72 replies to this topic

[Black Flame]

What is your general opinion on Evolution? Just a crazy theory Charles Darwin came up with or is it real?

[otherworld]

i think its real, too tired to go into much detail but basically

when darwin was at the galapagos islands he notied the same species of bird were all adapted to their different environments

cant really see that being coincidence

[Plew]

i think its real, too tired to go into much detail but basically

when darwin was at the galapagos islands he notied the same species of bird were all adapted to their different environments

cant really see that being coincidence

it is real i think. there are tons of evidence of it. it explains the where people have come from and how the human race has begun

[Shin]

I think evolution is a better explanation of how everything is the way they are now than some of the other theories I've heard. I'd like to hear an argument from someone anti-evolution, though.

[Ives]

Fundamentalists are sheer proof evolution does not exist.

[Sweeney]

Reality is subjective anyway, and nothing is certain...
It is a theory. Impossible to prove, and yet to be conclusively disproven.

Thus, I agree with it.
Whether or not it is "real" however, I always keep an open mind.

[nox]

First off, let me just clarify what I see as evolution, and which parts of it and do and do not believe.

I DO believe the earth can change through natural means geographically.

I DO believe animals can change certain traits to adapt to different situations.

I do not believe it is possible for one animal to change into a completely different kind.

If I walked into a museum, pointed to a picture and said "Ooo, no one actually painted that picture, over millions of years, paint molecules just moved around and just HAPPENED to end up looking like a flower" well, you'd think I was a freaking moron....but evolutionists take this already impossible idea, and stretch it out to an even more extravagant proportion.


Part one: Darwin was doubtful

as we all know, Darwin was the first man to express evolution publicly on such a large scale...writing a lot of books...his main and most famous book, "The Origin of the Species"

ok, first off, how many of you people that believe in evolution have even read this book?

all throughout his book, Darwin is CONSTANTLY saying things that makes it seem that he himself doesn't thing evolution is possible...I had some direct quotes from last years biology book...but it eludes me right now @@...so these aren't exact quotes

But I remember reading through it, and seeing him say things like

"How this could be possible, I do not know"

"Of course, this is unlikely"

"Sadly, I do not have any evidence of this"

ect

ect

(If you don't believe me, flip through the book yourself)

ok, what does this show? It shows that evolution is not a science...it is a THEORY...a theory that even the made who created it, very highly doubts himself.


part two: Evolution is a circle

evolutionists say the world is BILLIONS of years old, right? And that Dinosaur fossils are hundreds of millions, yes? But what a lot of people do not know, is that the theory of evolution as far as the....er....forgot what it was called....something like fossil records... we'll go with that

ANYWAY

as far as the fossil records go, the theory of evolution both depends and supports itself.

For example.

evolution says the world is billions of years old....dinosaurs lived millions of years ago...someone finds a dinosaur bone, estimating the age of remains over a couple of thousand years old is EXTREMELY difficult...therefore, they make a guess

"Well, this bone was from a dinosaur, therefore, it must be MILLIONS of years old!"

and how do evolutionists guess the age of the earth? by the fossils of plants and animals! but how do evolutions guess the age of the fossils? by their theory of how old the earth is BASED on the fossils they find! Whats this called again?...I think its Circle Relation...I forgot...anyways, yes, that's how evolutions determine the age of things.

Now, lets go for the biggest and best part of anti-evolution-ism-ness!

part three: Lack of Transitional Forms

now, when things evolve over OMG MILLIONS OF YEARS, its not exactly like, "zomg monkey....*poof* now your a human!" now is it?

for those of you who don't know, a transitional form is an "in-between stage" of a changing process...like the cacoon phase of a catipilliar/butterfly.

ok, lets use this as an example

evolutionists believe that the bat, came from a rat like creature millions of years ago....and evolved slowly over millions of years.

Now

Rat - scavages ground, has good eyesight, eats with its hands.

Bat - Flys, is blind, does not use its hands for feeding.

ok, so we got this rat....and its starting to slowly evolve into a bat...but at one point, its arms are now stretched out like a bats, but the actual wings haven't developed yet (you have to put up a frame to hold the skin used for flight, yes?)

So now, we have a rat with bat-like arms, and no wings.

Bam. extinction.

Why?

The rat can no longer use its arms to feed itself...or even move around well...yet because its wings are under developed, it cannot FLY to get food either....so what we have is a pathetic little animal that cant feed itself. So it dies off.

Now granted, not all animal theories are this extreme. Some are more like "the horses of today came from mini horsies long ago with tiger stripes!" if that's true or not, I do not know. but if it IS, I believe that's from cross breeding with other types of horses to make a different TYPE, not a different ANIMAL.

Like different cats and dogs and stuff, ya know.

also, not once has a true fossil of a transitional form ever been found...supposed the little bat rat freak I talked about earlier SOMEHOW survived, well, look at all the bats around the world today, that means there must have been MANY kinds of these animals to get this far, which also means a ton of them must have died. but have you ever seen a fossil of a half rat half bat creature? of course not. Because animals cannot change into a totally different type

There's also been a lot of "omg this jawbone looks like a monkeys AND a humans!"

Those have ALWAYS been proven to be either:

1. 100% human

2. 100% ape (possibly an extinct kind, but 100% ape nonetheless)

3. 100% a different animal (a few decades back, evolutionists constructed a whole "ape man" theory from a SINGLE TOOTH....which happened to be from a pig, as was later learn. Wow. Great job scientists, cant wait for you to spread this crap in our public school system)

Part four. The human body!

Humans are, without any doubt, the most complicated living thing on the earth.

lets take the eye for example....tell me....how can...over millions of years, the random chance we call "evolution" create our eyes?

No really...think about it...the way the pupil shrinks in direct light, the way our bifocal vision works so we can see everything in front of us, the way the light is reflected and sent to our brains, you think freaking CHANCE made that?

Lets look at reproduction as well.

how could random chance create males and females? how could random chance make it so that the unison of a males sperm and a females egg was -the- only way to make a baby?

i'll leave these questions to the evolutionists fanatics.

oh, and if your not going to read all of this, fine. but don't bother challenging me on the topic of evolution without reading my post.


<side note: you may have seen something quite similar on another forum, i wrote something and sent it to my friend so he could post it>

[Tetiel]

There is a definate mix. Is it everything people make it to be? No. I don't think so. There is proof of natural selection and adaptation but not evolution on a wide scale. My personal belief (and Gene and I discussed it just last night) that basically yes, we did evolve however it is of my beliefs that it is so very unlikely that something like humans occured from molecules of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon... that I almost must see it as guided evolution. Some force be it God be it something else guided such events to occur. Such an event while possible a random occurance just is too amazing for me

[Waser Lave]

Just a quick point on Speaker's post about the bats/rats:

There are actually bats which live in New Zealand which spend large amounts of time on the forest floor to feed. How do they move around? They use their wings (folded up) to act as front limbs to scramble around. So just because it couldnt fly doesnt mean that it would have been killed off. I think it's called the Short-Tailed Bat...

Oh, and they usually use radiocarbon dating on rocks near to the fossils to find the age of bones, they dont just go around guessing, they actually base it on the rate at which radioactive materials decay (which are constant). They can also use things like the fluctuations in the magnetic field of the earth to date rocks near the fossils are it leaves the rocks with different magnetic fields relating to their geological age.

Edited by Laser Wave, 08 October 2006 - 08:50 AM.

[nox]

how does it defend itself? i'm speaking of the middle which cannot defend itself, and cannot fly.

[Waser Lave]

how does it defend itself? i'm speaking of the middle which cannot defend itself, and cannot fly.

Because New Zealand is an island (well a set of islands), it didnt have many natural predators, so it was able to adapt to live on the forest floor. Of course, with things like rats being brought there by humans and forest clearance they are now endangered, but that's got nothing to do with evolution.

It's the same reason why New Zealand has flightless birds such as the Kiwi.

Edited by Laser Wave, 08 October 2006 - 08:53 AM.

[nox]

yes, i understand that.. so how did the rest of the world's rats evolve into bats?

http://en.wikipedia....hort-tailed_Bat
(extinct)


http://en.wikipedia....hort-tailed_Bat

They became isolated during a glacial period in the centre of the North Island, and through volcanic activity, more than 90,000 years ago. Pups from this unique and isolated colony, born in captivity, have been transferred to Kapiti Island in an attempt to establish an insurance population in a predator-free environment.

<- reason for survival.

[Waser Lave]

They evolved to feed more effectively most likely, you have to remember that at this time, flowering plants were beginning to thrive and grow, and therefore produced fruits (obviously). This meant that along with insects, most of the animal's food was above the forest floor, creating the need to get higher.

Perhaps they evolved to make movement easier such as in the case of the flying fox or 'lemur', gliding is much more effective than jumping.

And although they look rodenty (yeah i made that up ), they arent actually that closely related to mice or rats, they arent even rodents at all.

Note: I am no expert on Evolution.

[nox]

me neither, which is pretty obvious since you've already corrected me

the theory is that rats evolved into bats..that's why i brought it up. not just because they have similar names...or look "rodenty "

[Waser Lave]

me neither, which is pretty obvious since you've already corrected me

the theory is that rats evolved into bats..that's why i brought it up. not just because they have similar names...or look "rodenty "

But that theory is wrong They arent actually evolved from rats at all. Some people actually think they are related to primates (like us) rather than rodents...

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/4213495.stm <- that is pretty interesting, i just found it.

Edited by Laser Wave, 08 October 2006 - 09:27 AM.

[Hawk]

i think its real, too tired to go into much detail but basically

when darwin was at the galapagos islands he notied the same species of bird were all adapted to their different environments

cant really see that being coincidence

Cool, microevolution, want to prove macroevolution to me? Look at your cat or dog, right there is a prime example of microevolution. But have you ever seen a cat turn into a dog? Has anyone?

Also, who can prove that radiometric dating of rocks is even accurate? Or that the decay rate is constant

Here is a site which I think helps raise some points against current dating techniques.

Plus we base everything off of the current rate of growth/decay. (Poorly worded, sorry). Im talking about mountains and places like the Grand Canyon, which took "millions of years" to form from todays standards (Isnt Everest growing at like, less than an inch a year?) And the Grand canyon getting a hair deeper every year. Could these things have occured much quicker, say, maybe, during Noah's flood?

Dinosaurs- Some may say they were mentioned in the Bible, but, whatever, it depends on how you interperate it

[Ives]

Dinosaurs- Some may say they were mentioned in the Bible, but, whatever, it depends on how you interperate it

It doesn't depend on interpretation. The bible clearly says it is not meant to be interpreted. The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, though thats not a finalization to suggest dinosaurs never existed.

[nox]

Dinosaurs- Some may say they were mentioned in the Bible, but, whatever, it depends on how you interperate it

are you seriously using the bible as a determination for history?

[nox]

What's wrong with that? There are many historically correct things in the Bible. Shall I name some? Not to mention that are alot of prophecy's that have come true in the Bible as well, just learned one today that Jesus told.

You need to respect other's beliefs/religion, I don't want to start having to cap on you, you definently would not like it

i respect religious beliefs, i go to a catholic school - mind you.

if anything, it should be the old testament that is being looked to for historic beliefs, since it's way before the bible was written. how can anything credible about dinosaurs be in the bible? this is exactly why science is and never will be dependent on: belief, or faith

[nox]

Read the rest of my post, mabye if you actually did "research" you might find these things out

yes, those are broad statements.

with those statements, you make assumptions, and you fit things together. i do admit that this is a key to science, (uncovering truths) but it should not be used to fit facts together.

Dinosaurs- Some may say they were mentioned in the Bible, but, whatever, it depends on how you interpret it 1we8.gif

hawk made a good point regarding interpretation. the brain fits things together, using logic and educated prior knowledge. this DOES NOT prove facts, but to help uncover facts. in this case, the "facts" (dinosaurs being real) has been long uncovered and we all understand&accept that they existed.

edit:fixed my/hawk's spelling

Edited by speaker, 08 October 2006 - 08:18 PM.

[nox]

in some cases, it is necessary. but when there is substantial flaws in a certain theory (in this case evolution)..it's a different situation.

<remember that i don't believe in evolution>

[nox]

it's all based on assumtions, which changes between people. (it is an opinion )

to me, it just looks like one of those: "yeah..it kinda fits that description..not really that one...i guess it kinda sounds like a dinosaur...."

i just don't think that the bible should be a source for history. i want you to understand that i'm not calling the bible fake, or that the information is wrong..just that science is based on facts - not beliefs.

as a closing note: don't get so heated man, debates should be friendly

[Ives]

I tend to think it does. My reasoning is simple. There are three words (only two I remember) that are used in the Bible that we no longer recognize as an animal (Like sheep or a wolf) but still have a meaning for the word. tanniyn and livyathan are the two names. There are several translations to these names. Some for tanniyn are "serpent," "sea monster," "dinosaur," "great creature," and "reptile."

Here is an excpert from Job (Job 40:15-24):
Most Bible's make a reference that this could have been an elephant, but they don't have tails like a cedar. There is alot more evidence in the Bible regarding the possible mention of Dinosaurs, I'm not going to cover it all, but there's a good start

Yeah, but thats a matter of language translation and linguistics, not interpretation, is all I'm saying. Not to sound like an asshole or anything.

[Generic Nolander]

Evolution is by all means, just a theory. A theory with significant flaws.

Apparently the world was begun when a rogue particle/bacteria/cosmic force of the known universe decided it wanted to multiply. Question, what created the rogue thing? By laws of logic, things just dont appear there on their own. Not possible. That's the biggest flaw with the theory - unless someone proves to me that there is a plausible, logical way that the beginning sequence existed without creation, i'll refuse to accept the theory.

Some of you are getting adaptation and evolution mixed up. Evolution is the process of one species completely changing various aspects of itself to create another species or being. Adaptation is a process where a species adapts to it's current environment through a change of living style. A perfect example of adaptation (but not evolution) is birds - they grow a thicker set of down during winter, and shed it during summer. In no way does this affect the genetic makeup of the bird, ie, it doesn't change it into another species.

[Generic Nolander]

One could also argue that that law is as imperfect as humanity, Kitsune, because we wrote it.