fromthe heart
Well-Known Member
I would never say anyone should stop trying to find out for themselves...just that I accept creation as MY fact...I don't claim you should do anything other than follow your own heart in what you believe.meogi said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
- Thread starter croak
- Start date
- Status
Even with all the problems evolution might have as a theory, the evidence on the whole so overwhelmingly favors evolution that I have to wonder whether the critics of evolution have actually studied evolution, or have instead only studied criticisms of evolution.
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
There is no "my fact". Fact is independant of one's wishes, and esists with or without onlookers's. You mean that creation is your opinion, just as I believe that evolution, and a natural beginning of life is true. I believe this, but I also believe in "Gods", of a sort. I know that we don't know either of these are true, for a fact, that is why they are opinions.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
I certainly do. If I followed my heart in what I believed, I'd probably be believing in Ceridwen's Magical Castle of Many Wonders, where the fuglyploofs thrive and give free rides on Wednesdays. Not pretty, is it?
fromthe heart
Well-Known Member
I understand your point....then in this given case...my opinion...betterDruidus said:
?
No matter what the objections to evolution, the "more reasonable" alternative proposed is creation by magic by an omnipotent, invisible personage. Creationists hold that many of the observed features of biology are statistically improbable, and then propose magic as a more reasonable alternative.
Magical creation does not address mechanism and, usually, denies any change over time.
Evolution is a description of the mechanism of change over time. It does not deal with
who, only with how.
Magical creation does not address mechanism and, usually, denies any change over time.
Evolution is a description of the mechanism of change over time. It does not deal with
who, only with how.
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
and in the end, we remain with only ... one couple of variations of the same species.the fly.not that it was a natural mutation, but yes, we've created two variations of flys in our labs, which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that we can create two variations of flys in our labs.not that there was an increase in the complexity of the life at hand, we don't neeeeed that to prove evolution...Druidus said:
back to the question at hand....
yes.
rather broad question, no?
Good post, HelpMe. Do you have a link?
Any farmer or animal breeder will aknowledge that selective breeding (human manipulated Darwinian selection) can produce changes in a breed line. Once you aknowledge the posibility of change then you've shot down the whole contention of creationists that even in the event that change does occur it can't produce a whole new species. If an offspring differs from the parent, no matter how small the difference, given sufficient generations an entirely new organism must needs be produced.
Of course, if you maintain that the world is only 9,000 years old you could, I suppose, logically contend that not enough time has elapsed for special change to have occurred.
Any farmer or animal breeder will aknowledge that selective breeding (human manipulated Darwinian selection) can produce changes in a breed line. Once you aknowledge the posibility of change then you've shot down the whole contention of creationists that even in the event that change does occur it can't produce a whole new species. If an offspring differs from the parent, no matter how small the difference, given sufficient generations an entirely new organism must needs be produced.
Of course, if you maintain that the world is only 9,000 years old you could, I suppose, logically contend that not enough time has elapsed for special change to have occurred.
jewscout
Religious Zionist
Evolution is still a theory though it is the one that has the most evidence in its support. Evolution is not 100%, but then again, coming from a purely historical background, nothing in the past can be truely reconstructed to a 100% accuracy, even if you eye witness it. All we can do is examine the evidence and make educated observations about the material at hand and attempt, in one way or another, to "reconstruct" what might have happened.
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
a link for what?you click the word 'frubals' above my frubal meter, that's how you do it.
a change or slightly differing offspring from the parents does not prove a new species.neither does the fruit fly experiment.i maintain the human species is between 6 and 7k years old.if this was a thread about carbon dating, i would offer more reason.i also believe the 'bible' does not specify an age for the planet.it took a few hundred or thousand flys 35 generations to have noticably differed structures right(however scientifically induced they may of been).what is taking humans so long to just have one?how many generations have we seen go by in the last few thousand recorded years?
a change or slightly differing offspring from the parents does not prove a new species.neither does the fruit fly experiment.i maintain the human species is between 6 and 7k years old.if this was a thread about carbon dating, i would offer more reason.i also believe the 'bible' does not specify an age for the planet.it took a few hundred or thousand flys 35 generations to have noticably differed structures right(however scientifically induced they may of been).what is taking humans so long to just have one?how many generations have we seen go by in the last few thousand recorded years?
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
HelpMe, your outlook is incredibly narrow. Humans, and most other species of animals, save those such as fruit flys who can produce new generations every two weeks, need millions of years, not thousands, to show noticable change in their species.
However, humans have changed in the past couple thousands of years. The average height of humans is taller today than it was in the past.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I think that the differences in the races is a good indication that humans have changed from our origien. If a few generations can produce such variety in skin tone and hair and height and build imagine what would have happined or will happin in a few more million.
One reason we change so slowly is that we interbreed freely. Small isloated popuations produce genetic change most quickly. An example of this is the Kentucky blue people.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/fugate.html
change happins. We do not get speciation in humans because we eventually find such populations and bring them into the genepool.
wa:do
One reason we change so slowly is that we interbreed freely. Small isloated popuations produce genetic change most quickly. An example of this is the Kentucky blue people.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/fugate.html
change happins. We do not get speciation in humans because we eventually find such populations and bring them into the genepool.
wa:do
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
goodness.skin tone...
i am curious to how you use the non-benificial mutations of this isolated group and mention them in the same breath as the fruit fly experiment.tell me all about the benefits of this isolated group.
interbreeding actually makes for better offspring genetically.so i'm very curious as to how you use this against our evolving.
i am curious to how you use the non-benificial mutations of this isolated group and mention them in the same breath as the fruit fly experiment.tell me all about the benefits of this isolated group.
interbreeding actually makes for better offspring genetically.so i'm very curious as to how you use this against our evolving.
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
No... It makes for a better gene pool, not nescessarily better offspring. When organism are seperated, by any sort of barrier, the organism seperated from the mainstream is likely to become different than that mainstream population. It's called radial evolution, I believe. The blue skin, while not appearing beneficial, may, actually have had beneficial side effects. Certainly, it would have made them stand out, and be more prominant. Perhaps it was beneficial for mating, more alluring...
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Don't you see, HelpMe? That's just the point! Evolution works on the basis of cause and effect. The cause was that better nutrition was made available. The effect was that we were able to start growing taller. Did you honestly think that evolution just happened for no reason?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
skin tone is very important in humans... just go stand in the equitorial sun uncovered for a few hours. skin tone is an bennificial mutation to the UV radiation recieved by the native population.
check out: http://backintyme.com/Essay021215.htm
I never said that all changes were benificial, you clamed that humans don't change and I disproved that. Truth be told most benificial mutations in modern humanity are genetic. They include increased resistance to heart disease in those whit the mutation, increased resistance to AIDS, Malaria and various other illnesses.
more here: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
wa:do
check out: http://backintyme.com/Essay021215.htm
I never said that all changes were benificial, you clamed that humans don't change and I disproved that. Truth be told most benificial mutations in modern humanity are genetic. They include increased resistance to heart disease in those whit the mutation, increased resistance to AIDS, Malaria and various other illnesses.
more here: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
wa:do
Ark
Member
There was of course an evolutionary process on the planet, but far from the type theorized by Darwin and others.
The important matter behind "creationism" is with regard to Salvation. It has to do with the fact that a human is not the epitomy of him/herself...that there is a divine sense and existence which is not possible to fully attain in the adverse geo-physical properties of this planet.
Anyone else find it amazing that people once lived several hundred years...yet many today appear perfectly content with their short existences? That the matter of eternal life appears to many as no more than a hope bandage for the hopeless?
The important matter behind "creationism" is with regard to Salvation. It has to do with the fact that a human is not the epitomy of him/herself...that there is a divine sense and existence which is not possible to fully attain in the adverse geo-physical properties of this planet.
Anyone else find it amazing that people once lived several hundred years...yet many today appear perfectly content with their short existences? That the matter of eternal life appears to many as no more than a hope bandage for the hopeless?
- Status