Quantcast
What is your take on evolution/old age earth?

Forums - General Discussion - What is your take on evolution/old age earth?

Slimebeast said:

I don't trust the guys who reconstruct and interpret these monkey skeletons and postulate human evolutionary trees. Too amateurish. It's too much global warming hoax over it all.  If I wasn't religious maybe I would have just ate it all up without having done any deeper studies.

Aren't you a doctor in Europe?  No wonder they don't pay you guys anything over there :)

Concerning the mystery of human morals, other animals like monkeys and lions live in groups and don't kill or harm each other (atleast not anymore than moral man).  If large groups of monkeys can live peacefully while sharing food, grooming each other, and having recreational sex, then it doesn't seem like rational man has much to brag about.



Around the Network

evolution ftw

religion ftl



This thread just proves one thing.... People need to stop being in denial, read a book, and get an education. I don't want to sound like a jack-ass or anything, although I probably already did. 

Why would someone follow a religion that impedes them from so much? That requires them not to think, and look at evidence which such contempt, but blindly accept an over 2000 year old book as solid, undeniable proof. 

To people who sound the "microevolution" argument... You guys are totally correct, I cannot walk a mile one step at a time... It's not like little changes over a huge period of time amount to anything big or something... I mean, seriously, if I gave you a dollar a day for 50,000 days... You really would have a BIG sum of money.

Anyways, people need to learn what the word "theory" means, for something in science to be labeled a "theory" it needs overwhelming amounts of evidence to back it up, and I mean A LOT of evidence. The way we in society define theory, and the way the scientific community does, is not exactly the same. 

People need to stop dismissing science as they please, especially since it has given us a lot of things (both used for good and bad). I'm not a blind follower in science, science requires question, it's how it progresses, but arguing a mute point is annoying, and hinders progress.

 



Booh! said:
RockSmith372 said:
dsister said:

I thought that by saying I don't accept macroevolution that it also implies that I don't accept that life has been around for a billion years.


Well Macroevolution is because speciation(changes in between species), which scientists have observed numerous times. The main question for creationists is whether or not they accept an old age earth or a young earth. Is your religion the reason why you don't accept the old age earth model or is it something observable in nature that makes you question it? If it's religious issues, then I cannot talk much since there would be no point since there would be bias involved, but if it's something in nature that makes you question the old earth model, ask me and I will try my best to answer.

To say the truth none ever observed speciation...

Are you kidding? Since there are so many observed speciation, I am just going to link a site showing you all the observed speciation you need. Most are bacteria/single celled organisms due to fast reproductive rates, allowing time for speciation to be much quicker, but there are observed speciations in animals too. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html



RockSmith372 said:
Booh! said:
RockSmith372 said:
dsister said:

I thought that by saying I don't accept macroevolution that it also implies that I don't accept that life has been around for a billion years.


Well Macroevolution is because speciation(changes in between species), which scientists have observed numerous times. The main question for creationists is whether or not they accept an old age earth or a young earth. Is your religion the reason why you don't accept the old age earth model or is it something observable in nature that makes you question it? If it's religious issues, then I cannot talk much since there would be no point since there would be bias involved, but if it's something in nature that makes you question the old earth model, ask me and I will try my best to answer.

To say the truth none ever observed speciation...

Are you kidding? Since there are so many observed speciation, I am just going to link a site showing you all the observed speciation you need. Most are bacteria/single celled organisms due to fast reproductive rates, allowing time for speciation to be much quicker, but there are observed speciations in animals too. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


xD I think that last post just destroyed the thread. It's like... "OMFG NOOOO EVIDENCE!"



Around the Network

I will say it again because everyone seems to be ignoring me.

 

Evolution by intelligent design ftw.



I wonder when Snesboy will post in this thread!



WHERE IS MY KORORINPA 3

i think if people stopped and looked around they would find that there are just as many ignorant assholes ranting about id as there are ranting about evolution.  people just like blindly believing things they read in any book without any thought about what they are reading, because they are just told that its right and anything else is wrong.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Evolution is the most correct theory that explains the origins of the divisity of life.

Evolution by natural selection has been observed in several parts of the world (within our lifetimes), its been shown in the lab, the fossil record is increasinly more comprehensive and the complete sillyness and chaos of our bodies point to evolution and not a creator. The fact that the photo receptors in our eyes face backwards, that koala pouches face downwards despite the fact that they live in trees etc points to animals that both slowly and rapidly mutated (and were selected as being advantaged by natural selection) and such mutations were fixed after the fact because they weren't neccesarily very elegant solutions (something that would cause a designer to go back to the drawing board). Note Koalas are evolved from Wombats. Which burrow underground, hence why the pouch faces backwards, so their young don't get dirty etc. The explanation of why the Koala is like it is only makes sense when evolution is applied.

If the designer did design us all he's either very cruel, or actually very very stupid.

Thankfully the more elegant solution is the one with the evidence.



MrBubbles said:

i think if people stopped and looked they would find that there are just as many ignorant assholes ranting about id as there are ranting about evolution.  people like blindly believing things they read in a book without any thought about what they are reading, because they are just told that its right and anything else is wrong.


Sounds like the Bible to me.