Evolution 2 - Never-ending Debate

Ok, since Peter(OG-) brought back the Evolution links, I thought it only right to start a new thread for this. I didn't want to mess with the old Evolution thread simply because...well...it's old. So, here's where you can post your theories on what really happened a long long time ago.

I'll start things off...

Evolution really can't be possible. It can occur in very very small ways. I mean Dinosaurs are loosley related to birds, so evolution occured some. Now, if humans evolved from an ape. Why hasn't there been any more evolving? I mean for as long as anyone can remember, people have been, well...people. Even back before pictures, people were drawn as, well...people are today.

What are your thoughts???

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Micro-evolution ( inner-species) YES.

Macro-evolution ( species to species/ Ape-Man) NO.

Thank you Sadie...

That sums it all up right there..

That's right brother! It's all right there!

Not disagreeing per se, but what makes you so sure either way?

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

It's the " link thing."

Scientists have found evidence for inner species evolving. Such as water dwelling organisims, sprouting legs; to adapt to environmental changes. However, they've never found the bones of the in-between stages of ape to man.
We have the bones of apes. We have the bones of men. We have even " Homer-esque" looking bones, Cro-Magnum...or whatever..but where are the bones that support the transition? They don't exist.

Simply because it never happened. I've said this before, I'll say it again. IF we evolved, why have we stayed with this form for as long as anyone can remember??? Simple, we didn't evolve. God created the Solar Systems, and created man as well, just like that. There wasn't a 10 year span in which man evolved from a parasite or bacteria.

Like Sadie said, transistions in an species to survive in the area they live in is not questionable. It happens. Humans never evolved. If we did, how come no other apes have evolved into a human form???

While I suspect this to be true, there is no fossil record to validate this theory. All that exists is a similarity of bone structure.

Man's existence is a blip on the geologic timeline. There is evidence that Cro-Magnon existed at the same time as Neanderthal. The bone structure of Neanderthal is much closer to ape than the bone structure of Cro-Magnon. I find it to be a leap that Cro-Magnon evolved from Neanderthal... what could possibly be the vehicle for that transformation?

I do find it interesting that as more and more of the fossil record is revealed more and more anomolies are being found such as the "Lucy" skeleton which is supposed to be the "bridge".

This one goes into the ever increasing file of "I don't know".

The wheel???

I'm with you guys: evolution in some forms is readily evident...no doubt about it...but when you're talking about one species into another...especially into a radically intelligence species, like mankind, I have to draw the line. I'm also with Toose: I don't know for sure...and I don't think anyone else does (though many supporters of evolution will CERTAINLY tell you that they do, indeed, know for sure), either. Technically, if you view The Bible as more symbolic than literal in certain areas, you might be able to argue that God created us through evolution...that's not my view (I think you need to stretch to get there), but it's not completely ridiculous as far as I can tell.

It's scince fiction.

At my church, my class is going through a book that takes religion against science, and is really interesting. In a lot of cases, people that believe in science/evolution can't fully explain what happened, but will jump at a chance to say that God doesn't exist, and that everything evolved.

Or, they will admit God exists, but is only a spectator and is only watching over things. Either way, people who don't believe that everything just was, are going to exhaust themselves looking for answers that don't exist.

Heh, I love this. "Never-ending Debate," but no one really shows up to disagree, and it's over in 11 replies.

Are you wanting to upset your stomach some more?

Damn, I'm never going to hear the end of that, am I? Naw, I just thought it was kinda funny. Was looking through some old threads and stuff.

You're not one of those that likes to dwell on the past are you!?

You don't have to answer that...

How much evidence has science found to support the existence of God? None. He doesn't exist. Of course the difference between my statement and yours is that there is a fossil record that can be dug up but there is no magical dump site to dig up looking for God.

You God people kill me. You want definitive "proof" from science which is contantly changing, discovering, and updating it's technology but you read the Bible and you BELIEVE! Please...

It's funny because scientists laugh at the church for not being able to prove a shred about anything relating to the existence of God. I mean it was the church that said the Earth was the center of the universe, it was the church that said the sun was a god, it was the church that said eclipses were signs from God, it was the church that said the world was flat, and now it's the church trying to bash science because it can't fully prove a theory based on 4.5 million years of buried fossil records. It's always been only a matter of time before science has disproven what the church invents to brainwash it's followers. If we're looking at track record, religion is really performing badly at this point.

First off, your whole standpoint is whacked out. "The Church"? What's that got to do with The Bible? Why is religion overall somehow responsible for a few guys with funky ideas in white collars? Should I somehow hold you responsible for the beliefs put forward by secularists?

The Church did not say all those things. Tons of people said all those things, religious or not. If virtually everyone believes the world is flat, including "The Church" (as you put it), then it's not showing us a mistake made by "The Church," it's showing us a mistake made by basically everyone.

Science can't disprove things, because it is in a constant flux. It's constantly screwing up and trying to correct itself. Science is trial and error. If we're looking at track record, we've got just as much crap coming from non-religious people as religious people. If we look at the track record, science has had to go back and make corrections constantly.

Next time, I think you should post less rhetoric, and more real evidence. More real arguments. For a man so high on science, this shouldn't be too much to ask.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
First off, your whole standpoint is whacked out. "The Church"? What's that got to do with The Bible? Why is religion overall somehow responsible for a few guys with funky ideas in white collars? Should I somehow hold you responsible for the beliefs put forward by secularists?

The Church did not say all those things. Tons of people said all those things, religious or not. If virtually everyone believes the world is flat, including "The Church" (as you put it), then it's not showing us a mistake made by "The Church," it's showing us a mistake made by basically everyone.

The church has nothing to do with the Bible except for interpretation, teaching, brainwashing, promoting, but really what the hell was I thinking that's clearly nothing.

The most illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine reported that the Mathematician Galileo Galilei had acquiesced when warned that the Holy Congregation ordered him to abandon the opinion which he had held until then, namely that the Sun stands still at the centre of the spheres while the Earth is in motion. The Decree of the Congregation of the Index was also presented in which were prohibited and suspended the writings of Nicholas Copernicus On the revolutions of the Heavenly spheres, of Diego de Zuņiga on Job, and of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini. His Holiness ordered that the edict of this suspension and the prohibition be published by the Master of the Sacred Palace".

I'm no English major but this sounds an awful lot like the Church forbidding Galileo from following up on Copernican Theory. Anyone looking for the truth was committing heresy and could spend the rest of their life in prison, ie Galileo. It wasn't a mistake "made by basically everyone" but rather a systematic enforcement of the status quo forced upon people by the church in order to maintain control. Boy doesn't that sound vaguely familiar throughout history.

Science can't disprove things, because it is in a constant flux. It's constantly screwing up and trying to correct itself. Science is trial and error. If we're looking at track record, we've got just as much crap coming from non-religious people as religious people. If we look at the track record, science has had to go back and make corrections constantly.

Next time, I think you should post less rhetoric, and more real evidence. More real arguments. For a man so high on science, this shouldn't be too much to ask.

Of course science can't disprove things. It can't disprove the world is flat or the Earth is the center of the universe or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Thankfully none of that could ever be disproved.

Oh yes, science makes corrections to honest errors in theory while religion simply continues to tell unfounded, baseless fairy tales under a veil of righteousness. Science uses all evidence found over the course of the 4.5 billion years of Earth's existence while religion relies on a 2000 year old book of fairy tales full of contradictions and errors. Apparently according to religion, nothing happened before a few thousand years ago except for that whole God creation thing that's so popular. I can definitely see your point there.

Next time I think you should back up your own claims instead of bashing claims that you can't disprove as you all have attempted to do in this thread. For a man so high on himself and God you'd think you'd have something, anything that can be substantiated in any way at all relating to the existence of God or creation or heaven or evil, etc.