[Debate] Evolution. Were we really envolve from monkeys?

[Germanicus]

Evolution is a theory. A bad one. And the fact that it is a theory does NOT mean it has been validated. If it is validated, it then becomes a fact. Evolution has never been validated. Everything from mutations to natural selection has been demonstrated to NOT support the theory of evolution from “simple” to complex.

You must be registered for see links

Read please. All of this is from a verified data base with words and excerpts from people who are much more qualified than you, and admittedly to me, on what is and is not true. Hopefully this will give you some to perspective to how much proof evolution really has behind it.

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

If I may; the adaptation you're addressing is known as descent with modification, which supports the theory of natural selection that was a main staple of Darwin's theory. Adaptations such as that are a response to environmental stimuli, which made those traits best suited to the conditions around them.

And whether or not you're Christian makes almost no difference whatsoever. If God did indeed create life, why is it so important that he specifically made man as man? Why not make man through a prolonged, practiced experiment in which he acquires the best traits for his individual sector by living through the conditions that surround them...say, through evolution.

Mark Twain said, "God made man because he was disappointed in the monkey." We weren't the experiment, we were the finished product. Creation and animals were made before Adam and Eve. That is just a humorous quote turning your question around, yet still answers your question.

 

[Germanicus]

Mark Twain said, "God made man because he was disappointed in the monkey." We weren't the experiment, we were the finished product. Creation and animals were made before Adam and Eve. That is just a humorous quote turning your question around, yet still answers your question.

On this, I have to ask if you even tried to take anything from what I wrote in the first place? And second, Mark Twain was not a scientist, and did not ever touch anywhere near being so. He had little to no interaction with any kind of scientific theory. His claim to fame was cutting wit on society; science he couldn't begin to touch. He has no credibility there and therefore your argument is invalid.

 

[hokutoshinken]

According to pope Darwin himself, if anything could be demonstrated to NOT have come about by numerous tiny modifications over time, it would prove his theory false. Well, Michael Behe is just one of many modern scientists who have demonstrated that biological processes like the coagulation cascade of blood could not have come about by numerous tiny modifications. Any living thing “evolving” blood coagulation would be dead. And dead things don’t evolve.

 

[Germanicus]

According to pope Darwin himself, if anything could be demonstrated to NOT have come about by numerous tiny modifications over time, it would prove his theory false. Well, Michael Behe is just one of many modern scientists who have demonstrated that biological processes like the coagulation cascade of blood could not have come about by numerous tiny modifications. Any living thing “evolving” blood coagulation would be dead. And dead things don’t evolve.

Did I ever call him a pope? And further, you really don't get the point of descent with modification. There can be factors that were a part of life in the first place that didn't evolve from anything. You can safely determine that most life forms have blood in their systems. And coagulation is by no means exclusive to any one organism, which would make the function moot on the evolution argument. Nice try, genius. And by the way, bacteria reproduce asexually you dip.

 

[peteriscoo]

This tread is one big facepalm. go read a book guys

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

On this, I have to ask if you even tried to take anything from what I wrote in the first place? And second, Mark Twain was not a scientist, and did not ever touch anywhere near being so. He had little to no interaction with any kind of scientific theory. His claim to fame was cutting wit on society; science he couldn't begin to touch. He has no credibility there and therefore your argument is invalid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you pretty much asked, "why didn't God have human experiments to find what works where and how?" If that's your question, then applying Mark Twain's quote isn't wrong, regardless of being a scientist or not. I did that for some humor. What kind of a God, or the God from the Bible, would hold human experiments to find the best-working organism? That's not just. That's on the level of evil scientist. And if he's all-knowing, as he is in the Bible, why would he even have to hold those experiments in the first place? He could've just made a perfect being, which in fact, he did. The Fall of Man is a totally different story in correlation to this topic.

 

[narutokage99]

You must be registered for see links

Read please. All of this is from a verified data base with words and excerpts from people who are much more qualified than you, and admittedly to me, on what is and is not true. Hopefully this will give you some to perspective to how much proof evolution really has behind it.

I'm sure any bit of information on the Internet can become an iceberg nowadays. I can point out lots of websites to you, too. That proves absolutely nothing but that your side has its (pathetic, if I may say so) arguments, and my side has our arguments too. What you need to do is not let others do your thinking for you. I believe in researching BOTH sides so that I know what each says, and then weighing which makes more sense, which is more logical, and which has more scientific merit. There is no scientific merit in saying that particles came into existence with no former cause, and then made themselves into everything we know of, including the brains we have to investigate them. Neither is there logic in it. Neither is there sense. It did not happen, no matter what those pathetic websites try to come up with to "prove" it did, which they can never do, because it can't be repeated. Meantime, I'm very familiar with talkorigins and their pathetic arguments.

 

[Germanicus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you pretty much asked, "why didn't God have human experiments to find what works where and how?" If that's your question, then applying Mark Twain's quote isn't wrong, regardless of being a scientist or not. I did that for some humor. What kind of a God, or the God from the Bible, would hold human experiments to find the best-working organism? That's not just. That's on the level of evil scientist. And if he's all-knowing, as he is in the Bible, why would he even have to hold those experiments in the first place? He could've just made a perfect being, which in fact, he did. The Fall of Man is a totally different story in correlation to this topic.

1. You completely misinterpret when I said god could have potentially allowed humans to evolve. God wouldn't have been doing "experiments", he would have created the initial form of life, the cell, and allowed it to mature from there under a basic set of natural laws, which recur endlessly. And I did not question; I was suggesting and asserting.
2. You yourself are going off topic. I never mentioned "the fall of man", why did you even bring that up?
3. You aren't really doing anything to scientifically disprove evolution. You're just spouting religious doctrine, which, last I recall, had a terrible history when dealing with scientific fact. They also encouraged people to believe the earth was the center of the universe, do you believe that too?

I'm sure any bit of information on the Internet can become an iceberg nowadays. I can point out lots of websites to you, too. That proves absolutely nothing but that your side has its (pathetic, if I may say so) arguments, and my side has our arguments too. What you need to do is not let others do your thinking for you. I believe in researching BOTH sides so that I know what each says, and then weighing which makes more sense, which is more logical, and which has more scientific merit. There is no scientific merit in saying that particles came into existence with no former cause, and then made themselves into everything we know of, including the brains we have to investigate them. Neither is there logic in it. Neither is there sense. It did not happen, no matter what those pathetic websites try to come up with to "prove" it did, which they can never do, because it can't be repeated. Meantime, I'm very familiar with talkorigins and their pathetic arguments.

Pathetic?! Did you even read? It held a substantial amount of information, with quotes from educators, scientific researchers, and scientific journals alike. And particles came into existence from a little something called the Big Bang...also substantially proven. If you really believe you know more than these people who have doctorates and experience in their fields of research, I really want to know who dropped you on your head as a child and punch them for creating a ignoramus who can't even acknowledge one the existence of one of the most well founded biological concepts of all time.

 

[Shinobi Train]

You must be registered for see images

As a religious person, I can say with complete confidence that no one has ever evolved from anything, be that monkey or anything else.

...and people think religion is crazy. -_-

 

[Xentinel]

Its hard to believe we actually evolved ..

First of all, intelligence didnt evolve. If we evolved from some common ancestor like ape, then we should still be living in primitive way and we might not be genius until now. Why did the monkey who has the common ancestor like us still live in the way they are right now? Why dont be intelligent like us too.

And im sure we are not the only being who get evolved. Why other species who get evolved too didnt became an intellectual being like us? Why only us?

Don't forget about emotions and other features like conscience. The animal only have their instict. Which is rather interesting too.

Evolution theory is not legit.

 

[Shinobi Train]

Its hard to believe we actually evolved ..

First of all, intelligence didnt evolve. If we evolved from some common ancestor like ape, then we should still be living in primitive way and we might not be genius until now. Why did the monkey who has the common ancestor like us still live in the way they are right now? Why dont be intelligent like us too.

And im sure we are not the only being who get evolved. Why other species who get evolved too didnt became an intellectual being like us? Why only us?

Don't forget about emotions and other features like conscience. The animal only have their instict. Which is rather interesting too.

Evolution theory is not legit.

Well, with any fantasy story, those telling it have already come up with theories to explain most of the plot holes away. So believe me, they've expanded their story to accomodate for all that. The one thing they can't seem to answer is where it actually all began. They just answer the question with more questions so as to push it back and make it all seem more plausible.

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

1. You completely misinterpret when I said god could have potentially allowed humans to evolve. God wouldn't have been doing "experiments", he would have created the initial form of life, the cell, and allowed it to mature from there under a basic set of natural laws, which recur endlessly. And I did not question; I was suggesting and asserting.
2. You yourself are going off topic. I never mentioned "the fall of man", why did you even bring that up?
3. You aren't really doing anything to scientifically disprove evolution. You're just spouting religious doctrine, which, last I recall, had a terrible history when dealing with scientific fact. They also encouraged people to believe the earth was the center of the universe, do you believe that too?

1. God, when he created the universe, created things with age. He created the earth with age. He created both Adam and Eve with age. It wouldn't be necessary for him to create a cell, let that mature, blah, blah, blah, when he could just make the finished product. Also, God created the world in 7 days. In , it takes way longer than 7 days for a cell to become tissue, let alone into a human being. And also, what type of cell would he have created? An almighty 'Master' cell, that would later split off and create adipocytes, melanicytes, RB cells, WB cells, etc.? Also, when God created the earth, there were no 'natural laws'. It was by His laws that the earth flowed, not by natural ones. That argument in itself is absurd.
2. I know it was off topic, that's why I didn't divulge into it, saying it didn't correlate with the topic at hand.
3. I don't know if you read my previous statements. I included many natural things in creation that disprove evolution, and support creation. If you did read them and want more, there is a ex-Evolutionist turned Creationist that made videos disproving evolution. I forget his name, but the videos are quite interesting and he obviously knows both evolution and creation. I suggest you look him up.
4. Finally, and most importantly, IT'S WHAT YOU BELIEVE! I'm most likely not going to change my thinking based on what you say, and you most likely aren't going to change based on what I say. It all comes down to personal judgement and beliefs. With that, I'm going to bed. I've got to go to school in the morning. xd

 

[Germanicus]

Bah, Creationism. Good for the inquisition, a few genocides, and little else. I'm out. Y'all have fun with whatever else from here on out.

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

Well, with any fantasy story, those telling it have already come up with theories to explain most of the plot holes away. So believe me, they've expanded their story to accomodate for all that. The one thing they can't seem to answer is where it actually all began. They just answer the question with more questions so as to push it back and make it all seem more plausible.

Exactly. Evolutionists try to argue the fact that dust particles or whatever it may be collided and created a big bang, blah, blah, blah. Something dead can't evolve. My deceased grandma can't evolve into a living person. Dust, or whatever scientists claim the substance is, can't evolve into cells.

 

[ImmaculateShadow]

Well this topic has been on my mind for quite a while. And I found no cuclusive evidence to the matter. Turns out there's no evidence supporting that we really envolve. We basically who made from a high being. Evolution denotes that life's were made by chance. That's everything just suddenly happen. It's false. If you look around you and see the marvelous thugs in the world it makes me wonder. Were we really created by nothing? Or were we designed? This is not a rant this is a debate on what YOU think. I honestly don't know. And I was wondering if you guys have studied this or believe in God. Cause me I honestly don't believe it. Just seems a bit to far fetched if you ask me. So what you guys think?

Actually the Theory of Evolution doesn't have a bias on whether the chances of organized life growing out of the universe are high or low statistically. In other words, the Theory of Evolution should be expected in a universe that is geared to grow life. In this way the universe is then a novelty producing engine.

Take it from some one who went from being a Fundamentalist Christian to taking up the position of Atheism and then finally learning, discussing, contemplating & reading my way to Pantheism.

C.S. Lewis quotes, roughly, "evolutionists believe thoughts are chemicals. If that's true, how can we trust our own thoughts if they're made by chance. Evolution is a thought, so how can we trust that thought?" Roughly, that makes evolution collapse on itself. I believe in adapting or 'evolving' in that sense. Humans that live closer to the equator are going to be darker-skinned because they adapted, or evolved. Also, if we evolved from monkeys, why aren't they still evolving? Why are we not evolving? Charles Darwin on his deathbed even said he realizes evolution can't be true.

First and for most C.S. Lewis didn't understand what the Theory of Evolution was given the quote above. One simple error of his that I can point out is that Humans did not evolve from monkey's within any historical model of the Theory of Evolution. We share a common ancestor.

Now if you don't understand what that means, I'll be more than happy to explain. 'Common ancestry' means that at one time 3.9 Billion years ago all forms of life on Earth had the same ancestor — where as some where between 8 to 4 Million years ago Humanity and Primates shared a common ancestor.

To put this on an even smaller scale your cousins and you have a common ancestor — this could ether be a set of Grandparents or Great-Grandparents.

On that last line of Lewis', he's simply miss-quoting some one else. That's been well known for a while now. Even the Christian Fundamentalist group Answers in Genesis thinks it is simply a rumor. [

You must be registered for see links

]

Also, if the earth was millions of years old, the oceans would be salt. The moon would be out of our gravitational orbit. There are many more natural things that disprove evolution, but I've written enough. Lol

Actually the Young Earth Creationist claim — believe me I used to be one — is this: "Known processes to remove sodium from the oceans account for only 27 percent of the sodium that is added. Given the accumulation of sodium this implies, the oceans could not be more than 62 million years old." [

You must be registered for see links

]

What you and others don't realize is that Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.

A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed. [

You must be registered for see links

]

Finally, your claim about the moon disregards physics, mathematics & paleontology. You can find the thorough de-bunking of the YEC claim about the moon's orbit

You must be registered for see links

.

It's proven scientific fact, it's not even a theory anymore. All life forms originated from the duplication of a single cell, and all life, from one thing or another, descends from common ancestors. The man from monkey debate is just one part of a much larger, vital study in the progress of life on earth. But yes, it is one hundred percent true.

Oh Germanicus, what am I going to do with you — kudos to you for understanding the science behind biology enough to know the validity of Evolution!

Though evolution is still a theory in the same way gravity is a theory. Evolution is a convergence of many differing fields where as gravity is physics. Hence Gravity is a Theory of Physics where as Evolution is a multi-disciplinary Theory.

If you still don't know what I mean then here is the definition of a scientific theory:

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

- cheers

 

[SandVillageShinobi]

For those who question evolution:

Whales have hipbones which causes scientists to believe they once had legs and walked on land. Scientist believe the appendix once had a purpose in the human body but we evolved to the point of no longer needing it. Butterflies are the fastest form of evolution today. I happen to believe all of these things may be true and I definitely believe in evolution because it is the mostly logical thing to me. I happen to find this more logical than a supreme being or deity.

 

[Uchiha Riyo]

I know that it's hard to believe if someone just told you that an all-powerful being created us, but it would seem more unbelievable to me that a gigantic explosion created our universes and galaxies.

 

[SandVillageShinobi]

It may be hard to believe but maybe nothing created the universe. Maybe it just is. Maybe the universe is just there because it is. We will never know how, or if it even was, it was created. I doubt that we're even meant to know these things. I don't even believe that we were even meant to step foot on the moon. If we were meant to step foot off the earth and on the moon, or anywhere else, it would be able to sustain life. My point is if we were meant to know/ do these things we would know/do them, and I know we DID step on the moon but we couldn't be there for long because the moon cannot and never will sustain life.

Well, with any fantasy story, those telling it have already come up with theories to explain most of the plot holes away. So believe me, they've expanded their story to accomodate for all that. The one thing they can't seem to answer is where it actually all began. They just answer the question with more questions so as to push it back and make it all seem more plausible.

I happen to find you calling my beliefs a fantasy story offensive. You don't hear me calling christianity(or any religion for that matter) a fantasy story. I may not believe in those things but I try not shut other people down for them. You can say you don't believe in it and your reasons behind it, but please do not say anything against it.

 

[ZK]

This thread is one big ad hominem fallacy.
Theists say; 'nothing evolved, we were all created', yet still believes in a Divine Creator who was 'just there' and has always been there. Lol @ Your lack of evidence and complete reliance on conspiracy theories and undermining scientists.
I find your argument that 'it's still a theory' amusing as hell.
Lol'd hard. Thanks, theists.