• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

Did we evolve from Apes?

  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 41 57.7%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    Votes: 10 14.1%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71
Nope. Try reading what was written, stop putting words in people's mouths. Just in case no one's told you, they notice.

Really?

You mean like the data the demonsrtates conclusively that hyracotherium, one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey, three distinct species?

That's what you wrote. It's a lie or a profound inability to comprehend what "conclusive evidence " is. We have strong evidence to suggest that this is the case, but without DNA evidence, it is pure conjecture.

No. Facts do not require defense. You need to show they're not facts.

Facts require proof. I never questioned the veracity of your "facts" so much as I question your capacity to make that judgment.

Guess what? Evolution is defined as the change in genome of a line of ornanisms over time. doesn't say how those changes have to occur.

Then why did you say you havd "conclusive evidence" of "mutations"?

You can't even follow what you yourself have written, how can you expect to follow what someone else has?

Since I'm not going to waste any more time reading your post, tell me, have you stated your theory of where species come from since you reject the proven science and facts of evolution by natural selection?

Why would I repeat myself simply because you are an idiot?
 
Tucker, as the matter of fact too many of enlightened evolutionists do not believe in natural selection. It comes from the undeniable observations and conclusions made on the base of laws discovered by Christian Creationist scientist Gregor Mendel. Enlightened evolutionists know that environment has nothing to do. So they try to plug evolution into the genetic drift and random mutations. Let’s say you and your wife are new species. You can eat only apples and survive in range of temperatures from 0F to 20F. If I feed you pears and raise T to 20.001F you will die. But as you reproduce you may get a great-grandson with a mutated, drifted genome which would allow him to withstand 20.001F. As Tuckers fill up the area there is an increasing chance that genetic drift and random mutations will produce a Tucker#200000154 pair that would digest pears as well as apples. As soon as other Tuckers run out of apples they die or migrate to another area when Tucker#200000154 pair keeps on reproducing and feeding on pears. Something like that. Just to let you know that only living in the most rural wilderness evolutionists believe in natural selection today. Just to make your choice of evolutions richer.

But choose your poison carefully, what tastes good for me may cause allergies for you.
 
Last edited:
You're talking a lot of **** for a guy who believes in maximum liberty. :confused:

Yes I believe in the privatization of education but that is not the reality as of right now. Unless you make enough to throw $10,000 at a private educator, or have enough time to home school your own child then public school is the only other option. I believe that when I have kids I will have them be educated at public schools and talked to them about what they learned and why it is or is not correct.

I was taught all kinds of bull through out public education and had to hear a lot of hard line socialist and Marxist opinion. I am not exaggerating, I had a history teacher in highschool that said Adam Smith make her sick and Communism is the greatest political theory. Then the history class after that I had a hard line socialist teacher who taught from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the US" and talked about how this or that service or product should be publicized and how the revenue should go to government social services. This system is bad enough, we do not need creationist fairytales also snuck into the curriculum alongside with Marxist and socialist fairytales.

Yes I would prefer that each school be private and decide their own curriculum and I choose the one that is science based and the market will choose those that have the proper education.
 
Last edited:
I break so feew rules that occasionally it's worth it to call someone what they are.



Again, why would I repeat myself?

Becuase when you're posting on a second forum you sometimes have to say what you said on the first one to show it to someone else?

Or, you can assume that hyper-intelligent persons such as myself don't waste their time wading through pseudo-scientific babble to see where your point is, since people posting such pseudo-scientific babble strongly resemble the people living in Nilsson's Land of Point, before Oblio came back from the Pointless Forest.

What you're really saying is you're afraid to concisely state your position because we'll laugh, aren't you? Well, if you are, you're right about that, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Becuase when you're posting on a second forum you sometimes have to say what you said on the first one to show it to someone else?

Or, you can assume that hyper-intelligent persons such as myself don't waste their time wading through pseudo-scientific babble to see where your point is, since people posting such pseudo-scientific babble strongly resemble the people living in Nielson's Land of Point, before Oblio came back from the Pointless Forest.

What you're really saying is you're afraid to concisely state your position because we'll laugh, aren't you? Well, if you are, you're right about that, anyway.

How 'bout this: Why don't you take an educated guess at what my views are? Show off that hyper-intelligence.
 
Let me guess....you're too embarassed about what you believe to tell us what you believe?

I've already stated what I believe in this thread numerous times.

Like I said, I'm not repeating myself.

Are you afraid to post an educated guess at what my views are for some reason?

You are sure that you'll laugh at them or that I'll be embarrassed, so that means you must have some theory as to what my beliefs are.

It won't kill you to share that theory. Worst case scenario is that you got it wrong. Big whoop.

If you actually get it right, I'll freely admit that you did get it right.
 
I've already stated what I believe in this thread numerous times.

Like I said, I'm not repeating myself.

If you've stated it numerous times, you've already repeated yourself, so one more time, in a concise post instead of those phone books you and justone have been posting, should do the trick.

Are you afraid to post an educated guess at what my views are for some reason?

If I put words in your mouth I'd have to be close enough to you to smell your breath.

So how about if you tell us, instead?

You are sure that you'll laugh at them or that I'll be embarrassed, so that means you must have some theory as to what my beliefs are.

No. A "theory" is a specificly formatted statement of formal scientific reasoning. I have a hypothesis. I'll not state it, for the reason I provided.

There's no need to do so anyway. You've already rejected the scientifically validated theory, so whatever it is you claim, you're wrong. So how about giving us a laugh?
 
If you've stated it numerous times, you've already repeated yourself, so one more time, in a concise post instead of those phone books you and justone have been posting, should do the trick.



If I put words in your mouth I'd have to be close enough to you to smell your breath.

So how about if you tell us, instead?



No. A "theory" is a specificly formatted statement of formal scientific reasoning. I have a hypothesis. I'll not state it, for the reason I provided.

There's no need to do so anyway. You've already rejected the scientifically validated theory, so whatever it is you claim, you're wrong. So how about giving us a laugh?

Amazingly, you haven't responded to a single post of mine where you haven't put words in my mouth due to the fact that you haven't comprehended what I've written. You have yet to address a single point of mine, but that's irrelevant to this point.

I'm not asking you to put words in my mouth. To do that you would have to say "You said __________". I'm asking you for your heretofore unstated beliefs. For a refresher on how this would look: "I believe that you bleive _______________". You would fill in the blanks with your theory (see definitions 2 and 6b).

As any idiot can see that you wouldn't be putting words in my mouth by stating your beliefs. Obviously you would just be stating your beliefs of my beliefs.

Sometimes it is better to educate by using an example, so allow me share MY theory of why you don't post your theory:

I believe that you are afraid that you might have to admit to an error. I think that you are afraid because that would show that maybe, just maybe, you have not understood any of my points. In your mind, this will make you weaker. But if I tell you my beliefs, and it turns out that your speculations were wrong, you can still have the out where you pretend that you thought that all along.


I feel that all the empirical data suggest that I am correct. You are dodging around more than an alter-boy trapped in a rectory, and the only logical conclusion I can draw from that is, like the alter-boy, you are fearful.



Now, what you can do to prove me wrong on my speculation above is easy. It should take no real effort at all. Just post what you think my beliefs are. It'll prove that you aren't afraid to be wrong.

Further avoidance of this request will only provide supporting evidence that I am indeed correct in my assessment of your fear.

I, on the other hand, have already shared my beliefs. Obviously that disproves your open speculation that I would be embarrased by my views. Obviously, if that were the case, they wouldn't be posted for all to see.

Clearly I am NOT fearful. The reasoning behind my refusal is quite simple. I know your bull**** game, and I'm not going to play it. We're playing my game or not at all.

P.S. You see what I did there? I posted my opinion of something and not once did I put words in your mouth! Ain't English grand?


P.P.S. I'm fairly certain that you won't take up the challenge. I'm also certain that you'll deny my speculation without taking the very simple step necessary to unequivocally prove me wrong. I'm putting myself out there for a reason. I'm not afraid to be wrong. In fact, I can tell you quite truly that I hope that I am wrong and that you will post your speculations about my views. That you can put yourself out there and risk being wrong about something. Sadly, I doubt that will be the case. But hey, I got no problems being wrong.
 
Last edited:
Amazingly, you haven't responded to a single post of mine where you haven't put words in my mouth due to the fact that you haven't comprehended what I've written. You have yet to address a single point of mine, but that's irrelevant to this point.

Actually, I've refused to put words in your mouth.

I've repeatedly asked you to state your position.

You've repeatedly refused.

I've scanned the rest of your post, you've failed, again, to post your views on what you believe causes speciation.

You've posted a lot of irrelevant gobbledy-gook, but you've not made a plain statement of belief.
 
Actually, it was the environment. Ain't no chimps living on the savannah. They went extinct in those areas. So it wasn't interspecies competition, it was merely environmental pressures culling out those least fit to survive.

Since when was that the argument? Go back to the claim, that Southern Democrat made.

The competition started in the JUNGLE. The humans could not compete, therefore MOVED to the SAVANNAH. There was no claim that the monkeys followed them.

If your reading comprehension hasn't failed you again, follow the logic. If the humans are now in a different environment BECAUSE of competition, BECAUSE they lost, then they are forced to adapt.

In other words, environmental pressures forced the species to compete, and therefore the catalyst for change is not environment, but competition.

It's always needed.

Suit yourself. The moment you realize you are wrong, the dumber you will look.
 
Since when was that the argument? Go back to the claim, that Southern Democrat made.

The competition started in the JUNGLE. The humans could not compete, therefore MOVED to the SAVANNAH. There was no claim that the monkeys followed them.

You must have missed the part where I pointed out that the savannah left the chimps, the chimps didn't leave the savannah.
 
Actually, I've refused to put words in your mouth.

I've repeatedly asked you to state your position.

You've repeatedly refused.

I've scanned the rest of your post, you've failed, again, to post your views on what you believe causes speciation.

You've posted a lot of irrelevant gobbledy-gook, but you've not made a plain statement of belief.

Thank you for proving my speculation regarding your fear correct.
 
You must have missed the part where I pointed out that the savannah left the chimps, the chimps didn't leave the savannah.

Your reading comprehension has failed, I suggest you re-read what I wrote because it's apparent that you don't even know what my argument is.

I have not claimed that the chimps followed to the Savannah. Read it again.
 
I've been thinking about this since this thread started. At the risk of being called an idiot, an ignorant redneck, and so on, I'm going to spell out my exact beliefs on this subject for anyone who cares to know.

There are many possible approaches to the question of origins. I think it divides primarily into two divisions:

1. A method that excludes any consideration of God, declines to entertain any speculation on a Creator, and assumes all events and processes are the result of "natural" phenomena, environmental pressures, random chance, etc. No allowance for any sort of guiding intelligence whatsoever.

2. Beginning with the assumption of a creator God, or at least an allowance for the possiblity of such a being's existence and involvement.

If you do not believe in God at all, and refuse to entertain the possibility of God's existence, then you will probably consider me a fool and might as well skip the rest of the post. If you are fully in the "position 1" school of thought, you will probably believe the theory of evolution is the only logical explantion and be incredulous that anyone but a fool might think otherwise. I am not a fool (my IQ is 125), nor am I ignorant (college educated in a technical field), but I do not believe in an evolution whose guiding principle is random chance and blind nature.

In these sorts of discussions, I often hear arguments saying "How could God have _____, that's against the laws of thermodynamics!", "God could not have _________, because radiocarbon decays at Y rate and..."

The problem with these arguments, IMO, is they assume a very small and weak "god", who is bound by the laws of physics.

What is God, in concept? I conceive of a Creator God thus:
A being whose existence is beyond space and time, eternal and infinite.
A being as far beyond our level of existence as we are beyond an ant.
A being who created, not merely the Earth, but the Universe...who set Time in motion, who created the laws of physics and is therefore not bound by them. He was here before the Universe and will be here after it is gone.
A being, in sum, who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnisapient.
Time, Space and the supposed "laws" of physics dance in the palm of his hand at his whim.
God's only true constraints are his own Will, and his own Word.

Scientists, excluding God from their conclusions, look at the fossil record and geological strata and say, "all this took 4.5 billion years, through natural processes and random chance."
I imagine God looking over their shoulder, smiling, and saying "Well, it was only six days to me, but Time is just another tool in my toolbox."

I don't claim to understand all the details. It is simply that the God I believe in is a "Big God", and the capacity to do all these things I call "creation" and scientists call "evolution" does not strain my belief at all.

I don't get overly excited, worrying about "young Earth" vs "Old Earth" or "Intelligent Design" vs "Creationism", or whether the "six days" were literal or symbolic. Regardless of the method, or the time scale, I know who was in control throughout the process.... because I begin from the position of believing in a God who could do all these things in whatever manner suited him.

My position is based on a belief. I consider the first position, the position of naturalistic random evolution excluding a Creator, is also a belief system...because, just as my belief begins with the assumption of God's existence, secular evolutionism also begins with an assumption: the assumption that "there is no God" or that God was not involved in the origins and development of the existing world.

I don't expect my position to be well-received among most of the people posting in this thread, and that is fine. I felt the need to spell it out and did so; if you wish to call me a fool for what I believe then so be it.

G.
 
I've been thinking about this since this thread started. At the risk of being called an idiot, an ignorant redneck, and so on, I'm going to spell out my exact beliefs on this subject for anyone who cares to know.

There are many possible approaches to the question of origins. I think it divides primarily into two divisions:

I think this is your own personal dichotomy... No point in trying to expanding it into anything greater than that.

1. A method that excludes any consideration of God, declines to entertain any speculation on a Creator, and assumes all events and processes are the result of "natural" phenomena, environmental pressures, random chance, etc. No allowance for any sort of guiding intelligence whatsoever.

Perhaps saying that all events and processes are results of natural phenomena, environmental processes is an assumption, but it's a totally unchallenged one at this point, and no more of a stretch of the imagination than assuming that the sun will rise in the morning.

2. Beginning with the assumption of a creator God, or at least an allowance for the possiblity of such a being's existence and involvement.

I certainly allow for the possibility of such a beings existence, but I don't feel quite at home in this group... Doesn't feel like a very fair dichotomy to me. :2razz:

I do not believe in an evolution whose guiding principle is random chance and blind nature.

Why not?


Scientists, excluding God from their conclusions

If they included God in their calculations, they wouldn't be scientists, they'd be theologians... God's not particularly scientific at this point.

I imagine God looking over their shoulder, smiling, and saying "Well, it was only six days to me, but Time is just another tool in my toolbox."

Why do you imagine this?


I don't get overly excited, worrying about "young Earth" vs "Old Earth" or "Intelligent Design" vs "Creationism", or whether the "six days" were literal or symbolic. Regardless of the method, or the time scale, I know who was in control throughout the process.... because I begin from the position of believing in a God who could do all these things in whatever manner suited him.

I understand the nature of the God you believe in, and His powers. But how do you know this; that is, why do you feel you know this; that is, from whence does your faith, your beliefs, stem?

I'm not attacking your belief or anything, I'm just curious.

My position is based on a belief. I consider the first position, the position of naturalistic random evolution excluding a Creator, is also a belief system...because, just as my belief begins with the assumption of God's existence, secular evolutionism also begins with an assumption: the assumption that "there is no God" or that God was not involved in the origins and development of the existing world.

It seems foolhardy to equate the assumption that there is a God and He created all that there is with the assumption that things progressed the way they did based on this evidence we see here and this evidence we see here.

I'll get into this bit more, but it's dinnertime, and dinnertime waits for no student. Except those with Ramen.


Duke
 
Goshin said:
I do not believe in an evolution whose guiding principle is random chance and blind nature.

Why not?

Because I look at the incredible interconnected complexity of the world around me and see purpose, not chance. It's a matter of perspective, and if you don't see it that way, I don't see how I can make you understand why I do. If you don't... well, you don't. To me it seems very obvious.


I understand the nature of the God you believe in, and His powers. But how do you know this; that is, why do you feel you know this; that is, from whence does your faith, your beliefs, stem?

I'm not attacking your belief or anything, I'm just curious.

My belief, my faith, is something that has grown over the course of a lifetime. Explaining why I have that faith would take a lifetime to tell, in full. In brief, I have experienced far too many things in life that cause me to believe there has to be a God; and many years of reading the Bible, being an observer of human nature, and of life and history, nature and so much more, led me to the conclusion that God is the God of the Bible. I've experienced things that demand these conclusions. Trying to explain it is a bit like trying to explain love to someone who has never felt it. I cannot prove it scientifically as it is not a scientific issue, but rather a spiritual and personal issue.


It seems foolhardy to equate the assumption that there is a God and He created all that there is with the assumption that things progressed the way they did based on this evidence we see here and this evidence we see here

If you were viewing the issue from my perspective you might think otherwise. From within the context of my own life-experiences, I find the existence and omnipresence of God as self-evident as the rising of the sun. If you don't, then fair enough, you just don't.

If you don't share my beliefs, then you don't.... my beliefs do not require you to agree, don't depend on anyone else's agreement, don't sway because someone questions or ridicules them, or because the majority feels otherwise.

I felt a spiritual conviction to express my beliefs on this subject; I have done so. I don't necessarily expect anyone to openly agree with me, since few will risk the ridicule that usually follows from those holding to "position 1".

For the politeness and courtesy of your response, Duke, I thank you. It was a better reaction than I expected to encounter.

G.
 
Thank you for proving my speculation regarding your fear correct.

Then again, I'm merely waiting for you, or even any other fool rejecting the proven science of evolution, to state what they do believe happened.

You have some moral objection to posting jokes or something?
 
Your reading comprehension has failed, I suggest you re-read what I wrote because it's apparent that you don't even know what my argument is.

I have not claimed that the chimps followed to the Savannah. Read it again.

Yes, you need reading training.

I didn't say you said the chimps followed anything.

I'd say read it again and you'll figure it out, but you won't.

But read it again, anyway, you've got nothing better to do, obviously.
 
I've been thinking about this since this thread started. At the risk of being called an idiot, an ignorant redneck, and so on, I'm going to spell out my exact beliefs on this subject for anyone who cares to know.

The problem with your position being merely one:

You don't have a shred of evidence to support it. It's a feeling that rejects solidly grounded research in exchange for personal emotional satisfaction.
 
Back
Top Bottom