View Poll Results: Do you reject evolution?

Voters
127. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 5.51%
  • No

    120 94.49%
Page 23 of 25 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 243

Thread: Do you reject evolution?

  1. #221
    Is Idiot Supreme
    Davo The Mavo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    11-08-17 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,999

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by sKiTzo View Post
    The meticulousness and precision of design that is demonstrated by what has gone into making it possible for you to read this post, and everything around and within and leading up to it. The only evidence of evolution we've seen does seem to prove that evolution happens, but to an extent. Hands and feet becoming webbed over a very long time is a good example.
    There has never been or never will be evidence that a one-celled organism "evolved" into nearly perfect machines of flesh that have eyes , ears, noses, beautiful vaginas and breasts, and can be occupied and lived in by us. At the same time, creationism , therefore, I arrive at only by process of elimination. What are YOU? Where does your soul fit into all of this if we are mere evolved matter? I'm agnostic, which means: I DON'T KNOW.
    All I can say is . . . I am no longer surprised by the replies pertaining to evolution. Bodhi asks a very simple question; "What makes Creationism believable?"
    The answer; "The meticulousness and precision of design . . .."
    Now, for the average reader, this answer would imply that the person answering believes in Creationism. Yet the very last sentence used in the reply is, "I'm agnostic, which means: I DON'T KNOW."
    Perhaps I am the one confused here . . . but I do not think so, because sKiTzo also believes in evolution, but only to a certain extent.

    So; evolution exists, but not as grand as the science says. God may or may not exist . . . but for sure, he, she, or the aliens created life, as proven by a process of elimination (screw science). Which means we eliminate all the repetitive observations & tests that lead to the generally accepted Theory of Evolution . . . it may as well be gravity . . . we all know that hasn't been proven either.

    Fossil record? It means nothing. Dating methods and rates of decay? Means nothing. Geology? Nothing. Molecular genetics and biology? Meaningless. Mitochondrial DNA, bottleneck, observation and testing are nothing when compared to "The only evidence of evolution we've seen . . .." And this coming from someone who isn't sure God exists, but we have souls, and creationism is more believable than science. Once again, is it I who is confused or you? I'm sorry, but if your reply was a person, it would be a walking contradiction.

  2. #222
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,948
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by sKiTzo View Post
    Of course you realize the "general scientific community" deliberately suppresses scientific data and therefore cannot be referenced. Why do they do it? We can speculate...... Is it to not ruffle the status quo? To simply not have to admit being wrong? I don't really care why, but I'm extremely pissed off about it and you should be too. We fund the research and we don't deserve to be hoodwinked on such a grand scale. Bastards.
    Seems to me that legitimate scientific observations and experimental results are incorporated even if they don't initially match the status quo.

    A fine example is the now generally accepted asteroid strike that extincted the dinosaurs.

    Before, there were a number of competing theories about what extincted the dinosaurs, pestilence, climate change among others. The Alverazes (father and son) discovered that the layer of deposited soil at the KT boundary contained an unusually high amount of Iridium, normally not found on the Earth, but prevalent in asteroids. This layer is present across wide areas on the Earth. Still not generally accepted at this point. Then the 100 mile wide impact crater was found off of the Yucatán peninsula below the ocean. These two things and probably some others, and now the asteroid strike is now generally accepted as what extincted the dinosaurs.

    Which scientific data are you asserting is being suppressed?

  3. #223
    Professor
    sKiTzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    OC California
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 01:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,213

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Prove it...
    It's not possible to prove either way. But if you take some time and study the plant and animal kingdom, particularly the intricacies of design that is evident in the functions of the human body, and its micro mechanisms that go on without you even knowing it, you find intelligent design, and if you are reasonable and rational in your thinking, you'll find it difficult to believe that a DNA "blueprint" of design was created by "random selection" or chance. How is a one-celled organism going to randomly select anything if it doesn't think? Randomly select what? Who offers the "selection" from which to choose from? Now do you see how ridiculous it sounds?

  4. #224
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,948
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by sKiTzo View Post
    Of course you realize the "general scientific community" deliberately suppresses scientific data and therefore cannot be referenced. Why do they do it? We can speculate...... Is it to not ruffle the status quo? To simply not have to admit being wrong? I don't really care why, but I'm extremely pissed off about it and you should be too. We fund the research and we don't deserve to be hoodwinked on such a grand scale. Bastards.
    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Seems to me that legitimate scientific observations and experimental results are incorporated even if they don't initially match the status quo.

    A fine example is the now generally accepted asteroid strike that extincted the dinosaurs.

    Before, there were a number of competing theories about what extincted the dinosaurs, pestilence, climate change among others. The Alverazes (father and son) discovered that the layer of deposited soil at the KT boundary contained an unusually high amount of Iridium, normally not found on the Earth, but prevalent in asteroids. This layer is present across wide areas on the Earth. Still not generally accepted at this point. Then the 100 mile wide impact crater was found off of the Yucatán peninsula below the ocean. These two things and probably some others, and now the asteroid strike is now generally accepted as what extincted the dinosaurs.

    Which scientific data are you asserting is being suppressed?
    Crickets.

  5. #225
    Is Idiot Supreme
    Davo The Mavo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    11-08-17 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,999

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by sKiTzo View Post
    It's not possible to prove either way. But if you take some time and study the plant and animal kingdom, particularly the intricacies of design that is evident in the functions of the human body, and its micro mechanisms that go on without you even knowing it, you find intelligent design, and if you are reasonable and rational in your thinking, you'll find it difficult to believe that a DNA "blueprint" of design was created by "random selection" or chance. How is a one-celled organism going to randomly select anything if it doesn't think? Randomly select what? Who offers the "selection" from which to choose from? Now do you see how ridiculous it sounds?
    Oh my. Our educational system has failed us all. Let me paraphrase; I don't know if God exists, but I'm pretty sure we were intelligently designed and we have souls. Let me be the first to inform you . . . your words indicate you believe in a higher power who gave us souls and intelligently designed us. YOU are not an agnostic.

  6. #226

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    What makes Creationism believable?
    what makes evolution believable? both are theoretical assumptions, but idea of god at least says what was before nothing. I believe god created the human and used evolution for it.
    Using Tapatalk

  7. #227
    Guru
    Ben K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,717

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    what makes evolution believable? both are theoretical assumptions, but idea of god at least says what was before nothing. I believe god created the human and used evolution for it.
    Why would evolution explain what "came before nothing"? It's not theoretical physics. It's a parsimonious explanation for the diversity of life, which every new piece of evidence has validated.

  8. #228
    Guru
    brothern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,187
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    what makes evolution believable? both are theoretical assumptions, but idea of god at least says what was before nothing. I believe god created the human and used evolution for it.
    What Ben K. said, but in addition:

    The theory of evolution is limited to the explanation of the diversity of life. How self-replicating organisms, through the combination of (1) random genetic inheritances and errors/mutations and (2) external environmental pressures ended up creating diverging populations of life forms.

    Pre- material existence or the creation of life (abiogenesis) are different subject areas all together.

    As a side-note, extinct hominid species like Neanderthals or homo erectus show that consciousness and self-awareness were not limited to modern day humans. Genetic comparisons seem to demonstrate that archaic humans mated with Neanderthals at one point. Even Great Apes, who our closest living relatives, show very limited forms (video) of what religions would call a "soul". You might have to fit that into your theory too.
    Last edited by brothern; 01-05-14 at 08:34 PM.
    Help fight Zika, TB, HIV/AIDs and water pollution by donating your CPU's excess processing time to scientific research.
    A self-serving billionaire engaging in historically massive personal corruption #NotMyPresident

  9. #229

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben K. View Post
    Why would evolution explain what "came before nothing"? It's not theoretical physics. It's a parsimonious explanation for the diversity of life, which every new piece of evidence has validated.
    so, it does not necessarily mean that religion is irrelevant. if the bible says that the God created the animals is it a denial of the evolution? I will assume hypothetically that god created the first cell of existence of each and every living creature and only after they evaluated. who is able to prove the opposite?
    Using Tapatalk

  10. #230
    Guru
    brothern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,187
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Do you reject evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    so, it does not necessarily mean that religion is irrelevant. if the bible says that the God created the animals is it a denial of the evolution? I will assume hypothetically that god created the first cell of existence of each and every living creature and only after they evaluated. who is able to prove the opposite?
    Empirical evidence nuances the Bible's story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis 1:25 (KJV)
    And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    In a sense all living things are the same "kind." Why else do you think scientist can take a gene from salmon and put it into a tomato to create a tomato better resistant to frost? Or create glowing mice using Jellyfish DNA? All living life (found so far) derives from a common ancestor and exists with similar enough genetic structures, that artificially inserted jellyfish's DNA can be read by the another species' cells and produce the florescent proteins.

    Even the term species is a bit loaded. If two organisms of different species have similar enough genetic codes & phenotypes, they can produce viable offspring. Lions and tigers in captivity can mate and produce non-fertile "Ligers." Dolphins and killer whales can produce "Wolphins." Or if you're willing, there's even biological circumstances like ring species. That's where Species A can produce viable offspring with Species B, B with C, C with D. It creates a continuum of species with each being able to interbreed with another species next to it in the chain.

    It's a straight up violation of "kind".

    Quote Originally Posted by Gensis 1:27
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    Even that is half-way disputed by observational evidence. I think it's something like 1% of live human births are intersex babies. That is babies that have a variety of both male and female characteristics. I'd link to pictures, but that would be way too graphic. It demonstrates that biological sex can be androgynous and is anything but clear-cut.

    Or, for example, why do men have nipples? All humans are phenotypically female at conception. Breasts start developing in humans before the male androgens kick in at weeks 6-8 of pregnancy. When the ancient Hebrews were writing Genesis, they didn't have the scientific knowledge to reflect this in their writings.
    Last edited by brothern; 01-05-14 at 09:25 PM.
    Help fight Zika, TB, HIV/AIDs and water pollution by donating your CPU's excess processing time to scientific research.
    A self-serving billionaire engaging in historically massive personal corruption #NotMyPresident

Page 23 of 25 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •