Evolution: Are you being brainwashed?

[n3gative3]

Plus, when things aren't really approved they appear as contested so that serves as a flag to show it may more may not be true. I don't usually see too many of those. I agree with what you said about people making some of that complex scientific stuff up. Not likely.

 

[n3gative3]

Bump

 

[coolsmile]

Thanks for bumping it ^_^

Not all christians are like samus101, just for the record

In my opinion, I think the word christian is used to loosely. And this topic is indirectly related to religion, but this is what this topic seems to be about ^_^

 

[RedProdigy]

No offense but creationism is a load of ****. It cannot be proven and its sole base is on religion (a huge no-no in science). Evolution is indeed a theory but that doesn't mean that is a load of ****. "It's just a theory" is so idiotic. Do you think there is no such thing as atoms? Atomic theory cannot be directly proven yet it's widely accepted. Evolution has some research to back it up and it has been around for more than a century without being sent to the trash. Evolution is based on reasoning from studies of fossils and living creatures. However, fossils are rare given the process of making a fossil. That is the main reason why evolution cannot be considered as a fact. But the fact that ideas of evolution have survived to this day gives it some credibility.

Keep religion and science apart. Creationism is just religion disguised as science. So is Intelligent Design.

 

[kitkat_bar]

sorry samus, but I have to agree with everyone else.

also, stop bashing wikipedia, it is very good, you think any idiot can put a bogus element on the periodic table or something? Lots of reviews before it goes public. Also try curriki.org, an open-source school curriculum sort of thing. You know that a textbook written by a couple people has a lot more room for bias than a web article edited by millions.

Not all christians are like samus101, just for the record

Don't get me wrong, I love wikipedia. I just don't think it is the right tool to use to proove either religion or creationism or evolution.

 

[motherbrainrulez]

Micro Evolution: Mutations that occur in an animal that changes the species (wolf => dog)

im sure that wasnt evolution, that was domestication.
sorry if anyone else said that.
oh and read this its very interesting
please read EVERYTHING- that means all 50 pages
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/your-delusion.htm

 

[n3gative3]

I appreciate a lot of that guys views and his logic is pretty sound but I have a slight problem with his arrogance. I do enjoy his videos though, they are quite thought provoking.

 

[Wii_Smurf]

I got a question....

When God created Adam and Eve they had children and then their children had children and so on.... SO!

When we have girlfriends/boyfriends aren't we really commiting Incest if we all come from 2 people?

I don't really know the story of God I don't much care but that seems logical to me. Could someone explain that to me?

Not trying to prove God is false or anything I just wanna know why....

BUT I do think that this post is pointless because we aren't really getting anywhere

 

[n3gative3]

We never really get anywhere because people believe what they believe and some to the point of lunacy. However, it is a great deal of fun to debate along the way!

In response to your question... In a way but not as descendants of Adam and Eve. Biblically speaking, the flood killed all of them off 4,400 years ago. We would be descendants of Noah and his family. So yes, there would still be plenty of incest. And there is plenty of incest in the Bible. Take for instance the story of Lot and his two daughters when they fled Sodom.

Whilst living in a cave after God destroyed Sodom (as well as Lot's wife because she turned to look at the destruction) Lot's two daughters got him drunk one night and the older one slept with him and he finished inside her: She became pregnant. The next night they got him drunk again and the younger one had sex with him: She too became pregnant.

God must have wonderful judgment if he picked Lot and his family out of all of Sodom to be saved. If he is all knowing then I'd say he is rather perverted in that regard, but I digress.


Oh, and as an aside: When Lot was in Sodom and two angels came down to visit with him, male townsfolk demanded that he let those two men out (the angels) so that they may have sex with them. Lot refused because it was wrong in the eyes of God but he gladly offered his two daughters up because they, "have not yet known a man."

 

[Squall7]

Since wikipedia is being dissed, I'll use another place for a little bit of info.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-creatnism.html

creationism
Print Digg del.icio.us
creationism or creation science, belief in the biblical account of the creation of the world as described in Genesis , a characteristic especially of fundamentalist Protestantism (see fundamentalism ). Advocates of creationism have campaigned to have it taught in U.S. public schools along with the theory of evolution , which they dispute. In 1981 a federal judge ruled unconstitutional an Arkansas law requiring the teaching of creationism, holding it to be religious in nature; a similar Louisiana law was overturned in 1982. In 1999, supporters of creationism in Kansas succeeded in removing the requirement that evolution be taught as part of the state's high school biology curriculum, but after several supporters of the measure were not reelected to the state school board that decision was reversed in 2001. Fundamentalist Christians have also opposed the teaching of scientific theories concerning the formation of the universe (see cosmology ). See also intelligent design .

Bibliography: See E. C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism (2004); M. Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (2005).

intelligent design
Print Digg del.icio.us
intelligent design theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution , and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree. The theory does, however, necessarily reject standard science's reliance on explaining the natural world only through undirected natural causes, believing that any theory that relies on such causes alone is incapable of explaining how all biological structures and processes arose. Thus, despite claims by members of the intelligent-design movement that it is a scientific research program, the work of its adherents has been criticized as unscientific and speculative for inferring a pre-existing intelligence to explain the development of biological structures instead of attempting to develop adequate falsifiable mechanistic explanations. In addition, the theory has been attacked on the grounds that many aspects of nature fail to show any evidence of intelligent design, such as "junk" DNA (see nucleic acid ) and the vestigial webbed feet of the frigate bird (which never lands on water).

The idea that nature shows signs of having been designed by an intelligent being dates back at least to ancient Greece. The English theologian William Paley gave the theory its classic formulation in his Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1802), in which he argued that the eye and other biological features are perfectly suited for their purposes and that in this suitable design the hand of God can be discerned. The modern intelligent-design movement, however, has its origins in the 1980s with such works as The Mystery of Life's Origins (1984) by Charles Thaxton et al. and Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986) by Michael Denton. Micheal Behe's Darwin's Black Box (1996) is perhaps the best-known statement of the movement's critique of Darwin and its argument for a role for God or some other intelligence in the design of biological entities. Advocates of intelligent design have campaigned to have it taught in U.S. public schools alongside the Darwinian theory of evolution. A requirement by the Dover, Pa., area school board that students be told that intelligent design represents an alternative explanation for the origin of life was challenged in federal court in 2005 and ruled unconstitutional.

Bibliography: See R. T. Pennock, ed., Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (2002).

- Interesting how it doesn't go into the concept of Allah creating the universe in such a way, only an unknown - persummed Christian God (although it can easily be interpretted as any other - though mostly monotheisic, God)

And now, I'd like to bring up the article for evolution:

evolution Print Digg del.icio.us
evolution concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.

History of Evolutionary Theory

Early Theories

Evolutionary concepts appeared in some early Greek writings, e.g., in the works of Thales, Empedocles, Anaximander, and Aristotle. Under the restraining influence of the Church, no evolutionary theories developed during some 15 centuries of the Christian era to challenge the belief in special creation and the literal interpretation of the first part of Genesis; however, much data was accumulated that was to be utilized by later theorists. With the growth of scientific observation and experimentation, there began to appear from about the middle of the 16th cent. glimpses of the theory of evolution that emerged in the mid 19th cent. The invention of the microscope, making possible the study of reproductive cells and the growth of the science of embryology, was a factor in overthrowing hampering theories founded in false ideas of the reproductive process; studies in classification (taxonomy or systematics) and anatomy, based on dissection, were also influential.

Linnaeus, in his later years, showed an inclination toward belief in the mutability of species as a result of his observations of the many variations among species. Buffon, on the basis of his work in comparative anatomy, suggested the influence of use and disuse in molding the organs of vertebrate animals. Lamarck was the first to present a clearly stated evolutionary theory, but because it included the inheritance of acquired characteristics as the operative force of evolution, his whole theory was ridiculed and discredited for many years.

Darwinism

Although special creation of each species was the prevalent belief even among scientists in the first half of the 19th cent., the evidence in favor of evolution had by that time been uncovered. It remained for someone to assemble and interpret the evidence and to formulate a scientifically credible theory. This was accomplished simultaneously by A. R. Wallace and Charles Robert Darwin , who set forth the concepts that came to be known as Darwinism . In 1859 appeared the first edition of Darwin's Origin of Species. The influence of this evolutionary theory upon scientific thought and experimentation cannot be overestimated. In the years following the promulgation of Darwin's theory of evolution, many accepted and many denied its validity.

The theory found an opposing force in some religious creeds that declared it incompatible with their basic tenets. For a time evolution, sometimes falsely interpreted as meaning human descent from monkeys rather than descent from an ancient and extinct ancestor, became a target for attack by both church and educational authorities. Feeling ran high even as late as the time of the Scopes trial . Nevertheless, the theory of evolution became firmly entrenched as a scientific principle, and in most creeds it has been reconciled with religious teachings. Some Christian fundamentalists, however, do not accept the theory and have striven to have biblical creationism taught in the schools as an alternative theory. (For the evolution of human beings, see human evolution .)

Modern Evolutionary Theory

Evolutionary theory has undergone modification in the light of later scientific developments. As more and more information has accumulated, the facts from a number of fields of investigation have provided corroboration and mutual support. Evidence that evolution has occurred still rests substantially on the same grounds that Darwin emphasized; comparative anatomy, embryology, geographical distribution, and paleontology. But additional recent evidence has come from biochemistry and molecular biology, which reveals fundamental similarities and relations in metabolism and hereditary mechanisms among disparate types of organisms. In general, both at the visible level and at the biochemical, one can detect the kinds of gradations of relatedness among organisms expected from evolution.

The chief weakness of Darwinian evolution lay in gaps in its explanations of the mechanism of evolution and of the origin of species. The Darwinian concept of natural selection is that inheritable variations among the individuals of given types of organisms continually arise in nature and that some variations prove advantageous under prevailing conditions in that they enable the organism to leave relatively more surviving offspring. But how these variations initially arise or are transmitted to offspring, and hence to subsequent generations, was not understood by Darwin. The science of genetics , originating at the beginning of the 20th cent. with the recognition of the importance of the earlier work of Mendel , provided a satisfactory explanation for the origin and transmission of variation. In 1901, de Vries presented his theory that mutation , or suddenly appearing and well-defined inheritable variation (as opposed to the slight, cumulative changes stressed by Darwin), is a force in the origin and evolution of species. Mutation in genes is now accepted by most biologists as a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory. The gene is the carrier of heredity and determines the attributes of the individual; thus changes in the genes can be transmitted to the offspring and produce new or altered attributes in the new individual.

Still prevalent misunderstandings of evolution are the beliefs that an animal or plant changes in order to better adapt to its environment—for example, that it develops an eye for the purpose of seeing—and that actual physical competition among individuals is required. Since mutation is a random process, changes can be either useful, unfavorable, or neutral to the individual's or species' survival. However, a new characteristic that is not detrimental may sometimes better enable the organism to survive or leave offspring in its environment, especially if that environment is changing, or to penetrate a new environment—such as the development of a lunglike structure that enables an aquatic animal to survive on land (see lungfish ), where there may be more food and fewer predators.

Bibliography

See D. S. Bendall, Evolution from Molecules to Men (1983); P. Calow, Evolutionary Principles (1983); J. H. Birx, Theories of Evolution (1984); V. Grant, The Evolutionary Process (1985); H. Baltscheffsky et al., ed., Molecular Evolution of Life (1987); A. M. Clark, Understanding Science through Evolution (1987); F. E. Poirier, Understanding Human Evolution (1987); G. Richards, Human Evolution (1987); C. J. Avers, Process and Pattern in Evolution (1989); R. J. Berry, Evolution, Ecology, and Environmental Stress (1989); J. Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time (1995); R. Fortey, Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth (1998); A. Jolly, Lucy's Legacy (1999); S. Jones, Darwin's Ghost: The Origin of Species Updated (2000); E. Mayr, What Evolution Is (2001); E. J. Larson, Evolution (2004); E. C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism (2004); M. Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (2005).

If anyone wants links to concepts and definitions inside this article, follow this link: Here

In my opinion, I think the word christian is used to loosely. And this topic is indirectly related to religion, but this is what this topic seems to be about ^_^

What is your defintion of Christianity (or rather, what do you think it should be defined as?)

 

[motherbrainrulez]

yet again sorry if this has been posted but we can not all be incest because it would mean we would never look any differnet
im not gonna explain but if were all incest we would look the same cos there would be no variations and the chromosomes wouldnt be different from one parent to another with no dominant and recessive genes

 

[n3gative3]

Well therein lies the problem. Let's say for a moment that Adam and Eve were Middle Eastern. Over time, even thousands of years there wouldn't really be any changes such as Caucasian, African, Asian, etc. Which is why evolution lends itself more readily to the various races on this planet.


Here is a list of transitional forms for you skeptics:

Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens

 

[Squall7]

Well therein lies the problem. Let's say for a moment that Adam and Eve were Middle Eastern. Over time, even thousands of years there wouldn't really be any changes such as Caucasian, African, Asian, etc. Which is why evolution lends itself more readily to the various races on this planet.


Here is a list of transitional forms for you skeptics:

Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens

Or in pictorial form:

Wait, there's more:

and finally, of Mario:

So, next time you think about "Does evolution really exist", just think of the Mario example to put you on the correct path!:hand:

 

[n3gative3]

The Mario thing was great but what the hell is up with the book comic. Evolution: Fairy tales... WTF?

 

[castlezelda]

Everyones still fighting over Evolution or Creation...thhink about it and track it down, if we were made by monkey's, why are there monkey still around today? Also if God does Exist which I'm sure he does, if god didn't exist then how did this world form? A monkey couldn't make this world. had to be God, as in Jesus or Johovah or Emmanual or whoever you want to call him.
I'm not saying to all this is right or wrong but How do you think that Charcles Darwin was right? Everyone in Darwin's day probably throught he was on crack generally speacking but darwin himself thought was right all along.

Who saids Science proves everything? Science doesn't proove heaven or hell,
why we sleep or why a awake, or why we die. Science doesn't prove that.
Science doesn't prove Whats really the direction of up or down, left or right all the directions could be the oposite from eachother anyway. So who saids science proves theres no God, no afterlife, no heaven or hell, right is right, left is left, down is down and up is up, who saids. Science was and is made by HUMAN's, and humans can be wrong