Evolution
 

I love to argue, so I'm putting this thread here, so that anybody who wants to argue about evolution come here, I'd love to chat with you...

Okie dokie. Where did you want to start? :D

hmm. do you believe in evolution?

In the spirit of keeping the answer simple, I'll reply with "yes".

why do you believe in evolution? scared there might be a god?

Because of the overwhelming evidence that supports it.

If I was scared that there might be a god, wouldn't that tend to make me a theist?

Also, please help me understand how the process of changes in life over time have any impact on the existence (or non-existence) of god. There are many self-proclaimed theists that have absolutely no problem accepting evolution. How do you know that evolution isn't god's way of allowing her creations to adapt to their changing environments without having to interfere directly?

There is no evidence for evolution, name one for me

Oh, here we go again...

I'm with Achilles.

Just one? Okay.

Please answer my other questions in your next response. Thanks in advance.

Ya know, oddly, this never gets old for me :D

Thanks man.

okay the answer to your question sorta it depends, if your scared of one it depends on how you fear it, A theist is a person who believes in a god, and I read the article (fast reader) at least part of it and can easily answer that. The bone seperated from the whale is not part of an evolving leg. Answer me this, why were the bones of Lucy at least 2 miles apart?

What does that mean? Someone is scared of god so they choose not to believe? I'm not sure how that makes sense.

Indeed that is true, but what does that have to do with evolution? Again, how do you explain theists that also except evolution (Francis Collins and Ken Miller spring to mind)? How do you prove that god didn't "invent" evolution?

What is it then? How do you intend to disprove or discount the evidence that it is a vestigal leg?

The argument for evolution does not hinge on Lucy. :)

One, people scared of god deside to deny it and tend to believe in something else, that way they can still screw around and not have to worry about it, two, the "vestigal leg" is not a growing leg it's just a frivolous bone that the whale could live without, three, the argument for evolution does hinge on Lucy because she still tricks people into believing in evolution. You still didn't answer my question...

First, this still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Second, it's completely unrelated to the topic of evolution, so please either find a way to make it relevant or drop it.

Okay, but what it is specifically? How did it get there? If living things are the result of design, and that designer is god, and god is perfect, then why do all cetaceans just happen to have this "frivolous bone" (dolphins have them too :))?

Wrong. Try again.

Funny, you haven't answered mine either :D

EDIT: The correct argument is "all cetaceans" not "all sea mammals". I've made the necessary correction above.

It looks like you just started this thread in hopes of arguing with people. I find there is different types of arguments: The constructive kind, and the destructive kind. I feel you are doing the latter.

Why not state your point of views in the first place, instead of bombarding Achilles with question after question?

*shrugs*

Since we know that he doesn't know the subject now, we can only hope that by removing his objections, he'll have to learn about it at some point. Otherwise, he'll simply repeat his fallacies from a position of ignorance until he gets tired and gives up.

So really, he has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Mankind sinned and not everything is perfect anymore and besides humans have things in them that they could live without, like kidney's and besides that bone may do something the whale knows about and we don't. Scientists have discovered that Sperm Whales use Sonar because they can't see in front of themselves so they use Sonar to map and "see" where it's going. We still don't know everything about our own world. And if you think I'm not worth this argument then look up Eric Hovand, he is worth it and he is where I learned all of why evolution is a joke...:)

Indeed. But why not accept it? instead of going with the assumption that there has to be a higher deity or god behind everything.

Because there is, a little off topic, but I've seen people get out of wheelchairs who with the doctor's help had no chance of walking again, you telling me they were lying and sat in a wheelchair for 20 years?

Proof?
Ah, this one I've heard before. I'm going with the presumption that you've witnessed this yourself? and not just telling me something you've read on the internet. Miracles is a tough subject, but I tend not to believe occurrences where someone has reportedly sat in a wheelchair for 20 years and then suddenly gotten cured. I would probably believe it if I saw it with my own eyes and if I knew that the person was really disabled, in this case I still wouldn't explain it with "god did it."

Anyway, let's get back on topic.

What about the Bible there is no way men who were 40 generations apart could write down the exact words of someone who lived 1000 years before, there had to be God behind everything, read about the scientists who are trying to recreate evolution, they say that life was created by a lightning strike, try shocking a cell with electricity and you'll notice that the cell is going to fry, also evolution says that everything living creature came from the rocks because after all they say that it rained on the rocky crust for millions of years and the water mixed with the minerals in the rocks and became a soup...the soup was shocked with lightning and life was created into a cell that happened to evolve and split in two forming a male and female...notice the phrase "millions of years" do you know what that means? that means a fairytale is coming afterwards look at Star Wars "long, long time ago" (millions of years) see what I mean...

I did not read it from the internet or witness it... I've had hundreds of people tell basically the same story, and I've read an account of someone who was crippled and is walking normally now...(not on the internet; in an email)

check this out and tell me what you think I found this on Wikipedia...

Hovind's $250,000 offer

According to Hovind's website, he has offered $10,000 since 1990 to those who can "prove the theory of evolution."[45] He has since raised the prize to $250,000.[46]

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.[45]

Critics view this offer to be spurious because of the conditions which Hovind imposes. At the time, Hovind commonly insisted that evolution and atheism were synonymous,[9] even though belief in a deity or deities is unrelated to evolution in any way and the two are clearly not mutually exclusive. The asterisk denotes the terms that he claims show significant gaps in the gradual progression predicted by the theory of evolution. In fact he challenged the world to prove a non-mainstream "theory of evolution" which he defined himself. The new theory, as outlined below, has very little in common with the theory accepted by the scientific world:

*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

if you want more check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Oh yeah they could. Look at now. People writing the Qur'an are writing the same words of 1,400 years prior. It's really not all too different.

Ever hear of a thing called "cutting and pasting"?

I believe in God, but I don't believe in the Bible. I mean where in the Bible does it say "There is no such thing as evolution"? In your thoughts, don't you think it's possible that God had his creation evolve over time?

How do you think we as people came to be? Like Blacks, whites, asians, arabs, etc. We all "evolved" over time to adapt with our surroundings. Blacks were originally from Africa, where their skin pigmentation was higher because of a lot of sun exposure. Whites were originally from Europe, and limited sun exposure. So we as humans evolved as well.

So whales and dolphins have to "suffer" (using the term loosely here) because of man's sin? I realize that creationists love to use "the fall" as an explanation for all kinds of stuff, but it doesn't take too much critical thinking to realize that the argument doesn't make much sense.

Okay, that's fine too, but you still haven't discounted that it's a vestigal leg. You've only offered an alternative hypothesis that, so far, has no support whatsoever.

Indeed that's very true. Not sure what bearing this has on the discussion re: evolution, but you are correct on this point nonetheless.

I'm sure you meant Kent Hovind and if you're getting your information from him, then this conversation will probably be shorter than I thought.

Can you prove that they weren't well all along and faking it (i.e. "part of the show")?

These people all learned from P.T. Barnum my friend.

There's an alternative that makes a lot of sense: The men wrote the book and there is no god.

The problem that you're having is that you're doing it all backwards. You're starting with a conclusion and then trying to shoe-horn the logic and the evidence to fit in from there.

You're confusing fact and drawing conclusions that have nothing to do with the evidence. But that doesn't really matter because the biggest problem that you have hear is that you're trying to misrepresent life origins in such a way as to discount evolution when they are two entirely different things.

Nope. wrong again. This is life origins, not evolution.

vs god doing it via magic in 6 days. Yes, clearly a long and laborious process with many stops and starts is the fairy tale here. :lol:

Total bunk and I'll help you understand why below.

But first, from your own source: Did you read that part before you posted? Bet not.

Cosmology, not biology (evolution)
Cosmology, not biology (evolution)
Chemistry, not biology (evolution).
Depending on how he defines "early life form" this would be biology and is already explained via the Theory of Evolution, however since he stipulates all 5 must be met, this isn't enough.
This one has already been knocked out of the ball park, but again because all 5 must be met, "Doctor" Hovind gets to hang on to his prize money.

So let's have a discussion about why his challenge hasn't been met. :dozey:

And if you want more, check this out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

This guy sounds like Scrooge, besides the numbered part of Hovind's article were the definitions of evolution, there is only one kind of evolution that is observed today, micro-evolution, and, if evolution is true then how do we judge right from wrong?:dozey:

Nope, not even close. Hovind does not get to arbitrarily decide what evolution is.

"Micro-evolution" is a term created by creationists. There is evolution. Some of it can be observed directly and some of it cannot because of human life expectancies, etc. It's all the same process.

This isn't a question for evolution, it's a question for moral philosophy.

nope you're wrong this time... his definitions were from a dictionary, look it up, and yes my last question is relevant so answer it because you seem hesitant :dozey:

what are you a professor or something?!

He found "Theory of Evolution" in a dictionary? I doubt it.

It is not relevant for reasons I have already provided.

The Theory of Evolution explains biological processes. Not cosmology, not chemistry, not philosophy. Biology.

I was talking about the definition of "evolution"

and you're still not answering my question makes me wonder if you can't, and if you can then answer it regardless of if it's relevant or not just answer it...

Stop baiting people into going into off-topic discussion. As Achilles said, if you want to discuss morals, go to the appropriate thread. Do not derail it from the original topic.

~9

But he's trying to discount the Theory of Evolution right? If he's concerned about the dictionary's use of the word "evolution" (ambiguous), then he needs a requirement for geo-political economics too doesn't he (: a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance)?

Can't have it both ways.

No sir, I am quite prepared to discuss moral philosophy in the thread of your choosing, however it has no place and no relevance here.

you won't answer it because you can't and you know it just humor me and watch these videos (all of them) it may take a few days, it is Kent Hovind and you need to watch these to understand where I'm coming from... He does talk against taxes and that's wrong because in the bible it says give to caesar what belongs to him and give to God what belongs to God, so eat the meat and spit out the bones, watch them though and it will all make sense...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio..._template.html

There are multiple ethics threads here the Senate Chambers. Feel free to resurrect any of them that you wish.

I've watch Kent Hovind's videos. I know what he says and his arguments have already been discounted (repeatedly). He really doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

If you like see some of specific critiques, try this.

it was blocked :lol: I have an internet blocker and yes Hovind does know what he's talking about, he's spent over 30 years studying science he was even a science teacher for 15 years yes he does know what he's talking about...:|

What Hovind taught was not "science" :lol:
He taught "creation science" at baptist school that did not require teaching credentials.

Now either you have some arguments to discuss here or you don't. Which is it?

Well, it still technically has 'science' in it. :xp:

I don't really want to get in to a heated discussion, and I don't feel like getting on anyones bad side. :)

My question is:

Why are we humans so special?

We are the smartest species on this planet, so why aren't all other creatures on this Earth as smart as us? (I guess that you could say that this is a really 'loose' question...I guess....)

I know that evolution is a change over a long period of time. I don't deny that this has happened. The human race has changed over time. I just don't think that, well we happened by chance. :)

M@RS-- You should probably stick to the subject. ;) You probably shouldn't go overboard either...;)

thanks man and we are special because God made us in his image and didn't want any other
species to be smarter, but from what I've observed evolution tries to make us simply animals and that we can act like them too, no wonder the murder has spike up and sex out of marriage too, mankind is going to be judged, Billy Graham says that if God doesn't judge us soon then he'll have to apologize to Sodom an Gomorrah :( yes we've adapted to certain things and have gained more knowledge (electronics) but evolution is a step backwards

I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "special" :)

Err, well, you kinda answered your own question in the asking didn't you (if the other species were as smart, then we couldn't be "the smartest" now could we :xp:)?

Apes can do math.
Dolphins use language and have "names".
Chimps use spears and tools to hunt.

There are lots of other intelligent species on the planet. We just happen to be the smartest of them.

Depends. You can base your moral foundation on religious authority, often consisting of "divine" laws that serve to both establish the authority of the religious sect and to place into scripture the wisdom accumulated through the ages - see the taboo of mixing meat and milk in Judaism. Or, you can attempt to establish an ethical code based on reason, wherein you attempt to judge the outcomes of a given act or event and determine its overall value.

We are not, however, the biggest species. We are not the strongest species. We are not the sturdiest species. We are not the species best fit for survival.

Intelligence is only one facet of survival, and survival is all that matters for evolution.

I think that you are being too technical. :xp:

I really just wanted this discussion to get moving, and I guess that I was trying to ask why we are the only 'smart', so to say, species out there. I certainly know that monkeys, dolphins, and apes are pretty smart, but they don't have the intelligence that we humans have. I guess a run off of my question would be, why are we all not the same? Mutations?

Not at all. I think I know what you mean by "special" but I rather not assume, especially because if you mean what I think you do then I disagree that we are.

Now I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "intelligence that we humans have". Are you referring to being self-aware (which many animals are) or do you mean "able to do advanced math", etc? I've already pointed out the argument for former, but as for the latter, that's just how the cookie crumbled.

Precisely. Random mutation and natural selection. At some point in our evolutionary history an ape-like ancestor was born with a mutation. That mutation offered some benefit in the environment and was thus passed on to the next generation. Thousands of generations from there to hear and we go from basic self-awareness to tabloids and professional wrestling (definitely evolved, but I don't know if I'd call it progress ;)).