Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Maringue]

Just in case you wanted to know what the miss America contestants thought.
Oh, and I love how 90% of them relate the word "belief" to evolution, like somehow belief in evolution is equivalent to belief in creationism. Sorry lady, you can choose to believe the facts or not, but they are still the facts. You can teach creationism if you want just not in a science class, because you know what gets taught in a science class? Shit with a testable hypothesis, end of list.

[HibiscusKazeneko]

Those contestants are from Miss USA, not MIss America.
Teaching only creationism is a violation of separation of church and state. Despite this, Focus on the Family has been bankrolling legislation to force Christian ideologies into public school curricula. These over-plasticized bimbos don't seem to get that (and are probably paid to not say anything).

[stanley]

i like how one of them says that its "just a theory"...

[Maringue]

i like how one of them says that its "just a theory"...

Yeah, my thought when she said that, "You mean like gravity is, 'just a theory; you dumbass."

[Spyder]

I don't see why not.

But you probably shouldn't pose this question to these dumb brawds; they couldn't distinguish their right hand from their left.

[Techercizer]

To be fair, there's a lot of pressure on these contestants when these questions are sprung on them; a lot of people would trip over their words and wind up sounding like a moron under that sort of spotlight.

[HibiscusKazeneko]

To be fair, there's a lot of pressure on these contestants when these questions are sprung on them; a lot of people would trip over their words and wind up sounding like a moron under that sort of spotlight.

That and these responses were most likely written for them and they were expected to memorize them. I suck at memorizing things on short notice; they most likely have the same problem.

[Guy]

No.

I can't believe they are trying to get scientists/teachers creationism.
Don't those tards even know what science is or stands for?

I should come up with a shitty idea too on how everything came to pass with no proof or logic.

*clears throat* I believe that whatever this dusty book says and it says we are all made of llama shit and that earth is a giant llama testicle.
Now I am going to push have that taught to children and college students... in science classes.

[Harri]

I liked the comment "We are smarter than ever."

[HibiscusKazeneko]

I liked the comment "We are smarter than ever."

Yeah, considering where it's coming from I'm a little scared for out future as a species.

[Seven]

I do not believe in the slighest in evolution. I am a Christian and a Creationist (Yes, there IS a difference. Christians can be evolutionists. My college science teacher was and he's got a PhD.) and believe that there being a "God" in the creation of who we are is completely and absoutely believeable. In my opinion, evolution AND creationism should be taught in schools because creationism doesn't necessarily HAVE to refer to the "Christian God." What do Hinduists and other monotheistic or polytheistic religions believe? Some may believe in creationism and others may believe in evolution.

Either way, creationism is, in my opinion, the only credible explanation for the way we humans are today. As my Pastor at church said once, "If evolution exists, then women would have grown 5 arms." While this was both a joke and something for someone to think about, he DOES bring up a point. If humans really are evolving, we would have seen something like this. Anyways, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm a Christian and as such, I'm standing up for what I believe to be true.

I'm open to discussion, but if anyone chooses to start trolling or using vulgar language and begin being immature about this, I will have this topic locked. Let's be mature about this and be gentlemen/ladies about this.

[Toaster]

Evolution is a fact, what you choose to believe in is your prerogative.

[Jake]

There should be a basic understand of the fundamentals of a concept before it's taught to anyone, school children or graduate students, it should make no difference. Our understanding of the creation of all things is predicated on our ability to observe the events or our deduction of the effects that those events have had on what's presently observable.

Regardless of what god or being is said to have created everything, by implying that one did, it would also imply that we have some understanding of that being even if that understanding is simply intrinsic to the event that was creation.

Our creation is one without facts or evidence. Evolution has occurred. There is no debate of this among the vast majority of the scientific community. One has nothing to do with the other, evolution does not attempt to explain how the star dust that we are comprised of came into effect; it doesn't speak to the birth of the unimaginably dense energy that subsequently expanded to create our and every other universe.

To understand ones own self, and therefor ones own creation is like someone trying to bite their own teeth. The simple fact that we did not exist prior to our creation makes impossible for us to observe it. A god or being has not with empirical evidence shown himself to exist in recorded history. Until that happens, no one should tell anyone the contrary.

If you want to teach a curriculum explaining our existence, it should not take place in science but in philosophy. It is a concept much too abstract to debate in a world of observable events and fact. I think the question "where did we come from?" is one of the healthiest a person can consider but we have to be careful not to mix ideals and science. Evolution is a very different thing from an explanation of creation and should remain separate.

[Seven]

Evolution is a fact, what you choose to believe in is your prerogative.

Evolution is a theory. It's not a fact and can never be proven to be a fact unless we went back in time and watched apes become humans over millions of years.

[Seven]

it. A god or being has not with empirical evidence shown himself to exist in recorded history. Until that happens, no one should tell anyone the contrary.

If you want to teach a curriculum explaining our existence, it should not take place in science but in philosophy. It is a concept much too abstract to debate in a world of observable events and fact.

Though God (Yes, I'll be referring to only the Christian God since it is my belief) is not written in history books, He is written in the Bible and the Bible's legitimacy and facts (not opinions or any of that) have all been proven true. In the book The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel (Yale Graduate with a Master's in Journalism and a former atheist), Strobel travels the country looking for proof of the existence of God after his wife becomes a Christian. As he travels, Strobel learns about the accuracy and legitimacy of the Bible.

For example, did you know that Jesus DID in fact sweat blood? Sweating blood occurs when someone is under a high amount of stress. As some of us may know, Jesus was under stress from finding out that He would be crucified on the Cross. I would say that's pretty stressful, wouldn't you? The fact is, the Bible does, when read and analyzed, make absolute and total sense. I believe Noah sailed on an ark, Jesus walked on water, and Moses walked across the Dead Sea as God parted the waters. To me, this does make sense. Also, it makes sense that Jesus wasn't crazy and his followers weren't either. That has been proven by an expert in this book.

I believe that these things should be taught from a philosophical view, as you have stated. However, I don't believe God is too abstract to debate. As a Christian, I have seen God work in my life and in the life of others. There are things that have happened that can't be explained without putting God into the mix. Whether people want to believe it or not, God does exist and He shows through different people in different ways. Does this mean life will be easy? No, of course not. God is there to lead us through, no matter what.

[Jake]

Evolution is a theory. It's not a fact and can never be proven to be a fact unless we went back in time and watched apes become humans over millions of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
"A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."
You're using the common usage of the word in the debate, not the one that applies to scientific theory.

Though God (Yes, I'll be referring to only the Christian God since it is my belief) is not written in history books, He is written in the Bible and the Bible's legitimacy and facts (not opinions or any of that) have all been proven true.

I apologize that it may sound confrontational but your statement is false.

I believe Noah sailed on an ark, Jesus walked on water, and Moses walked across the Dead Sea as God parted the waters.

I'm not interested in taking that belief away from you. Religion is often a panacea and to prevent someone from improving their life through whatever belief that may be would be silly. My personal interest is the separation of science and faith in what can't be proven.

While you can see god in life, I see my own ignorance. God is used in place of a lack of understanding of the events that surround us. I choose not to explain that which I can't understand with divinity. You say both that you "belief that god exists" and then later than "god does exist". This sends a mixed message, if god existed within the realm of observation then faith would not be necessary.

[Techercizer]

Evolution is a fact, what you choose to believe in is your prerogative.

Evolution is a theory. It's not a fact and can never be proven to be a fact unless we went back in time and watched apes become humans over millions of years.

A theory is as close to a fact as anything in this world can ever come. It would not be extreme to say that Evolution is as well known, understood, and accepted as Relativity or Gravity, though due to the controversy associated with it in today's modern setting, it is difficult to be sure.

Now, you can argue that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with simians if you wish (or argue anything for that matter), but the concept that things evolve is something that has been well observed and documented.

[Toaster]

So you're going to deny that the earth is over 3 billion years old because we didn't see it happen, despite all the evidence? You're also going to deny evolution has taken place in our era in the form of plants and some species of fish changing to better suit their immediate environment. Evolution, as it stands today, is a fully documented observation, as real as the observation that the sun circles the Earth or that matter is composed of atoms.

The only "theory of evolution" is that of Darwins, theory and evolution don't belong together in any other context. Your paster might tell you other wise, I'll take a scientists word for it over his though. As I said, it's your privilege to believe in what ever you please and i honestly hope you find comfort in what ever that may be.

[Seven]

Now, you can argue that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with simians if you wish (or argue anything for that matter), but the concept that things evolve is something that has been well observed and documented.

I wouldn't call evolution well observed and documented. Charles Darwin came out with this theory of Evolution, yet never observed apes evolving into humans. That to me alone makes no sense whatsoever.

[Techercizer]

Now, you can argue that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with simians if you wish (or argue anything for that matter), but the concept that things evolve is something that has been well observed and documented.

I wouldn't call evolution well observed and documented. Charles Darwin came out with this theory of Evolution, yet never observed apes evolving into humans. That to me alone makes no sense whatsoever.

What does the specific evolutionary tracing of humans to a common ancestor with that of simians have to do with the basic, well-documented fact that species who mutate favorable traits are more likely to survive and procreate?

The common ancestor between Apes and Humans is just one small conclusion that was reached using a larger understanding of the evolutionary process. Saying it debunks evolution is like saying orbiting objects debunk gravity.

[Seven]

So you're going to deny that the earth is over 3 billion years old because we didn't see it happen, despite all the evidence? You're also going to deny evolution has taken place in our era in the form of plants and some species of fish changing to better suit their immediate environment. Evolution, as it stands today, is a fully documented observation, as real as the observation that the sun circles the Earth or that matter is composed of atoms.

The only "theory of evolution" is that of Darwins, theory and evolution don't belong together in any other context. Your paster might tell you other wise, I'll take a scientists word for it over his though. As I said, it's your privilege to believe in what ever you please and i honestly hope you find comfort in what ever that may be.

The Earth is, in my opinion, thousands of years old. Did you know how inaccurate Carbon Dating is? Very, very inaccurate. I believe in adaption of these plants and fish, but certainly not an "evolution." Apes to humans is an "evolution" that never actually happened, but plants adapting to their environment is just that.

Your more than welcome to have your own view on it. My Pastor is very brilliant, but this doesn't come from just him. It's come from studying and reading numerous books by well-known members of the Christian community, such as Dr. Ravi Zacharias, who I believe to be one of the most intelligent people ever to live. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm just saying what I believe is the truth.

[Techercizer]

So you're going to deny that the earth is over 3 billion years old because we didn't see it happen, despite all the evidence? You're also going to deny evolution has taken place in our era in the form of plants and some species of fish changing to better suit their immediate environment. Evolution, as it stands today, is a fully documented observation, as real as the observation that the sun circles the Earth or that matter is composed of atoms.

The only "theory of evolution" is that of Darwins, theory and evolution don't belong together in any other context. Your paster might tell you other wise, I'll take a scientists word for it over his though. As I said, it's your privilege to believe in what ever you please and i honestly hope you find comfort in what ever that may be.

The Earth is, in my opinion, thousands of years old. Did you know how inaccurate Carbon Dating is? Very, very inaccurate. I believe in adaption of these plants and fish, but certainly not an "evolution." Apes to humans is an "evolution" that never actually happened, but plants adapting to their environment is just that.

Your more than welcome to have your own view on it. My Pastor is very brilliant, but this doesn't come from just him. It's come from studying and reading numerous books by well-known members of the Christian community, such as Dr. Ravi Zacharias, who I believe to be one of the most intelligent people ever to live. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm just saying what I believe is the truth.

Okay, time to pull in some Potholer54: you say carbon dating is inaccurate. Where's your source? Which specific study or research are you citing? What debunked Carbon Dating?

[Jake]

Now, you can argue that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with simians if you wish (or argue anything for that matter), but the concept that things evolve is something that has been well observed and documented.

I wouldn't call evolution well observed and documented. Charles Darwin came out with this theory of Evolution, yet never observed apes evolving into humans. That to me alone makes no sense whatsoever.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/16136131?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

If I handed you a sandwich comprised of 98% poo, with 1% of the total weight on the top and bottom made up of bread, would you call it a sandwich or would you call it a pile of poo?

edited for language. my intent was to create imagery, not emotion.

[Seven]

What does the specific evolutionary tracing of humans to a common ancestor with that of simians have to do with the basic, well-documented fact that species who mutate favorable traits are more likely to survive and procreate?

The common ancestor between Apes and Humans is just one small conclusion that was reached using a larger understanding of the evolutionary process. Saying it debunks evolution is like saying orbiting objects debunk gravity.

I'm referring to evolution, not adaption or mutation. I believe adaption and mutation do exist. Orbiting objects don't debunk gravity because gravity doesn't exist in outerspace. That's something most people know and understand. Having said that, comparing my view on evolution to that is a bad analogy to make. Gravity is something that's black and white and people understand. Evolution is something based off, more than anything else, in my opinion, speculation.

[Techercizer]

Now, you can argue that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with simians if you wish (or argue anything for that matter), but the concept that things evolve is something that has been well observed and documented.

I wouldn't call evolution well observed and documented. Charles Darwin came out with this theory of Evolution, yet never observed apes evolving into humans. That to me alone makes no sense whatsoever.

If I handed you a sandwich comprised of 98% shit, with 1% of the total weight on the top and bottom made up of bread, would you call it a sandwich or would you call it a pile of shit?

C'mon jake, try to keep this civil. This is a very heated topic; we should keep our language as un-loaded as possible.

[Seven]

If I handed you a sandwich comprised of 98% shit, with 1% of the total weight on the top and bottom made up of bread, would you call it a sandwich or would you call it a pile of shit?

I don't mean to come off as being rude, but exactly what does this statement have to do with anything we are talking about?

[Techercizer]

What does the specific evolutionary tracing of humans to a common ancestor with that of simians have to do with the basic, well-documented fact that species who mutate favorable traits are more likely to survive and procreate?

The common ancestor between Apes and Humans is just one small conclusion that was reached using a larger understanding of the evolutionary process. Saying it debunks evolution is like saying orbiting objects debunk gravity.

I'm referring to evolution, not adaption or mutation. I believe adaption and mutation do exist. Orbiting objects don't debunk gravity because gravity doesn't exist in outerspace. That's something most people know and understand. Having said that, comparing my view on evolution to that is a bad analogy to make. Gravity is something that's black and white and people understand. Evolution is something based off, more than anything else, in my opinion, speculation.

I'm sorry? Gravity exists in outer space. This is basic science.

Gravity is the force of attraction between any two bodies; it scales (linearly I think; that isn't important) with object mass and scales exponentially with distance. There is no place in the entire universe with no gravity.

Orbiting bodies certainly experience gravity; they simply orbit at a high enough speed that the centrifugal "force" (really a pseudoforce) cancels out the downward pull of the weaker-with-distance gravity.

Also, evolution is nothing more than the effects of adaptation and mutation over time. That's it. If you believe in those, I don't see how you could not believe in it.

[Seven]

C'mon jake, try to keep this civil. This is a very heated topic; we should keep our language as un-loaded as possible.

I agree and I'm glad we're having a well-thought out, civil discussion. Like I said before, if there's a troll on here or someone that's choosing to destroy this debate, I will have Benny close this thread up instantly.

[Jake]

What does the specific evolutionary tracing of humans to a common ancestor with that of simians have to do with the basic, well-documented fact that species who mutate favorable traits are more likely to survive and procreate?

The common ancestor between Apes and Humans is just one small conclusion that was reached using a larger understanding of the evolutionary process. Saying it debunks evolution is like saying orbiting objects debunk gravity.

I'm referring to evolution, not adaption or mutation. I believe adaption and mutation do exist. Orbiting objects don't debunk gravity because gravity doesn't exist in outerspace. That's something most people know and understand. Having said that, comparing my view on evolution to that is a bad analogy to make. Gravity is something that's black and white and people understand. Evolution is something based off, more than anything else, in my opinion, speculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Gravity is a theory. This debate is beginning to come off the rails. People are putting too much of their unsupported personal opinions into the matter. We need to post more references if we are to continue to make claims that something is or something isn't.

[Techercizer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Gravity is a theory. This debate is beginning to come off the rails. People are putting too much of their unsupported personal opinions into the matter. We need to post more references if we are to continue to make claims that something is or something isn't.

I think as long as we have references that we can show if asked, it's enough. That's just my take on it though.

[Jake]

If I handed you a sandwich comprised of 98% shit, with 1% of the total weight on the top and bottom made up of bread, would you call it a sandwich or would you call it a pile of shit?

I don't mean to come off as being rude, but exactly what does this statement have to do with anything we are talking about?

I was supporting the theory of evolution by providing a pub-med source and an anecdote for anyone that the article is tl:dr.

"In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution."

[Seven]

What does the specific evolutionary tracing of humans to a common ancestor with that of simians have to do with the basic, well-documented fact that species who mutate favorable traits are more likely to survive and procreate?

The common ancestor between Apes and Humans is just one small conclusion that was reached using a larger understanding of the evolutionary process. Saying it debunks evolution is like saying orbiting objects debunk gravity.

I'm referring to evolution, not adaption or mutation. I believe adaption and mutation do exist. Orbiting objects don't debunk gravity because gravity doesn't exist in outerspace. That's something most people know and understand. Having said that, comparing my view on evolution to that is a bad analogy to make. Gravity is something that's black and white and people understand. Evolution is something based off, more than anything else, in my opinion, speculation.

I'm sorry? Gravity exists in outer space. This is basic science.

Gravity is the force of attraction between any two bodies; it scales (linearly I think; that isn't important) with object mass and scales exponentially with distance. There is no place in the entire universe with no gravity.

Orbiting bodies certainly experience gravity; they simply orbit at a high enough speed that the centrifugal "force" (really a pseudoforce) cancels out the downward pull of the weaker-with-distance gravity.

Also, evolution is nothing more than the effects of adaptation and mutation over time. That's it. If you believe in those, I don't see how you could not believe in it.

Sorry if it sounded confusing before. I was saying that an analogy of my views on evolution to a belief on gravity was a bit odd and I was addressing that. Of course, gravity is something I know and can see every day.

Regarding your statement on evolution, I do think that adaption, mutation, and evolution are all different things. Evolution, to me, is going from one being to another. Apes to humans is the prime example. Mutation is both a positive and negative thing. Mutation can be something as cool as having a photographic memory or something as bad as a cleft lip. Adaption is being able to adapt to your environment over a short period of time.

Keep in mind, I'm not some "Bible-thumper" that thinks evolution is evil or anything. I just can't believe in such a thing since it doesn't make sense to me. I am glad also that this is a respectful debate and not some childish argument.

[Seven]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Gravity is a theory. This debate is beginning to come off the rails. People are putting too much of their unsupported personal opinions into the matter. We need to post more references if we are to continue to make claims that something is or something isn't.

As you talk about references, do you mean sources? If so, I don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source. Maybe Britannica Online or a book by a well-known expert or author on a matter works. I've already mentioned my source(s).

[Techercizer]

Sorry if it sounded confusing before. I was saying that an analogy of my views on evolution to a belief on gravity was a bit odd and I was addressing that. Of course, gravity is something I know and can see every day.

Regarding your statement on evolution, I do think that adaption, mutation, and evolution are all different things. Evolution, to me, is going from one being to another. Apes to humans is the prime example. Mutation is both a positive and negative thing. Mutation can be something as cool as having a photographic memory or something as bad as a cleft lip. Adaption is being able to adapt to your environment over a short period of time.

Keep in mind, I'm not some "Bible-thumper" that thinks evolution is evil or anything. I just can't believe in such a thing since it doesn't make sense to me. I am glad also that this is a respectful debate and not some childish argument.

Mutations occur randomly as a normal part of birth (of everything I know of in the world). When those mutations improve survival rates and begin to proliferate through a species, they become known as adaptation. When those adaptations stack up enough that two original species can no longer breed, that is called splitting (and there's probably a better term for it too). Overall, these changes are known as evolution.

if you believe that mutation occurs and that they can lead to successful adaptations, I don't see how you could not believe in evolution.

here is a video discussing this concept via the illustrative example of ring species: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54? ... b6Z6NVmLt8 It includes sources and real-world examples of documented phenomena.

[stanley]

this has turned into such a pointless thread

[Seven]

this has turned into such a pointless thread

And it's quotes like these that ruin threads.

[Jake]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Gravity is a theory. This debate is beginning to come off the rails. People are putting too much of their unsupported personal opinions into the matter. We need to post more references if we are to continue to make claims that something is or something isn't.

As you talk about references, do you mean sources? If so, I don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source. Maybe Britannica Online or a book by a well-known expert or author on a matter works. I've already mentioned my source(s).

While wikipedia is often suspect, its cited sources are just as often, not. It is though a source for concise, basic explanations on a range of topics.

The fact that we're debating any of this, of which none of it can be accepted as truth is being to sour in my mouth. Throughout history the scientific community has been the safest group of people to align your beliefs with to ensure the highest quality of life and since that is my interest, that's where I'm going to place my faith.

[Techercizer]

The fact that we're debating any of this, of which none of it can be accepted as truth is being to sour in my mouth. Throughout history the scientific community has been the safest group of people to align your beliefs with to ensure the highest quality of life and since that is my interest, that's where I'm going to place my faith.

Who needs faith when you have checkable sources and peer-reviewed research?

[Seven]

Throughout history the scientific community has been the safest group of people to align your beliefs with to ensure the highest quality of life and since that is my interest, that's where I'm going to place my faith.

I wouldn't say they are the safest. Scientists aren't always right nor are Christians. Nobody is ALWAYS right. Everyone is wrong. Scientists might be smart and be able to tell you how to stay the healthiest you can stay in a physical or mental sense, but in a faith based sense, they aren't. Christians might not see God, but we know He is there. We can feel that presence.

I think that we have hit a point where there is no more debating to do since we can't go too terribly much further. I'm glad we had a well-thought out discussion and thank you for the participation.

[Jake]

The fact that we're debating any of this, of which none of it can be accepted as truth is being to sour in my mouth. Throughout history the scientific community has been the safest group of people to align your beliefs with to ensure the highest quality of life and since that is my interest, that's where I'm going to place my faith.

Who needs faith when you have checkable sources and peer-reviewed research?

The paradox of "there can be no truth" is an honest one for me. On a long enough timeline I can see all of our current understanding of science being elaborated upon or disproven; the religious are lucky, they only have to wait until they die to find out if they were right or not.

[Toaster]

Been reading for a while, this isn't much of a debate at all anymore. Seven already stated that he doesn't understand evolution as it stands, hence why he doesn't think it's real. "I just can't believe in such a thing since it doesn't make sense to me." Pretty much end of story to me... Unless someone here plans on giving a course on the subject, I doubt this will go anywhere significant.

We can throw our self righteous shit at each other all day, we've already made up our minds on what we conceive to be true (either it be questionably accurate or not) long before this thread existed.

I just don't see the point of this thread other than to start drama (which will definitely ensue eventually should this be left out to fester *FH^^* long enough)

[Vivi Hill]

Gravity does exist in outer space though, who said it doesn't? If gravity didn't exist in outer space how would planets be orbiting the sun?

Let me try to put it the way I like to: Science does not believe in ANYTHING. Scientists themselves are allowed to believe in things, and they are allowed to believe a theory, but that does not mean that the science they practice involves any sort of belief. This is what allows scientists to be religious--they can believe in religion and yet study the scientific theory of evolution. No true scientist will ever tell you he has a theory based on the Bible as it's not a source of scientific evidence. It may be a source of evidence for belief, and it's perfectly fine if people want to believe what it says. However, that's not what science is, by definition.

The reason things are classified as theories is because of their inability to be proven as fact. Science is allowed to change its theories as evidence changes. This does not make the case for evolution any weaker in any way. Classifying it as a theory is just differentiating it between a proof, which is proven with absolutely solid mathematical evidence. For instance it's possible to prove that 2+2=4. Math doesn't believe that 2+2=4, it's a proof. As for the theory that chimps evolved into humans, that's obviously not something that can be proven in a straightforward manner (we don't have time travel). However, the evidence points towards that conclusion. If you were to present hard evidence against that, then science would have no problem changing its theories. But the Bible is not evidence because it's a set of stories and there's no way to prove the stories are fact simply by reading them. If I said, for example, that "Oak trees are a direct ancestor to humans", I would not be able to call this a scientific theory. It would be a hypothesis. In order for it to become a theory it would require much scientific evidence for it.

Creationism draws its conclusions based on the Bible, therefore it is not a science. Would I be conducting science if I wrote a book explaining how the world works and used it as evidence? No. Would i be conducting science if I used a book someone else had written as evidence? No, I'd only use the science their book presents as evidence. Science does not say that things are as they are because someone said so, and it doesn't say that things are as they are just because they are. Science attempts to break things down into experimentally sound evidence. Before science, people believed the sun moved around the earth. After science was applied to that observation, scientists were able to construct a theory that was based upon mathematics rather than beliefs. Science doesn't believe the earth is round, it has provided experimental evidence for that. Science is about making observations in the current world in an attempt to discover the inner workings of it. There is no way to apply science to a belief that does not provide evidence. If creationists were able to find evidence to disprove evolution, and it was real scientific evidence, scientists would have no problems adapting their theories.

Because of this there's no reason to teach creationism as a science. If the mislabeled 'theories' of creationism had any scientific footing, this would change. Go ahead and teach it as a religious class or a philosophy class, but it can't be labeled as a science, just as fictional stories cannot be labeled as fact.


I'd also like to ensure that Seven understands that Evolution in no way implies that a singular chimp in its lifetime became human. Evolution does not suggest in any way that a living being changes into a different form. It's a set of gradual genetic changes that occur via sexual reproduction.

[Jake]

Throughout history the scientific community has been the safest group of people to align your beliefs with to ensure the highest quality of life and since that is my interest, that's where I'm going to place my faith.

I wouldn't say they are the safest. Scientists aren't always right nor are Christians. Nobody is ALWAYS right. Everyone is wrong. Scientists might be smart and be able to tell you how to stay the healthiest you can stay in a physical or mental sense, but in a faith based sense, they aren't. Christians might not see God, but we know He is there. We can feel that presence.

I think that we have hit a point where there is no more debating to do since we can't go too terribly much further. I'm glad we had a well-thought out discussion and thank you for the participation.

Not right, but safe. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html This example only applies if you place enough value in life on earth opposed to life after death.

[Seven]

Who needs faith when you have checkable sources and peer-reviewed research?

Faith is what brings many humans through difficult times. In the online world, there isn't much of a faith because we are too pre-occupied with what the Internet tells us about this and that. In the real world, faith can do wonders. I pray to God about many different things and He has helped me through these things. Saying "who needs faith" is like saying "who needs God?" for lack of a better word. (And if that is not the case, then I will edit my post and apologize for jumping to that.)

You know, people will say, "Where was God when my family declared bankruptcy?" or "Where was God when my girlfriend broke up to me?" I have been in one of those situations when I was agnostic and it is a very, very unpleasant time when you question something that has such a huge impact on your life. I have lost everything in my life that meant something and have been blessed by my faith and by going to church every Sunday. Whether you believe it or not, faith does exist and is needed. When you lose the most important things in your life and contemplate life itself, you will begin to understand how important faith truly is.

[Techercizer]

Wow Benny; quality over quantity much?

[Toaster]

Wow Benny; quality over quantity much?

best of both apparently

[Seven]

Been reading for a while, this isn't much of a debate at all anymore. Seven already stated that he doesn't understand evolution as it stands, hence why he doesn't think it's real. "I just can't believe in such a thing since it doesn't make sense to me." Pretty much end of story to me... Unless someone here plans on giving a course on the subject, I doubt this will go anywhere significant.

We can throw our self righteous shit at each other all day, we've already made up our minds on what we conceive to be true (either it be questionably accurate or not) long before this thread existed.

I just don't see the point of this thread other than to start drama (which will definitely ensue eventually should this be left out to fester *FH^^* long enough)

Well, good job. You have proceeded to make assumptions and start drama. I do understand evolution and have read up on the subject. The fact is, I do not believe it is legitimate. Thank you for acting like you know who I am over the Internet.

I've been respectful about everyone's views on evolution, so don't throw your "self-righteous crap" in my face like you are better than me.

This thread was doing fine and I said I had nothing further to say unless things got heated and it's crap like this that gets things heated.

[Seven]

I'd also like to ensure that Seven understands that Evolution in no way implies that a singular chimp in its lifetime became human. Evolution does not suggest in any way that a living being changes into a different form. It's a set of gradual genetic changes that occur via sexual reproduction.

Don't worry, I know. It wasn't a singular chimp or anything. It was something that is believed to have been done over the course of millions of years. I'll reword what I said about a "different" form. How about a completely different genetic makeup?

Anyways, I enjoyed reading your post. However, where do your views lie?

[Jake]

Been reading for a while, this isn't much of a debate at all anymore. Seven already stated that he doesn't understand evolution as it stands, hence why he doesn't think it's real. "I just can't believe in such a thing since it doesn't make sense to me." Pretty much end of story to me... Unless someone here plans on giving a course on the subject, I doubt this will go anywhere significant.

We can throw our self righteous shit at each other all day, we've already made up our minds on what we conceive to be true (either it be questionably accurate or not) long before this thread existed.

I just don't see the point of this thread other than to start drama (which will definitely ensue eventually should this be left out to fester *FH^^* long enough)

Well, good job. You have proceeded to make assumptions and start drama. I do understand evolution and have read up on the subject. The fact is, I do not believe it is legitimate. Thank you for acting like you know who I am over the Internet.

I've been respectful about everyone's views on evolution, so don't throw your "self-righteous crap" in my face like you are better than me.

This thread was doing fine and I said I had nothing further to say unless things got heated and it's crap like this that gets things heated.

Just for drama's sake IMO Toaster's post was objective and accurate, he didn't attack or defame anyone and at this point I think I'm going to bow out as well.

[Toaster]

Been reading for a while, this isn't much of a debate at all anymore. Seven already stated that he doesn't understand evolution as it stands, hence why he doesn't think it's real. "I just can't believe in such a thing since it doesn't make sense to me." Pretty much end of story to me... Unless someone here plans on giving a course on the subject, I doubt this will go anywhere significant.

We can throw our self righteous shit at each other all day, we've already made up our minds on what we conceive to be true (either it be questionably accurate or not) long before this thread existed.

I just don't see the point of this thread other than to start drama (which will definitely ensue eventually should this be left out to fester *FH^^* long enough)

Well, good job. You have proceeded to make assumptions and start drama. I do understand evolution and have read up on the subject. The fact is, I do not believe it is legitimate. Thank you for acting like you know who I am over the Internet.

I've been respectful about everyone's views on evolution, so don't throw your "self-righteous crap" in my face like you are better than me.

This thread was doing fine and I said I had nothing further to say unless things got heated and it's crap like this that gets things heated.

It was a quote, so do you understand how evolution works now, it's a tad confusing... Theres also really no need to be rude I don't see how that post was even remotely out of line...

[Techercizer]

Who needs faith when you have checkable sources and peer-reviewed research?

Faith is what brings many humans through difficult times. In the online world, there isn't much of a faith because we are too pre-occupied with what the Internet tells us about this and that. In the real world, faith can do wonders. I pray to God about many different things and He has helped me through these things. Saying "who needs faith" is like saying "who needs God?" for lack of a better word. (And if that is not the case, then I will edit my post and apologize for jumping to that.)

You know, people will say, "Where was God when my family declared bankruptcy?" or "Where was God when my girlfriend broke up to me?" I have been in one of those situations when I was agnostic and it is a very, very unpleasant time when you question something that has such a huge impact on your life. I have lost everything in my life that meant something and have been blessed by my faith and by going to church every Sunday. Whether you believe it or not, faith does exist and is needed. When you lose the most important things in your life and contemplate life itself, you will begin to understand how important faith truly is.

Look Seven, I've been respectful of your beliefs in this discussion and have tried to discuss this with you using nothing but well-known scientific information. I can't tell you what to think; only what peer-reviewed research says has been observed.

But with all do respect, you do not get to tell me that I (or "humanity") need to believe in something. Say that "many" people have faith; say it's common to say "where was god when X"; say that faith is important to some people, but importance is relative, faith is an artificial human construct, and you don't get to tell me whether I have, want, or need any.

OT: did you watch the sourced video I posted? It addresses every difference I've seen you raise between species differentiation and mutation.

[Seven]

Been reading for a while, this isn't much of a debate at all anymore. Seven already stated that he doesn't understand evolution as it stands, hence why he doesn't think it's real. "I just can't believe in such a thing since it doesn't make sense to me." Pretty much end of story to me... Unless someone here plans on giving a course on the subject, I doubt this will go anywhere significant.

We can throw our self righteous shit at each other all day, we've already made up our minds on what we conceive to be true (either it be questionably accurate or not) long before this thread existed.

It was a quote, so do you understand how evolution works now, it's a tad confusing... Theres also really no need to be rude I don't see how that post was even remotely out of line...

These two parts are where I felt there was some serious disrespect. I apologize if I came off as rude, but I was defending what I felt was a defaming post regarding me. Look at it from my view: Does this seem pretty rude coming from someone who has differing ideals and whose tone you can't tell over the Internet?

[Seven]

Look Seven, I've been respectful of your beliefs in this discussion and have tried to discuss this with you using nothing but well-known scientific information. I can't tell you what to think; only what peer-reviewed research says has been observed.

But with all do respect, you do not get to tell me that I (or "humanity") need to believe in something. Say that "many" people have faith; say it's common to say "where was god when X"; say that faith is important to some people, but importance is relative, faith is an artificial human construct, and you don't get to tell me whether I have, want, or need any.

I am NOT telling you that you must believe in what I believe is the truth. I'm stating it as a fact and am in no way trying to push this upon you. I'm only picking apart your statement. There was no disrespect or anything meant. I'm just very passionate about the topic of faith since I have been through a lot of times where I needed God, but didn't have the faith for Him. I apologize if I came off being pushy or whatever about it.

And to respond to your question, no, I haven't.

[Techercizer]

So back on topic: you believe that species acquire mutations on conception and that those mutations can spread through the species if they increase survival chance. How is that any different than believing in Evolution?

[Vivi Hill]

I'd also like to add that there are plenty of reasons we are not super epic destruction machines with twenty-six arms and thirty eyes. First of all, massive genetic changes would have to take place (and the chances of that sort of thing happening are very slim).

But more importantly, evolutionary changes must take place in a gradual fashion. Any changes that happen must be positive throughout the entire process. Are people who are born with a mutation that gives them an extra finger more dextrous? Not visibly, so there's no major push for an evolutionary change to give all humans more fingers. However, evolving a thumb does help in such a gradual way. Chimps have thumbs, and that helps them grab things, but their hands are not as dextrous as ours are. Ours are less ideal for grabbing branches because there was no reason for Man to grab onto branches all day and all night. Ours are better for handling tools though, and any variation between the chimp hand and our hand would provide a gradual improvement.

If you realize that evolution only occurs extremely gradually it makes more sense that we are how we are. Our bodies are nearly perfect for our purposes, if you think about it. I would not benefit from having eyes in the back of my head. I wouldn't benefit from having more arms or fingers either. As humans, we are a very adaptable species physically, which complements our adaptable intelligence.



My views: I believe that evolution is a wonderful theory that makes a world of sense. I don't see how we could have come to be in any other way. I have trouble understanding why people don't like the idea that humans evolved from chimps, since chimps are so similar in body type and form to humans. I'm not offended if someone compares me to an ape--I think it's rather accurate. If someone comes up with some other solution, I can certainly attempt to understand the science behind it and change my opinion.

As for my beliefs, I don't see a reason to believe in the Christian God, or any god for that matter. It's nice that religion can help certain people, but I certainly do not fall in that camp. I do some meditation occasionally in order to relax myself, and I find music to be an excellent cure for anything that might get me down (Beethoven's Ninth in the middle of the night in silence is golden). As for the afterlife, I see no reason to believe in Heaven or Hell. Who cares what happens after I die? This world is wonderful even if it's filled with problems--it's what makes it interesting. I consider Heaven to be a "grass is greener" construct that people use to trick themselves into getting through life. For me, life is wonderful without the unknown. I don't take drugs or drink but I can have plenty of fun nevertheless. I don't need religion to have morals either. I like some of the morals the Bible teaches, but I see no reason to connect them to a singular entity. The world is good enough for me.

[Seven]

So back on topic: you believe that species acquire mutations on conception and that those mutations can spread through the species if they increase survival chance. How is that any different than believing in Evolution?

Basically. I believe in these mutations, but these mutations, in my opinion, don't result in the complete transformation of an entire race(?) of species.

[VoltySquirrel]

My views: I believe that evolution is a wonderful theory that makes a world of sense. I don't see how we could have come to be in any other way. I have trouble understanding why people don't like the idea that humans evolved from chimps, since chimps are so similar in body type and form to humans. I'm not offended if someone compares me to an ape--I think it's rather accurate. If someone comes up with some other solution, I can certainly attempt to understand the science behind it and change my opinion.

As for my beliefs, I don't see a reason to believe in the Christian God, or any god for that matter. It's nice that religion can help certain people, but I certainly do not fall in that camp. I do some meditation occasionally in order to relax myself, and I find music to be an excellent cure for anything that might get me down (Beethoven's Ninth in the middle of the night in silence is golden). As for the afterlife, I see no reason to believe in Heaven or Hell. Who cares what happens after I die? This world is wonderful even if it's filled with problems--it's what makes it interesting. I consider Heaven to be a "grass is greener" construct that people use to trick themselves into getting through life. For me, life is wonderful without the unknown. I don't take drugs or drink but I can have plenty of fun nevertheless. I don't need religion to have morals either. I like some of the morals the Bible teaches, but I see no reason to connect them to a singular entity. The world is good enough for me.

Damn Benny, you just summed up my thoughts on the matter perfectly.

[Techercizer]

So back on topic: you believe that species acquire mutations on conception and that those mutations can spread through the species if they increase survival chance. How is that any different than believing in Evolution?

Basically. I believe in these mutations, but these mutations, in my opinion, don't result in the complete transformation of an entire race(?) of species.

That is basically the entire point of the video I linked to. it's under 4 minutes, and uses well-known real world examples, cited sources, and uses terminology on the bible as a method of secondary clarification.

[Techercizer]

Damn Benny, you just summed up my thoughts on the matter perfectly.

See, I wanted to say that, but anything I wrote sounded completely sycophantic.

I'm more of a Moonlight Sonata person myself though.

[Seven]

My views: I believe that evolution is a wonderful theory that makes a world of sense. I don't see how we could have come to be in any other way. I have trouble understanding why people don't like the idea that humans evolved from chimps, since chimps are so similar in body type and form to humans. I'm not offended if someone compares me to an ape--I think it's rather accurate. If someone comes up with some other solution, I can certainly attempt to understand the science behind it and change my opinion.

As for my beliefs, I don't see a reason to believe in the Christian God, or any god for that matter. It's nice that religion can help certain people, but I certainly do not fall in that camp. I do some meditation occasionally in order to relax myself, and I find music to be an excellent cure for anything that might get me down (Beethoven's Ninth in the middle of the night in silence is golden). As for the afterlife, I see no reason to believe in Heaven or Hell. Who cares what happens after I die? This world is wonderful even if it's filled with problems--it's what makes it interesting. I consider Heaven to be a "grass is greener" construct that people use to trick themselves into getting through life. For me, life is wonderful without the unknown. I don't take drugs or drink but I can have plenty of fun nevertheless. I don't need religion to have morals either. I like some of the morals the Bible teaches, but I see no reason to connect them to a singular entity. The world is good enough for me.

Damn Benny, you just summed up my thoughts on the matter perfectly.

I am not going to start a flame war or a heated debate regarding this, but I do appreciate the honesty on this topic.

[Seven]

So back on topic: you believe that species acquire mutations on conception and that those mutations can spread through the species if they increase survival chance. How is that any different than believing in Evolution?

Basically. I believe in these mutations, but these mutations, in my opinion, don't result in the complete transformation of an entire race(?) of species.

That is basically the entire point of the video I linked to. it's under 4 minutes, and uses well-known real world examples, cited sources, and uses terminology on the bible as a method of secondary clarification.

Do you mind reposting that link for me? I don't remember where it is.

[Techercizer]

Do you mind reposting that link for me? I don't remember where it is.

[Vivi Hill]

Excellent video there. I'm certainly no expert in evolution so I'm glad there are sources that can better explain it for me.

[Techercizer]

Excellent video there. I'm certainly no expert in evolution so I'm glad there are sources that can better explain it for me.

I've been following potholer54 on youtube for a few years now; he makes many very well-sourced and sensible videos dubunking both popular creationists who tour round the country giving lectures, and general creationist views and movements. The world object hitsound of my pan is actually a quote from his video on the miserable failure of someone's "debunking" of carbon dating.

As far as I'm concerned, he's practically an anti-creationist Richard Feynman, with the (rather extreme) difference that instead of coming up with revolutionary explanations for people, he finds and publishes others' information (though he checks and understands all arguments he uses, of course). Also, he is impeccably calm and carries politeness to a level I'm not sure I can reach.

[Seven]

Interesting video, though I don't agree with the evolution aspect. I did enjoy watching someone who was so polite on this subject.

[Techercizer]

Interesting video, though I don't agree with the evolution aspect. I did enjoy watching someone who was so polite on this subject.

You don't agree with what? Everything about ring species (except for 5 seconds about fossils at the end) concerns real, living, widely-observed species that show the behaviors the video describes.

Would you like me to post the sources from his description so you can verify them? If you don't believe well-proven and peer-reviewed research, things than many people have seen and that others have checked to make sure they were really seen exactly the same way they were originally seen time and time again, than I don't see how I can be expected to show anything. You could argue not to believe gravity if that is the case, and there would be nothing I could do to prove you wrong then either.

[Seven]

Interesting video, though I don't agree with the evolution aspect. I did enjoy watching someone who was so polite on this subject.

You don't agree with what? Everything about ring species (except for 5 seconds about fossils at the end) concerns real, living, widely-observed species that show the behaviors the video describes.

Would you like me to post the sources from his description so you can verify them? If you don't believe well-proven and peer-reviewed research, things than many people have seen and that others have checked to make sure they were really seen exactly the same way they were originally seen time and time again, than I don't see how I can be expected to show anything. You could argue not to believe gravity if that is the case, and there would be nothing I could do to prove you wrong then either.

It's not about that. It's just my own belief. I found the video interesting and I trust the sources are reputable. Like I said, it's my own view on this subject. Anyways, I have nothing further to say regarding this topic without things getting out of hand and heated. It was nice discussion and I appreciate us being gentleman (for the most part) about this.

[stanley]

I have trouble understanding why people don't like the idea that humans evolved from chimps, since chimps are so similar in body type and form to humans.

technically, humans did not evolve from chimps, we just have a common ancestor :3

[Techercizer]

I have trouble understanding why people don't like the idea that humans evolved from chimps, since chimps are so similar in body type and form to humans.

technically, humans did not evolve from chimps, we just have a common ancestor :3

Thread's over stanley; Seven doesn't want to talk about it any more. Read the posts above you mate.

[stanley]

its not like i was trying to bring anything back up, i was just telling him that because its a common misconception that humans evolved from apes, when we didnt...i wont post anymore though

[Vivi Hill]

As I said I am no pro in this subject. I had thought that humans were not evolved from monkeys and instead, chimpanzees . But perhaps I am yet again confusing chimps and apes in general (happens a lot, and it's why I'm not a biologist).

[HibiscusKazeneko]

As I said I am no pro in this subject. I had thought that humans were not evolved from monkeys and instead, chimpanzees . But perhaps I am yet again confusing chimps and apes in general (happens a lot, and it's why I'm not a biologist).

Chimps are apes.
We're slightly closer to bonobos, if that's what you're after.

[Techercizer]

As I said I am no pro in this subject. I had thought that humans were not evolved from monkeys and instead, chimpanzees . But perhaps I am yet again confusing chimps and apes in general (happens a lot, and it's why I'm not a biologist).

Chimps are apes.
We're slightly closer to bonobos, if that's what you're after.

Either way, we didn't evolve from any of them; common ancestor and whatnot.

[Vivi Hill]

All right, well at least we can say that chimps and humans share ~98% of genes, and they are the closest living relative to humans. Humans are apes, so you could perhaps say correctly that humans evolved from some sort of ape back in the day (now extinct). My source is Wikipedia, but the article has got tons of references that I would go over if I cared more .

PS: and bonobos are chimps.

[stanley]

Either way, we didn't evolve from any of them; common ancestor and whatnot.

thats what i was saying

[Harri]

I'm proud of myself. I read all of this and thought, "I'm not touching this debate." +1 to me for self control.