I personally believe that evolution explains wonderfully the diversity of life and how we all share a common ancestor with every living thing on Earth. I change my beliefs to fit the evidence as I'm sure most of you reading this do as well. In that case, why is evolution so vehemently rejected in the face overwhelming evidence? I'd love to hear different thoughts and perhaps clear things up if you may not understand it entirely. Now I am far from an evolutionary biologist but I understand the basics and the processes required to make it happen and would love to help clear up any confusion.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
To truly understand and accept the concepts of Evolution, One must relinquish ideas like the first woman was created by a guys rib.
People take their books literally and therefore cannot imagine human origins beginning any other way.
I have a scientific formulation that will allow someone to prove their existence as an INTELLIGENT BEING EXISTING in the UNIVERSE in TIME, the continuum.
You exist, but INTELLIGENT existence must be proven;
TIME is; Physical measure of SPACE occupied by
material MATTER existing in TIME, the continuum.
You, are a fixed point in TIME, the continuum.
OBJECTIVE REALITY is REQUIRED and I have claimed it as my intellectual property.
4 requirement to prove INTELLIGENT EXISTENCE or just exist.
1 a fact of living
2 a fact of objective reality
3 a state of living
4 a state of objective reality
all 4 must exist due to etymology of the words existence and being.
Intellectual property of MICHAEL ALAN CHAPMAN CHAPMAN Metaphysics
A tad bit off topic, but Thanks for the contribution time man. Maybe you'll have that aha moment one day.
That is 100 crackpot points right there!
Not sure I would yet subscribe to a single common ancestor but the concept of evolution works for me otherwise.
Heepin Bell,
All animals are just specialized worms in different bodies. The worm is the digestive track. Humans still retain brain cells of theirs.
Christians base their efforts to debunk evolution on a very simplistic misunderstanding of the theory. Species A leads to Species B to Species C.... I don't think it's that linear. Species D might reunite with Species B and produce Species E. Species B might disappear leaving A, C and D to carry on.
Also, they seem to think that the emergence of Species B occurs when Species A goes extinct. That's why they ask why apes still exist if humans descended from them. A species can get split up by a geological event, such as the separation of Gondwanaland. Each branch then continues to evolve independently.
I also think the fact that all life on Earth is based DNA points to a single common origin.
Christians claim that because our knowledge of evolution is incomplete, the entire theory must be false. Evolutionary science has a history of only 160 years or so. The evidence is scattered and often subtle, but there is already enough evidence to show that the theory is valid, including fossils, taxonomy, and genetics. Religions have been going for millennia, and so far they have not produced a single item of concrete evidence of anything.
Creationists also conflate evolution with the origin of life, or abiogenesis. Evolution is the theory of how life changes, not how it began. They mock abiogenesis on the grounds that the odds are vanishingly remote, often quoting some astromonically vast probability equation that they've plucked out of the air. In fact chemical reactions with the potential to trigger life were happening throughout Earth's primal oceans for millions of years. It's like a lottery. If you buy one ticket one time your chances of winning are tiny. If you buy a million tickets every day for a million years, sooner or later you'll hit the jackpot.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
They also cite the incomplete fossil record (together with their misconceptions around transitional species and bizarre micro/macro evolution distinction) as conclusive proof of THEIR religion. Its very odd. They're great pranksters, cause it hurts my head SOOO much. And I don't see an end to it...we must be faulty for this to persist. Whoever oversees quality control of humans is failing. No wait....
1. Christians do not try to debunk evolution. Some christians do, not all. Charles Darwin was a christian. He parents were christain. His wife was christian. His teachers at university were christian. He had no fight with the chruch, nor did the church have any fight with him. When he died he was honored by the church by being buried in Westminster Abby.
2. many of the greats in the history of science were theists - so your claim that they "have not produced a single item of concrete evidence of anything" is flawed.
3. Atheists who believe the theory of evolution, and or abiogenesis disproves the existence of a creator God are in the grip of flawed thinking.
Lots of people feel they must defend creation against evolution. Soon as you admit evolution the cracks really begin to show in other parts. That the earth is more than 6000 years old, that god did not create us in his image, but instead had us evolve to it?
Then of course admitting that the solar system is 5 billion years old, give credence that the universe is 14 billion years old, why did god take such an interest for only 1-2 centuries in one small part of the earth in one incredibly small part of the universe?
Opens up a big can of worms that really makes the fragile (because its not true) house of cards fall apart.
What christians and jews and muslims do not understand is that even if Evolution was proven to be wrong tomorrow, that would say nothing about the god claims theists make.
MCD,
The Bible mentions evolution.
Wisdom 19:18-19 (CEB) = "18 If we are careful to observe events, we can see just how the elements of the universe are transformed. It’s the same transformation that happens when someone changes the sounds that a harp makes by changing the key while continuing to play the same melody. 19 In this way, land animals were changed into underwater creatures, while animals that swam in the waters now moved onto the land."
My biggest irritation is the Christian that wants to say God is responsible for evolution. Like the book about creating man and then all the animals (or the other way around depending on which scripture you read) was just a story for our simple minds, but you should believe even though the Christian just told you God lies.
I cannot even contemplate how a person can think like that.
Evolution takes the place of creation myths for me. Awe inspiring it is.
Evolution doesn't really get to the heart of the matter in terms of beliefs about origins.
And speaking of matter, what do you think was the origin of material? Did it always exist? Did it create itself?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40384471
Evidently, we must be monkeys to believe this absurd idea. Funny thing about that; last time I asked a monkey if it thought evolution was a truth the answer was unintelligible. I'm torn now. Oh, the melodrama borne of illiteracy during our evolution. I suppose now I must ascribe to Erdoganism if personal pride is to be salvaged.
I don't understand why there is any debate about evolution. Science has proven beyond a doubt that evolution is a fact. The only people that question evolution are brainwashed and uneducated. We can trace through DNA our lines to the most simple of living creatures. We no the separation points from where we branched off. Pitar's statement about monkeys is just stupid. If you don't believe in evolution, you prove that you refuse to be educated, and if you have a degree it should be immediately vacated. I'll go further. If you believe in a god without any proof your degree should be vacated and you should not be put in any situation of responsibility. Belief in anything without any shred of evidence is incompetent and irresponsible. It is proof that you don't have the mental capability to be responsible.
I agree, even though I do not think the idea of stripping anyone with a degree because they ascribe to a religion. Even the pope has said evolution is a thing now, (he just gives god credit for it.)
Obviously vacating anyone's degree because they believe in a religion is a bridge to far, but in my mind, someone that adamantly talks about their faith and defends it, is a brainwashed idiot that hides from the truth when it is convenient to them.
The casual religious follower that is religious only in name, and rarely if ever talks about it or does any church related activity, is just being ignorant to the awful history nearly every major religion represents.
To me it is a bit like slavery in the US 200 years ago. The slave owners were obviously the worst, and those that helped to enforce slavery, but the rest of the people in that era that did not have slaves or mistreat people, were obviously way better, but by not doing anything, they were in a way, complicit to the horrors of slavery.
Please, stop the name calling, all the names.. Let me explain something scientifically to you and I want you to prove me wrong scientifically .
Religion is science, science is religion. Philosophy of GOD the creator, is the study of natural order.
Natural Law, identified by NEWTON is Natural Law God's Law.
Sir Isaac Newton wrote far more words and documents on God and existence than he did on Natural Philosophy.
Sir Isaac Newton was a FANATICAL GOD FEARING MAN, studying God for months on end.
Newton was not a scientist, he was a Natural Law Philosopher.
His mentor was Galileo.
Galileo was a FANATICAL GOD FEARING MAN.
Galileo was a Natural Law Philosopher.
His famous quote " The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."
Both men are smarter and have contributed more to modern science than "Modern Science" has.
Are you calling Newton and Galileo brainwashed idiots that hide from the truth.
I am telling you right now you better wake up to the truth, scientifically presented or you just exist.
I am a PHYSICAL TANGIBLE PHYSICIST.
PSYCHICAL ABSTRACT theories are not testable nor provable using PHYSICAL TANGIBLE science.
Einsteins two theories, General and Special are PSYCHICAL ABSTRACT thoughts that are not testable.
A theory that is not testable is not a theory.
I can account for space time and matter, Einstein and Hawkins can't.
The Big Bang theory is not reality, its abstract intangible dreams. You live in a SCI FI world of Einsteins, RELATIVITY.
Etymology of the word EXISTENCE precludes you from being intelligent, Objective reality is required and I posses it. I put you in a box buddy with my formulation. Use your brain and science to get out of it.
Both have been extensively tested.
Those tests are controlled, with parameters, set variables, known variables that are set, that is repeatable, that is conclusive, and certain? Please, not one is known. You cannot conduct correct scientific inquiry with methodology like that, NEWTON is spinning like a ATOMIC bomb ready to blow watching modern man. It is disgusting the level of professional peer review that is done, Grant money of TRILLIONS of dollars will be in jeopardy. The truth hurts, so people ignore it. Its hard to study for 35 years straight, but it can be done. Do it.
Maybe you should check this out: tests of special relativity.
As long as there is not significant gravitation? Are you testing in a vacuum? Sir, we do not have the controls set or established to study earth, and Global warming, let alone the universe. Look up the BEST theory buy Mueller, from Berkeley. You will see scientists disagree about controls of smaller tests. Albert Einstein studied people who do not believe in reason or logic. Study him and you will be ignorant too. To ignore is the root of ignorance. I've done my studying and have presented a scientific formulation that has and can be proven. I've done my accounting. Account for yourself whether your intelligent or just existing.
Science can not be used to prove anything; science is used to make predictions which you can then test; that is all.
Science can be used to prove things. But science requires retesting, as an repeatable experiment. Therefore there is no settled science, it never settles, it tests, retests and then concludes. If needed, retest again. You do not even understand the definition and meaning of two words. Existence and being. Use ETYMOLOGY to study them if you are intelligent. I wouldn't be talking to you to explain that if you were.
Instead of decreeing that it can; why don't you give us an example?
A provable test, of science. If I drop you from a 200 foot high bridge you will hit the ground below . That is 100 percent certain. Repeatable, re testable and it is not just a theory, it is physically tangibly observable as someone scoops up your body and takes it away. Its my Objective Reality functioning as described by Sir Isaac Newton .Are you aware of your surroundings? Stay away from tall bridges is my sound scientific advice.
The past does not prove the future. What worked yesterday is not proof it will work tomorrow.
"Are you testing in a vacuum?"
Just where do you think the GPS satellites are? You know, the ones that make your phone know where it is. That system is in vacuum in space and must be corrected for effects of special relativity.
Pages