a far larger scale than you admit. They also prove, several times over, that we do in fact share an ancestor with monkeys. Genetics backs it up completely. Meaning there are no discrepancies between the two. Both show us that evolution comes in patches, and is anything but goal-oriented and gradual.
You mean the rheumatic old man from France? Or Lucy, who required splicing and screwing and some sort of sander to get together? Yes, the fossils are sooo accurate. Plus, from others who posted above, it is supposedly chimpanzees that human ‘originated from’ not monkeys.
To prove your evolution exists, please grow a third arm from your right shoulder and send pics.
I agree with luvbugmd completely. Irrefutable evidence does not exist outside God, and even then, as humans, we have trouble understanding.
that’s.. not.. even.. What? Evolution is not something that happens suddenly to an individual during their lifetime. It’s a gradual process through multiple generations when people seek sexual partners with desirable traits and so guarante the preservation of those traits.
That thing about the third arm is pretty much the reason for why I don’t generally bother to argue with creationists.
you were doing fine, then you lost me at “theory part/natural selection” and “what creationists have a problem with…”
first off, how can you believe evolution is possible without natural selection? What about it is so hard to grapple with? Natural selection can be seen in patterns. Clearly. It is the foundation of evolution.
I haven’t met an atheist or humanist or naturalist who used evolution as “definitive proof” that god doesn’t exsist. What, ahem, atheists, which doesn’t mean antigod btw, have a problem with, is that the only “proof,” evidence,” or “pattern” that he does exsist is…the bible. And if that proves his exsistence, then jk rowling has proved the exsistance of wizards. Therefore, creationism is not a scientific theory, and it should not be taught in secular society as fact nor theory.
perhaps fossil evidence and genetics and gene sequencing will convince you otherwise and the fact that actual rock can be dated to around 4.5 billion years ago…
It’s important to note that while newton was on the right track with gravity, his logic was fundamentally flawed.
The flaw in newtonian physics lies in assuming that objects are attracted to each other, while in truth the fact of the matter is that matter bends space itself, the appearance of gravity is nothing but smaller objects moving within space that is bent by larger ones.
More importantly, there was some dude named Einstien who completely made up “gravity 2.0″ after the original didn’t work out. And less than 30 years later, someone realized that Gravity 2.0 doesn’t work either, because it’s 8 different kinds of fucked up at the quantum level. So physicists have been trying to make up some new “gravity 3.0 String Theory Edition” ever since.
For a long time, far before Darwinian scientists came to be. You see, before Darwin even existed, there were people who believed in God, who were the scientists of the time. And they are still around with more factual information than anything other scientists claim to be. What with claiming we are from monkeys by splicing together fossils and pulling up rheumatic old men.
Just to let you know, gravity is a LAW, because it is an observable object in nature. There are theories of Gravity and how it reacts with us, where it comes from, etc. This can be better explained by this example. There is an apple, so there is a LAW of apple. How did the apple get there, we don’t know, so there are many theories of what that apple does, how it got there, etc. Just substitute an apple with gravity and you should see.
A law? Since when was this decided? It is still a theory and actually Natural Selection does not explain why evolution occurs, Natural Selection is a completely different form of evolution from the evolved-from-monkeys kind.
Say, you can make a species of roses tall by breeding it with tall roses for tall offspring and weeding out the small ones. That’s Natural Selection. But, even if you did that for a million years, it would never start growing legs and walking, or developing a rational mind. Or even turn into a tree most likely, since they are too different.
I would think the same is true for even a relatively smart animal like the chimpanzee. It could never just become a rational thinker, just because a more ‘smart’ chimp survives and breeds.
“you can make a species of roses tall by breeding it with tall roses for tall offspring and weeding out the small ones.”
“It could never just become a rational thinker, just because a more ‘smart’ chimp survives and breeds.”
So you’re saying you’re happy with the statement
“One tall plant specimen crossed with another tall plant has a chance of producing tall offspring.”
but you’re not happy with the statement
“One chimpanzee with a well developed brain bred with another chimpanzee with a well developed brain has a chance of producing more chimpanzees with well developed brains”?
How about
“One retarded creationist bred with another retarded creationist has a good chance of producing more retarded creationists”.
And people making fun of someone willfully being ignorant of science and buying some story from primitive goat-herders without critical analysis of it on any level isn’t funny how?
For a guy who made it all up without any shred of evidence, he sure was a great guesser. Modern day tools not available in his time (such as DNA analysis) have proven not only what he said, but what he predicted we would find. Amazing!
Maybe ‘god’ gave Darwin special powers like seeing into the future so he could make a theory (that has been proven over and over again) that would cause this much controversy, you know, just to keep things interesting! I do believe that is the simplest explanation as to why a man who was just guessing somehow managed to gues right about everything he guessed about! Or maybe he wasn’t guessing and actually observed something that everyone else had missed up to that point, lik Newton.
“Last I checked, gravity was a law. Evolution is still a theory.”
I think laws were made to be broken? No? LOL.
No one knows what gravity is, but the string theorists view is that gravitons cause it, and they continually drop out of our universe into some other universe(s). Sounds like a theory to me.
You do know there is a distinction between a ‘theory’ and that of a ‘scientific theory’? As different as night and day.
Of course some atheist d* with zero sense of humor would post something like this on a site that’s supposed to be apolitical fun. Word to the atheists: it’s not effing funny. Now quit spamming the site with your propaganda. How’re you lemmings enjoying Climategate? Lol. Here’s an ep1c phail for you:
Leading Climatologist says: the wurld iz ep1kly cooling! WTF!?!!!1 The powlr ice capz are getting huge! The wurld iz gonna be a desert.
(Posted 30 years ago)
Al Gore says: the wurld is ep1kly warming! WTF!?!?!!!1 the powlr ice capz are shrinking. The powlr bearz iz dying! The wurld iz gonna be an ocean!
You have some interesting opinions. What, if I may ask, is your take on the dissolution of the written English language into a string of nonsensical gibberish through the incorporation of leet into the popular lexicon?
Imagine that, scientists forming theories based on observable evidence and then revising the *theory* once the evidence shows something different. This is not religion, where you manipulate evidence to suit faith.
Also, no one who is a member of an organized religion is ever allowed to call anyone not actively following other people jumping off a cliff a lemming.
What about that one guy, trying to create life from the ‘primordial soup’ through some experiment that worked off of what the Earth should have been like 4.5 billion years ago? When he manipulated the results by adding oxygen into the experiment? Or when they sanded Lucy together to make her fit together?
Yeah, absolutely NO manipulation there…
Actually, the basic premise for Christianity [for one] has not changed, while the basic premise for evolution is constantly shifting as scientists ‘discover’ new evidence.
Stanley Miller, was testing for the conditions that created life. He tested the conditions that might have been present by adding one at a time. Turns out, he was able to produce amino acids, proteins, and other organic compounds found in cells. I do believe your bible has been edited and reformed, turned into a pocket book, has new versions every other year, now has an app for the iphone. If nothing has changed in your “religion”, are you admitting that religion has become a cult for a few to get rich of the neediness for others to have something to believe in?
Why is an evolutionist automatically an atheist and a global warming believer? I’m an atheist – I work at a Christian company and sit next to a Christian who believes in global warming and evolution.
Personally, I’m undecided on the whole global warming debate, but am happy to go along with it if the net result is that we move away from non-sustainable fuel supplies.
Incidentally your god is a lie and Jesus never existed. Have a nice day.
Science and religion aren’t as different as they would like to be. Both simply are just looking for awnsers to the questions of life. Science could use some more imagination, and religion could use some more reality, both need to stop acting like they know what the hell they’re talking about.
And the truth behind it all is who gives a fuck? We don’t need genuine certainty or knowledge to be able to go about our own lives. We’re perfectly fine not knowing whether or not some non-existant being clapped his non-existant hands and POOF we existed, or if the existance of everything simply happened when nothing came together and exploded. POOF, we existed.
And the silence of the universe rejoiced..
Steps of the Scientific method (this is grade school science, people)
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
Creationism is only a hypothesis. It can’t be tested; no experiments were ever done. It’s not even a theory. Only after the data and conclusion is done does it even become a theory.
Oh, and in regards to the guy saying gravity was a theory, I detected a little sarcasm in his comment, as faint as it was. I guess some people didn’t catch that though.
Okay listen up, all of you (except the VERY few that are right): A hypothesis is just a guess based on ideas that one has. That would be creationism, as someone has already stated.
A THEORY is a hypothesis which has undergone extensive testing, but is not universally accepted as a LAW is. Also, most if not all LAWS are actually scientifically proven EQUATIONS that follow all evidence collected thusfar, and place the data into one convenient compacted package. However…
I might even go so far as to say that creationism is one level BELOW a hypothesis, as it is not one person’s idea but rather an adaptation of the ideas of what are now called the ‘heathen’ religions by those who somehow innately consider that their IMAGINARY god(s) are better than someone elses IMAGINARY god(s). The fact is, religion and science ARE different. Religion is something that governments and leaders of societies made up to control and soothe the minds of the masses, as well as to attempt explain phenomena in the environment that, with the scientific knowledge of the time, were unexplainable. SCIENCE, however, attempts to find RATIONAL and PROVABLE explanations for anything that anyone may be curious about. Granted, there are still mysteries even within science, but at least scientists ADMIT ANY FAILURES, while creationists and preachers DO NOT, as is clearly evidenced by luvbugmd up there. Fossil, genetic, molecular, and geological evidence ALL indicate we DID evolve from primitive primates. However, the idiots are right about one thing (and I do mean IDIOTS), we did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans BOTH evolved from much more PRIMITIVE ancestors, and diverged a very long time ago.
So in short, religion capitalizes and uses peoples’ fear of the unknown, and science attempts to eliminate that fear and replace it with knowledge. So who do you want to believe, your aggressor or your defender?
Yes, because everyone knows that Jesus was a great proponent of the government. That’s why he was crucified. By the government.
Wouldn’t you agree that this thing you call science also “capitalizes and uses peoples’ fear of the unknown”? Seeing as you just create theories that makes thinking about how we came to be easier than believing in God, because believing in God means you have to live a moral life.
“Seeing as you just create theories that makes thinking about how we came to be easier than believing in God, because believing in God means you have to live a moral life.”
Ironic, though, as atheists and agnostics make up less than .25% of the US prison population… If you compare that statistic to the percentage of the overall population of the US that claims to be atheistic or agnostic (between 10 and 20%, depending on your source), atheists and agnostics are VASTLY underrepresented in the prison populations, statistically.
Also, atheists have FEWER abortions and a lower divorce rate.
So believing in God means you have to live a moral life, eh? Do people who believe in God know this? And whose morality are we going by, anyway?
Why does everyone treat a theory as if it were such an unbelievable thing? A theory is upheld by scientific facts, and constantly tested and re-tested to make sure it still functions as it says it does. Just because it hasn’t been named a universal law, doesn’t mean that it is any less credible.
Sooooo you are saying that this theory that pretty much everybody has spent the past 150 years or so trying to discredit and CAN’T is false. On top of none of you idiots coming up with something better and backing it up with facts, there is a thing called Evolutionary Developmental Biology where the genetics of in utero development are studied and that proves evolution. DNA analysis proves evolution, speciation proves evolution, fossil records proves evolution, vestigial structures proves evolution (and for those who are ignorant vestigial structures are left over structures on an animal from a previous state like most snakes have stumps where their legs used to be), and many other proofs I don’t want to get into.
+ 1000 internets but of course they will ignore this and continue with their narrow-minded “crusade”…
Here’s my theory, religion = comfort, the fact that hey we’re a speck in this vast universe and the earth could be obliterated and not a single damn will be given apparently scares humans…
You’re a carbon-based life form whose chemistry allows for a brain and chemical transfers to become thought…thats it, deal with it…
No you’re not special nobody is, theres in all likley hood millions of other life bearing planets within our galaxy alone, disregard the billions of other galaxies…
The universe only exits as long as life is there to observe it, think about that for a second…
Jeesy Chreesy. This is such a fail. Darwin has more evidence to his theory than the entire race of Christianity combined has to the existence of God. To this I say, facepalm, facepalm, facepalm to the ignorance of religious types.
All I have to say really is that people who say that they do ‘good’ science and support that fully without doing anything to actually persuade them are being extremely hipocritical. If some people say “there is no god” or “their imaginary gods” then they are being just as naive as some who say that there is without studyig the evidence. For instance, whether people like it or not the bible is a source of evidence… PROVEN… if you were wondering! Just as darwin’s books can be suggested as evidence. I could say Darwin was a crazy old man who wrote a book about how we evolved from apes just as stupid people say an old geezer wrote the bible. This ignorance leads them to make ridiculous conclusions.
Believe it or not science and “religion” both require faith or trust in something happening! they both answer different questions what it means is whether you will either be naive and suggest that science disproves god or be totally unreasonable and close your eyes to science because you think that religion means that this simply cant be the case. the CHOICE is yours!
Just curious, but what about the Bible has been “proven?” Darwin’s books can be accepted as evidence because his experiments and conclusions are the product of scientific rigor, and anyone in the world can repeat his experiments. He drew a conclusion from observed facts, and his conclusion has been nothing but affirmed by science since then.
And there is incentive for scientists to prove Evolution to be false. How famous do you think “the man who brought down Evolution” would be? That guy would be a millionaire and would be immortalized by history. Disproving Evolution is a scientist’s wet dream, but it hasn’t happened for a reason.
The biggest problem with people who question Evolution is that they see it as a “belief,” even though it is not. Selfish, individualistic people tend to think that facts are subjective and that they can pick and choose what goes on in the universe because they have the “freedom” to do so. Science is NOT faith, and it is NOT a belief. You don’t get to “decide” whether it happens or not like you can with religion. You could say that Darwin was a crazy old man who wrote a book, but unless you have scientific evidence proving you point you’d be buried under a mountain of evidence that proves you wrong. The same does not go for the Bible.
When we stop questioning science, we’ve all lost. All science should be continually questioned, tested, and re-tested. Especially evolution. Otherwise, eugenics might be the law of the land today. Just saying.
A quick clarification. ‘Evolution’ refers to a change in the frequency of certain traits in a population over a period of time. Populations of all forms of life do change over time; it has been observed in the petri dish and it has been observed in the fossil record. It’s been observed for all plants and animals we’ve come across. Evolution is a fact.
It occurs when a preferential trait is present in a part of the population. That preferential trait might be a friendly demeanor in the world dog breeders or exceptionally sweet flesh of a particular banana. If people only breed the dogs with friendly demeanors and only plant the bananas that are sweet, then the dog population becomes better tempered and the banana crop becomes sweeter.
These are both examples of artificial selection. Because people have a preference, they influence the population to yield the results they want.
Charles Darwin observed that animal populations changed over time, even without people influencing them. He postulated that the environment itself… *nature* itself… might also exhibit selection pressure. If resources are limited in a region, then the members of a population who are best suited to obtain those resources are the ones who will survive long enough to reproduce. As the ill-suited members of the population die out, the remaining population is more specialized. As long as there is competition amongst members of a population, and as long as there is random variation that leads to different traits, then some of those traits may be naturally ‘selected for’ by virtue of the fact that the members with those traits are better at surviving and reproducing.
That’s all Darwin ever said. He postulated this without any understanding of the mechanisms in place for children to inherit any of their parents traits whatsoever. He said it must exist, but he didn’t have the tools at the time to identify them. A century later, we stumbled upon the entirely new science of genetics, which explains exactly how and why inheritance exists.
You suggest that people don’t test this, but they should. The fact is, none of this information would’ve been assembled at all without constantly testing it. As Mushaboom alluded above, the theory of speciation by natural selection has been standing up to attacks for the last 150 years. The more we learn about it, and the more we challenge it, the more the framework of the theory ends up being reinforced.
Nobody has been able to present a competing theory, or a more elegant theory, that fits the data better. And believe me, they’ve been trying.
In which laboratory did someone observe a species in a petri dish evolving into a new and better species? What you describe is micro-evolution….not macro-evolution.
You’re regurgitating a question taught to you by creationists (most likely something you found on you tube). Microevolution is generally accepted by everyone because you can watch it happen during your lifetime. Macroevolution is the EXACT SAME PROCESS, only you’re talking about a time period of over thousands to millions of years instead so greater deviations from any chosen source is available. Speciation is an example of proof of macroevolution. Until you’re able to accept the idea that the earth is more than 4000 years old, or whatever it is your priest has spoon-fed you, then it doesn’t matter what I say next because you will not allow yourself to comprehend the idea from it’s very definition.
First off, I read for myself, I don’t watch youtube and “regurgitate” something I know nothing of. Secondly, my pastors haven’t weighed in on evolution, and I haven’t asked them their opinions about it. Third, I don’t know the age of the earth any more than you do. You can make an educated guess, as well as I can, based on what some evolutionist scientist has “spoon-fed” you, or not. I really don’t care. But let me underscore what I’m talking about, which is not speciation, which I fully comprehend. I’m talking about the absurdity that is a fish becomes a human through evolution. Can one fruit fly evolve into a different species of fruit fly. Of course. Can a fruit fly evolve into a card carrying evolutionist idiot, even over billions of years and all the right conditions….even I wouldn’t insult you that much.
P.S. Eugenics is *artificial* selection, like dog breeding, and it’s an atrocious practice. Understanding the mechanisms that naturally change species over time doesn’t force a person to adopt one particular moral stance about… anything at all, actually.
Your last sentence doesn’t follow. It’s like saying, “Question electromagnetic theory, else else it’ll become the law of the land that EVERYONE gets electrocuted!!”
Just because eugenics is atrocious, and *artificial* doesn’t make it any less science than cross breeding plants….and to the proponents of eugenics, people are no more than plants. Just another life form. Evolution underscores that belief. If we were not created beings, then we are just a random collection of cells with no more intrinsic value than a carrot. Oh, and to follow your logic, maybe we should stop trying to figure out what causes gravity, ‘cuz, ya know, it just works, so, duh.
That would be true… if Darwin didn’t have hard data to back up his findings. The Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t. Not that I’m saying the bible isn’t something to live your life by, but must it be taken so literally? Can’t anything in the bible be translated to philosophical analogs, just as anything in the Tao Te Ching can be, or anything in the Tripitaka can be.
People stop responding when they don’t want to get in a pissing contest with a skunk. There’s no point trying to convince someone they’re wrong if they are stubbornly wrong. It’s better to just point and laugh because who f**king cares who “wins”.
Darwinism is at most half right. Natural selection and survival of the fittest bringing on adaptations by the passing of on traits and genes which are favourable for survival only takes common sense to figure out that its most likely true.
We can use common sense again however when it comes to humans having evolved from apes. in fact there is by far enough proof to make it no longer a theory but rather a fact. let me present to you my evidence. Evidence no. 1: politicians. The world is run by monkeys. nuff said
Hey guess what. Bloodletting to get rif of bad blood and disease was accepted science too. Get off your high horse of science. History shows that a century from now, the “science” we know today will most likely be completely destroyed, disproven, and restructured.
Rekigion is fashion. The Greeks believed in their Gods but now we see them as myths. Why is the Christian god more likely to exist than Zeus? In 2000 years people will see us as ancient civilisations and wonder why religion was still so prominent in a time of great understanding.
A law has a few properties (like it has to be simple, or usually it can be expressed in one mathematical formular). A law has never been proven wrong. And the main point: it is commonly accepted by the scientific community and likely not to change ever (but it could one day if proven wrong).
A theory is more likely to change or be disproven and usually more complex.
Neither laws nor theories are proven. (But since “gravity binds us to our chair” meaning it seems completely impossible to deny, we accept it as a law and base all our theories on those laws.)
Gravity is a law by this definition, but there are a few gravity theories (some proven wrong, though the relative theorie is not proven wrong, as far as i remember, but rather it does not describe the quantum mechanics, meaning it is not complete).
BTW I am only talking about physical laws und scientific theories.
It’s amazing how often people forget the true definition of the word “theory”. A theory isn’t something that’s made up or guessed. A theory is a statement backed up by evidence.
So… nuclear “theory” hasn’t been proven?
Germ “theory”?
Music “theory”?
Wow, seems like we really don’t know anything, by your definition!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…
Pay attention, now: a THEORY is a body of work relating to the study of a particular subject in an effort to explain the mechanisms of said subject. Therefore, evolutionary theory is the study of the FACT of evolution. Evolution exists. We have proof. We’ve seen it happen. The various theories (yes, there are several) explain how it happens.
Please feel free to wear this name tag the next time you go out in public:
As a religious scientist who believes in the speciation of finches, some evolutionary theory and the theory of global warming, I am deeply offended by the lack of intelligent argument coming from the so-called religious posters on here.
There is no way to intelligently argue a theory. It’s a theory. It is about belief, not fact. You can use as much scientific terminology as you like but the fact still remains that it CAN’T be proven. Now let us focus our attentions onto a topic that can actually go somewhere.
Why dont all of the galaxies in the universe rotate in the same direction? Why is there no “missing link”. I would think there would be many seeing as evolution takes such a long time. Wouldn’t the less developed species simply die out due to their becoming obsolete? Why is there no fossilized evidence of these obsolete creatures?
How do you determine the age of a rock? By the fossils found in it.
How do you determine the age of the fossils? By the layer of rock it is found in.
(Circular Reasoning)
How did the universe come to be? God made it.
The fact is that Evolutionism and Creationism are both theorys. They can’t be scientifically proven. However Creationism is not about being proven. It is about faith, and you need faith to believe in evolution as well. It simply comes down to your own decision.
I would like to point out that evolution has many holes in the theory while Creationism only has one scientific flaw. You only need to assume there is an all powerful being that made everything. It may seem like a tough pill to swallow but it makes more sense than the convoluded mind fart Charles Darwin had while doing some bird watching.
This is the least researched comment on this post. Evolution is proven. Look it up it has been seen on a bacterial level. It takes longer for larger organisms. Duh. You’ll never see It in your lifetime, although the skeletons of people that we have found are much smaller than they are today. Also we know how old things are through Carbon Dating. The Vatican used it to rule out the validity of the shroud.
Well, I heard that there’s like, this person in the sky who created us all and everything else. And like his son had all these super powers. But then he killed him, ’cause ages ago these people ate an apple when they shouldn’t have.
Darwin completely made up evolution.. there is absolutely no proof for it. I see proof for Christianity all the time, and I am 100% sure that God made the world and everything in it. If you believe in evolution, I highly recommend and hope that you will open your mind and look into Christianity. If you do, you will soon realize that Christianity is the only way to go.
ha…yur a dummy. Evolution has tons of evidence backing it up. Far more than you could say about the man nailed to a block of wood.
Bring me ONE thing he wrote.
None of the actual historians who wrote about the goings on in that area..including pontias pilote (sp?) ever mentioned Jesus.
I wonder why?
Try reading Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus (as cited by Julius Africanus), Plinuy the Younger, The Talmud, and Lucian. And then after that, you might want to give Josh McDowell’s “The Evidence that Demands a Verdict” a read…
Flavius Josephus – evidence points to his writing being edited at a later date (written in a different style etc). Have a look at the differences between the original and Greek manuscripts…
All of the people you mentioned were born years after the ‘death’ of Jesus. The Talmud dates back to the 3rd Century at the earliest.
Can you point to any eye witness accounts of the existance of Jesus? The Romans were pretty prolific writers – you’d have thought there’d be at least one mention of this JC guy (considering what he was allegedly doing at the time).
that’s weird.. none of the historians wrote about evolution either..
one thing he wrote? what does that have to do with anything? And if you want something written, try reading the Bible. It’s God speaking through the individuals that wrote the books of it.
Oh and please tell me one piece of evidence backing up evolution. Anything. Just one. That’s what I thought, it doesn’t exist.
Wow, I cannot believe how dumb some of you are. Evolution is real. Do you think scientists dug 40 feet into the ground, burried make belief organisms and then moved a mountain over top of them? Ya we did so with the help of your “God”.
I would like to add that humans evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys to caveman …. The hominid lineage dumbass.
To comment on cem’s comment. The piece of evidence of evolution I would like to throw at you is the fossil record. What evidence can you show me of God?? The bible? Did you know the Bible was a game of telephone that one day someone decided to write it down.
Write now I’m starting my own bible. I know this guy Jebus and he’s a really good masseuse. His dad, Rod, is a pretty famous guy in the neighbourhood, although no one has ever seen him, or heard him speak. We have to assume he’s real because other people say he’s real. I wish there was a photo of him that wasn’t drawn from sketches of what people think he looks like.
Actually Cem has a good point. The fossil record is not direct evidence of evolution any more than finding paint on a wall is evidence that Picasso was there.
The theory of evolution as it stands is looking good, but it has a serious problem: in over 100 years of trying, nobody has ever succeeded in getting the proposed mechanism to work in a lab. Even when mutation rates are increased by factors of 10,000 and the conditions are set up to be absolutely optimal, new sustainable mutations don’t appear. Investigations of wild organisms support this problem: many have evolved the same apparatuses multiple times, which should be impossible since natural selection dictates that traits grow from and replace one another.
The truth is that if any other theory did not fit the observations and was impossible to replicate under controlled conditions, at the very least we’d be thinking pretty carefully about whether we should accept it as true. So why do you make a special exception for evolution? Confirmation bias much?
And for the record, no, I am not a creationist. I just want credit where credit is due, and it makes evolutionists look dumb when they claim evolution is on the same level as gravity. Come on, weren’t any of you paying attention in high-school science?
There is only one problem with evolutionary theory, and that is microbioligy. It assumes that the most basic forms of life are simple and not complex. Even sigle cell life is complex in its design and can not just happen(irriducable complexity). With out existing in its entirety the life form would die. the same with complex life, fish do not just crawl out of the water and decide to live on land and tuff it out till they grow lungs or hope their progeny grows lungs and if they developed lungs under water they would be equally as screwed. Let alone find another with the same mutation to mate with to carry on the trait before it died. So while evolution and natural selection can explain why a particular spiecies changes superficialy ie coloration or height it cant tell me why i dont have gills and 70% of the earth is covered in water dammit!
What I don’t understand is why so many people seem to believe religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. If you already believe in a deity who created the universe and everything in it, why is it so farfetched that said deity might have improved on its creations over time?
I’m an atheist by the way, I just… really don’t get this.
There are forms of bacteria that have EVOLVED to be resistant to medicine that threatens them. So we have new medicines to kill the bacteria that are resistant to the old medicines.
If you’re merely treated with the old medicine, then the bacteria won’t die.
You have to accept that the bacteria have evolved and use the new medicines.
So, creationists, if you can’t accept evolution, do you want to be treated with ineffective medicine that doesn’t assume the correctness of evolution? If so, you’ll die when you need it.
Religon isn’t comfort it is real! you think if nothing at all existed in the begining how did the universe get created (in other word there has to be a creator a.k.a a god)
Leave Ashley Alone! Evangelism is a mental disability.
As a Darwinist with a psychiatric disability, I resent that remark!
Me too. High five for psychiatric disabilities
! Wait…no, it’s not like that’s a good thing. Well…uh…hi, anyway.
No, you’re thinking of atheism.
Butthurt christf*g is butthurt
….That didn’t even make sense.
Atheism, Evolution… same thing.
Actually, I have met plenty of devout christians who believe in evolution as well.
Oh atheism is a mental disability? Just because we can listen to all the scientific theories, facts and developments and decide whether the existence of god is feasable and see that it isn’t? Shut the hell up “Redneck_Rebel’
Someone should tell Nick that Newton postulated a LAW gravity, not a THEORY.
Someone should tell you that Newton postulated a THEORY, not a LAW.
Newtone acctuallie inverted grabbitty…derr was noe grabbity b foure newtone inventeded itts..
I really hope you’re joking… but your spelling is so horrible i am not sure.
Er, LAW of gravity.
no, it is a theory. It has just held up for every situation possible so far, so it is generally accepted as a law. There are no laws in science as nothing is ever 100% proven. It can be proven to such an extent as to be considered a truth, but can never be. The absence of contradicting evidence is not proof.
No actually, gravity IS a law.
A law (in scientific terms) is simply an observable pattern in nature.
A theory is used to explain how/why that pattern exists.
Most people think that a theory can be proven enough to turn into a law, but that’s not really true. They’re not the same thing.
Really evolution in its simplest form should be a law. Due to genetics and mutations, species change all the time. It’s an observable pattern. But it’s probably not a law because of how controversial it is.
I am a creationist. But even I know that species change.
The “theory” part of Darwin’s evolution is natural selection. Having a theory just means it is explaining the pattern of evolution…and if it’s a theory, then it has never been proven false with any legitimate evidence.
What creationists mostly have a problem with is the way people use it to try to say there is no God. I don’t believe that’s so. I also don’t believe we evolved from monkeys. Although evolution is true, it does not change species as drastically as people think. For the most part, it’s adaptations. Like with the Gallapagos finches or with different colored moths. That is a perfect example of species changing and adapting in order to survive. It’s a gift God gave them. But it hardly means everything evolved from a single cell.
There are a number of ways evolution is used negatively. However, there are quite a few ways religion is used negatively…so it’s a difficult debate.
Overall, not all creationists are so ignorant. But she’s got a start, perhaps. She just has to educate herself a little more so she doesn’t sound so naive.
I have also seen many comments about Newton and Einstein.
Let me explain. Newton was first to analyze gravity. He observed the pattern.
THEN he came up with a theory for why and how gravity exists.
Years later. That theory was proven wrong. And Einstein gave his own theory about why and how gravity exists.
Then when that was proven wrong…other scientists step up.
Gravity itself has never changed. It IS a law. It’s an observable pattern in nature. There’s no way you can deny it because it’s holding you to your chair this very moment.
However, people continue to theorize why it exists. That is not as easy to explain.
Actually no, gravity is simply a thing. It exists. It isn’t a law. That’s like saying “Apple is a law”. It isn’t. Its a thing.
And yeah, philosophically speaking, nothing in sciene is a law, nor is it certain. Its merely happened many more times before, but that doesn’t guarantee it will happen again of course.
Scientifically speaking however, there are laws, truths, and certainties. But where’s the fun in certainty?!
yah so just wanted to throw this out there but gravity isn’t a thing dumbass, it’s intangible. meaning you cannot see it touch it etc.
Forces are things
by the way, apple is a law. true story.
gravity IS a law.
evolutionists, always making stuff up. smh
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
simmples..grabbitty isa outte two gettcha ..soe ita “Laws”……
That’s kind of like saying, “well, sure, you can add 5 an infinite number of times, but it’ll never add up to a THOUSAND!”
you can add 5 an infinite number of times, but it wont add up to a THOUSAND(plus one)
UMMM humans did not evolve from monkeys we had a common ancestor which is why human DNA is 99% IDENTICAL to Chimpanzee DNA WE HAVE THE SAME ANCESTRAL TRAITS FROM THE SAME ANCESTOR WE ARE A MONOPHYLETIC GROUP!!!!
you just made my day
seriously, get a life and a brain..
Actually, his comment is correct. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, but humans and monkeys did have a common ancestor.
He’s right you idiot.
Wrong. We have fossils. They are clear and irrefutable evidence that evolution on a far larger scale than you admit. They also prove, several times over, that we do in fact share an ancestor with monkeys. Genetics backs it up completely. Meaning there are no discrepancies between the two. Both show us that evolution comes in patches, and is anything but goal-oriented and gradual.
You mean the rheumatic old man from France? Or Lucy, who required splicing and screwing and some sort of sander to get together? Yes, the fossils are sooo accurate. Plus, from others who posted above, it is supposedly chimpanzees that human ‘originated from’ not monkeys.
To prove your evolution exists, please grow a third arm from your right shoulder and send pics.
I agree with luvbugmd completely. Irrefutable evidence does not exist outside God, and even then, as humans, we have trouble understanding.
Yeah, right… because God is irrefutable…
A stubborn and rebellious son must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
that’s.. not.. even.. What? Evolution is not something that happens suddenly to an individual during their lifetime. It’s a gradual process through multiple generations when people seek sexual partners with desirable traits and so guarante the preservation of those traits.
That thing about the third arm is pretty much the reason for why I don’t generally bother to argue with creationists.
you were doing fine, then you lost me at “theory part/natural selection” and “what creationists have a problem with…”
first off, how can you believe evolution is possible without natural selection? What about it is so hard to grapple with? Natural selection can be seen in patterns. Clearly. It is the foundation of evolution.
I haven’t met an atheist or humanist or naturalist who used evolution as “definitive proof” that god doesn’t exsist. What, ahem, atheists, which doesn’t mean antigod btw, have a problem with, is that the only “proof,” evidence,” or “pattern” that he does exsist is…the bible. And if that proves his exsistence, then jk rowling has proved the exsistance of wizards. Therefore, creationism is not a scientific theory, and it should not be taught in secular society as fact nor theory.
Hey person, I respect your opinion. :] It’s nice to see
perhaps fossil evidence and genetics and gene sequencing will convince you otherwise and the fact that actual rock can be dated to around 4.5 billion years ago…
^ hahahahahahahahahaha
^^
wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation
haha also in the wikipedia article it says that there were flaws in Newtons Theory, it had to be editted before it became a law
Gravity is a conspiracy!
true dat
double true!
It’s important to note that while newton was on the right track with gravity, his logic was fundamentally flawed.
The flaw in newtonian physics lies in assuming that objects are attracted to each other, while in truth the fact of the matter is that matter bends space itself, the appearance of gravity is nothing but smaller objects moving within space that is bent by larger ones.
#justsaying
Yes, I’m that kind of geek.
More importantly, there was some dude named Einstien who completely made up “gravity 2.0″ after the original didn’t work out. And less than 30 years later, someone realized that Gravity 2.0 doesn’t work either, because it’s 8 different kinds of fucked up at the quantum level. So physicists have been trying to make up some new “gravity 3.0 String Theory Edition” ever since.
hmm the only scientist to produce something without any fact…. (cough) creationists
Since when are creationists scientists?
For a long time, far before Darwinian scientists came to be. You see, before Darwin even existed, there were people who believed in God, who were the scientists of the time. And they are still around with more factual information than anything other scientists claim to be. What with claiming we are from monkeys by splicing together fossils and pulling up rheumatic old men.
Last I checked, gravity was a law. Evolution is still a theory.
Obviously you haven’t checked then because gravity is, and will always be, a theory, just like evolution.
Just to let you know, gravity is a LAW, because it is an observable object in nature. There are theories of Gravity and how it reacts with us, where it comes from, etc. This can be better explained by this example. There is an apple, so there is a LAW of apple. How did the apple get there, we don’t know, so there are many theories of what that apple does, how it got there, etc. Just substitute an apple with gravity and you should see.
Similarly, evolution is a law, and the theory of Natural Selection explains why it occurs.
A law? Since when was this decided? It is still a theory and actually Natural Selection does not explain why evolution occurs, Natural Selection is a completely different form of evolution from the evolved-from-monkeys kind.
Say, you can make a species of roses tall by breeding it with tall roses for tall offspring and weeding out the small ones. That’s Natural Selection. But, even if you did that for a million years, it would never start growing legs and walking, or developing a rational mind. Or even turn into a tree most likely, since they are too different.
I would think the same is true for even a relatively smart animal like the chimpanzee. It could never just become a rational thinker, just because a more ‘smart’ chimp survives and breeds.
“you can make a species of roses tall by breeding it with tall roses for tall offspring and weeding out the small ones.”
“It could never just become a rational thinker, just because a more ‘smart’ chimp survives and breeds.”
So you’re saying you’re happy with the statement
“One tall plant specimen crossed with another tall plant has a chance of producing tall offspring.”
but you’re not happy with the statement
“One chimpanzee with a well developed brain bred with another chimpanzee with a well developed brain has a chance of producing more chimpanzees with well developed brains”?
How about
“One retarded creationist bred with another retarded creationist has a good chance of producing more retarded creationists”.
Nowwe’es yuose tallkines scenntes….
And people making fun of someone willfully being ignorant of science and buying some story from primitive goat-herders without critical analysis of it on any level isn’t funny how?
For a guy who made it all up without any shred of evidence, he sure was a great guesser. Modern day tools not available in his time (such as DNA analysis) have proven not only what he said, but what he predicted we would find. Amazing!
Maybe ‘god’ gave Darwin special powers like seeing into the future so he could make a theory (that has been proven over and over again) that would cause this much controversy, you know, just to keep things interesting! I do believe that is the simplest explanation as to why a man who was just guessing somehow managed to gues right about everything he guessed about! Or maybe he wasn’t guessing and actually observed something that everyone else had missed up to that point, lik Newton.
Missed up to this point? What were they aiming at?
Lik Newton? I hardly know him…
“Last I checked, gravity was a law. Evolution is still a theory.”
I think laws were made to be broken? No? LOL.
No one knows what gravity is, but the string theorists view is that gravitons cause it, and they continually drop out of our universe into some other universe(s). Sounds like a theory to me.
You do know there is a distinction between a ‘theory’ and that of a ‘scientific theory’? As different as night and day.
Higgs-Boson not graviton and the math point to it existing, just gotta find the damn thing…
Of course some atheist d* with zero sense of humor would post something like this on a site that’s supposed to be apolitical fun. Word to the atheists: it’s not effing funny. Now quit spamming the site with your propaganda. How’re you lemmings enjoying Climategate? Lol. Here’s an ep1c phail for you:
Leading Climatologist says: the wurld iz ep1kly cooling! WTF!?!!!1 The powlr ice capz are getting huge! The wurld iz gonna be a desert.
(Posted 30 years ago)
Al Gore says: the wurld is ep1kly warming! WTF!?!?!!!1 the powlr ice capz are shrinking. The powlr bearz iz dying! The wurld iz gonna be an ocean!
(Posted 5 years ago)
Fail.
You have some interesting opinions. What, if I may ask, is your take on the dissolution of the written English language into a string of nonsensical gibberish through the incorporation of leet into the popular lexicon?
You win the thread.
Kevin, just keep talking nerdy. I love it when you talk nerdy! *flutters eyelashes*
between an atheist d* with a zero sense of humor and a creationist with a sub zero sense of both humor and grammar, I think I’d take atheist d*
Imagine that, scientists forming theories based on observable evidence and then revising the *theory* once the evidence shows something different. This is not religion, where you manipulate evidence to suit faith.
Also, no one who is a member of an organized religion is ever allowed to call anyone not actively following other people jumping off a cliff a lemming.
What about that one guy, trying to create life from the ‘primordial soup’ through some experiment that worked off of what the Earth should have been like 4.5 billion years ago? When he manipulated the results by adding oxygen into the experiment? Or when they sanded Lucy together to make her fit together?
Yeah, absolutely NO manipulation there…
Actually, the basic premise for Christianity [for one] has not changed, while the basic premise for evolution is constantly shifting as scientists ‘discover’ new evidence.
Stanley Miller, was testing for the conditions that created life. He tested the conditions that might have been present by adding one at a time. Turns out, he was able to produce amino acids, proteins, and other organic compounds found in cells. I do believe your bible has been edited and reformed, turned into a pocket book, has new versions every other year, now has an app for the iphone. If nothing has changed in your “religion”, are you admitting that religion has become a cult for a few to get rich of the neediness for others to have something to believe in?
Why is an evolutionist automatically an atheist and a global warming believer? I’m an atheist – I work at a Christian company and sit next to a Christian who believes in global warming and evolution.
Personally, I’m undecided on the whole global warming debate, but am happy to go along with it if the net result is that we move away from non-sustainable fuel supplies.
Incidentally your god is a lie and Jesus never existed. Have a nice day.
Dude fellow atheist here, but Jesus existed the mythology surounding him may not be true, but the historical figure did in fact exist…
Science and religion aren’t as different as they would like to be. Both simply are just looking for awnsers to the questions of life. Science could use some more imagination, and religion could use some more reality, both need to stop acting like they know what the hell they’re talking about.
Word. The reality is no one knows who, what, where, when, why or how the universe works or came into being.
And the truth behind it all is who gives a fuck? We don’t need genuine certainty or knowledge to be able to go about our own lives. We’re perfectly fine not knowing whether or not some non-existant being clapped his non-existant hands and POOF we existed, or if the existance of everything simply happened when nothing came together and exploded. POOF, we existed.
And the silence of the universe rejoiced..
True, but without science you wouldn’t have computers. Electricity is science.
We had electricity before technology. Google lightning.
Aww *pats Ashley on the head*. Creationists are funny.
Steps of the Scientific method (this is grade school science, people)
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
Creationism is only a hypothesis. It can’t be tested; no experiments were ever done. It’s not even a theory. Only after the data and conclusion is done does it even become a theory.
I’m so proud of my school…
Oh, and in regards to the guy saying gravity was a theory, I detected a little sarcasm in his comment, as faint as it was. I guess some people didn’t catch that though.
“gravity” is not a theory or a law.
The Law of Universal Gravitation is what that supercilious twat meant to post about on Facebook.
Lol i almost went to that lecture
Okay listen up, all of you (except the VERY few that are right): A hypothesis is just a guess based on ideas that one has. That would be creationism, as someone has already stated.
A THEORY is a hypothesis which has undergone extensive testing, but is not universally accepted as a LAW is. Also, most if not all LAWS are actually scientifically proven EQUATIONS that follow all evidence collected thusfar, and place the data into one convenient compacted package. However…
I might even go so far as to say that creationism is one level BELOW a hypothesis, as it is not one person’s idea but rather an adaptation of the ideas of what are now called the ‘heathen’ religions by those who somehow innately consider that their IMAGINARY god(s) are better than someone elses IMAGINARY god(s). The fact is, religion and science ARE different. Religion is something that governments and leaders of societies made up to control and soothe the minds of the masses, as well as to attempt explain phenomena in the environment that, with the scientific knowledge of the time, were unexplainable. SCIENCE, however, attempts to find RATIONAL and PROVABLE explanations for anything that anyone may be curious about. Granted, there are still mysteries even within science, but at least scientists ADMIT ANY FAILURES, while creationists and preachers DO NOT, as is clearly evidenced by luvbugmd up there. Fossil, genetic, molecular, and geological evidence ALL indicate we DID evolve from primitive primates. However, the idiots are right about one thing (and I do mean IDIOTS), we did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans BOTH evolved from much more PRIMITIVE ancestors, and diverged a very long time ago.
So in short, religion capitalizes and uses peoples’ fear of the unknown, and science attempts to eliminate that fear and replace it with knowledge. So who do you want to believe, your aggressor or your defender?
Bravo! There was a quote that went something like this “Religion makes life bearable in a world that religion made unbearable” or something like that.
Win.
Yes, because everyone knows that Jesus was a great proponent of the government. That’s why he was crucified. By the government.
Wouldn’t you agree that this thing you call science also “capitalizes and uses peoples’ fear of the unknown”? Seeing as you just create theories that makes thinking about how we came to be easier than believing in God, because believing in God means you have to live a moral life.
“Seeing as you just create theories that makes thinking about how we came to be easier than believing in God, because believing in God means you have to live a moral life.”
Ironic, though, as atheists and agnostics make up less than .25% of the US prison population… If you compare that statistic to the percentage of the overall population of the US that claims to be atheistic or agnostic (between 10 and 20%, depending on your source), atheists and agnostics are VASTLY underrepresented in the prison populations, statistically.
Also, atheists have FEWER abortions and a lower divorce rate.
So believing in God means you have to live a moral life, eh? Do people who believe in God know this? And whose morality are we going by, anyway?
+1000 internetz
Why does everyone treat a theory as if it were such an unbelievable thing? A theory is upheld by scientific facts, and constantly tested and re-tested to make sure it still functions as it says it does. Just because it hasn’t been named a universal law, doesn’t mean that it is any less credible.
Unlike Newton’s THEORY, however, Darwin’s THEORY isn’t even real.
Sooooo you are saying that this theory that pretty much everybody has spent the past 150 years or so trying to discredit and CAN’T is false. On top of none of you idiots coming up with something better and backing it up with facts, there is a thing called Evolutionary Developmental Biology where the genetics of in utero development are studied and that proves evolution. DNA analysis proves evolution, speciation proves evolution, fossil records proves evolution, vestigial structures proves evolution (and for those who are ignorant vestigial structures are left over structures on an animal from a previous state like most snakes have stumps where their legs used to be), and many other proofs I don’t want to get into.
Ha. “Proves”… You can “prove” anything by creating false experiments.
+ 1000 internets but of course they will ignore this and continue with their narrow-minded “crusade”…
Here’s my theory, religion = comfort, the fact that hey we’re a speck in this vast universe and the earth could be obliterated and not a single damn will be given apparently scares humans…
You’re a carbon-based life form whose chemistry allows for a brain and chemical transfers to become thought…thats it, deal with it…
No you’re not special nobody is, theres in all likley hood millions of other life bearing planets within our galaxy alone, disregard the billions of other galaxies…
The universe only exits as long as life is there to observe it, think about that for a second…
Jeesy Chreesy. This is such a fail. Darwin has more evidence to his theory than the entire race of Christianity combined has to the existence of God. To this I say, facepalm, facepalm, facepalm to the ignorance of religious types.
WIN
All I have to say really is that people who say that they do ‘good’ science and support that fully without doing anything to actually persuade them are being extremely hipocritical. If some people say “there is no god” or “their imaginary gods” then they are being just as naive as some who say that there is without studyig the evidence. For instance, whether people like it or not the bible is a source of evidence… PROVEN… if you were wondering! Just as darwin’s books can be suggested as evidence. I could say Darwin was a crazy old man who wrote a book about how we evolved from apes just as stupid people say an old geezer wrote the bible. This ignorance leads them to make ridiculous conclusions.
Believe it or not science and “religion” both require faith or trust in something happening! they both answer different questions what it means is whether you will either be naive and suggest that science disproves god or be totally unreasonable and close your eyes to science because you think that religion means that this simply cant be the case. the CHOICE is yours!
Just curious, but what about the Bible has been “proven?” Darwin’s books can be accepted as evidence because his experiments and conclusions are the product of scientific rigor, and anyone in the world can repeat his experiments. He drew a conclusion from observed facts, and his conclusion has been nothing but affirmed by science since then.
And there is incentive for scientists to prove Evolution to be false. How famous do you think “the man who brought down Evolution” would be? That guy would be a millionaire and would be immortalized by history. Disproving Evolution is a scientist’s wet dream, but it hasn’t happened for a reason.
The biggest problem with people who question Evolution is that they see it as a “belief,” even though it is not. Selfish, individualistic people tend to think that facts are subjective and that they can pick and choose what goes on in the universe because they have the “freedom” to do so. Science is NOT faith, and it is NOT a belief. You don’t get to “decide” whether it happens or not like you can with religion. You could say that Darwin was a crazy old man who wrote a book, but unless you have scientific evidence proving you point you’d be buried under a mountain of evidence that proves you wrong. The same does not go for the Bible.
When we stop questioning science, we’ve all lost. All science should be continually questioned, tested, and re-tested. Especially evolution. Otherwise, eugenics might be the law of the land today. Just saying.
A quick clarification. ‘Evolution’ refers to a change in the frequency of certain traits in a population over a period of time. Populations of all forms of life do change over time; it has been observed in the petri dish and it has been observed in the fossil record. It’s been observed for all plants and animals we’ve come across. Evolution is a fact.
It occurs when a preferential trait is present in a part of the population. That preferential trait might be a friendly demeanor in the world dog breeders or exceptionally sweet flesh of a particular banana. If people only breed the dogs with friendly demeanors and only plant the bananas that are sweet, then the dog population becomes better tempered and the banana crop becomes sweeter.
These are both examples of artificial selection. Because people have a preference, they influence the population to yield the results they want.
Charles Darwin observed that animal populations changed over time, even without people influencing them. He postulated that the environment itself… *nature* itself… might also exhibit selection pressure. If resources are limited in a region, then the members of a population who are best suited to obtain those resources are the ones who will survive long enough to reproduce. As the ill-suited members of the population die out, the remaining population is more specialized. As long as there is competition amongst members of a population, and as long as there is random variation that leads to different traits, then some of those traits may be naturally ‘selected for’ by virtue of the fact that the members with those traits are better at surviving and reproducing.
That’s all Darwin ever said. He postulated this without any understanding of the mechanisms in place for children to inherit any of their parents traits whatsoever. He said it must exist, but he didn’t have the tools at the time to identify them. A century later, we stumbled upon the entirely new science of genetics, which explains exactly how and why inheritance exists.
You suggest that people don’t test this, but they should. The fact is, none of this information would’ve been assembled at all without constantly testing it. As Mushaboom alluded above, the theory of speciation by natural selection has been standing up to attacks for the last 150 years. The more we learn about it, and the more we challenge it, the more the framework of the theory ends up being reinforced.
Nobody has been able to present a competing theory, or a more elegant theory, that fits the data better. And believe me, they’ve been trying.
In which laboratory did someone observe a species in a petri dish evolving into a new and better species? What you describe is micro-evolution….not macro-evolution.
You’re regurgitating a question taught to you by creationists (most likely something you found on you tube). Microevolution is generally accepted by everyone because you can watch it happen during your lifetime. Macroevolution is the EXACT SAME PROCESS, only you’re talking about a time period of over thousands to millions of years instead so greater deviations from any chosen source is available. Speciation is an example of proof of macroevolution. Until you’re able to accept the idea that the earth is more than 4000 years old, or whatever it is your priest has spoon-fed you, then it doesn’t matter what I say next because you will not allow yourself to comprehend the idea from it’s very definition.
First off, I read for myself, I don’t watch youtube and “regurgitate” something I know nothing of. Secondly, my pastors haven’t weighed in on evolution, and I haven’t asked them their opinions about it. Third, I don’t know the age of the earth any more than you do. You can make an educated guess, as well as I can, based on what some evolutionist scientist has “spoon-fed” you, or not. I really don’t care. But let me underscore what I’m talking about, which is not speciation, which I fully comprehend. I’m talking about the absurdity that is a fish becomes a human through evolution. Can one fruit fly evolve into a different species of fruit fly. Of course. Can a fruit fly evolve into a card carrying evolutionist idiot, even over billions of years and all the right conditions….even I wouldn’t insult you that much.
derp
herp
Oi ! wer u drongoe’s frum den….
actually yes, not a humanoid primate but a sapeint humanoid insectoid…possibly…
P.S. Eugenics is *artificial* selection, like dog breeding, and it’s an atrocious practice. Understanding the mechanisms that naturally change species over time doesn’t force a person to adopt one particular moral stance about… anything at all, actually.
Your last sentence doesn’t follow. It’s like saying, “Question electromagnetic theory, else else it’ll become the law of the land that EVERYONE gets electrocuted!!”
Just because eugenics is atrocious, and *artificial* doesn’t make it any less science than cross breeding plants….and to the proponents of eugenics, people are no more than plants. Just another life form. Evolution underscores that belief. If we were not created beings, then we are just a random collection of cells with no more intrinsic value than a carrot. Oh, and to follow your logic, maybe we should stop trying to figure out what causes gravity, ‘cuz, ya know, it just works, so, duh.
That would be true… if Darwin didn’t have hard data to back up his findings. The Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t. Not that I’m saying the bible isn’t something to live your life by, but must it be taken so literally? Can’t anything in the bible be translated to philosophical analogs, just as anything in the Tao Te Ching can be, or anything in the Tripitaka can be.
Just saying.
ooh…
has anybody noticed that people never respond when proven wrong?
so I declare the darwanists as the winner for this particular thread
People stop responding when they don’t want to get in a pissing contest with a skunk. There’s no point trying to convince someone they’re wrong if they are stubbornly wrong. It’s better to just point and laugh because who f**king cares who “wins”.
Darwinism is at most half right. Natural selection and survival of the fittest bringing on adaptations by the passing of on traits and genes which are favourable for survival only takes common sense to figure out that its most likely true.
We can use common sense again however when it comes to humans having evolved from apes. in fact there is by far enough proof to make it no longer a theory but rather a fact. let me present to you my evidence. Evidence no. 1: politicians. The world is run by monkeys. nuff said
Monkeys are not apes…
Hey guess what. Bloodletting to get rif of bad blood and disease was accepted science too. Get off your high horse of science. History shows that a century from now, the “science” we know today will most likely be completely destroyed, disproven, and restructured.
Rekigion is fashion. The Greeks believed in their Gods but now we see them as myths. Why is the Christian god more likely to exist than Zeus? In 2000 years people will see us as ancient civilisations and wonder why religion was still so prominent in a time of great understanding.
…this is a repeat
whoops no it’s not i’m looking at the old ones
Haha, poor Ashley. Having her beliefs to be proved totally and completely wrong.
Silly Maggie, your use of the word “proven” shows your ignorance to the subject at hand.
Technically… her “beliefs” were proven wrong if you’re talking about how she believed Darwin had no evidence and the such.
To laws and theories:
A law has a few properties (like it has to be simple, or usually it can be expressed in one mathematical formular). A law has never been proven wrong. And the main point: it is commonly accepted by the scientific community and likely not to change ever (but it could one day if proven wrong).
A theory is more likely to change or be disproven and usually more complex.
Neither laws nor theories are proven. (But since “gravity binds us to our chair” meaning it seems completely impossible to deny, we accept it as a law and base all our theories on those laws.)
Gravity is a law by this definition, but there are a few gravity theories (some proven wrong, though the relative theorie is not proven wrong, as far as i remember, but rather it does not describe the quantum mechanics, meaning it is not complete).
BTW I am only talking about physical laws und scientific theories.
It’s amazing how often people forget the true definition of the word “theory”. A theory isn’t something that’s made up or guessed. A theory is a statement backed up by evidence.
But it isn’t proven. It can’t be. That is why it is a theory.
So… nuclear “theory” hasn’t been proven?
Germ “theory”?
Music “theory”?
Wow, seems like we really don’t know anything, by your definition!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…
Pay attention, now: a THEORY is a body of work relating to the study of a particular subject in an effort to explain the mechanisms of said subject. Therefore, evolutionary theory is the study of the FACT of evolution. Evolution exists. We have proof. We’ve seen it happen. The various theories (yes, there are several) explain how it happens.
Please feel free to wear this name tag the next time you go out in public:
Hello, my name is
HERP DERP
As a religious scientist who believes in the speciation of finches, some evolutionary theory and the theory of global warming, I am deeply offended by the lack of intelligent argument coming from the so-called religious posters on here.
There is no way to intelligently argue a theory. It’s a theory. It is about belief, not fact. You can use as much scientific terminology as you like but the fact still remains that it CAN’T be proven. Now let us focus our attentions onto a topic that can actually go somewhere.
Just two quick questions?.. If the the theory of evolution is true… 1. How come humans don’t keep on evolving and 2. why are there still monkeys/apes?
Why dont all of the galaxies in the universe rotate in the same direction? Why is there no “missing link”. I would think there would be many seeing as evolution takes such a long time. Wouldn’t the less developed species simply die out due to their becoming obsolete? Why is there no fossilized evidence of these obsolete creatures?
How do you determine the age of a rock? By the fossils found in it.
How do you determine the age of the fossils? By the layer of rock it is found in.
(Circular Reasoning)
How did the universe come to be? God made it.
The fact is that Evolutionism and Creationism are both theorys. They can’t be scientifically proven. However Creationism is not about being proven. It is about faith, and you need faith to believe in evolution as well. It simply comes down to your own decision.
I would like to point out that evolution has many holes in the theory while Creationism only has one scientific flaw. You only need to assume there is an all powerful being that made everything. It may seem like a tough pill to swallow but it makes more sense than the convoluded mind fart Charles Darwin had while doing some bird watching.
*High-fives*
This is the least researched comment on this post. Evolution is proven. Look it up it has been seen on a bacterial level. It takes longer for larger organisms. Duh. You’ll never see It in your lifetime, although the skeletons of people that we have found are much smaller than they are today. Also we know how old things are through Carbon Dating. The Vatican used it to rule out the validity of the shroud.
Your stupidity is limitless.
1. You do understand that evolution occurs over vast amounts of time? Humans as a species themselves (Homo sapiens) haven’t been around all that long.
2. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080829002315AAO610G
People continue to denigrate evolution when they don’t even understand it properly. It’s your ignorance that is pitiful, not the theory of evolution.
Well, I heard that there’s like, this person in the sky who created us all and everything else. And like his son had all these super powers. But then he killed him, ’cause ages ago these people ate an apple when they shouldn’t have.
i heard he like, flooded the world one time and only saved a handful of people and animals in this HUUUUUUGE boat. cause people are douchebags
Darwin completely made up evolution.. there is absolutely no proof for it. I see proof for Christianity all the time, and I am 100% sure that God made the world and everything in it. If you believe in evolution, I highly recommend and hope that you will open your mind and look into Christianity. If you do, you will soon realize that Christianity is the only way to go.
ha…yur a dummy. Evolution has tons of evidence backing it up. Far more than you could say about the man nailed to a block of wood.
Bring me ONE thing he wrote.
None of the actual historians who wrote about the goings on in that area..including pontias pilote (sp?) ever mentioned Jesus.
I wonder why?
Try reading Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus (as cited by Julius Africanus), Plinuy the Younger, The Talmud, and Lucian. And then after that, you might want to give Josh McDowell’s “The Evidence that Demands a Verdict” a read…
Flavius Josephus – evidence points to his writing being edited at a later date (written in a different style etc). Have a look at the differences between the original and Greek manuscripts…
All of the people you mentioned were born years after the ‘death’ of Jesus. The Talmud dates back to the 3rd Century at the earliest.
Can you point to any eye witness accounts of the existance of Jesus? The Romans were pretty prolific writers – you’d have thought there’d be at least one mention of this JC guy (considering what he was allegedly doing at the time).
that’s weird.. none of the historians wrote about evolution either..
one thing he wrote? what does that have to do with anything? And if you want something written, try reading the Bible. It’s God speaking through the individuals that wrote the books of it.
Oh and please tell me one piece of evidence backing up evolution. Anything. Just one. That’s what I thought, it doesn’t exist.
It does all you have to do is google: evolution, bacteria. Stupid. Ps I have read the bible. It promotes violence.
Ashley is many levels of fail. Evangelism is a method for making oneself stupider, and Ashley’s done very well.
berp
ferp
i finkse yu notte mee……
Wow, I cannot believe how dumb some of you are. Evolution is real. Do you think scientists dug 40 feet into the ground, burried make belief organisms and then moved a mountain over top of them? Ya we did so with the help of your “God”.
I would like to add that humans evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys to caveman …. The hominid lineage dumbass.
To comment on cem’s comment. The piece of evidence of evolution I would like to throw at you is the fossil record. What evidence can you show me of God?? The bible? Did you know the Bible was a game of telephone that one day someone decided to write it down.
Write now I’m starting my own bible. I know this guy Jebus and he’s a really good masseuse. His dad, Rod, is a pretty famous guy in the neighbourhood, although no one has ever seen him, or heard him speak. We have to assume he’s real because other people say he’s real. I wish there was a photo of him that wasn’t drawn from sketches of what people think he looks like.
Actually Cem has a good point. The fossil record is not direct evidence of evolution any more than finding paint on a wall is evidence that Picasso was there.
The theory of evolution as it stands is looking good, but it has a serious problem: in over 100 years of trying, nobody has ever succeeded in getting the proposed mechanism to work in a lab. Even when mutation rates are increased by factors of 10,000 and the conditions are set up to be absolutely optimal, new sustainable mutations don’t appear. Investigations of wild organisms support this problem: many have evolved the same apparatuses multiple times, which should be impossible since natural selection dictates that traits grow from and replace one another.
The truth is that if any other theory did not fit the observations and was impossible to replicate under controlled conditions, at the very least we’d be thinking pretty carefully about whether we should accept it as true. So why do you make a special exception for evolution? Confirmation bias much?
Gravity is actually a LAW not a THEORY. While evolution IS a THEORY. Wait, why am I putting stupid emphasis on random words…?
And for the record, no, I am not a creationist. I just want credit where credit is due, and it makes evolutionists look dumb when they claim evolution is on the same level as gravity. Come on, weren’t any of you paying attention in high-school science?
There is only one problem with evolutionary theory, and that is microbioligy. It assumes that the most basic forms of life are simple and not complex. Even sigle cell life is complex in its design and can not just happen(irriducable complexity). With out existing in its entirety the life form would die. the same with complex life, fish do not just crawl out of the water and decide to live on land and tuff it out till they grow lungs or hope their progeny grows lungs and if they developed lungs under water they would be equally as screwed. Let alone find another with the same mutation to mate with to carry on the trait before it died. So while evolution and natural selection can explain why a particular spiecies changes superficialy ie coloration or height it cant tell me why i dont have gills and 70% of the earth is covered in water dammit!
Umm… Ever heard of lungfish, just as an example? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
Haha burn. Thank you. There’s also these things called amphibians, you might have seen them before. They can live on land AND water. Magic.
F%^king amphibians, how do they work?
Yay for my home town university causing a major scientific discussion on a funny page.
taesteeng
I can believe people are still arguing about evolution. We’re in the 21st century, guys.
What I don’t understand is why so many people seem to believe religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. If you already believe in a deity who created the universe and everything in it, why is it so farfetched that said deity might have improved on its creations over time?
I’m an atheist by the way, I just… really don’t get this.
There are forms of bacteria that have EVOLVED to be resistant to medicine that threatens them. So we have new medicines to kill the bacteria that are resistant to the old medicines.
If you’re merely treated with the old medicine, then the bacteria won’t die.
You have to accept that the bacteria have evolved and use the new medicines.
So, creationists, if you can’t accept evolution, do you want to be treated with ineffective medicine that doesn’t assume the correctness of evolution? If so, you’ll die when you need it.
Thus evolution is correct.
Funny thing is darwin come up with natural selection not evolution
*Plaicefarm*
Religon isn’t comfort it is real! you think if nothing at all existed in the begining how did the universe get created (in other word there has to be a creator a.k.a a god)
also nobody say big bang because in order for a explosion to happen things have to collide
I’m in a generous mood today, so you get three *Plaicefarm* ‘s for the low low price of having no intelligence.
have another *Plaicefarm*
Gravity? It’s clearly intelligent falling and it’s time schools taught both sides!