By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do You Accept Evolution as a Fact?

 

Do you believe in evolution?

Yes 657 75.69%
 
Mostly, some things are questionable. 74 8.53%
 
No 99 11.41%
 
Not really, but some could be true. 38 4.38%
 
Total:868

The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan

The Theory of Evolution has no place in civilized society. It is a tyrannical ideology, never composed for the sake of scientific discovery (as it was with Newton), but for the conquest of the world, the ascending of government over the Laws of God, the extermination of the helpless, the degeneration of human life, the enslavement of man under a select elite, and ultimately, the obliteration of Christianity.



Around the Network

evolution teaches that life started from non-life and has diversified (evolved) over eons of time from one thing to the next. However, the Bible says ten times in the first chapter of Genesis that everything reproduces “after his kind.” This is scientifically observable, testable and repeatable. Dogs give birth to dogs, people to people, cats to cats, etc. However, there is no evidence of anything giving rise to anything other than its own kind. Therefore, the evolutionary teachings do not qualify as science, but rather a belief

In Mark 10:6, Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them [Adam and Eve] male and female.”



craighopkins said:
evolution teaches that life started from non-life and has diversified (evolved) over eons of time from one thing to the next. However, the Bible says ten times in the first chapter of Genesis that everything reproduces “after his kind.” This is scientifically observable, testable and repeatable. Dogs give birth to dogs, people to people, cats to cats, etc. However, there is no evidence of anything giving rise to anything other than its own kind. Therefore, the evolutionary teachings do not qualify as science, but rather a belief

In Mark 10:6, Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them [Adam and Eve] male and female.”

Nope. Evolution does not state that life started from non-life. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. 

Also, what is a kind? Can you give me a definition?

And evolution says if 2 species mate their offspring will always be the same species. 



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Many people unknowingly have been deceived because the groundwork for this humanistic philosophy has slowly, subtly and incrementally been set in place. The degradation of mankind and the compromising of the Bible within the Christian community have provided the path that will help to usher in the Antichrist and his world system of the endtime.

Revelation 18 says that all nations will be deceived in the last days.



palou said:
Pemalite said:

The hilarious part about this... When I was in Queensland Australia, I was staying at a place near an extinct volcano which had historically had significant pumice flows sometime in history. There were massive boulders that could literally float on the water. I kid you not.

Volcanic stone is extremely light, and often traps gases, giving it a lower density than water.

Sadly the same scientific reasoning doesn't work with me after curry night.

Safiir said:

Well, yeah but in order to properly analyse and understand the empirical evidence you do need several qualified (as in know enough about the subject) people who generally agree on the results.

It's called "Peer Review". And happens extensively in the Scientific Community.

You don't have one person going out and performing a test and using that evidence to build a model which in turn becomes the basis of a Theory... It needs to be verified by other peers.

craighopkins said:

The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan

The Theory of Evolution has no place in civilized society. It is a tyrannical ideology, never composed for the sake of scientific discovery (as it was with Newton), but for the conquest of the world, the ascending of government over the Laws of God, the extermination of the helpless, the degeneration of human life, the enslavement of man under a select elite, and ultimately, the obliteration of Christianity.

Maybe Christianity should be obliterated if that's your perspective.

craighopkins said:
evolution teaches that life started from non-life and has diversified (evolved) over eons of time from one thing to the next.

And the evidence that supports that theory is wrong... How exactly?

craighopkins said:
However, the Bible says ten times in the first chapter of Genesis that everything reproduces “after his kind.”

If you are going to use Genesis, then I assume you are in full support of the Bibles Old Testament.
That means you support Slavery, Death to Homosexuals, Stoning of Children, Against Divorce, Women must serve men and more...

craighopkins said:
 This is scientifically observable, testable and repeatable. Dogs give birth to dogs, people to people, cats to cats, etc. However, there is no evidence of anything giving rise to anything other than its own kind. Therefore, the evolutionary teachings do not qualify as science, but rather a belief

Correct. Dogs do give birth to Dogs. Evolution doesn't state anything that contradicts that.

But do you know what the common ancestor of all Dogs is? The Wolf. The Wolf didn't stop existing either.
Evolution isn't about a species changing into another via mutation. It's more like a family Tree.

The Fossil record, The Fruit-Fly Maze, Viruses/Bacteria changing, Breeding different traits in Animals (I.E. Dogs) and more is all evidence that supports the Evolutionary theory.

There is ZERO evidence for the existence of your God, thus Evolution comes first.

craighopkins said:

In Mark 10:6, Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them [Adam and Eve] male and female.”


If we all came from Adam and Eve, does that mean you are against Same-sex marriage but support Incest? I ask this, because if we all came from two people there would not have been sufficient genetic diversity and that would have been catastrophic for humanity to progress.

Take the Banana for example. Pretty much all Banana Tree's are clones. And because there is not sufficient genetic diversity, they are prone to being completely wiped out by a single disease.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
Safiir said:

Again - you need years of learning and experience on a subject. Hence why it is dominated by academics or scholars. I mean an average person can't really understand the data collected on global warming for example (since it's currently such a hot topic). It should be available for him, definitely. But he/she simply lacks the knowledge to interpret it.

The raw data perhaps, but that's why scientists publish papers with their theories and all the information they have to back it up. Sure it would still be more complicated to follow than say a recipe book or something, but the average person should still be able to read it and understand why the scientist is presenting that theory and that there is a factual basis suggesting it could possibly be true.

That's kind of why scientists publish stuff, to give people evidence to back up their claims and so it isn't just them saying "this happens because I said it does. Look at all my fancy degrees, that means you should just trust me!".

A lot of science (let's say, modern physics) can't be reduced to a format where it is verifiable for the layman, without introducing fallacies.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

fatslob-:O said:
Nem said:

Ermm... science IS about consensus. Consensus is gathered by the evidence.

I am not familiar with the claims you are making. Are you considering the scientific community to be limited to one country in order to have political interests? It doesn't sound very logical.

I have no idea what you are on about.

Science has no will or beliefs. What you are saying is ludicrous. Science looks at the evidence or demonstrates it to explains reality. It is not contingent on the agenda of religions. If religions are affected it's because they made laughable claims based on ignorance. Can't exactly blame Science for the mistakes religion does.

You're wrong, science isn't about consensus and people get this unbelievably wrong so many times it's frustrating ...

Is a consensus supposed to be right when most scholars in Galileo's time belived that the sun revolved around the earth ? 

Another trick question for you is if Newton's Laws surrounding motion is more correct than Einstein's theory of special relativity according to consensus at the time Einstein pusblished his paper ? 

And I am not saying that the scientific community is stuck in one country. It's that they are stuck in an echochamber where progressives limit academic freedom when it comes to the studies of the human genome ...

At least religion doesn't claim to be academically honest when large parts of the scientific community shames the shit upon those who studies between human genetic lines ... 

Really? The reason why galileo and others were persecuted was religion.

True consensus is possible when there is freedom to exercise it. Of course if theres a group of fanatics at your doorstep ready to kill you, you will say whatever doesn't get you killed.

Science is not an echo chamber. Every theory can be questioned aslong as theres evidence of the claim. I assure that if you come up with proof, not circunstancial proof, not just bits when theres tons for a rival hypothesis, it will be taken into account. That is how science works.

But, i'm still confused about your claims. You think religion is more honest than science? You think that organizations that killed millions and persecuted millions more is the epitome of honesty? You think the bible was never pandered with for 2 thousand years? These conspiracy theories are mind boggling. The thing about science is that it's not falsefiable. It's demonstrable.



Ka-pi96 said:
Safiir said:

Again - you need years of learning and experience on a subject. Hence why it is dominated by academics or scholars. I mean an average person can't really understand the data collected on global warming for example (since it's currently such a hot topic). It should be available for him, definitely. But he/she simply lacks the knowledge to interpret it.

The raw data perhaps, but that's why scientists publish papers with their theories and all the information they have to back it up. Sure it would still be more complicated to follow than say a recipe book or something, but the average person should still be able to read it and understand why the scientist is presenting that theory and that there is a factual basis suggesting it could possibly be true.

That's kind of why scientists publish stuff, to give people evidence to back up their claims and so it isn't just them saying "this happens because I said it does. Look at all my fancy degrees, that means you should just trust me!".

In theory, yes, an average person should be able to. But in practice that's not how it works. My professional field is clinical trials. Specifically oncology. There are tons and tons and tons of research papers published regarding the different types of cancer and the way to treat it. And yet I am constantly reading posts by people who are adamant that there is a cure for cancer (not differentiating even between blood cancer and solid tumors let alone a more fine categorization) and big pharma are killing everyone that tries to tell people what it is because money. And don't even get me started on vaccines.

The vast majority of people don't want to spend the time to educate themselfs about a specific topic unless it is vital to them. And that's perfectly understandable. You only have so much time. In the end you must rely (at least to a certain degree) on what the experts tell you.

Pemalite said:
Safiir said:

Well, yeah but in order to properly analyse and understand the empirical evidence you do need several qualified (as inknow enough about the subject) people who generally agree on the resu

It's called "Peer Review". And happens extensively in the Scientific Community.

You don't have one person going out and performing a test and using that evidence to build a model which in turn becomes the basis of a Theory... It needs to be verified by other peers.

Exactly.



Yes, of course. I wish more people in my country would do the same.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Safiir said:

Again - you need years of learning and experience on a subject. Hence why it is dominated by academics or scholars. I mean an average person can't really understand the data collected on global warming for example (since it's currently such a hot topic). It should be available for him, definitely. But he/she simply lacks the knowledge to interpret it.

That's not ideal since academics and scholars frequently lose grounding to the real world ...

Safiir said:

Well, yeah but in order to properly analyse and understand the empirical evidence you do need several qualified (as in know enough about the subject) people who generally agree on the results. You can't have a single person be the ultimate authority on the matter because we're still just human. There's plenty of subjectivity on our part. This is why it's important to have a scientific consensus. I don't believe it makes it like a tiranny of the majority that suppresses different thoughts and ideas, although that's not to say it hasn't happened. Again - we are human. Eventually, though if it is proven even a drastically different theory will be accepted.

I want to believe but it's human nature to be stubborn and especially when science conflicts with their moral views ... 

Nem said:

Really? The reason why galileo and others were persecuted was religion.

True consensus is possible when there is freedom to exercise it. Of course if theres a group of fanatics at your doorstep ready to kill you, you will say whatever doesn't get you killed.

Science is not an echo chamber. Every theory can be questioned aslong as theres evidence of the claim. I assure that if you come up with proof, not circunstancial proof, not just bits when theres tons for a rival hypothesis, it will be taken into account. That is how science works.

But, i'm still confused about your claims. You think religion is more honest than science? You think that organizations that killed millions and persecuted millions more is the epitome of honesty? You think the bible was never pandered with for 2 thousand years? These conspiracy theories are mind boggling. The thing about science is that it's not falsefiable. It's demonstrable.

Even many of the scholars who were progressive in Galileo's time did not agree with his conclusions for reasons other than religion ... 

Your're right that science is not an echochamber but the community themselves are in an echochamber where they are getting infected with the popular opinions of political figures with idiots like Bernie Sanders who are just as dangerously ignorant about science as those who we persecute with extreme religious beliefs ... 

I don't claim that religion is more honest than science. It's that religion doesn't advertise to be more academically honest and if science is going to do the opposite then we need to hold it to a much higher standard to those practicing it when experts are willing to defile it with their political agendas ... 

Too many times have I've seen experts produce dishonesty after dishonesty when it comes to genetic research because they had a conflict of interest with liberal policies. I can't trust liberal funded research anymore when it comes to genetics since their the group whose most opposed to shutting down any results that agree with their equality narrative ... 

It's so utterly sad to see eugenics not being pursued as often because anytime anyone goes into to it they become the black sheep of the science community and are automatically branded as racists when they bring in valid data that intensely clashes with the personal opinions of the rest of the community ...