Evolution Is The Only Logical Reason With Any Evidence To Why People...

» Home » Science

Evolution Is The Only Logical Reason With Any Evidence To Why People Are Here Today

Creationism, while it paints a pretty picture, is over all not backed by anything blind faith. Evolution is the only rational reason to how humans cam to be.

SIKLEMIND3

12 Feb 2008 02:33

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Yes, what evidence do we have for anyone else?

lavatis

06 May 2008 21:04

1 Comment

What Evidence DO we have for anything else, such as Evolution?

-125_

16 May 2008 02:32

Comment

It's amazing that even in the 21st century, with all the science, all the facts, all the technology. People still believe in a book written by people who thought the world was flat. When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.

Andromeda

09 Apr 2008 22:50

4 Comments

So how does evolution explain why we are here? I see nothing in the process or the theory that goes beyond the how.

innomen

02 May 2008 19:47

Comment

PLEASE PLEASE read about evolution with an open mind and then come back and argue against it if you still feel the same way. So far the arguments against just show that you have no knowledge of what evolution is and how it works.

StBalders

11 Mar 2008 16:59

9 Comments

I completely agree. These arguments sound like something a pastor would feed his or her congregation, and these people just ate it up like little brainless goldfish.

Moegreche

11 Mar 2008 17:04

Comment

Ok ,the fossil record may not prove it beyond doubt but it certainly does nothing to disprove it.  I don't agree macro evolution is wrong.  But we are going round in circles here.

Whereas brainwashed is a bit severe (particularly in your case) people must be heavily influenced when they follow their god, why would christian families have christian children, muslim families have muslim children and so on 99 % of the time.  Only because they have been told what to think from a young age.  Please don't tell me they are sat down and said here are the 2 big theory's on why we are here.

I wasn't brought up by an athiest family, I have many a discussion with my Gran who is C of E.  My mum just doesn't want to talk about it.  But neither are 'disappointed' with me.  Even in a secular country like England, my generation (I am 34) were all brought up with plenty of influence to believe in God, at home, school and if you where unlucky enough, church.  A vast majority of us now are agnostic or athiest, I have just upgraded to the latter.  It is easier here because the C of E is quite lax and you would never be shunned from having your own belief.  My Catholic and Muslim friends are not the same, purely because they have had much more pressure put on them and they would run the risk of being shunned to a degree from their family and peers.  Although a harsh term, this is brainwashing.

I get your point but one side does qualify to be called brainwashing more than the other.

Comment

You said I am severely brainwashed? If I am, tell my how I am wrong about my beliefs. 
It is true that most children continue their parent's traditions and Europe is known for casting off its Catholic and Protestant ways probably in part because of its bad history with it. But have you asked yourself if the Catholics and Protestants of Europe's history loved their enemies and did what "Jesus" commanded? Would you reject Yahshua because false followers misrepresented him?

How can you not see that the fossil record proves it wrong? Darwin saw it as a valid argument against the one he got credit for. Either species are related and can be seen to be in the fossil record or we see that they are not because of the countless species that don't exist that would exist if macroevolution is true. That is proof different species were never related. It is obvious to me, but I understand that you are "brainwashed." Just because something makes sense doesn't mean it is right.
By the way, what is "C of E"?

Comment

These are some terrible arguments against evolution. I'm surprised that people still don't accept it. That being said, there are some really important things for people to understand about evolution:

1) It is a chaotic process, not a "forward moving" process as many people assume. The argument that things decay over time simply does not apply to evolution.

2) The evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming. It is still an ongoing study to really understand such a chaotic process, but the facts are very visible and accessible.

3) Using the bible as a defense of creation is simply begging the question and as such cannot be considered a credible argument.

4) Evolution has been observed. There's this virus called the AIDS virus... Maybe you've heard of it? The main reason we can't kill it is because it mutates so rapidly. Evolution is -guess what- chaotic and selective mutation.

Moegreche

11 Mar 2008 16:49

8 Comments

1) How does entropy not apply to macroevolution? Your claim is not supported by evidence. The idea allows for "forward moving" macroevolution, so it is contrary to entropy which says that no "simple" or "low" level of organization that is physical can become "more organized" in isolation. If it is contrary to entropy, it is contrary to science.

2) Macroevolution is full of overwhelming claims but no evidence. If there is so much, why not list them? Even a little list?

3) I agree that just because the Bible says all things were created that that does not make it proof but I can say that the Bible could never have existed for no reason the same way the universe, which is so much more intricate in the physical, could never have come without a reason. In a way, the Bible could be used to support creation, but I tend to not use it to be different. There had to be an ultimate cause.
If you do not agree with that science, then say what is wrong with it, if you think so.

4) Microevolution (change within a species) has been seen and proven but not macroevolution (change from one species to another), which is the real issue here.

Stranger

14 Mar 2008 20:04

Comment

2) Macroevolution is full of overwhelming claims but no evidence. If there is so much, why not list them? Even a little list?

3) I agree that just because the Bible says all things were created that that does not make it proof but I can say that the Bible could never have existed for no reason the same way the universe, which is so much more intricate in the physical, could never have come without a reason. In a way, the Bible could be used to support creation, but I tend to not use it to be different. There had to be an ultimate cause. 
If you do not agree with that science, then say what is wrong with it, if you think so.

4) Microevolution (change within a species)  has been seen and proven but not macroevolution (change from one species to another), which is the real issue here.

Comment

2) Macroevolution is full of overwhelming claims but no evidence. If there is so much, why not list them? Even a little list?

4) Microevolution (change within a species)  has been seen and proven but not macroevolution (change from one species to another), which is the real issue here.

Comment

It is a law because it governs the physical world. They may not call it a law, but it is. I am not saying it is a synonym for disorder. I say it makes clear that nothing physical can become more "orderly" or "organized" or "complicated" into more intricate ways in isolation (without cause). The point is: things break down over time. Is that definition wrong? It is not the most detailed, but it'll do.
I had to look up the word "preclude" because I did not know it. Preclude is "make impossible." Yes. Entropy does make impossible increasing order of macroevolution. The fact that all physical things break down over time in isolation without exception does make impossible the idea of physical things building up (in isolation from powerful, outside intelligence) over any amount of time. That means that macroevolution is in opposition to science.
What is entropy to you? If you give me an honest definition, you will likely have to admit that it contradicts macroevolution. 
Where is the list of evidence I asked for? You don't have to show it if you don't want to but you would if you had evidence.

Comment

I know I told you before, but to answer again for the sake of those unaware that I answered you: I never said that any increasing order is impossible because of entropy. I should have been clear and will make clear what I said when I said that "...it makes clear that nothing physical can become more 'orderly' or 'organized' or 'complicated' into more intricate ways in isolation." By the isolation, I meant "left alone", without some force to cause it who would be "God" or something natural. I will add to it: "without cause." I have been unclear too often lately.

"The Big Bang 'Theory' contradicts science" debate continues more on this issue with Hizashi and I and anyone else who wants to join. I want to focus on that one. There are plenty of debates on this issue that are virtually identical as a debate. "Evolution is wrong," "The Big Bang 'Theory' contradicts science," "Neither creationism nor Intelligent design have any scientific explanatory power," and more are pretty much the same debate.

I've noticed that a lot of people are arguing against evolution because humans haven't changed significantly.

First of all: Evolution is an extremely slow process in most cases. A new species isn't going to form in a matter of a few years.

Second point: We DID change permanently. Since humans formed we've gained new hair colors, eye colors, skin colors, resistances to weather, body types, genetic diseases, resistances to diseases, we've grown smarter and stronger, and a bunch of other things.

Third point: We kinda removed natural selection from the equation, what with more advanced medical care (bye bye need for disease resistance), less reliance on being naturally strong, eyeglasses (used to be you had bad vision you had trouble living), better diets, and all the other amenities we've added.

Fourth point: There's no proof for intelligent design.

Fifth point: Evolution and creationism can go hand in hand, people

Sixth point: If you take the Christian explanation to be true, then how long are God's days? A day a Jupiter, for example, is WAY longer than one on Earth.

Seventh point: We can see other planets (like Titan, a moon of Jupiter) forming like how scientists predict the Earth formed

Eight point: Creationism is a theory, too!

Ninth point: The Bible contradicts itself, and has several questionable points. For a few examples of what I'm talking about scarybiiblequotes (dot) com is a good source

Tenth point: You can't disprove evolution.

Eleventh point: We didn't evolve from chimpanzees or gorillas or whatever, people! We evolved from a common ancestor!

For the rest of my points I suggest you actually research this.

FoxFire

24 Feb 2008 19:28

1 Comment

What new species ever arose from another? I want to know exactly what species and how it happened with evidence, please.

Stranger

04 Mar 2008 19:32

Comment

Well yea we have proof with the monkeys!!

cmonnot

16 Feb 2008 06:22

2 Comments

What proof? Their being similar to us is not proof that they are related to us by blood. Science is not supposed to be about assumptions.

Stranger

19 Feb 2008 14:53

Comment

I do believe in evolution to be a significant reason and explanation for the way us human beings are today. However, I hold the opinion that the concepts of Evolution and God (Religion) are able to run hand to hand; who is to say that, for those who are religious, God is not responsible for everything we see today, including nature's development throughout time?

It may well be possible that God almost planned for, or intended, there to be some sort of valid, scientific explanation to exist; indeed, if we had almost no knowledge about anything at all (admittedly, even now, we know merely a fraction of a single percentage of everything there is to know), we would all be pretty bemused about everything - even more so than we, arguably, are currently.

jsh4

14 Feb 2008 19:10

4 Comments

I keep reading comments for the evolution side of the debate but I have read nothing that is backing any of your beliefs in evolution. If we are really going to debate something, I think that evidence (just like a trial in court) is the key factor in the debate. I respect everyones opinion, but I wish I could hear more about why evolution is your belief over creationism, rather than everyone saying why they don't belief in the Bible and God. Not directed at you personally jsh4, just a comment about the entire debate.

roxanne

14 Feb 2008 19:23

Comment

I believe evolution.if people want to believe that god said 'let there be light' and there was then that's fine, and this world was made entirely in 7 days then that's great, but people that believe in what god did and what the bible 'states' don't try and turn people that believe in science.its not going to work...lol

tequila68

14 Feb 2008 14:50

3 Comments

Hey Tequila. I agree that no one can change someones beliefs. But I am always curious in why people believe in what they believe in. Could you expand on your beliefs in evolution over creation. What has happened or what have you studied to cause you to believe in evolution. And is evolution your explanation to why we are all here? Hope to hear from you.

roxanne

14 Feb 2008 19:14

Comment