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

Forums - General - How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

Aquietguy on 14 May 2009
hsrob said:

Considering this is one of the issues that has been discussed at length already in this thread it might help if you actually read some of the posts addressing this issue prior to posting.  Primarily, theory does not mean what many people seem to think it means.

 
Don't have to read it. I have been over this many times in other message boards. Evolution is a belief that was started and is based off of 19th century science. Sure life adapts to changes in the environment, but there is a difference between adapting and evolving. However, evolution is just as much a religion is Christianity. It's taken on just as much fate. The problem is that this Dogma happens to be the main stream view of the scientific and academia community. Just like doctor or only taught drugs and surgery and not natural healing. 

 

 



Around the Network
TruckOSaurus on 14 May 2009
Aquietguy said:
hsrob said:

Considering this is one of the issues that has been discussed at length already in this thread it might help if you actually read some of the posts addressing this issue prior to posting.  Primarily, theory does not mean what many people seem to think it means.

 
Don't have to read it. I have been over this many times in other message boards. Evolution is a belief that was started and is based off of 19th century science. Sure life adapts to changes in the environment, but there is a difference between adapting and evolving. However, evolution is just as much a religion is Christianity. It's taken on just as much fate. The problem is that this Dogma happens to be the main stream view of the scientific and academia community. Just like doctor or only taught drugs and surgery and not natural healing. 

When talking about evolution you know we don't mean Pikachu transforming into Raichu right?



Signature goes here!

Riot on 14 May 2009

Aquietguy said:

...

Evolution is a belief that was started and is based off of 19th century science.

...

That doesn't have to be something bad. The central idea of ID that there is a higher being (intelligent cause) involved in the creation of the world is much older.

 



hsrob on 14 May 2009
Aquietguy said:
hsrob said:

Considering this is one of the issues that has been discussed at length already in this thread it might help if you actually read some of the posts addressing this issue prior to posting.  Primarily, theory does not mean what many people seem to think it means.

 
Don't have to read it. I have been over this many times in other message boards. Evolution is a belief that was started and is based off of 19th century science. Sure life adapts to changes in the environment, but there is a difference between adapting and evolving. However, evolution is just as much a religion is Christianity. It's taken on just as much fate. The problem is that this Dogma happens to be the main stream view of the scientific and academia community. Just like doctor or only taught drugs and surgery and not natural healing. 

 

 

What's wrong with 19th century science or 17th century science for that matter?  We still learn Newton's laws of motion in highschool physics and it is good enough to explain and predict motion in many common situations.

Explain to me how evolution is taken on just as much faith as Christianity.  Your whole post reeks of contradiction as you criticise evolutionary dogma and state it's reliance on faith without any evidence to back up your point. So we are to discard evolutionary dogma for your own? Natural selection at least has the good sense to put 'theory' in front of it to remind us that it is to be questioned and challenged, and not to be taken as infallible or unquestionable, unlike your point which we are expected to take on faith.

 



zexen_lowe on 14 May 2009

Argentina - Evolution




Around the Network
Aquietguy on 14 May 2009
hsrob said:

What's wrong with 19th century science or 17th century science for that matter?  We still learn Newton's laws of motion in highschool physics and it is good enough to explain and predict motion in many common situations.

Explain to me how evolution is taken on just as much faith as Christianity.  Your whole post reeks of contradiction as you criticise evolutionary dogma and state it's reliance on faith without any evidence to back up your point. So we are to discard evolutionary dogma for your own? Natural selection at least has the good sense to put 'theory' in front of it to remind us that it is to be questioned and challenged, and not to be taken as infallible or unquestionable, unlike your point which we are expected to take on faith.

 
Most of what evolution is based is wrong by 20th century science. Even Darwin himself didn't take it as absolute truth. It's mostly a view for those who are atheist and need belief to where we come from. But where is all this supposed proof? It doesn't exist. 

 

 



highwaystar101 on 14 May 2009
FootballFan said:
highwaystar101 said:
Aquietguy said:

New Orleans- Intelligent Design

And I would like to add that evolution has not been prove because some on here thinks it has. That's why it's still call a theory.

*sigh*

Another person who does not know what a theory is.

 

No one has stated that iit is a fact. Theres a large amoumt of evidence to prove that it is true but it isnt a fact.

 

*smacks head against desk*

Theory =/= fact

You need a helluva lot of evidence for an hypothesis to become a theory.

 



mrjuju on 14 May 2009
Aquietguy said:
hsrob said:

What's wrong with 19th century science or 17th century science for that matter?  We still learn Newton's laws of motion in highschool physics and it is good enough to explain and predict motion in many common situations.

Explain to me how evolution is taken on just as much faith as Christianity.  Your whole post reeks of contradiction as you criticise evolutionary dogma and state it's reliance on faith without any evidence to back up your point. So we are to discard evolutionary dogma for your own? Natural selection at least has the good sense to put 'theory' in front of it to remind us that it is to be questioned and challenged, and not to be taken as infallible or unquestionable, unlike your point which we are expected to take on faith.

 
Most of what evolution is based is wrong by 20th century science. Even Darwin himself didn't take it as absolute truth. It's mostly a view for those who are atheist and need belief to where we come from. But where is all this supposed proof? It doesn't exist. 

 

 

0_0 ummm, not to be a dick or anything, but where is the proof for ID, or god for that matter? Because I  am fairly sure there is a far greater amount of evidence supporting the gradual adaptation and evolution of animals than a large, bearded man floating in the sky with his armies of winged cherubs.

 



Proud member of the Mega Mario Movement

Check out my daily drawings here and help keep me on task!

Aquietguy on 14 May 2009
Riot said:

That doesn't have to be something bad. The central idea of ID that there is a higher being (intelligent cause) involved in the creation of the world is much older.

 
A good point. But then why is intelligent design growing among scientist and it is. And why is it that academia so against it. If you even try to bring up intelligent design you would lose your job and all funding. But then real advancement has never come from main stream thinkers. It always come from people who think outside the box. But I would still like to know why intelligent design is being shut out of academia. There is just as much of an argument for it as evolution.

 

 



Aquietguy on 14 May 2009
mrjuju said:

0_0 ummm, not to be a dick or anything, but where is the proof for ID, or god for that matter? Because I  am fairly sure there is a far greater amount of evidence supporting the gradual adaptation and evolution of animals than a large, bearded man floating in the sky with his armies of winged cherubs.

 
Their's about as much of a case for intelligent design as their is for evolution. Just because you don't hear about it in school or at a university doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The curriculum is controlled by evolutionist. Like I said in my last post, just the mention of intelligent design can get you kicked out of academia.