Do you believe in evolution?

LOL-no one should hate you for your point of view!

Here are a few of my thoughts...

It is easy to think what you want, or what you have been told until someone sits you down and presents a bunch of facts, and then it is up to the individual to "believe" what they want to "believe". It is in your mind-so to speak.

I absolutely agree that everything "in nature" is perfect, and beautiful, but everything you are seeing has a purpose and has evolved to what it is for a reason. I still find it hard to belive that anyone with a full 4 year Biology degree can find a way to disagree with evolution, but that is just my opinion.

Another thought-I was at the State Fair yesterday listening to this guy selling those magnetic bracelets and trying to make it sound Scientific. His salesmanship was perfect, his presentation was solid, the scientific information he was giving was total bullshit! And the person he was talking to was clueless.

Yet another thought, most people do not understand how their own bodies work. They go to the Doctor and have no choice or opinion or decision making abilities because they don't even know what parts they have in their body. AND THIS IS THE NORM! There are far more people at this level then those that have a clue what the Doctor is telling them.

My final thought-or question-is it easier to be clueless??? :)
 
I would also like to inform many who don't know, that carbon dating has been proven NOT to work properly for objects over a couple thousand years old. that it honestly doesn't even take an extensively long amount of time for something to fossilize. it is bout the pressure underground that turns the object into rock ( a fossil). there have litterally been fossilized boots and army helmets found lol. also too, objects (ie. dinosaur bones) have their age determined by the level of rock the were found at, (sedimentary for an example) there is no accurateness to prove that different levels of rock represent a certain time frame of the worlds existence or evolution.
 
People will do what they want. If that means being clueless about certain things, being ignorant, or to want to learn as much as they possibly can, they will do it. Why some people do not want to learn is beyond me. I've always pushed to learn.
 
If Dinosaurs became extinct "Millions" of years old, than why are UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bones being discovered in warmer and hotter areas that wouldn't be able to preserve them like that for millions of years?

OK that's an incredible claim, literally! Curiosity has me by the short and curlys.

So lay your cards on the table and provide something to back up this claim, I just MUST see that mate, I would love to take your word for it (and the rest of your claims), but try as I might, I simply can't, anymore than you accept evolution.
 
jojackson said:
If Dinosaurs became extinct "Millions" of years old, than why are UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bones being discovered in warmer and hotter areas that wouldn't be able to preserve them like that for millions of years?

OK that's an incredible claim, literally! Curiosity has me by the short and curlys.

So lay your cards on the table and provide something to back up this claim, I just MUST see that mate, I would love to take your word for it (and the rest of your claims), but try as I might, I simply can't, anymore than you accept evolution.
Click to expand...

i will find the information and give it to you jo :)
 
thats one of the link i posted psshy :) hehe, i only posted two, as i am trying to be fair by trying to provide information from both creationist and atheist point of views.

Has anybody ever gotten a chance to listen to Bob Dutko's "Top 10 Proofs: Dinosaurs lived with man" its super rad and interested, if any body knows how to send a zip file with MP3's, i would be more than willing to send whoever interested a copy. :)
 
Sorry mate, it was still fossilised though skin texture had been preserved by chemical reaction, I remember reading the story with great excitement, and although certainly not disappointed, It was a great find, fascinating, it still didn't disprove evolution, only that
fossilisation/preservation can occure in ways science may not have expected, such as with the Canadian bone. I must point out it was not preserved flesh as such, rather mineralised.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html

071203-dino-mummy_big.jpg
 
Last edited:
ChameleonsInMyHouse said:
this has nothing to do with evolution or creationsim, but i'm sure many of you have seen the documentary of the preserved corpse of a dinosaur? hadrosaur i believe, fossilized skin was intact, full body. really cool :)
Click to expand...

jojackson said:
Sorry mate, it was still fossilised though skin texture had been preserved by chemical reaction, I remember reading the story with great excitement, and although certainly not disappointed, It was a great find, fascinating, it still didn't disprove evolution, only that
fossilisation/preservation can occure in ways science may not have expected, such as with the Canadian bone. I must point out it was not preserved flesh as such.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html

071203-dino-mummy_big.jpg
Click to expand...

that's what i said dude, lol. but yes a great find it was. teaches us so much just from a skin visual.
 
That's what I was thinking. I started to look into it further through journals and other good stuff and they have not definitively announced the bones as unfossilized. It seems that many tests done on them were inconclusive and they should be considered fossils that have pores which are not yet filled with rock, making them appear to be unfossilized.
 
ChamsintheHouse, a few things have come to mind regards your belief that the earth is 6000 yrs old.
Supposing for a moment I accept that, my first question would be 'how do you know?"
Nowhere in the Bible I can remember reading, did God go into detail about WHEN he created the earth, that is, when he started saying 'let there be..."
The 6000 yr suggestion then must be based on the earliest writings, yes?
Nor did God go into detail and tell Moses HOW he did so, only that he did.
He did say he created it in 7 days, however as with most of Genisis, this is open to interpretation, even among those who accept it.
How do you know 7 days means to God what it does to us? Is God not eternal?
Even then, how can you be sure that Moses himself, being only a man afterall, did not misunderstand God? Where are the writings today of witnesses if any who saw the burning bush, heard God speak?
Whats simply unacceptable for me, is that such utter unquestioning faith , relies apon the interpretation of, by all accounts, an ordinary man who lived 6000 yrs ago.
Even if I can accept all that, There isliving proof (see links pg 4) of creatures changing, physically, today. How is this so, if all living things are said to be static and unchanged since the beginning.
Herein lies the confict caused by dismissing out of hand, any suggestion that perhaps
God chose to use evolution to create life in the world.
If you have ultimate respect for God, how can you dare assume anything?
People today (scientist) struggle to understand or 'prove' evolution, why should folk 6000yrs ago be different. Whose buisness is it if God did choose such a method, and/or continues to do so, why should He explain more than He was willing, to a simple man who would not have understood a more complex and detailed explaination?
Even Jesus spoke as simply as possible and often in parables for clearer understanding did he not? :)
 
jojackson said:
ChamsintheHouse, a few things have come to mind regards your belief that the earth is 6000 yrs old.
Supposing for a moment I accept that, my first question would be 'how do you know?"
Nowhere in the Bible I can remember reading, did God go into detail about WHEN he created the earth, that is, when he started saying 'let there be..."
The 6000 yr suggestion then must be based on the earliest writings, yes?
Nor did God go into detail and tell Moses HOW he did so, only that he did.
He did say he created it in 7 days, however as with most of Genisis, this is open to interpretation, even among those who accept it.
How do you know 7 days means to God what it does to us? Is God not eternal?
Even then, how can you be sure that Moses himself, being only a man afterall, did not misunderstand God? Where are the writings today of witnesses if any who saw the burning bush, heard God speak?
Whats simply unacceptable for me, is that such utter unquestioning faith , relies apon the interpretation of, by all accounts, an ordinary man who lived 6000 yrs ago.
Even if I can accept all that, There isliving proof (see links pg 4) of creatures changing, physically, today. How is this so, if all living things are said to be static and unchanged since the beginning.
Herein lies the confict caused by dismissing out of hand, any suggestion that perhaps
God chose to use evolution to create life in the world.
If you have ultimate respect for God, how can you dare assume anything?
People today (scientist) struggle to understand or 'prove' evolution, why should folk 6000yrs ago be different. Whose buisness is it if God did choose such a method, and/or continues to do so, why should He explain more than He was willing, to a simple man who would not have understood a more complex and detailed explaination?
Even Jesus spoke as simply as possible and often in parables for clearer understanding did he not? :)
Click to expand...

Jo, I am simply amazed at this and lost for words, in a discussion so touchy like this, this is by far one of the most maturest reply backs to a debate i've ever seen coming out of this forum. i am willing to discuss this if you'd like in PM, though i agree with so much of what you said, there are a couple things i stand firm on in belief. so you seem like a very intelligent person in a discussion like this, so PM me :)
 
Happy to continue via Pm mate. You and I have just shown the CF forum by example, that open and unbiased discussion of this subject IS possible, IF folk are willing to wear the other's shoes, and remain open to the possibility, that things just might not be as either party expects!
I dont have an ego issue with saying, " I might be wrong ", and genuinely accepting that.
If God appeared tomorrow to set the record straight, we might all be rather surprised! :D

Likewise Im impressed by your own openess to other ideas, Bravo ! :)
 
i must agree jo, example of choice haha. and kudos for the use of "Bravo"! lol

what if God really was real though and decided to show up tomorrow to surprise us? don't you think it would suck for those who may not know him? The Bible talks about this. :(
 
Last edited:
I think it might suck for those arrogant enough to dismiss the possibilty of 'his' existance out of hand yes :)
but then personally I cannot fathom why God would have endless forgiveness only up to a certain deadline, after which he will torture or allow the devil to torture, his creations which he professes to love so much, for eternity in hell, because the clock struck one, so to speak. :D
We can follow that up in private if you like, I think we're beginning to wander off the topic a bit, and despite it remaining pleasant and civilised, discussing religion itself for the sake of it, is actually against site rules, and since the admin/mods have so kindly
allowed the topic to continue, we ought to try to stay a little focused eh. :)
cheers
 
Last edited:
Personally, I find that there is too many gaps and unexplained problems for evolution to be belivable. Afterall this is just a theory and not scientific law or law of biology.

For example the evoultion of the bird. The thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing contradicts natural selection and therefore the theory of evolution. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless?

If fossils are a true record of the evolutionary process then shouldn't they show that process? There should be a clear increase of complexity and plenty of fossils that show transition between species. However, the fossil record does not show an increasing complexity. Scientists had approached this question in a detailed study of the backbones I had read about and I believe took place in Michigan. They wanted to see if the ‘descendant’ was more complex than the ‘ancestor’ on the average for each case. What they found was no trend at all.

These are just a few of the things I have read about on this subject. I have read both the support and non- support evidence to make my decision on this theory. Overall I say no I do not belive in evolution
 
Michael, do you have an alternate theory then to explain why both flightless and flying birds exist? If flight is an advantage, clearly it is, why are there flightless birds? or rather, why does a flightless bird have wings at all? what's the advantage in that?
For that matter, what makes you think a bird with a half sized wing was nessarily disadvantaged, in the environment it lived, at the time it lived, and dependant on what may have preyed on it?
If you except vestigal appendages as an adaption to a species changing requirements, then the reverse should logically be true.
Early human skulls had huge teeth which were then required, since food was raw, now its a different matter, we have tecknology to process food and dont need huge teeth and powerful bite, nor the bulky facial muscles to support it, nor are so bodily robust.

Ace, It is funny, and I am of mind at this stage that is exactly what happened! :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Please Help - Chameleon doesn't seem healthy
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
12K
Chamlover89
C
Back
Top Bottom