EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[OmarKhayyam]

God said it.
He believes it.
That settles it.

See how easy that was.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

A cat will never turn into a dog.
And a dog will never turn into a cat.
This is because God created a cat to be a cat
and a dog to be a dog.

LOL... It's a shame you ever dropped out of nursery.

 

[abilash81]

evolution is really true and it is proven one ealeam if you say if you dont belive then it shows your knowledge in science is very poor. all people in the world hinc;uding christians has accepted that.(because i say this evolution theory is against christian belief). look at your science knowledge

 

[Diederick]

evolution is really true and it is proven one ealeam if you say if you dont belive then it shows your knowledge in science is very poor. all people in the world hinc;uding christians has accepted that.(because i say this evolution theory is against christian belief). look at your science knowledge

"look at your language knowledge":sad4:

 

[Eddy Daze]

A naturalist said it, he belives it, that settles it.

A reason why athiests are fooling themselves, in the beginning all the world was aware that God existed, this meant that they had to obey the laws, someone came up with the idea of non-existence of the creator and tried out breaking God's laws, he enjoyed this and the cult of atheism has flourished ever since.

 

[painted wolf]

Not all scientists and naturalists are athiests Eddy...

Most of us just realize that god wouldn't lie to us by showing us one thing while telling us another.

wa:do

 

[Daemon Sophic]

A naturalist said it, he belives it, that settles it.

A reason why athiests are fooling themselves, in the beginning all the world was aware that God existed, this meant that they had to obey the laws, someone came up with the idea of non-existence of the creator and tried out breaking God's laws, he enjoyed this and the cult of atheism has flourished ever since.

In the beginning humans sought answers. Lacking the where-with-all to observe, hypothesize, and experiment..... they desperately fell to fantasies about gods of many forms for each unexplained aspect of nature.
Rulers among them exploited this by claiming divine favor, and punishing/killing those that disagreed. Eventually some weaker rulers allowed the creation of churches filled with priests (men who desired power but didn't have royal blood and/or armies to back them up). The churches underwent centuries of restructuring and (usually) hostile take-overs. This resulted in many cultures having monotheism ("Oh yeah? Well MY God is BIGGER than your god! So there!").
The rulers and the churches drew up the laws, and acted as enforcers over more centuries....often with the churches achieving more power, since their company and product tends to outlive singular royal bloodlines.

Recently, a few oppressed, but brave and enlightened individuals started to question the obvious gaps in the human-created fantasies about G(g)ods. ("Hey look! The sun and other stars don't orbit around us. We spin!") (Hey look! We are related to the other animals of the planet!)
Many of these enlightened souls were brutally killed for disagreeing with the church's lies. But a few got the attention of enough people by publishing their evidence, so that they could not be 'silenced'.
Thus agnosticism and science and credibility were born.

To rephrase Eddy's first statement. "A scientist said it, then backed it up with proof, it was tentatively accepted as a working theory, the search for truth continues...." FFY.

 

[slave2six]

Evolution is a theory.

By definition, a theory is a working solution that takes into consideration all the facts at hand. A theory is the sum of all the evidence once it is added together. A theory is not "a guess."

The "theory of evolution" has so much proven data to support it that there literally is no other viable alternative.

Conversely, the creation story cannot even be said to be a theory because it is not based on empirical evidence at all. Rather, it is a pre-supposed answer that hasn't a shred of evidence to support it.

Until you can come up with a better theory based on the evidence, any rational being will concede that life on this planet, that planets and stars themsevles, have evolved and continue to do so.

"Gravity" is a theory too. I defy you to prove that it is not real.

 

[slave2six]

Not all scientists and naturalists are atheists Eddy...

Most of us just realize that god wouldn't lie to us by showing us one thing while telling us another.

Well stated. That is perhaps the most concise explanation that I have ever heard. Can I borrow it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

A reason why athiests are fooling themselves, in the beginning all the world was aware that God existed, this meant that they had to obey the laws, someone came up with the idea of non-existence of the creator and tried out breaking God's laws, he enjoyed this and the cult of atheism has flourished ever since.

ToE does not equal atheism.


Eddy, you never answered my question.
Does the ToE in any way reduce your faith? Does the fact that evolution occurred make your faith any less?

 

[Diederick]

ToE does not equal atheism.


Eddy, you never answered my question.
Does the ToE in any way reduce your faith? Does the fact that evolution occurred make your faith any less?

Actually, I'd argue evolution was essential to Eddy having anything at all. A brilliant mind (compared to lesser animals) and let alone "faith".

 

[Eddy Daze]

The theory of evolution has no effect on my faith, my point is that if we examined automobiles and other vehicles in this manner (if we did not know from where they came) we would mistakenly deduce that they are all related , started from a single point, with a common ancestor along the way, instead of theorising that different moulds were used at different factories.

 

[themadhair]

my point is that if we examined automobiles and other vehicles in this manner (if we did not know from where they came) we would mistakenly deduce that they are all related , started from a single point, with a common ancestor along the way, instead of theorising that different moulds were used at different factories.

Unless you are implying that automobiles reproduce with inheritable variation then you must concede you are making an extremely stupid point. The word stupid may strike you as being harsh but consider what it is you are doing. Evolutionary theory is based around two key ideas – natural selection and genetic mutation – both of which have been studied and demonstrated in extreme depth through rigorous research. For you to use an analogy devoid of these two fundamental characteristics is being stupid.

And for the record, automobiles do NOT adhere to a nested hierarchy consistent with common descent in the way life does. That would seem to be a rather crucial point I would have thought.

 

[Diederick]

The theory of evolution has no effect on my faith,

I doesn't have any effect on it now, but what I said was that was VITAL for your faith to exist.

my point is that if we examined automobiles and other vehicles in this manner (if we did not know from where they came) we would mistakenly deduce that they are all related , started from a single point, with a common ancestor along the way, instead of theorising that different moulds were used at different factories.

And I'm not even going into this. A car is a tool, like a stick which can be used to masturbate with (as several primates do), it is not by a long shot as complex as a living organism - which couldn't possibly be conceived at once.

 

[Rough_ER]

There is also no evidence of half-evolved Ferraris buried deep in the strata. There's no genetic comparison to be made between a Nissan and a Ford. Cars also occupy basically the same niche, so it would be idiotic to assume that natural selection is at work. Natural selection never really allows superfluous organisms to exist because competition doesn't allow it. Infact, if cars had evolved, they would no doubt be several degrees of magnitude better than any of our feeble efforts. The blind watchmaker has more skill than we mere primates.

In summary: dude that's a bad analogy.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Ok the car analogy was too difficult for some to work with lets try self replicating robots, = a factory creates a thousand individual types , equips them with the wherewithall of adapting to environments and blasts them off to another planet, now what do you reckon the distant future scientists will conclude on this other planet? will they believe the story handed down by the robots over time, that they were individually created as set models or will they disregard this and make their own theory from the physical info they have? Well regards ToE the latter is happening, consider that the individual bots will have many comparable similarities in design , and will be using similar parts and materials from the planet they are inhabiting, so if the absolute truth is that the robots where created, which in this analogy it is, then no matter how deeply scientists study the body forms and history, they will always be wrong.

 

[themadhair]

Well regards ToE the latter is happening, consider that the individual bots will have many comparable similarities in design , and will be using similar parts and materials from the planet they are inhabiting, so if the absolute truth is that the robots where created, which in this analogy it is, then no matter how deeply scientists study the body forms and history, they will always be wrong.

Let me see where the above analogy breaks down:
No comparable fossil record like that on earth detailing the evolutionary origins.
No inheritable variation through reproduction like that of life.
No natural selection.
No vestigial remnants (like tail DNA, the vitamin C gene, olfactory genes ,etc. that humans still have but are deactivated).

It isn’t that your analogy was too difficult – it was that it was, and is, completely unrepresentative of the evidence used to validate evolutionary theory.

 

[Diederick]

Ok the car analogy was too difficult for some to work with lets try self replicating robots, = a factory creates a thousand individual types , equips them with the wherewithall of adapting to environments and blasts them off to another planet, now what do you reckon the distant future scientists will conclude on this other planet? will they believe the story handed down by the robots over time, that they were individually created as set models or will they disregard this and make their own theory from the physical info they have? Well regards ToE the latter is happening, consider that the individual bots will have many comparable similarities in design , and will be using similar parts and materials from the planet they are inhabiting, so if the absolute truth is that the robots where created, which in this analogy it is, then no matter how deeply scientists study the body forms and history, they will always be wrong.

It's quite simple. Life is made up of organisms, organisms have cells (where there is a difference between plant and animal cells) and that's not something we're going to recreate. If scientists landed on your hypothetical planet of robots, they'll find that these were designed, because they're not life and such constructs couldn't possibly just have magically appeared*. Besides, they'll probably have MADE IN CHINA imprinted on their chassis.

*of course, nothing can magically appear...

 

[painted wolf]

Well stated. That is perhaps the most concise explanation that I have ever heard. Can I borrow it?

Absolutely.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Ok the car analogy was too difficult for some to work with lets try self replicating robots, = a factory creates a thousand individual types , equips them with the wherewithall of adapting to environments and blasts them off to another planet, now what do you reckon the distant future scientists will conclude on this other planet? will they believe the story handed down by the robots over time, that they were individually created as set models or will they disregard this and make their own theory from the physical info they have? Well regards ToE the latter is happening, consider that the individual bots will have many comparable similarities in design , and will be using similar parts and materials from the planet they are inhabiting, so if the absolute truth is that the robots where created, which in this analogy it is, then no matter how deeply scientists study the body forms and history, they will always be wrong.

What is the mode of inheritance?
What is their phylogenic history? (this is the big clue that they are not like animals and thus a poor analogy)
Why do they have "made in china" stamped on their bottoms?

wa:do