Homework Help

Evolution - Real or Not?Evolution is in so many ways taking over beliefs. I don't...

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted October 17, 2012 at 3:32 AM via web

dislike 8 like
Evolution - Real or Not?

Evolution is in so many ways taking over beliefs. I don't actually agree with it... I'm a creationist/Chrisian and don't believe in it at all. Wondering what you think about this subject - is it real or is it not?

123 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

bullbudder | Student, Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted December 18, 2012 at 6:00 AM (Answer #115)

dislike 1 like

to 114

yes luiji evolution is not real ,

the earth is still a rocky volcanic hot surface so there was no evoluiton of earth

humans still have a tail bone, so there was no evolution of human body

some people dont have 6 fingers or some srt of mutation so evolution isnot real 

 The yellow bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is a lizard of New South Wales, in Australia, that appears to be undergoing the change from laying eggs to live birth. so evolution is fake


I SO AGREE WITH U LUIJI..................

post 114 please visit: 

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

user profile pic

bullbudder | Student, Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted January 8, 2013 at 11:33 AM (Answer #122)

dislike 1 like

in reply to 119 

can,t u just go to this website i personally instructed for ur examples

user profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted October 17, 2012 at 4:07 AM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

Evolution is real.  And I don't think that it's incompatible with faith.  It's only incompatible with believing that the Bible is meant as a scientific textbook.  But that is not (to me) what the Bible is supposed to be.  There's no reason that evolution can't be part of God's way of creation, in my opinion.

user profile pic

Lorraine Caplan | College Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator

Posted October 17, 2012 at 4:30 AM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

Evolution is indisputable, based not only on a fossil record we can see, but also on well-documented studies of evolution in our own time.  One wonderful book about this is The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, by Jonathan Weiner.  He and a partner were able to trace the evolution of finch beaks on an isolated island, demonstrating adaptation and natural selection over a series of climate changes on the island. 

Evolution, in fact, is not a matter of belief at all, but of evidence and logic.  There is no basis for saying that evolution is taking over belief because there is no requirement to choose between them.  As the first response notes, they are not necessarily incompatible, and in fact, the more I learn about the wonders the world as explained by science, the stronger my belief is in a higher power. 


user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted October 17, 2012 at 4:50 AM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

pohnpei397:

Are you saying that we should combine the Bible with the facts of evolution, because that's not the way I see it.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in seven days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans seperate from animals - the Bible makes the distinction there.

Also, we are told that God created the world that was already mature. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not as children. Trees weren't just little seeds or seedlings, but the earth was made mature. This meant that the earth could have seemed billions of years old, but was only just created. So it could seem that the earth is billions of years old, but is only a few thousand.

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted October 17, 2012 at 4:52 AM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

speamerfam:

You talk about natural selection, yet natural selection is only changes within a species. Natural selection doesn't bring about new species. It is only responsible for changes within a species.

 

user profile pic

litteacher8 | Middle School Teacher | (Level 1) Distinguished Educator

Posted October 17, 2012 at 3:11 PM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like

I think that people have the right to believe what they want spiritually, and you can look at religion as a metaphor rather than an absolute scientific truth.  Science is not necessarily set in stone.  Science is about proof.  As long as you can prove something it is true, but until then it is a theory and it can be disproven.

user profile pic

trophyhunter1 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Senior Educator

Posted October 17, 2012 at 10:35 PM (Answer #7)

dislike 0 like

If you view the fossil record, you will see the evidence of how living things of today, had "ancestors" that appeared different. However, due to years of natural selection and an ever-changing environment, life evolved. Those with the best traits for that environment survived and others perished, resulting in new species over eons of time. The DNA evidence, comparative anatomy and embryology, the fossil record all provide indisputable proof that life on Earth was and is continually changing.

user profile pic

rrteacher | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted October 17, 2012 at 11:37 PM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like

It seems as if you has already made up your mind. Evolution (i.e. the development of different species) by natural selection has withstood more than 150 years of rigorous scrutiny by all of the scientific disciplines mentioned above. It is a theory that you can take to the bank, and the broad outlines of the theory are are essentially demonstrable fact. As for the issue raised in Post #4, if your faith, in your mind, prohibits you from embracing the findings of science, then so be it. But other people don't have to see it that way. 

user profile pic

ritz-books | Student, Grade 10 | eNotes Newbie

Posted October 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM (Answer #9)

dislike 0 like

I believe in evolution. How else(logically) can you explain our existence? We have a startling physical resemblance with monkeys and Chimps. We have evolved from these creatures to establish ourselves as the most intelligent and daring life form on Earth till date. This is what science teaches.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted October 18, 2012 at 10:30 PM (Answer #10)

dislike 0 like

speamerfam:

You talk about natural selection, yet natural selection is only changes within a species. Natural selection doesn't bring about new species. It is only responsible for changes within a species.

 

Why can't extended periods of time allow a multitude of accumulated changes in an isolated gene pool to produce such a significant divergence from the original characteristics that it would be unable to reproduce with its original species?

Why can't a species change indefinitely until it is no longer able to reproduce with the original species? 

 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted October 18, 2012 at 10:37 PM (Answer #11)

dislike 0 like

pohnpei397:

Are you saying that we should combine the Bible with the facts of evolution, because that's not the way I see it.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in seven days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans seperate from animals - the Bible makes the distinction there.

Also, we are told that God created the world that was already mature. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not as children. Trees weren't just little seeds or seedlings, but the earth was made mature. This meant that the earth could have seemed billions of years old, but was only just created. So it could seem that the earth is billions of years old, but is only a few thousand.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in seven days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans seperate from animals - the Bible makes the distinction there. Also, we are told that God created the world that was already mature. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not as children. - Luigi

And if you want to believe that then you have the freedom of religion and can believe it. But, scientifically speaking, it is in no sense real, true or accurate. Creationist attempts to deny scientific evidence in order to preserve literal Biblical accuracy are futile. It can't be done. It is scientifically provable that

  1. Adam and Eve never existed
  2. There was no global flood
  3. Humans are animals and evolved.

It doesn't matter what you 'believe'. What matters is, 'what does the evidence show us?' And the evidence very clearly shows us that the Bible is not a literally accurate scientific book.

 

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted October 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM (Answer #12)

dislike 0 like

You know, frizzyperm, you are right. I should believe what I believe, and you can believe what you want to believe. I guess that's what freedom is about.

I can argue and give proof that the flood did exist, and that it also explains much of the evidence used to prove evolution, but I think we should stop arguing about beliefs and believe what we want.

It's a bit hypocritical, but that's my conclusion.

user profile pic

portd | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted October 19, 2012 at 9:39 PM (Answer #13)

dislike 0 like

I don't believe in evolution; however, I agree that each individual must delve into the topic and make their own decision based on what they find. Another must respect any free will decision another individual makes. I hearken back to pastor John MacArthur's statement that evolutionary theory is summed up as this... (paraphrased)

"Nothing x No one = everything."

Doesn't seem logical to me.

I saw a program the other day called Bird Tales on PBS Boston. A birder in the show talked about birds and their songs and their voice mechanisms inherent in them . He said these voice mechanisms in then were designed for certain functions. Who designed them? I believe the Creator God did. Every one has to answer this question for themselves.

A watch demands a watchmaker. A fine cake demands a baker or pastry chef. I believe a great first cause, who inhabits eternity and has life inherent is the starting point of all that is. I believe the great first cause is God. I don't believe that everything came from nothing. I don't believe that life came from lifeless matter. Where did matter come from in the first place?

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted October 20, 2012 at 10:47 AM (Answer #14)

dislike 0 like

You know, frizzyperm, you are right. I should believe what I believe, and you can believe what you want to believe. I guess that's what freedom is about.

I can argue and give proof that the flood did exist, and that it also explains much of the evidence used to prove evolution, but I think we should stop arguing about beliefs and believe what we want.

It's a bit hypocritical, but that's my conclusion.

I should believe what I believe, and you can believe what you want to believe. - Luiji

While I agree in principle, I think we should accept (rather than 'believe') the things which are self-evidently true. I don't believe in evolution. I have studied the evidence for it and it is a clear explanation of what actually happened. I studied the evidence and then made a decision. You, on the other hand, have a pre-held belief that you had before you studied the evidence. You hold a religious position, I hold a scientific one.   You are interested in The Rock of Ages. I am interested in The Age of Rocks. :-)

I can argue and give proof that the flood did exist - Luiji

Sorry, but no, you can't. But you are welcome to offer your reasons here and I will try to help you understand why you are mistaken. Belief is not the same as fact. This thread is in the science section, and scientifically speaking it is child's play to disprove the biblical flood. While you may hold it as a religious belief, you cannot claim it is scientifically provable, because it isn't. And I can help you find the truth. If you are actually interested in finding the truth.

 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted October 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM (Answer #15)

dislike 0 like

I don't believe in evolution; however, I agree that each individual must delve into the topic and make their own decision based on what they find. Another must respect any free will decision another individual makes. I hearken back to pastor John MacArthur's statement that evolutionary theory is summed up as this... (paraphrased)

"Nothing x No one = everything."

Doesn't seem logical to me.

I saw a program the other day called Bird Tales on PBS Boston. A birder in the show talked about birds and their songs and their voice mechanisms inherent in them . He said these voice mechanisms in then were designed for certain functions. Who designed them? I believe the Creator God did. Every one has to answer this question for themselves.

A watch demands a watchmaker. A fine cake demands a baker or pastry chef. I believe a great first cause, who inhabits eternity and has life inherent is the starting point of all that is. I believe the great first cause is God. I don't believe that everything came from nothing. I don't believe that life came from lifeless matter. Where did matter come from in the first place?

Hi Portd. One thing I find a little frustrating about discussing evolution is that those people who try to disprove it very often use the arguments you have presented. You ask (paraphrasing) "How did life originate? How did the universe originate?" While these are interesting questions, they are completely unconnected to evolution. Evolution does not attempt to explain 'everything' and it does not attempt to answer the questions you offered.

A watch demands a watchmaker. A fine cake demands a baker or pastry chef. - Portd

In other words, if it looks designed then it is designed. This is a very human-centric view of the world. Because we know that everything we make needs a maker, therefore, we conclude, nature does aswell because it has the appearance of design. Well, if you are right then the designer of nature is a very very poor one. Because the 'design' we find in nature is haphazard, strange and imperfect. And only the theory of Evolution provides a logical explanation for these errors. While there are millions of examples of blind, faulty 'design' in nature, one of the most beautiful is the larangyeal nerve. Here is a 4 minute video which very simply and very clearly shows that nature did not have an intelligent designer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

Why would an intelligent designer have made such a ludicrous detour? I would really appreciate an explanation from a non-evolutionist on this point.

 

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted October 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM (Answer #16)

dislike 0 like

frizzyperm:

You think that the design of nature is imperfect and strange. But I'm thinking, how on earth could such a magnificent design be made up from one amazing coincidence that happened billions of years ago?

Design doesn't ever get better. Give me one example of a recent new species that is better than the one it originated from. You can't, because life is only degenerating.

A thousand years ago, life was a lot better than it is now. Lizards lived so long they grew into dinosaurs. Men lived for hundred of years rather than a few decades.

My point is that it is impossible for nature to get better. It has been deteriorating.

Yet, look at the amazing things about the design of life. Even one simple study of the human body shows the complexity and perfectness of it. The placenta is one amazing organ of the body. So is the heart... wait a minute, so is the whole body. The way everything in the body connects with the rest of it is so amazing. It could never be the result of one strange coincidence when suddenly life began somehow.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted October 20, 2012 at 12:43 PM (Answer #17)

dislike 0 like

frizzyperm:

You think that the design of nature is imperfect and strange. But I'm thinking, how on earth could such a magnificent design be made up from one amazing coincidence that happened billions of years ago?

Design doesn't ever get better. Give me one example of a recent new species that is better than the one it originated from. You can't, because life is only degenerating.

A thousand years ago, life was a lot better than it is now. Lizards lived so long they grew into dinosaurs. Men lived for hundred of years rather than a few decades.

My point is that it is impossible for nature to get better. It has been deteriorating.

Yet, look at the amazing things about the design of life. Even one simple study of the human body shows the complexity and perfectness of it. The placenta is one amazing organ of the body. So is the heart... wait a minute, so is the whole body. The way everything in the body connects with the rest of it is so amazing. It could never be the result of one strange coincidence when suddenly life began somehow.

Design doesn't get better. Give me one example of a recent new species that is better than the one it originated from. You can't, because life is only degenerating. - Luiji

I don't really understand what you mean by 'life is degenerating'. As for better 'design', that's pretty easy. For example, as foxes moved north, they evolved thicker fur coats to protect them from the cold better and white fur to camouflage them better.

You suggest that...

A thousand years ago, life was a lot better than it is now. Lizards lived so long they grew into dinosaurs.

But dinosaurs didn't exist one thousand years ago??? I'm afraid you've really lost me here.

''Men lived for hundred of years rather than a few decades.''

No. The Bible says they did, but the evidence shows they did not. Bones and teeth of stone-age humans shows the average life span was around 25.

Then you wrote something that demonstrates you believe things with no evidence...

Even one simple study of the human body shows the complexity and perfectness of it. - Luiji

Luiji, one simple study of the human body shows it's far from perfect. It contains many imperfections... Our lower back and knees are not strong enough for our upright position, we are vulnerable to a huge number of viruses and bacteria, etc, etc. If we are perfect, why have we got an appendix that does nothing except occasionally explode, killing its owner? (check the link below for more) 

 

Sources:

user profile pic

portd | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted October 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM (Answer #18)

dislike 0 like

Reply to #15

 

"Evolution does not attempt to explain 'everything' and it does not attempt to answer the questions you offered."


Because it can't

 

 

user profile pic

elfgirl | Student, Undergraduate | Salutatorian

Posted October 20, 2012 at 6:41 PM (Answer #19)

dislike 0 like

Reply to #15

 

"Evolution does not attempt to explain 'everything' and it does not attempt to answer the questions you offered."


Because it can't

 

 

Well exactly, Portd. Evolution doesn't answer questions about big bang theory (how did the universe originate?) because evolution is not concerned with cosmology. And it does not explain abiogenesis (how did life on Earth start?) because that is separate from evolutionary theory. Likewise, evolution does not explain the relationship between interest rates and spending; it does not explain how televisions work; it doesn't explain why the sky is blue or why I always seem to never be able to find a matching pair of socks.

Evolution explains the nature and diversity of life on earth, both past and present. Nothing else. But, it explains it with such reliable and extensive accuracy that, in layman's terminology, it is a solid cast-iron fact.

Did you watch the vid? What did you think?

 

user profile pic

bullbudder | Student, Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted October 21, 2012 at 2:04 AM (Answer #20)

dislike 0 like

so if evolution is real or true matter of issue than a man can reproduce with  a ape . afterall they are the same. 

user profile pic

bullbudder | Student, Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted October 21, 2012 at 2:24 AM (Answer #21)

dislike 0 like

can it

 

user profile pic

laracroftd | Student, Grade 11 | eNotes Newbie

Posted October 21, 2012 at 4:49 AM (Answer #22)

dislike 0 like

Comparing science with religion is like confusing yourself. Don't compare their phenomenas.

user profile pic

bullbudder | Student, Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted October 21, 2012 at 10:32 AM (Answer #23)

dislike 0 like

well if u stop comparing then hoe will we know what is true and what is not

user profile pic

bullbudder | Student, Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted October 21, 2012 at 10:33 AM (Answer #24)

dislike 0 like

a new future is created when science meets religion

user profile pic

suzannah304 | Student, Undergraduate | Salutatorian

Posted October 21, 2012 at 10:42 AM (Answer #25)

dislike 0 like

science and religion are like two opposite faces of a coin. Though they combinely complete a coin are two opposites.

user profile pic

egan26 | Student, Grade 9 | Honors

Posted October 22, 2012 at 1:32 AM (Answer #26)

dislike 0 like

Evolution is not real. You can never trust carbon dating

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted October 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM (Answer #27)

dislike 0 like

Yes real

user profile pic

d-kong | Student, Grade 10 | eNoter

Posted October 25, 2012 at 12:13 PM (Answer #28)

dislike 0 like

Real.

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted October 26, 2012 at 6:35 AM (Answer #29)

dislike 0 like

Evolution is not false, it is real.

user profile pic

idijohn | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted October 27, 2012 at 11:59 AM (Answer #30)

dislike 0 like

Evolution may be an interesting facet of the science world. But as interesting as it may seem, there are so many unexplainable facts. The truth is that evolution is baseless since it cannot answer all our questions about life.

Seriously who or which scientist can tell us why this don't evolve today?, why don't today's ape (maybe ones in the zoo) become humans? Why do birds use instincts? How do they get their navigating compass? I can go on and on.

Saying that all things came by chance is like promoting a book and removing its Authour's name. Scientists the world over should or have been asking Theologians to given them more reasons to believe in creation or a Creator.

Scientists and engineers are learning different designs from the creations around them (fish, birds, etc.) and are designing beautiful and wonderful gadgets and machines with this knowledge. Is it the original creation that is not designed by the most powerful and intelligent Designer of all? (Think about it).

Looking at the things and beautiful people around you will confirm the fact that God the Almighty though not seen (like the wind) is the designer of them all. There is no excuse for not believing in a Creator.

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted October 27, 2012 at 12:46 PM (Answer #31)

dislike 0 like

The first organisms were formed in the ocean, it evolved. this took millions of years.

 

And now we are here!!!

user profile pic

tiburtius | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted October 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM (Answer #32)

dislike 0 like

Evolution is real no question about it. Perhaps we don't know everything about evolution, but evolution is real. And for all those who insist on interpreting the bible literally you should read 'The life of Jesus' from D. F. Strauss. 

user profile pic

bullbudder | Student, Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:16 AM (Answer #33)

dislike 0 like

then again if evolution is real 

then  new life is evolved in the coming decades

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted October 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM (Answer #34)

dislike 0 like
Luna was the first one celled organisms and now we are made up of millions of cells.
user profile pic

dkaye | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Adjunct Educator

Posted October 31, 2012 at 1:44 AM (Answer #35)

dislike 0 like

In response to #4: No one is saying that the literal words of Genesis match up with scientific theory.  And while they don't align when taken literally, they're not really in competition, either--I no more "believe" in evolution than I "believe" that the earth revolves around the sun. I can appreciate the values and beauty inherent in an origin story for humanity that celebrates a divine origin and holy human gifts and explains the faults and pains born by us all. That doesn't mean I have to believe that, for example, the first woman was literally created from the surgically removed rib of a particular man.
While in the past, various churches denounced Copernicus and Galileo as blasphemers and dismissed heliocentric models as false at best and evil at worst, I like to think that we've progressed past that.  Instead, many people of faith who accept evolution as one of the basic tenets of biology believe that in the same way that Jesus taught people about metaphysical concepts like God's mercy and judgment through parables and analogies to things they could understand, Genesis uses metaphor, myth, and parable to teach a greater truth in non-literal terms.

 

You might want to check out Inherit the Wind--a fantastic book and a brilliant movie that shows the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial, where two profoundly intelligent and articulate Christian men argue about teaching evolution in schools.  It's a complex issue, because it's so tied up with politics and religion, and the book and film treat it with dignity.

Sources:

user profile pic

loraaa | Student | Valedictorian

Posted October 31, 2012 at 3:46 AM (Answer #36)

dislike 0 like

wow,,,you are alive Mr. frozen!!!

FOR ME: "Nothing comes from nothing!"


"evolution" is real, and "evolution" did not come from nothing!, "evolution" came because God wanted it... (^_*) this very easy,,,!!

user profile pic

beautifulsunshine16 | Student, Grade 10 | Salutatorian

Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:32 PM (Answer #37)

dislike 0 like

Of course it is. There is evidence such as in fossils and genetics and organism structure. Put it this way:

A million gajillion years ago... whales walked on land. They looked kinda like dogs. Anyway, we can tell this because whales have pelvic structures that are completely unnessessary because they swim underwater and dont walk. Isnt it soooo weird? That is proof.

Also the fact that a long time ago, giraffes had short necks and over thousands and thousands of years of the change in the gene pool, their necks got longer because of them stretching to reach leaves on top of trees.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 2, 2012 at 12:46 AM (Answer #38)

dislike 0 like

Reply to #15

 

"Evolution does not attempt to explain 'everything' and it does not attempt to answer the questions you offered."


Because it can't

 

 

Did you watch the video about the giraffe's neck yet? I want to know how Creationists explain anomalies like this one. 

Why did 'The Intelligent Designer' (who we all know is 'The Christian God' but you won't say so because you are being 'scientific') make such a surreal, ludicrous detour in the giraffe's larangeal nerve?

This oddity is explained 100% perfectly with evolutionary theory but makes no sense what-so-ever with Intelligent Design Theory.

Your thoughts?

 

user profile pic

William Delaney | (Level 3) Educator Emeritus

Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM (Answer #39)

dislike 0 like

I wish everybody would read the marvelous and highly reader-friendly book by Richard Dawkins titled The Selfish Gene. Dawkins is a biologist and a Darwinian.

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 4, 2012 at 1:26 AM (Answer #40)

dislike 0 like

Evolution is not fact! It is a theory that has no proof to back it. According to Evolutionists, there are two types of evolution; Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution refers to natural selection and adaptation within a species. Creationists have no problem with this because it is observable by all. However Macro-evolution refers to the events in which a species changes into another! This is has never been observed and never will be which proves the theory of evolution is flawed and improbable.

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 4, 2012 at 1:26 AM (Answer #41)

dislike 0 like

As for the fossil record, evolutionists and palaeontologists refer to the geological column. The geological column is a series of layers of rock containing fossils and sediment said to have been laid down over millions of years. Palaeontologists date these layers of rock by the fossils inside them and the fossils are dated by the rock! This is called circular reasoning and cannot support the theory. These creatures found in these layers were buried in mud by a global flood. The heavier sediments would naturally sink to the bottom and eventually you would have a series of layers with animals trapped inside. 

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 4, 2012 at 1:26 AM (Answer #42)

dislike 0 like

Pelvic bones in whales are more important than you might think. This so called non-vital part of anatomy is an anchor for all the muscles in the whales tale so it able to swim. Scientists also say that the human tailbone is proof that we evolved from apes. They say the bone is non vital. If you were to remove that bone, certain bodily functions such as walking, excreting waste and reproducing would most certainly be near impossible. It is possible to live without limbs but also very inconvenient.

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted November 4, 2012 at 8:16 AM (Answer #43)

dislike 0 like

Evolution first occured when an asteroid hit our Earth. It is said that from this asteroid a bacteria came to Earth. And this bacteria evolved to one celled organisms and now we are here. ( The most intelligent organisms.)

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM (Answer #44)

dislike 0 like

Evolution is not fact! It is a theory that has no proof to back it. According to Evolutionists, there are two types of evolution; Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution refers to natural selection and adaptation within a species. Creationists have no problem with this because it is observable by all. However Macro-evolution refers to the events in which a species changes into another! This is has never been observed and never will be which proves the theory of evolution is flawed and improbable.

"Macro-evolution refers to the events in which a species changes into another! This is has never been observed and never will be which proves the theory of evolution is flawed and improbable." by hepimpharvey

One thing that annoys me about creationist claims is that they continue to propagate no matter how many times the evidence is presented. Despite clear evidence, the same silly stories continue to circulate.

We have observed speciaition. Many many times. Creationists are playing with words. When they say 'no-one has observed speciation' they mean that the entire process has not been monitored from start to finish in a lab. Well, duh! It takes hundreds or thousands of years. And then this 'not observed' claim is fuzzed and presented as 'we have no evidence for speciation'. This is a ridiculous claim. The evidence for speciation is almost endless.

http://nondiscovery.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/speciation-more-evidence-ignored-by-intelligent-design/

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

These are lists of a few hundred scientifically peer-reviewed examples of speciation. There are thousands more. And they all observe the same phenomena. Viz, given enough time isolated groups of the same species diverge into separate species.

Perhaps creationists would like to present just ONE peer-reviewed scientific paper which details why this is impossible?

 

user profile pic

plshelpme | Student, Grade 10 | Valedictorian

Posted November 4, 2012 at 7:58 PM (Answer #45)

dislike 0 like

I think evolution is real, but i am also a religious Hindu.

Science and Religion can be compatible if you look at it in the right way. For example. A scientist would say that the universe was created by The Big Bang. A religious person would say that it was created by God in seven days. An logical person would say that it was God, who created The Big Bang, and life went on from there.

The Benefits of a contemporary private education, and old fashioned religious parents.

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:42 PM (Answer #46)

dislike 0 like

Evolution first occured when an asteroid hit our Earth. It is said that from this asteroid a bacteria came to Earth. And this bacteria evolved to one celled organisms and now we are here. ( The most intelligent organisms.)

It's nice to know that we used to be bacteria. Quite humbling, really.

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:49 PM (Answer #47)

dislike 0 like

I think evolution is real, but i am also a religious Hindu.

Science and Religion can be compatible if you look at it in the right way. For example. A scientist would say that the universe was created by The Big Bang. A religious person would say that it was created by God in seven days. An logical person would say that it was God, who created The Big Bang, and life went on from there.

The Benefits of a contemporary private education, and old fashioned religious parents.

I don't mean this in a horrible way, but religion and scientific theories aren't compatible. Evolution in so many ways goes against Creation, that it would be an offense to God to make it compatible with His Creation.
God said His Creation was good, and He said that 6 times in Genesis 1. This means we can't believe that animals have evolved to become better, because Creation was already good.

As far as I'm concerned, it's easier believing there is a God who created everything, rather than a Big Bang in which from nothing there was something, which eventually evolved to be the world we live in today. It is scientifically impossible for that to happen.

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:50 PM (Answer #48)

dislike 0 like

I'm just wondering:

Do you believe humans have a soul?

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM (Answer #49)

dislike 0 like

I think evolution is real, but i am also a religious Hindu.

Science and Religion can be compatible if you look at it in the right way. For example. A scientist would say that the universe was created by The Big Bang. A religious person would say that it was created by God in seven days. An logical person would say that it was God, who created The Big Bang, and life went on from there.

The Benefits of a contemporary private education, and old fashioned religious parents.

I don't mean this in a horrible way, but religion and scientific theories aren't compatible. Evolution in so many ways goes against Creation, that it would be an offense to God to make it compatible with His Creation.
God said His Creation was good, and He said that 6 times in Genesis 1. This means we can't believe that animals have evolved to become better, because Creation was already good.

As far as I'm concerned, it's easier believing there is a God who created everything, rather than a Big Bang in which from nothing there was something, which eventually evolved to be the world we live in today. It is scientifically impossible for that to happen.

"...religion and scientific theories aren't compatible. Evolution in so many ways goes against Creation, that it would be an offense to God to make it compatible with His Creation. 
God said His Creation was good, and He said that 6 times in Genesis 1. This means we can't believe that animals have evolved to become better, because Creation was already good." by luiji

I completely agree with you that the theory of evolution completely contradicts Genesis. So, we have two explanations of how life on earth developed and a maximum of one of them can be true. They can't both be true.

So how can we decide which is true? Well, we can look at the evidence and make a rational decision. You presented the 'evidence' that the Bible states 6 times that God's creation is good. This is your 'evidence' that we can't have evolved. But this presupposes that the Bible is inerrant. You can't presuppose the Bible is literally true and then expect any sense. You've put the cart in front of the horse.

You must observe the evidence and use it to construct/check a theory. You cannot presuppose a fixed theory and go looking for the evidence which supports it.

Before 1860, all scientists exclusively used creationist theory, they were all creationists. But as more and more evidence was discovered and critically analysed by people who weren't using pre-suppositions, a new, better theory was proposed which explained the evidence more accurately.

cont...

 

 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM (Answer #50)

dislike 0 like

cont...

In 1859, Darwin proposed a hypothesis which explained observable reality more accurately than Genesis. And with huge reluctance and opposition, scientists gradually accepted the evidence confirmed his ideas about evolution. Now, after 150 years, the evidence for evolution is over-whelming. It is undeniable to people who are prepared to consider it fairly. 99.99% of bio-scientists agree that we evolved and that the evidence is insurmountable.

But presuppositionalists cannot consider it. They cannot and will not examine the evidence because they have to believe that the Bible does not contain mistakes. Their model is fixed and unscientific. They insist that evolution must be wrong JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT IT TO BE. So they try to destroy it, but they can't because it's real.

Luigi, heads up, fella... REALITY FLATLY CONTRADICTS THE CLAIMS OF GENESIS. Sorry, but it does. Whether you like it or not, we evolved. There is unlimited evidence that is freely and easily available that proves it! Don't waste your life in denial. It would be a tragic waste. Study the evidence without presuppositions and you will discover that the ancient mythological stories in Genesis are provably not real. Sorry.

In your post you said,

"religion and scientific theories aren't compatible. Evolution goes against Creation".

Absolutely! And reality confirms evolution. Wanting the Bible to be true is never going to change that. 

 

user profile pic

mfeldpausch | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM (Answer #51)

dislike 0 like

Hi Luiji, I too am a Christian and I believe that evolution is not real.  If you look in the bible and read Genesis you may actually notice that what evolutionists say actually does agree with the Bible in some ways, for example, when God said let there be light there could have been a huge bang and then there was light.  It probably did not happen quietly.  And also God probably did not make there be land, trees, animals, plants, and water quietly.  It probably did make a big bang!  How could it not?  But, that does not mean that all that evolutionists say is true.  Some of what evolutionists say is absolutly contrary to what we believe.  What we do know is God did create this world even if some of what evolutionists say is true.

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted November 6, 2012 at 12:22 PM (Answer #52)

dislike 0 like

Me too.

 

 

 

 

 

LOL!

user profile pic

mirmirnotez | Student | Honors

Posted November 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM (Answer #53)

dislike 0 like

Not. 

user profile pic

bullbudder | Student, Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:45 AM (Answer #54)

dislike 0 like

in reply to #43

humans don't have a soul they have a heart and a brain that pumps

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 8, 2012 at 6:40 AM (Answer #55)

dislike 0 like

In reply to #44

"One thing that annoys me about creationist claims is that they continue to propagate no matter how many times the evidence is presented. Despite clear evidence, the same silly stories continue to circulate." By frizzyperm

Your provided evidence cannot support the claim that we came from a primordial soup! It simply proves a stronger case for adaptation. In the Bible, God did not say that everything would reprouce after its species. If that were the case, there would be little to no biodiversity. he said that everything would reproduce after its own kind. You cannot breed a cat and dog together because it is impossible. However it is possible for a lion and a tiger to breed because they are both felines. you can breed a dog and a wolf because they are both canines. The reason the fruit flies in the article laid survived at all in north america is because a few were capable of laying their eggs in a regular apple rather than a thorn apple. The one that were incapable of doing so died out without reproducing. the result is fruit flies able to reproduce in north america because natural selection did its work. A set Kind of organism will not change into another, no matter how much time you give it, or how much you want it to!

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 8, 2012 at 6:48 AM (Answer #56)

dislike 0 like

Also, in regards to the statement that religion and science cannot coincide, it actually can. certain theories, of course, will contradict God and his creation. however, God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, used science in his creation. He didn't create just a spiritual realm, he also created a physical one. one that must obey the laws of science!all the complexity of the biosphere, from the tiniest chlooplast in a plant cell to the way the perfect position the earth is in to sustain life, points to a creator! a magnificent and loving God!

 

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM (Answer #57)

dislike 0 like

Hello Friends!

We can say that evolution is real because we were not there from the beginning of the Earth.

There were apes, monkeys, gorillas. These animals evolved to form humans.

Thus, we can say that evolution is real not false.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:55 PM (Answer #58)

dislike 0 like

Your provided evidence cannot support the claim that we came from a primordial soup!

 

Why should it support that!?!?!?! For the 100,000th time since I started on Enotes I am being forced to explain to a creationist that evolution does NOT explain how life began. That is not part of evolution's field. So, Hepimp, if you are so confident that you can disprove evolution, why can't you correctly identify a very basic overall premise for it? The theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain abiogenesis, that is a different subject and scientific field. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution!

And now I would like to turn the spotlight on creationist claim instead of always having to defend evolution. You said,

[God] said that everything would reproduce after its own kind.

OK, champ... define this 'kind' that you so confidently tell me walls in the processess of natural change. What is a 'kind' within which species may evolve? How can we define it? It is a creationist term that scientists don't use, I don't know what it is. So would you be so kind (ha-ha) and define 'kind' please?

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM (Answer #59)

dislike 0 like

In reply to #58

"What is a 'kind' within which species may evolve? How can we define it? It is a creationist term that scientists don't use, I don't know what it is." - by frizzyperm

By now you have had time to study up on what a 'kind' is and realize that it is not a creationist term.

kind

2    [kahynd]  Show IPA
noun
1.
a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc.,of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common.

Dogs, wolves, coyotes are of the same kind. Lynx, cougars, lions are of the same kind. Canines, Bovines, felines and equines are 4 'kinds' of animals.

In Genesis 1:24-25 it says: "And God said, “Let the land produce living creaturesaccording to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

"...evolution does NOT explain how life began. That is not part of evolution's field...The theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain abiogenesis, that is a different subject and scientific field. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution!" -by frizzyperm

If evolution is completely unrelated to the way life began, then who cares about evolution!?

 cont...

 

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 9, 2012 at 3:49 AM (Answer #60)

dislike 0 like

...Cont.

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't scientists be looking for another explanation before they even consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous! There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to rest...Hmm...

user profile pic

mgor | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 9, 2012 at 6:34 AM (Answer #61)

dislike 0 like
Evolution - Real or Not?

Evolution is in so many ways taking over beliefs. I don't actually agree with it... I'm a creationist/Chrisian and don't believe in it at all. Wondering what you think about this subject - is it real or is it not?

I don't either, but most of my friends do, even though they are Christians. This upsets me as it blatanlty goes against what the Bible says. However, they are entitles to their own opinions...even if I don't like them.

user profile pic

mgor | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 9, 2012 at 6:42 AM (Answer #62)

dislike 0 like

I believe in evolution. How else(logically) can you explain our existence? We have a startling physical resemblance with monkeys and Chimps. We have evolved from these creatures to establish ourselves as the most intelligent and daring life form on Earth till date. This is what science teaches.

"Startling physical resemblance"? Beyond opposable thumbs and walking upright what is their? I do not mean this as a snide remark, but am sincerely asking you what resemblence you see.

user profile pic

mgor | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 9, 2012 at 6:49 AM (Answer #63)

dislike 0 like

pohnpei397:

Are you saying that we should combine the Bible with the facts of evolution, because that's not the way I see it.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in seven days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans seperate from animals - the Bible makes the distinction there.

Also, we are told that God created the world that was already mature. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not as children. Trees weren't just little seeds or seedlings, but the earth was made mature. This meant that the earth could have seemed billions of years old, but was only just created. So it could seem that the earth is billions of years old, but is only a few thousand.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in seven days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans seperate from animals - the Bible makes the distinction there. Also, we are told that God created the world that was already mature. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not as children. - Luigi

And if you want to believe that then you have the freedom of religion and can believe it. But, scientifically speaking, it is in no sense real, true or accurate. Creationist attempts to deny scientific evidence in order to preserve literal Biblical accuracy are futile. It can't be done. It is scientifically provable that

  1. Adam and Eve never existed
  2. There was no global flood
  3. Humans are animals and evolved.

It doesn't matter what you 'believe'. What matters is, 'what does the evidence show us?' And the evidence very clearly shows us that the Bible is not a literally accurate scientific book.

 

Actually, it doesn't really matter what the evidence shows us if the person that you're trying to prove something to won't believe you, or react as if it is real evidence anyway.

For instance, if a lawyer presented a blood-stained knife with the presiding judge's fingerprints on it, the judge wouldn't react as if that evidence was ust shown to them.

user profile pic

mgor | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 9, 2012 at 6:59 AM (Answer #64)

dislike 0 like

You know, frizzyperm, you are right. I should believe what I believe, and you can believe what you want to believe. I guess that's what freedom is about.

I can argue and give proof that the flood did exist, and that it also explains much of the evidence used to prove evolution, but I think we should stop arguing about beliefs and believe what we want.

It's a bit hypocritical, but that's my conclusion.

I should believe what I believe, and you can believe what you want to believe. - Luiji

While I agree in principle, I think we should accept (rather than 'believe') the things which are self-evidently true. I don't believe in evolution. I have studied the evidence for it and it is a clear explanation of what actually happened. I studied the evidence and then made a decision. You, on the other hand, have a pre-held belief that you had before you studied the evidence. You hold a religious position, I hold a scientific one.   You are interested in The Rock of Ages. I am interested in The Age of Rocks. :-)

I can argue and give proof that the flood did exist - Luiji

Sorry, but no, you can't. But you are welcome to offer your reasons here and I will try to help you understand why you are mistaken. Belief is not the same as fact. This thread is in the science section, and scientifically speaking it is child's play to disprove the biblical flood. While you may hold it as a religious belief, you cannot claim it is scientifically provable, because it isn't. And I can help you find the truth. If you are actually interested in finding the truth.

 

You're one of those people who has an incessant need to continue arguments, even when the opposing side is trying to peaceably reach an agreement. This means that I have lost a great deal of respect for your stance on such an issue. I feel it is a step down for me to listen, or rather read, such a petty person's thoughts and positions on controvercial matters. Please realize, tis is constructive criticism; you could benefit from not being such a malevolent scoundrel looking for arguments. I think it would transfer into your life, and make people less annoyed at you.

user profile pic

ninniclements | High School Teacher | Salutatorian

Posted November 9, 2012 at 8:46 AM (Answer #65)

dislike 0 like

I am a Christian, not by any forced religious doctrine, order, or practices. One day I looked outside the window of my kitchen and stood in awe for the first time of my life. The scene was ordinary as ever, blue skies, birds, beautiful temperature, trees blooming, the works...but that time was different. Something stirred inside me. Tha must be something else than Bing Bangs, fossils, chimps, Darwin, I said to myself. I rushed to the bookshelf and picked my only copy of anl old dusty Bible that was there for ages untouched and started reading. And Bang! I thank God for having created all of this for us to enjoy here and after. May God bless you all, and for those that don't believe, may the Lord give you wisdom.      

user profile pic

ninniclements | High School Teacher | Salutatorian

Posted November 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM (Answer #66)

dislike 0 like

You guys, picture for a second a print shop full of books, papers, documents with their pages completely blank and white. Then, a huge explosion of an ink bottle occurs, and all of sudden all the pages are completely full with words that make perfect sense! That's the Bing Bang. Can it be real? But for the sake of the toughest evolutionists I want to grant you the fact that maybe the words, after the explosion, are not grammaticaly correct and are not put in order, making no sense, so they need "evolution" in learning how to write and make stories. Can it still be real? Watch it, the print shop is still spotless, only books and paper are affected. Can it still make sense? God not only is the printer but also the author, that's the only and REASONABLE explanation. 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM (Answer #67)

dislike 0 like

...Cont.

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't scientists be looking for another explanation before they even consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous! There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to rest...Hmm...

If evolution is completely unrelated to the way life began, then who cares about evolution!?... If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't scientists be looking for another explanation before they even consider the way in which it developed?

 

Hepimp. Abiogenesis is separate from the theory of evolution. You seem to arguing against your own prejudices, rather than me.

Let me try (again)... Evolution does not attempt to provide an explanation for the origin of life because that is not the remit of evolution. The scientific study of the origin of life is called abiogensis and is a different field. Abiogensis has plenty to say about the origin of life, but it is not part of evolutionary theory. I suspect that if you understood evolution, you would understand why that is obvious.

 

Now, then ... ''Kinds''

Q. Can all members of the same kind interbreed?

 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM (Answer #68)

dislike 0 like

...Cont.

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't scientists be looking for another explanation before they even consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous! There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to rest...Hmm...

There has to be an intelligent God to design life... how dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and error! - Hepimp

 

Mmm-hmm... the argument from design: because humans design artificial things, then natural things must also have a designer.'

There are problems with your argument.

1) If complex things need a designer then God needs one. Who designed God? And who designed the designer of God? And so on ad infinitum.

2) It doesn't eliminate evolution or confirm the Bible. The designer could have designed life on Earth through evolution.

3) But, most importantly for us, life does not have evidence of an intelligent designer. Life on Earth is ad hoc and error-strewn. There are countless 'legacy' problems and jury-rigged solutions. A designer would have been able to 'go back to the drawing board' and start from scratch with each new "kind". But all life shows the evidence of messy gradual adaptation rather than perfect, separate lineages.

So far on this thread I've shown this video-link to a couple of people who'd insisted on a designer. They never came back with an answer. Your turn, Hepimp: if evolution doesn't happen, why did your God make such a stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to the giraffe's neck? Is The Intelligent Designer trying to trick us with such obvious and clear examples of blind evolution?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM (Answer #69)

dislike 0 like

You guys, picture for a second a print shop full of books, papers, documents with their pages completely blank and white. Then, a huge explosion of an ink bottle occurs, and all of sudden all the pages are completely full with words that make perfect sense! That's the Bing Bang. Can it be real? But for the sake of the toughest evolutionists I want to grant you the fact that maybe the words, after the explosion, are not grammaticaly correct and are not put in order, making no sense, so they need "evolution" in learning how to write and make stories. Can it still be real? Watch it, the print shop is still spotless, only books and paper are affected. Can it still make sense? God not only is the printer but also the author, that's the only and REASONABLE explanation. 

Dear Ninniclements, in you post you set up a strawman analogy that characterised evolution as a totally random process. Then you spent a happy time trashing this analogy as far-fetched and ridiculous.

But, of course, evolution is not a random process. That is one of the most basic facts about evolution. Natural selection  is not random. And yet creationists go on and on and on about how evolution is 'completely random'. I long for the day when enotes will provide me with a creationist who has a basic, working understanding of modern evolutionary theory. But so far, the dozens and dozens of creationsts that we have had here all display a severe lack of knowledge concerning evolution. 

Evolution is not random. Your exploding bookshop is a false analogy. 

 

user profile pic

tomstringer | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 11, 2012 at 10:18 PM (Answer #70)

dislike 0 like

I was once a creationist until I realized that God has given us two gifts: The world and our senses.  I realized that evidence is the nexus of these two gifts—it is the place where the senses (sight, touch, hearing, etc) contact the world.  For this reason I came to understand that the most sacred and precious thing in the world is Evidence---the exact place where God’s two great gifts to us meet. The theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in science because of the preponderance of evidence supporting it.  Evolution, from this point of view, is a sacred theory.  To turn one’s back on evolution is to turn one’s back on His gifts that make evidence possible in the first place. Evidence is a sacred thing deserving the highest reverence.

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted November 12, 2012 at 8:04 AM (Answer #71)

dislike 0 like

...Cont.

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't scientists be looking for another explanation before they even consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous! There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to rest...Hmm...

There has to be an intelligent God to design life... how dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and error! - Hepimp

 

Mmm-hmm... the argument from design: because humans design artificial things, then natural things must also have a designer.'

There are problems with your argument.

1) If complex things need a designer then God needs one. Who designed God? And who designed the designer of God? And so on ad infinitum.

2) It doesn't eliminate evolution or confirm the Bible. The designer could have designed life on Earth through evolution.

3) But, most importantly for us, life does not have evidence of an intelligent designer. Life on Earth is ad hoc and error-strewn. There are countless 'legacy' problems and jury-rigged solutions. A designer would have been able to 'go back to the drawing board' and start from scratch with each new "kind". But all life shows the evidence of messy gradual adaptation rather than perfect, separate lineages.

So far on this thread I've shown this video-link to a couple of people who'd insisted on a designer. They never came back with an answer. Your turn, Hepimp: if evolution doesn't happen, why did your God make such a stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to the giraffe's neck? Is The Intelligent Designer trying to trick us with such obvious and clear examples of blind evolution?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

 

Okay, frizzyperm, I've watched the video, but i don't understand how it supports evolution. Just because the nerve goes on a 'detour' it doesn't mean it's an impurity.

What is the point in going straight to the voice box? A detour doesn't matter - it's not doing the animal any harm.

You only think like that because people are stingy - no offense, but they are. It's a fact of life. You consider it an impurity because it takes up more room than it could. But God when creating these marvellous creatures had all the resources He wanted. There was no reason why He it would be wrong to make the nerve only inches long.

And, this is only one example of an 'impurity', in which you say God's design isn't perfect. But may I remind you, there are countless examples of His amazing design in creation, so many that if I were to give you some I wouldn't know where to start.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM (Answer #72)

dislike 0 like

...Cont.

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't scientists be looking for another explanation before they even consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous! There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to rest...Hmm...

There has to be an intelligent God to design life... how dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and error! - Hepimp

 

Mmm-hmm... the argument from design: because humans design artificial things, then natural things must also have a designer.'

There are problems with your argument.

1) If complex things need a designer then God needs one. Who designed God? And who designed the designer of God? And so on ad infinitum.

2) It doesn't eliminate evolution or confirm the Bible. The designer could have designed life on Earth through evolution.

3) But, most importantly for us, life does not have evidence of an intelligent designer. Life on Earth is ad hoc and error-strewn. There are countless 'legacy' problems and jury-rigged solutions. A designer would have been able to 'go back to the drawing board' and start from scratch with each new "kind". But all life shows the evidence of messy gradual adaptation rather than perfect, separate lineages.

So far on this thread I've shown this video-link to a couple of people who'd insisted on a designer. They never came back with an answer. Your turn, Hepimp: if evolution doesn't happen, why did your God make such a stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to the giraffe's neck? Is The Intelligent Designer trying to trick us with such obvious and clear examples of blind evolution?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

 

Okay, frizzyperm, I've watched the video, but i don't understand how it supports evolution. Just because the nerve goes on a 'detour' it doesn't mean it's an impurity.

What is the point in going straight to the voice box? A detour doesn't matter - it's not doing the animal any harm.

You only think like that because people are stingy - no offense, but they are. It's a fact of life. You consider it an impurity because it takes up more room than it could. But God when creating these marvellous creatures had all the resources He wanted. There was no reason why He it would be wrong to make the nerve only inches long.

And, this is only one example of an 'impurity', in which you say God's design isn't perfect. But may I remind you, there are countless examples of His amazing design in creation, so many that if I were to give you some I wouldn't know where to start.

Luigi, life is a constant struggle of life and death. And nature is extremely stingy. The most efficient animals survive. Those who waste resources die.

Just saying, 'the detour doesn't matter' misses the point entirely. The looping nerve conforms 100% to evolutionary theory. It is an inelegant semi-solution to an inherited design problem. It is what we would expect to find, if evolution is true. Why would an intelligent designer design an inefficient solution to a simple problem when efficiency is the number one goal of biological processes? He could have taken the direct route. If evolution is wrong and intelligent design is true, why does nature contain 'designs' which confirm evolutionary theory and  contradict intelligent design theory? Saying, "because God felt like it" is not a satisfactory scientific answer.

Luigi, if that looping nerve didn't make you examine your beliefs in Intelligent Design, then you have not considered it. Life on Earth doesn't appear to be well designed, it appears to be adapted. 

I know you can show me lots of examples of beautiful elegant 'design', but evolution can explain them. 

However, I can show you lots of examples of 'designs' which contain mistakes due to legacy problems, and  intelligent design theory can't explain them

Your theory does not match our observations from nature. I just showed you proof of that. Your theory appears to be wrong.

 

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:10 AM (Answer #73)

dislike 0 like

frizzyperm:

you state that 'life is a constant struggle of life and death. And nature is extremely stingy.' Sure, that's nature. But God isn't. God is perfect. Actually, you're right that 'God felt like it' isn't a very good answer. But it's all I can give you, because God is so much more superior than us human beings, that we cannot understand Him or His wisdom.

You furthermore ask, "why does nature contain designs which confirm evolutionary theory and contradict intelligent design theory?" Firstly, I'd like to say that you haven't given us sufficient proof that there isn't a perfect designer. Secondly, I'd like to say that evolutionary theory does not conform to the designs in nature. Why, may I ask, do Eskimos have to make their own fur coats, rather than grow one? If evolution were true, this might be quite normal. Why are humans so similar to one another, even though they live in such different environments? Compare us western folk to the impoverised people in the third-world countries. We are so alike, it's hard to believe evolution exists. You see, you can show us figures and 'facts' from 'millions of years ago' that 'confirm' evolution, but there is no evidence of evolution going on right now. Lions today are the same as lions a few hundred years ago, as are tigers and humans, and thousands of other species.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:54 PM (Answer #74)

dislike 0 like

frizzyperm:

you state that 'life is a constant struggle of life and death. And nature is extremely stingy.' Sure, that's nature. But God isn't. God is perfect. Actually, you're right that 'God felt like it' isn't a very good answer. But it's all I can give you, because God is so much more superior than us human beings, that we cannot understand Him or His wisdom.

You furthermore ask, "why does nature contain designs which confirm evolutionary theory and contradict intelligent design theory?" Firstly, I'd like to say that you haven't given us sufficient proof that there isn't a perfect designer. Secondly, I'd like to say that evolutionary theory does not conform to the designs in nature. Why, may I ask, do Eskimos have to make their own fur coats, rather than grow one? If evolution were true, this might be quite normal. Why are humans so similar to one another, even though they live in such different environments? Compare us western folk to the impoverised people in the third-world countries. We are so alike, it's hard to believe evolution exists. You see, you can show us figures and 'facts' from 'millions of years ago' that 'confirm' evolution, but there is no evidence of evolution going on right now. Lions today are the same as lions a few hundred years ago, as are tigers and humans, and thousands of other species.

"You're right that 'God felt like it' isn't a very good answer. But it's all I can give you..." Luigi

Fine, so you're ideas are religious conjecture and not science. 'God felt like it' is an unfalsifiable statement. In science, claims must be directly testable and disprovable. It's possible to disprove evolution... find something 'irreducibly complex' or a fossil that doesn't conform to evolutionary theory and Bingo! you've disproved it.

We can't disprove 'God did it' (and you can't prove it either.) If you need to insert 'God did it, just because...' into your theory, it gets rejected because it's scientifically meaningless.

Why, may I ask, do Eskimos have to make their own fur coats, rather than grow one? - Luigi

Why grow one when you can make one? Seriously, think about it. As people migrated north they kept warm by wearing the furs of other animals. So, there was no evolutionary pressure to select for furry people, because they were already 'furry'. OK, it was reindeer fur or rabbit fur or whatever, but Evolution needs a survival filter to produce natural selection. Evolution didn't select the hairier Eskimos because the non-hairy Eskimos weren't selectively dying of cold. Eskimos took an evolutionary short cut (cos they're intelligent and can consciously manipulate their environment.) They took advantage of the natural selection processes of rabbits and reindeer.

cont...


 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM (Answer #75)

dislike 0 like

Re Giraffe's neck, you said:

"I'd like to say that you haven't given us sufficient proof that there isn't a perfect designer. - Luigi

I'm reluctant to move on from the 'giraffe's neck nerve' just yet because I feel you jumped over the problem by saying 'that's not enough proof'. Well, it is evidence of adaptive evolution and it refutes Intelligent Design. You can't just jump over it. It shatters your theory, you need to account for it.

And it is not an isolated example. One of the biggest problems with the theory of an intelligent designer is the problem of inherited design flaws. The giraffe's neck is a wonderful, clear example of legacy and adaptation, but there are countless more. It is extensive throughout the entire living world. The 'designer' of life was blind and limited, not intelligent and free.

This link shows just some of the mistakes in human biology, (pleeease watch part two as well)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAVyktynD_I

So I'll ask you to consider it again, why does much of Life on Earth contain the evidence of the limitations of the adaptive process. Why does the 'design' of Life on Earth conform to the messy Theory of Evolution, but not to the perfect theory of Intelligent Design?

(and I'd also like to take this opportunity to say that I am enjoying our discussion very much and I hold you in high regard. Your answers are very thought-provoking and I trust we remain on good terms. :-)

 

user profile pic

peterlord | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 12, 2012 at 7:21 PM (Answer #76)

dislike 0 like

one point: evolution is just a theory, it may or may not be true

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:50 AM (Answer #77)

dislike 0 like

In reply to Frizzyperm,

I also am enjoying this discussion and I agree it has been very thought provoking

 

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:57 AM (Answer #78)

dislike 0 like

In reply to #67

obviously not! you may get a raddish and a cabbage that can breed and produce offsping that can also breed, but this isn't evolution. you can't breed a lion and a tiger or a horse and a donkey, and you will get sterile offspring (cannot breed). God made these animals so that they were able to breed with each other so that biodiversity would come into the picture. Biodiversity means diversity among and within plant and animal species in an environment. thats what makes his creation so beautiful.


user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:12 AM (Answer #79)

dislike 0 like

In reply to #68

"if evolution doesn't happen, why did your God make such a stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to the giraffe's neck? Is The Intelligent Designer trying to trick us with such obvious and clear examples of blind evolution?"- frizzyperm

I see nothing stupid about the giraffe's neck! It looks to me that the nerve there was put there purposefully! maybe the length is necessary! I don't know! I'M NOT GOD! I don't have all the answers and I admit that! all I know is that with out that nerve the animal would be voiceless. The nerve is not necessarily proof of an imperfection. 

Imperfections in creation did not come because God was Lazy or wasn't thinking. Imperfections came from sin! Mutations and diseases never would have come into His perfect world if Man hadn't fallen.

cont...

user profile pic

hepimpharvey | Student, Grade 11 | eNoter

Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:27 AM (Answer #80)

dislike 0 like

...Cont

Also the belief that God created the world and then allowed evolution to do it s work is called evolutionary creationism or Deism. Deism is not a viable answer to creation because this suggests that God doesn't want a relationship with us and just wants to see the world fall into chaos. The world nearly has fallen to chaos, but that is only because God gave us choice or free will. God wants a relationship with all of us! but because of free will some have chosen they don't want anything to do with God. God even loves us so much that he was willing to send Jesus Christ to save us from eternal damnation. he made it so easy for us to be saved! All we have to do is choose him.

Frizzyperm you said:

"I long for the day when enotes will provide me with a creationist who has a basic, working understanding of modern evolutionary theory." - frizzyperm

please understand I do have a good grasp of the theory of evolution and "the way it works" and I have an even better grasp of Christianity and creationism. please do not disregard that fact. Because I have seen a fair amount of reasoning for both sides of the argument, I am able to discern which side is more logical and which is not. I have obviously chosen Christianity and that is not because of the way I was raised. The proof is there! you just need to know how to look at it.


user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM (Answer #81)

dislike 0 like

In reply to #67

obviously not! you may get a raddish and a cabbage that can breed and produce offsping that can also breed, but this isn't evolution. you can't breed a lion and a tiger or a horse and a donkey, and you will get sterile offspring (cannot breed). God made these animals so that they were able to breed with each other so that biodiversity would come into the picture. Biodiversity means diversity among and within plant and animal species in an environment. thats what makes his creation so beautiful.


Sorry hepimp, I've read this 5 times. I'm getting nothing that I can understand.

 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 16, 2012 at 7:43 PM (Answer #82)

dislike 0 like

In reply to #68

"if evolution doesn't happen, why did your God make such a stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to the giraffe's neck? Is The Intelligent Designer trying to trick us with such obvious and clear examples of blind evolution?"- frizzyperm

I see nothing stupid about the giraffe's neck! It looks to me that the nerve there was put there purposefully! maybe the length is necessary! I don't know! I'M NOT GOD! I don't have all the answers and I admit that! all I know is that with out that nerve the animal would be voiceless. The nerve is not necessarily proof of an imperfection. 

Imperfections in creation did not come because God was Lazy or wasn't thinking. Imperfections came from sin! Mutations and diseases never would have come into His perfect world if Man hadn't fallen.

cont...

I see nothing stupid about the giraffe's neck! It looks to me that the nerve there was put there purposefully! maybe the length is necessary! I don't know! I'M NOT GOD! - Hepimp

I'm not God either, but I know the nerve's extra length is not a benefit. In fish (where this nerve evolved) we see that it goes directly from A to B. There is no detour. But fish have no necks. Then, as evolution developed necks, the destination for the nerve moves.... and moves... and moves.

But evolution's elongation of the neck ignored the fact that the nerve was trapped, because the original nerve's route went behind other structures that were not elongating. Thus trapped, the nerve simply got longer and longer and longer. The nerve now goes from A to X to B. And in the Giraffe it is a pathetic comedy detour.

A designer could have 'cut' the nerve and repositioned it.

Evolution couldn't do that.

IF you understand the theory of evolution then this nerve rocks your world's foundations. Because THAT LOOPING NERVE IS INSIDE YOU, and every other land-dwelling vertebrate on this planet. It is a cast-iron demonstration of adaptation.

The laryngeal nerve matches the theory of evolution exactly and evolution explains it perfectly.

The laryngeal nerve  contradicts your theory totally and you have nothing to offer but non-scientific fluff about beauty and God and sin.

Your theory does not match the real world.

But mine does.

 

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted November 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM (Answer #83)

dislike 0 like

Re Giraffe's neck, you said:

"I'd like to say that you haven't given us sufficient proof that there isn't a perfect designer. - Luigi

I'm reluctant to move on from the 'giraffe's neck nerve' just yet because I feel you jumped over the problem by saying 'that's not enough proof'. Well, it is evidence of adaptive evolution and it refutes Intelligent Design. You can't just jump over it. It shatters your theory, you need to account for it.

And it is not an isolated example. One of the biggest problems with the theory of an intelligent designer is the problem of inherited design flaws. The giraffe's neck is a wonderful, clear example of legacy and adaptation, but there are countless more. It is extensive throughout the entire living world. The 'designer' of life was blind and limited, not intelligent and free.

This link shows just some of the mistakes in human biology, (pleeease watch part two as well)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAVyktynD_I

So I'll ask you to consider it again, why does much of Life on Earth contain the evidence of the limitations of the adaptive process. Why does the 'design' of Life on Earth conform to the messy Theory of Evolution, but not to the perfect theory of Intelligent Design?

(and I'd also like to take this opportunity to say that I am enjoying our discussion very much and I hold you in high regard. Your answers are very thought-provoking and I trust we remain on good terms. :-)

 

I know it's quite a bit late, but I too am thankful that we're still respecting eachother. I know it seems like we hate eachother, but I do hold you in quite a bit of respect.

user profile pic

dirtydebater5151 | Student | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 20, 2012 at 7:58 AM (Answer #84)

dislike 0 like

Here is my opinion, taught to me by my religion teacher in 8th grade, who was a deacon at the time, and is now a priest. The bible is not meant to be taken literally, rather it is the spirit of the law that is important, i.e. we dont kill people for stealing bread from the temple anymore, but rather we learn we should not steal. Using this logic we can agree God did not create the earth and all life in seven days in a specifically outlined process, but rather he did created the universe. Most promiment religious leader, ie bishops, cardinals, priests, agree the bible is not a literal document.  

cont...

user profile pic

dirtydebater5151 | Student | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 20, 2012 at 7:59 AM (Answer #85)

dislike 0 like

cont... Furthermore, one of the most important beliefs of God is free will, that God does not control any and every moment in our lives and that is why evil exists. Thus if God created all the many galaxies, and life on earth began in some which way (something evolution does not attempt to explain, whole different beast) than i think it is catholically acceptable to believe it slowly evolved in the diverse miracle it is today, with or without God's guidance depending on your belief, which again evolution does not attempt to explain. I believe God did create all life, but he did it through evolution and through amino acids at the beginning of earth's 4.54 billion year life-span. Just because it did not happen exactly the way the bible outlined it doesnt mean god was responsible, he just needed a way of logically portraying the information, and in this way religion and science are compatible

user profile pic

William Delaney | (Level 3) Educator Emeritus

Posted November 20, 2012 at 11:48 AM (Answer #86)

dislike 0 like

Re. #84 and #85. You say that this is your opinion taught to you by your religion teacher when you were in the eighth grade. No doubt you had other religious teachings when you were even younger, that is, when your mind was immature and you believed what older people told you. What you are expressing here is not exactly your opinion but your religion teacher's opinion. If children can be indoctrinated with such beliefs when they are very young, it is difficult if not impossible for them to think any other way when they become mature. I believe that most fundamentalists and creationists hold the views they hold because they were taught a whole set of fantastic and totally unsubstantiated beliefs when they were children. Your religion teacher probably had a comparable indoctrination when he was a child. If these concepts were not impressed on small children, they would most likely die out within a short time, because a mature adult cannot accept such notions as an invisible man who lives up in the sky and watches over everything.

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted November 20, 2012 at 12:29 PM (Answer #87)

dislike 0 like

Re. #84 and #85. You say that this is your opinion taught to you by your religion teacher when you were in the eighth grade. No doubt you had other religious teachings when you were even younger, that is, when your mind was immature and you believed what older people told you. What you are expressing here is not exactly your opinion but your religion teacher's opinion. If children can be indoctrinated with such beliefs when they are very young, it is difficult if not impossible for them to think any other way when they become mature. I believe that most fundamentalists and creationists hold the views they hold because they were taught a whole set of fantastic and totally unsubstantiated beliefs when they were children. Your religion teacher probably had a comparable indoctrination when he was a child. If these concepts were not impressed on small children, they would most likely die out within a short time, because a mature adult cannot accept such notions as an invisible man who lives up in the sky and watches over everything.

To be honest, I can believe in "an invisible man who lives up in the sky and watches over everything" better than I can believe that fact that out of nothing came the wonderful design of creation today.

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted November 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM (Answer #88)

dislike 0 like

Here is my opinion, taught to me by my religion teacher in 8th grade, who was a deacon at the time, and is now a priest. The bible is not meant to be taken literally, rather it is the spirit of the law that is important, i.e. we dont kill people for stealing bread from the temple anymore, but rather we learn we should not steal. Using this logic we can agree God did not create the earth and all life in seven days in a specifically outlined process, but rather he did created the universe. Most promiment religious leader, ie bishops, cardinals, priests, agree the bible is not a literal document.  

cont...

 

Firstly, I'd like to say that just because they're priests, they're haven't got the complete authority that God has. And anyway, just because they're leaders, it doesn't mean they're right. There are many examples in the Bible of well regarded leaders who turn out wrong, and bring many others to destruction with them. Think for example of the Pharisees, or King Solomon.

Secondly, I'd like to say that if the Bible hasn't got the complete authority, we can't believe anything the Bible says - I mean, what do we take literally, and what to we disregard? We probably disregard the things which we don't like to hear, like punishment for doing wrong, and regard the things we like - for example that God is love and He died for our sins.

The Bible is supposed to be taken literally, although it is true that some things are irrelevant for us today. Think, for example, of the ceremonial laws, the laws about the sacrifices etc. These laws have been fulfilled, and are therefore irrelevant for us today.

user profile pic

chicagogirl | Student, Undergraduate | eNoter

Posted November 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM (Answer #89)

dislike 0 like

Here is my opinion, taught to me by my religion teacher in 8th grade, who was a deacon at the time, and is now a priest. The bible is not meant to be taken literally, rather it is the spirit of the law that is important, i.e. we dont kill people for stealing bread from the temple anymore, but rather we learn we should not steal. Using this logic we can agree God did not create the earth and all life in seven days in a specifically outlined process, but rather he did created the universe. Most promiment religious leader, ie bishops, cardinals, priests, agree the bible is not a literal document.  

cont...

 

Firstly, I'd like to say that just because they're priests, they're haven't got the complete authority that God has. And anyway, just because they're leaders, it doesn't mean they're right. There are many examples in the Bible of well regarded leaders who turn out wrong, and bring many others to destruction with them. Think for example of the Pharisees, or King Solomon.

Secondly, I'd like to say that if the Bible hasn't got the complete authority, we can't believe anything the Bible says - I mean, what do we take literally, and what to we disregard? We probably disregard the things which we don't like to hear, like punishment for doing wrong, and regard the things we like - for example that God is love and He died for our sins.

The Bible is supposed to be taken literally, although it is true that some things are irrelevant for us today. Think, for example, of the ceremonial laws, the laws about the sacrifices etc. These laws have been fulfilled, and are therefore irrelevant for us today.

The Bible is supposed to be taken literally, although it is true that some things are irrelevant for us today. - Luiji

I don't want to be rude, Luiji, but what you wrote is such an incredible display of unconscious flip-flopping that it left me gaping at the screen and scratching my head.

a) You state that the The Bible is clearly a perfect document and must be taken 100% literally.

b) Then, in the same sentence, you chuck out a whole chunk of it as 'irrelevant for us today'.

How do you know which bits to chuck out, Luiji? The bits you don't like? The bits that are barbaric? The bits that are wrong? It's GOD'S WORD! Show me in the Bible where it says parts of it were not true for all time? As a fundamentalist, you don't have the right to disregard the bits you don't like! But in just one sentence you admonish moderates (dirtydebater5151) for not believing the Bible is 100% literally true and then admit that you ignore lots of it.

I think you're a pretty smart kid. I suspect that in a few years you'll become aware of the excruciating, one-eyed double-think that is needed to be a modern fundamentalist and you'll realise the Bible cannot possibly be word-for-word true. Your position, both scientifically and religiously is unsustainable and your intellectual curiosity will eventually mine through the bedrock and expose its totally hollow interior. You're too smart to be a fundamentalist. Sorry. ;-)

 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM (Answer #90)

dislike 0 like

I can believe in "an invisible man who lives up in the sky and watches over everything" better than I can believe that fact that out of nothing came the wonderful design of creation today. - Luiji

Again, I would point out to you that there is zero evidence that the 'invisible man in the sky' created everything, but lots of evidence that life evolved. In order to sustain what you want to believe you are forced to blind yourself to some very clear and simple facts. Viz: You are a primate who exclusively believes an extremely outdated and error-ridden book for which there is no supporting evidence.

(And I agree with Chicagogirl, you're too bright to believe these nursery stories about Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark for much longer. You used to believe in Santa Claus too, remember?)

user profile pic

dirtydebater5151 | Student | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 21, 2012 at 7:19 AM (Answer #91)

dislike 0 like

In reply to 86 first off I believe fully all modern sciences and am a chemist, not a creationist, I think you know that just making it clear, second aren't all opinions contributed from outside sources, an opinions it's the acceptance or rejection or a taught principle not the self formation of an idea, which is basically impossible? However I do agree with you that fundamentalists hold on to immature beliefs. There is no feasible way to deny the exist of evolution and modern sciences that conflict with outdated religious teachings.

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted November 23, 2012 at 3:24 PM (Answer #92)

dislike 0 like

Wow! This post is going to reach a ton.

user profile pic

dudito12345 | Student, Grade 10 | eNotes Newbie

Posted November 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM (Answer #93)

dislike 0 like

God created the world and the humans... we dont come from monkeys... check Genesis chapter 1

 

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 23, 2012 at 5:19 PM (Answer #94)

dislike 0 like

God created the world and the humans... we dont come from monkeys... check Genesis chapter 1

 

No-one claims we came from monkeys, Dudito. 

 

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted November 24, 2012 at 2:04 AM (Answer #95)

dislike 0 like

Well, I wish you'd all make up your minds... what did we actually originate from? Because the last i've heard is that we've evolved from fish, monkeys, apes and bacteria...

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 24, 2012 at 10:37 AM (Answer #96)

dislike 0 like

Well, I wish you'd all make up your minds... what did we actually originate from? Because the last i've heard is that we've evolved from fish, monkeys, apes and bacteria...

Come on Luiji, we didn't evolve from monkeys, that's basic knowledge. We share a common, extinct ancestor with monkeys. Monkeys are our cousins, not grandparents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68g0MBO_uTM

 

user profile pic

ninniclements | High School Teacher | Salutatorian

Posted November 24, 2012 at 10:58 AM (Answer #97)

dislike 0 like

Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Butterflies are not transformed by successive slight modifications from caterpillars, or from any evolutionary ancestor. Neither are any of their complex organs.

When a butterfly egg hatches, a caterpillar steps out, eats, grows, and then builds a little house around itself where it passes into the pupal stage. Inside the leather-like shell of the pupa, or larva, the caterpillar dissolves.

Everything that distinguished him as a caterpillar, melts down to form a thick liquid. Everything except his heart becomes homogenized goo.

Compare the organs that crawled in to become the pupa with those of the butterfly that flew out:

CARTERPILLAR ORGANS       BUTTERFLY ORGANS

12 legs                                6 legs

13-segment body                 10-segment body

6 simple eyes                       2 compound, 2 simple eyes

No sex organs                     Sex organs

Chewing jaws                      Coiled sucking tube

0 wings                               2 pair of wings

All these butterfly organs formed from goo! None formed from slight modifications to previous organs! Darwin struck out!

Read Thomas Heinze’s book The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution. 

It's illuminating!


user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM (Answer #98)

dislike 0 like

Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Butterflies are not transformed by successive slight modifications from caterpillars, or from any evolutionary ancestor. Neither are any of their complex organs.

When a butterfly egg hatches, a caterpillar steps out, eats, grows, and then builds a little house around itself where it passes into the pupal stage. Inside the leather-like shell of the pupa, or larva, the caterpillar dissolves.

Everything that distinguished him as a caterpillar, melts down to form a thick liquid. Everything except his heart becomes homogenized goo.

Compare the organs that crawled in to become the pupa with those of the butterfly that flew out:

CARTERPILLAR ORGANS       BUTTERFLY ORGANS

12 legs                                6 legs

13-segment body                 10-segment body

6 simple eyes                       2 compound, 2 simple eyes

No sex organs                     Sex organs

Chewing jaws                      Coiled sucking tube

0 wings                               2 pair of wings

All these butterfly organs formed from goo! None formed from slight modifications to previous organs! Darwin struck out!

Read Thomas Heinze’s book The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution. 

It's illuminating!


Well, Ninnic, I'll give you credit for presenting a creationist argument that I've never heard before, which makes a change. :-)  

Butterflies have two life-stages and they are achieved by the collapse and sublimation of the caterpillar followed by the construction of a butterfly in the intermediate, pupal phase. Think of it like a second 'egg' phase.

You seem to be suggesting that, if evolution is true, the pupal stage of a butterfly's life-cycle should be a sped-up 'movie' of a caterpillar evolving directly into a butterfly. On re-reading your post I'm not really sure why you think that, to be honest.

You said (or, to be more accurate, Ced+Ped ;-),

All these butterfly organs formed from goo! None formed from slight modifications to previous organs! Darwin struck out!

After giving us the facts about the pupal stage, you merely state that the caterpillar didn't change directly into a butterfly so... evolution is wrong. But you didn't  explain why you think this shows evolution is wrong.

I have a couple of questions...

  1. Why, according to your understanding of evolution, must the caterpillar modify itself directly into a butterfly?
  2. Why do you think evolution could not have evolved the intermediate pupal stage?

 

user profile pic

ninniclements | High School Teacher | Salutatorian

Posted November 25, 2012 at 10:29 AM (Answer #99)

dislike 0 like

Well, Frizzyperm, I am glad I have stimulated your interests in the eternal battle between evolution and creation but being Italian I am not sure what you mean by Ced+Ped. Besides, I find baffling sometimes to follow all the posts when containing, I suppose, typical American expressions. But one thing I understood: in your frenzy to defend your views you overlooked Darwin's statement, right at the beginning of my post, which is very important for the credibility of the evolution theory. And besides, it gives the answer to both your questions you asked me. I'll explain:  Darwin thought natural selection had lifted all plants and animals up from a single cell by eliminating the less fit and keeping the more fit alive. What is the least fit substance you can think of? Thick liquid? How can such an intermediate stage fit Darwin's words? How can it be explaied that new organs require coordinated changes? From a voracious caterpillar to thick liquid to a wonderful butterfly that knows exactly where to fly for thousand miles to the spot, sometimes to the very tree, where its ancestors spent the last winter? Come on, guys!

user profile pic

kingfuzz | Student | eNoter

Posted November 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM (Answer #100)

dislike 0 like

The idea of evolution is a fundemental idea. I agree that i'm not sure about monkeys turning into homo-sapiens over a long period of time, but evolution does occur. In our time we are not as trubled as people such as cavemen once were. So the troubled cave men who had a hard life had to find a way to adjust to their surroundings. Their adjustments evolved in the comming generations. For example, Cavemen had bushy and thick eyebrows, large eyebrows actually increase your vision and senses. Cavemen used these characteristics to hunt large animals. But over time humans did not need to hunt like them. So over the next generations humans lost these bushy Eye-brows.

In our generations, we have almost everything we need to survive, So, there are little things we have to adjust to. Which means from now there will be little evolution.

Also, the idea of evolution is fundemental, trying to defy them would trouble many laws in science, and make life more confusing.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted November 25, 2012 at 3:45 PM (Answer #101)

dislike 0 like

Well, Frizzyperm, I am glad I have stimulated your interests in the eternal battle between evolution and creation but being Italian I am not sure what you mean by Ced+Ped. Besides, I find baffling sometimes to follow all the posts when containing, I suppose, typical American expressions. But one thing I understood: in your frenzy to defend your views you overlooked Darwin's statement, right at the beginning of my post, which is very important for the credibility of the evolution theory. And besides, it gives the answer to both your questions you asked me. I'll explain:  Darwin thought natural selection had lifted all plants and animals up from a single cell by eliminating the less fit and keeping the more fit alive. What is the least fit substance you can think of? Thick liquid? How can such an intermediate stage fit Darwin's words? How can it be explaied that new organs require coordinated changes? From a voracious caterpillar to thick liquid to a wonderful butterfly that knows exactly where to fly for thousand miles to the spot, sometimes to the very tree, where its ancestors spent the last winter? Come on, guys!

Was my reply 'frenzied'? I wouldn't say so. The quote from On The Origin did not escape my notice, it is the most often quoted section, (except for, perhaps, the famous 'tangled bank' final paragraph) and I understand its implications. It is related to the idea of irreducible complexity.

Your post is an 'argument from incredulity' You ask a series of questions rather than explanations.

What is the least fit substance you can think of? Thick liquid? How can such an intermediate stage fit Darwin's words?

 

Well, you are right that the pupal stage is a vulnerable time for the organism. Which is why intense natural selection has ensured better and better camouflage techniques to increase the chances of survival. As predators ate lots of those pupae that were easy to find, the surviving pupae rapidly evolved better and better resemblance to dead leaves or bird droppings, or chose more and more cunning hiding places.

But, as vulnerable as this stage is, it is clearly worth the risk to the butterflies' survival as a group, because they're not extinct. And that's true whether evolution is true or not.  But to be honest, we are circling the heart of the matter.

So, given Darwin's quote, why could the intermediate stage not have developed through the processes of evolution? You said it sounds absurd to you, but you haven't identified the reason that it is irreducibly complex.

(P.S.  "Ced + Ped" = copied and pasted)

 

user profile pic

sodapopjo | Student, Grade 11 | Honors

Posted November 25, 2012 at 7:22 PM (Answer #102)

dislike 0 like

I am a Christian. I believe that God created the universe. However, a denial of a scientific thing like evolution is the same as the denial of helio-centrism. Evolution is a natural process that had to occur and is self-evident. It is as self-evident as God's existence, which is a truth.

user profile pic

wanderista | TA , Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted November 26, 2012 at 4:31 AM (Answer #103)

dislike 0 like

I believe evolution is real due to the significant amount of scientific evidence there is to corroborate it, as to the evidence presented against it. 

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted November 27, 2012 at 12:49 PM (Answer #104)

dislike 0 like

In reply to #102,

Hello!

I too believe that God created the cosmos because there is not yet scientific proof.

user profile pic

pinkykitty | Student | eNoter

Posted December 1, 2012 at 9:11 AM (Answer #105)

dislike 0 like

it has been scientificaly proven, so we are un able to say that it is fake

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted December 2, 2012 at 6:39 AM (Answer #106)

dislike 0 like

How is God scientifically proven?????????!!!!!!!

user profile pic

tiburtius | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted December 2, 2012 at 12:07 PM (Answer #107)

dislike 0 like

For all those who want to learn more about about how the life started  and about Charles Darwin and evolution I would recomend the following documentaries: First LifeCharles Darwin and the Tree of Life. If after this you still believe God litteraly created world in 7 days, then there are no point in further discussion.

user profile pic

wifii213 | Student, Grade 10 | eNoter

Posted December 3, 2012 at 4:25 AM (Answer #108)

dislike 0 like

If your gonna take this on with God, then it's all up to you if you have faith in God or not or you're the type of person who'd rather seek for a scientific explanation as well as evidence. Evidence about evolution is everywhere around you. Ever thought about how everything we have is a coincidence? Why we have ears for hearing, eyes for seeing? How everything seems to be in balance (except for the fact that we are disrupting it). How everything seems to be connected with each other? 

A thing to remember also is that evolution is a theory, not a fact, as a matter of fact. We need solid proof. Maybe one day when a "working" time machine will be invented, then that's all we need to get solid proof.

I people believe in God, then you can't argue because it's their belief and their faith. Just stick with your own belief, don't force people to believe in something.

user profile pic

tiburtius | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted December 3, 2012 at 5:42 PM (Answer #109)

dislike 0 like

Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, number theory, probability theory, quantum theory,  computational complexity theory, theory of integration, cell theory along with theory of evolution - all just theories, not facts

user profile pic

wanderista | TA , Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted December 4, 2012 at 9:04 PM (Answer #110)

dislike 0 like

Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, number theory, probability theory, quantum theory,  computational complexity theory, theory of integration, cell theory along with theory of evolution - all just theories, not facts

tiburtius,

 

A theory does NOT mean that is not true, and that it is only a guess and an observation - that's not how it is used in Science at all. Theory means the data presenteded is still open for expansion, so if new evidence was presented to show that trilobites had two more proteins on their exoskeletons, that would be added to the data. That's all 'theory' means in Science, that it is still open to more information (which is pretty much everything in Science).

 

If you still aren't convienced, did you know electricity is a theory? I think we know how to harness and use electricity pretty well, and it's accepted as a true thing in society (because it's silly to say it doesn't exist when we clearly use it). Evolution is also a theory, but there is clear evidene for it - just to go a museum and ask a evolution expert to explain everything to you and show you concrete evidence - bones, fossils, fragments, you name it! 

user profile pic

wanderista | TA , Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted December 4, 2012 at 9:05 PM (Answer #111)

dislike 0 like

convinced*

user profile pic

tiburtius | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted December 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM (Answer #112)

dislike 0 like

Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, number theory, probability theory, quantum theory,  computational complexity theory, theory of integration, cell theory along with theory of evolution - all just theories, not facts

tiburtius,

 

A theory does NOT mean that is not true, and that it is only a guess and an observation - that's not how it is used in Science at all. Theory means the data presenteded is still open for expansion, so if new evidence was presented to show that trilobites had two more proteins on their exoskeletons, that would be added to the data. That's all 'theory' means in Science, that it is still open to more information (which is pretty much everything in Science).

 

If you still aren't convienced, did you know electricity is a theory? I think we know how to harness and use electricity pretty well, and it's accepted as a true thing in society (because it's silly to say it doesn't exist when we clearly use it). Evolution is also a theory, but there is clear evidene for it - just to go a museum and ask a evolution expert to explain everything to you and show you concrete evidence - bones, fossils, fragments, you name it! 

My post was supposed to be sarcastic, I actually agree with you. See post #107.

 

user profile pic

weddanever | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted December 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM (Answer #113)

dislike 0 like

evolution is undeniably true, we can see it through the many discoveries of science explorations and experimentations. 

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted December 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM (Answer #114)

dislike 0 like

evolution is undeniably true, we can see it through the many discoveries of science explorations and experimentations. 

can you give us an example of such explorations/experiments? Just interested, no offense meant...

user profile pic

bullbudder | Student, Grade 11 | Valedictorian

Posted December 18, 2012 at 6:05 AM (Answer #116)

dislike 0 like

I WISH THAT U could live for more 100o years to understand evolution....luiji

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM (Answer #117)

dislike 0 like

Evolution is obiviously real. It is so simple.

 

If you don't agree than say, how did humans came?

Did they suddenly fell from the sky?

OR

They evolved from the chimpanzees?

user profile pic

weddanever | Student, Undergraduate | Honors

Posted December 31, 2012 at 2:19 AM (Answer #118)

dislike 0 like

to 114, search, and i recommend you to read the origin of species by charles darwin. however, i don't agreed to some point mentioned by that author. 

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted January 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM (Answer #119)

dislike 0 like

I WISH THAT U could live for more 100o years to understand evolution....luiji

Can you give me an example of an animal which has evolved in the last 1000 years, because I can't seem to think of any.

user profile pic

luiji | Student, Grade 11 | Salutatorian

Posted January 2, 2013 at 8:41 AM (Answer #120)

dislike 0 like

Evolution is obiviously real. It is so simple.

 

If you don't agree than say, how did humans came?

Did they suddenly fell from the sky?

OR

They evolved from the chimpanzees?

If I tell you what i truly believe the origin of man is, then you wouldn't believe me and you would criticise me. But right now I'm disputing whether evolution is real or not, and not whether my views are right and wrong...

Anyway, if humans evolved from chimpanzees, why do chimpanzees still exist? Shouldn't they have all evolved to become humans? And if some didn't, wouldn't they have just died off straight away... after all, you all believe in the 'survival of the fittest'...

And, can you please make up your mind... it seems evolution can't make up its mind about what we evolved from... i've heard that we've evolved from apes, chimpanzees, monkeys, and totally unrelated animals like bacteria...

user profile pic

William Delaney | (Level 3) Educator Emeritus

Posted January 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM (Answer #121)

dislike 0 like

Darwin's book makes difficult reading. The best book on evolution is a much more recent book by Richard Dawkins titledThe Selfish Gene. He writes beautiful English. He explains how the earliest life forms originated and how they have evolved. There were life forms in existence even before one-celled creatures. Cell walls were an evolutionary development for survival. I believe he says that life originated out of chemicals about three-and-a-half billion years ago. I have noted that people who are the most strongly opposed to the theory of evolution typically refuse to read about it. They don't even have to read about it. There are many documentaries about evolution available on DVDs, including documentaries and docu-dramas about Charles Darwin.

Sources:

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted January 13, 2013 at 12:14 PM (Answer #123)

dislike 0 like

Name the first human to born on Earth.

 

In reply to #120

You can't defeat me!

Search in www.google.com

 

user profile pic

astrosonuthird | Student | Valedictorian

Posted January 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM (Answer #124)

dislike 0 like

in reply to #121

 

You are right! The book is good.

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes