Evolution fact or false?

[Hector]

I wanted to start this thread because there has been a discussion like this with my friends and neither of us could convince each other so i ask u do u believe it or not?


and why

[Elvain]

If the discussion starts also here (between the same poeple) I'm affraid that it would lead to the same result as before: 2 sides repeating always the same while neither of them is even trying to accept the other ones.

But the poll is god idea. Just as sociological research...

To be honest I would rather ask:
Do you think evolution is a fact?
Do you believe evolution is false?

I rather think...

[Angryminer]

I had the discussion once too.
I think evolution is a fact, my discussion 'partner' didn't believe in evolution.
Of course no one of us changed his attitude, but I learnt that people usually don't believe in evolution because of religious reasons.

And I really don't want to rip someone of his religious believes.

Angryminer

[Hector]

www.evolutiondeceit.com <---------------- I want to hear the opinion of Evolution believers about this site

It has great info

ps i dont believe in Evolution because it has many things that are false

[Angryminer]

I can't give an objective opinion on the page because I stopped reading it after the first couple of wrong assumptions. :go:

I hope you are aware that neither I nor you will change our opinion if we begin to discuss this.

Angryminer

[Elvain]

I thought you wanted to know what opinion is more frequent instead of trying to convince anybody to believe whet you believe in. I hope you wanted... because we all know where this convincing had led.

When somebody attacks boilogical theory through ethic it's like attacking religious books through their historical correctness/incorrectness or like attacking literature that it doesn't speak truth and everything is made up there. It's irelevant.
As literature does not claim factographical truth and in religious books factography is not the main part, biological theories are not here to make moral rules. Due to this I must say author of your page misunderstood and misinterpreted biological theory, so he can't be right.

accusing the evolutionarists of crimes Hilter is like accusing Jesus Christ of crimes of Inquisition, 30years war or crimes of IRA, it's like accusing prophet Muhammad of crime of 9/11/2001 and crimes of all islamic fundamentalists, it's like accusing Karl Marx of crimes of Stalin.

Peace

[Mediävist]

Is this going to prove worth the trouble? Hmm . . . .

When I talk to people about evolution, there often are a couple of issues that need to be handled separately.

One issue is the transformation of species and the appearance of new species over time by means of descent from other species. The evidence for this process in history is overwhelming. Have you ever actually read Darwin's Origin of Species? I doubt it. Already 140 years ago, the evidence for the apearance of new species was massive, and the intevening time has only added more evidence. No impartial person could deny that evolution occurs.

What is (somewhat) more debatable is HOW evolution occurs. Darwin's original explanation for natural selection by means of inter- and intraspecific competition met with very widespread scepticism and criticism. To his contemporaries in the 1860s and later, it appeared that "mere chance" was too capricious a force to permit the creation of complex structures like the eye, the brain, and so on. So the concept of natural selection as the driving force behind evolution took many decades to accept.

Many people with religious beliefs therefore want to see God as the power that ultimately drives evolution. I don't believe that myself, but if that is what is required to get them to understand how the creation of something like humans was possible, then I have no real objection. What needs to be kept in mind, however, is that our failure to comprehend the process of evolution is not the same as denying that evolution does in fact occur. If you want to debate the former issue, fine. But if you want to debate the latter one, then you had better learn something about what you're criticizing, and not read ignorant web sites like the one you refer to.

[binchen]

We recently had that at school and so I believe that evolution is a fact. There were some examples which were proved and which were really logical.
And because of the religious things. You can't take the bible word for word and so I don't think that there is a real opposite to evolution. In addition to that the Pope accepted that there is and was Evolution. So why are there any religious problems with evolution?

[Hector]

i wanted to hear your guys opinion on the bones that have been found

that humans cant descand from monkeys what u guys think of it?

[FrankishKnight]

Of course humans can descend from monkeys. However, there is a chance that the "missing link" itself is LONG extinct, and that bones of those are still waiting to be dug up.

[Sir Turylon]

yikes. not this again.

I'd leave discussing evolution out of the thread... Mainly because those that believe in evolution will just label any scientific evidence against it as ignorant religious theories.
:megawall:

It could be possible if those who believe in evolution would just admit it is a religion, but that would seem to go against their "scientific" intellect.
For instance, Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":
The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.142
These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis.
just a little quote to back up the statement that evolution is more of a dogmatic, ie religious, belief than a sceintific theory. (statement given by an evolutionist)

:cheers: Hector.

You might want to check out the geological findings going in over the Grand Canyon here in the states. Apparently, the canyon is refusing to be explained by the "long slow process" that is taught. The facts point to a fast sudden change instead.

44% of people in America do not believe in evolution. This % does not incorporate those who believe in creation. :go:

[Elvain]

I can give you other numbers:
Over 90% of people in Czech republic "believe" in evolution. And this does incorporate people who believe in creation.:D And what does it mean? that people in America are more religious than people in the Czech republic, nothing more.
About 51% people in USA believes George Bush is better president of the USA than John Kerry, while about 48% US people believ John Kerry would b better president of the USA. What does it mean? Then one or the other one is better president? no.

I've never heard of this new method to find truth: ask public relations :puke:

If you would use this method before neolithic revolution, you would find that "truth" is that agriculture is not as good as hunting :hahaha: :lol: :rofl: :amen:

Please, try not to argue, let world PR spea... to find the truth :lol:

PS: your quote. Is it written by Jeremy Rifkin who is evolutionarist or does some evolutionarist only quote Jeremy Rifkin who believes in what is written there. Many times, in scientic books or articles, there is oposite opinion written too so you may easily quote just part of it without the right context...I can, using this method, show you that George W. Bush disagrees with you in whatever I want :lol:

[Nike]

Evolution again? Well, if you want my oppinion - I think it's an extremely stupid thing. I've saw you wrote that people against the evolution are religious. So, are evolutionists not religious? The theory of evolution is a religion. As everything in this world, you need faith to believe in it. But the evolution has it's followers. So, that means that the evolution is an unofficial religion and the evolutionists are religious in their own way. Nothing bad in that!

But you're right - nobody will change his view! This is an argue not of just a scientific or religous meaning. It's an argue of the inner ideology of every man - "I believe in God and in Creation to explain the Beginning" and "I don't beleive in God and his judgement, so I believe in Evolution to explain the Beginning". And atheists won't leave evolution, because they'll have to admit there is a God who'll judge their sins. "Religious" people are also doubtful to leave religion, because they'll have to admit there is no God to protect them. This is not a scientific argue, but argue of personal ideology!

And because I hate useless argues I'll just give you some food for thought. As you all probably know, mathematics is the most accurate science. It's highly doubtful it could be wrong. 2+2=4 and there's no other way. Well, in maths there's this thing called factoriel. It signed with ! (exclamation mark) and it's being out after some number. It's meaning is like this: 200!=1*2*3*4*5*6*7*8*9*10...*190*191*192*193*194*1 95*196*197*198*199*200. We learn this at school in 10th grade, I'm not sure for you, in the "Probability" part. 201! is 200!*201, 202! is 201!*202 etc. In the human body there are around 216 bones. The chance to correctly arrange those bones is 1/216!. Which is nearly impossible due to the Law of possibilites. Ofcourse, teoretically nothing is impossible, but practicaly this is. Well, one of the most simple "living" organisms - the proteine molecule - is much more complex than just the structure of the human sceleton. I can't give you the exact numbers, but as far as I remember, the calculations show that even if there was a try in every second, in the perfect surrounding, for 30 billions of years, the chance would still be practically 0. Ofcourse, as we already said, you won't believe me!

[Angryminer]

Nike:
If I tell you that there are experiments that state otherwise, will you believe me or do I have to tell you the whole story? I'm glad you understand that neither of us will change his opinion. :go:
About the topic:
In contrast to the theory of god's creation, evolutionists have as many views on evolution as followers. The statement of one evolutionist doesn't go for the other evolutionist. For a correct statement against the evolution-theory you'd have to argue against each evolutionist individually.

Angryminer

[Mediävist]

In contrast to the theory of god's creation, evolutionists have as many views on evolution as followers. The statement of one evolutionist doesn't go for the other evolutionist. For a correct statement against the evolution-theory you'd have to argue against each evolutionist individually.
That may be true about the process, but, as I said above, the evidence that evolution happens is incontrovertible and something that everyone in that discussion agrees on.

[Hector]

:cheers: Turylon

I just wanted to see how evolutionist would react and from my point of vieuw u guys are defending it like somebody is attacking your religion!


i find the site very good esspecially about the uncovered bones of Neanderlanders, Homo Erectus

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10.php just contineu then u will see all the so called ''human family members''


allthough i reccomend u to start from chapter 1

[Da_weasel]

I thinmk it is fact...Because if you look around you everything is evoling.Peoeple animals,I mean look at the world around you.The air isn't as clean as it was in say 1400's,but the human body has learned to adapt to the more hostile inviroment.People are a bit bigger and taller than they where in that same time frame.Well thats some of my 2 cents.

[Elvain]

quote from the link Hector gives us: "In previous chapters, we saw that there are no mechanisms in nature to lead the living beings to evolve and that living species came into existence not as the result of an evolutionary process, but rather emerged all of a sudden in their present perfect structure"

ok, and can you tell me, just to make me doubt about "my religion", in which perfect structure have a man as a specie been created once?
As white European?
As Chinese/East Asian?
As black African?
or as many mixtures that came into existence AFTER those above have mixed together?
or would you say that Chinese or black people are another specie?
Can you tell me why Icelanders look now diferent than people in Scandinavia when they share their ancestors, Iceland was (with absolutely clear evidence) settled from Scandinavia ONLY in middle ages? How were Icelanders created?

In which such structure a cow has been created once?
as a cow you can see today in Europe or as much smaller cow which you can find on medieval paintings, a cow that didn't distinct. If you compare bones of medieval cow, they look different than bones of cow today, how is this possible? Do you think... sorry, do you believe that there was one cow-specie in middle ages which have distincted and another which was created some time later? how does creationist theory deal with this?

Which pig was created by God? a pig or a boar? or are they 2 different species?

What about a dog and a wolf?
or do you believe that a dog isn't domesticated wolf, a pig isn't domesticated boar and cow you can see today isn't domesticated medieval cow? Is this a lie of evolutionarists?

I need to have an answer on this because it is more than evident that they came from ONE ancestor. How is it possible that they are now so different when everything was once created and it is as it was once created?

I don't know what is more a dogma, if a fact that a dog evolved from a wolf or a fact that some god created them. Or maybe I have misinterpreted that article. Maybe that article misinterpreted (or disinterpreted?) evolution, who knows?
How many other lies will you and that ridiculous page give as as "proofs" that evolution is a lie?
Please, go on. I really enjoy reading it. It's such ridiculous

[Sir Turylon]

Calm down Elvain. we're not trying to make you stop believing your evolution dogmas. (just trying to make sure you know it is a dogma and not a science)

The percentage proves that not all Americans who are taught evolution believe it. I find it quite amuzing that evolutionists cannot force their world view on us. If there was such incontravertable evidence that macro evolution does exist and has happened, why not put it out on the table?

@ species mutations.

What you are talking about is micro-evolution. IE, changes within one species. Nobody says that micro evolutions within the same species do not happen.

Proof of micro evolution can be found just looking at sparrows. Some are big, some are small. No two are alike. genetic differences occur throughout every familia. The problem, and consequently something you evolutionists scream bloody murder about, is cross species evolution. Eventhough not a shred of evidence for it exists, your preach it with vigor.

Also, Elvain, do not try to show that genetics proves evolution. It does not. So stop saying that differences in a certain species is proof. To further go along this line of ideaology as proof of evolution truely shows just how ignorant you are of the true scientific facts.

So, go practice your evolution dogmas and leave science to those who understand it.

I need to have an answer on this because it is more than evident that they came from ONE ancestor
something in ancient history called the flood. Go read some geology and genetics books.

Can an evolutionist explain how evolution fits into entropy law? (notice it is a law.. something that has been tested and proven...)
Can you also explain, in your own dogmatic philosophy, how matter came into existence? (theory of ever expanding and contracting universe will not work due to the fact that astronomical evidence proves this idea false)
Can you also explain, using logical reasoning, how hydrogen fused itself into titanium atoms when fusion is not possible? (Note: fusion is when two atoms come together and stay together... nuclear fission is what we have now.)

thx in advance for answers.

@angryminer
evolutionists have as many views on evolution as followers.
hence the problem you cannot create some sort of theory that makes sense logically. The "science" has given way to ideaology and dogmatic practices. It must be an example of entropy... complex theory degenerates over time and is eventually destroyed. Funny how creation has remained strong over such a longer period of time.

Veritas Vos Liberabit!

PS. Let's seperate macro from micro evolution. Since Micro evolution is not evolution but only adaptive mutations in one genetic species. You are taught micro evolution, as majority of you have been posting about it. The problem is you are never given evidence for macro-evolution in schools. This comes late in college where you accept it as an ideaological dogma. Once they get you hooked on the idea of evolution is both micro and macro, you can swallow macro evolution eventhough it doesn't exist. Best take a step back... forget everything you've been told by some evolution theologen and use logic and scientific method to determine if evolution makes sense. (atheists should not attempt this because it will challenge your religious ideaology... tremendously)

[lilmisswagonburner]

Wonders...............ummm what did the Good Lord place here in the beginning........might have been a life form that would have to adapt quickly to it's new surroundings.......and given enough time and space would evolve into something that support it's self, learn from mimicking what it is expose to. AHAAAAAA I have it, nice warm coat, big teeth, eats fruit and veggies..............oh gosh I think I just described Tony Blair.......hands out bananas................................case closed............just kidding...............lol :angel: :bash: