Evoultion True vs. Flase

[Skeptical_1]

I believe evoultion to be true, my friends dont but hey what can you do. I want to know what you people think?

 

[Memory's Flame]

Most Christians will tell you that's a definate NO. However I beg to differ (as I make my own beliefs and my own thougts) and I say that evolution is very likely possible!

 

[euphoric]

I'll vote a qualified number one.  I think it would be more reasonable to say "evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on Earth."  Discussions of truth tend to be too black and white when discussing something with so much gray area.

-brett

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:57 PM JacqueB said this in Post #2

Most Christians will tell you that's a definate NO. However I beg to differ (as I make my own beliefs and my own thougts) and I say that evolution is very likely possible!

Actually, most Christians say "yes".  It is the minority of Biblical literalists that say "no".

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:53 PM Skeptical_1 said this in Post #1

I believe evoultion to be true, my friends dont but hey what can you do. I want to know what you people think?

"Belief" is not a word to be used when discussing scientific theories.  For scientific theories, you accept evolution (or any other theory) as provisionally true.

 

[Orihalcon]

wow... 17 yeses an no nos yet. did all the creationists leave and go to the creationist forum or something?

 

[Follower of Christ]

sorry

 

[Follower of Christ]

Well, I just had to stick my big nose in........


yes, it was evolution.....


NOT

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I too vote a qualified yes.

Evolution is the best theory there is currently to explain bio-diversity.

 

[SBfaithful]

You have to be more specific about the question of evolution.
Did we evolve from a single celled organism? I think not.
Do we adapt to our environment through evolution? perhaps

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:48 AM SBfaithful said this in Post #10

You have to be more specific about the question of evolution.
Did we evolve from a single celled organism? I think not.
Do we adapt to our environment through evolution? perhaps

I'm curious. How do you draw a line?  How do you stop adaptation to a new environment from getting a new species? And once you have a new species, how do you stop that one from splitting to another new species by adapting to a new environment, and being even more different from the original species? And on, and on, and on.  Where's the break where adaptation can't go?

 

[PhantomLlama]

Another qualified yes. And most christians would say 'yes' as well. America has a rather larger creationist portion than most countries.

I'm curious. How do you draw a line? How do you stop adaptation to a new environment from getting a new species? And once you have a new species, how do you stop that one from splitting to another new species by adapting to a new environment, and being even more different from the original species? And on, and on, and on. Where's the break where adaptation can't go?

*prepares to link to the micro/macro gravity thread*

The magic wall is just far enough to allow enough space on the ark for all the 'kinds'.

 

[wblastyn]

What does everyone think of this: http://www.trueorigin.org/

It's the "creationists answer to talk.origins" and it actually seems scientific, although I don't know enough about science to accept what they say, so what do all you scientists think?

 

[PhantomLlama]

There is a talkorigins response to one of their articles here

 

[Arikay]

They seem much better than a place like Dr Dino, but they still seem to come to wrong conclusions based on the evidence and have missunderstandings about everything. etc.

Today at 10:59 AM wblastyn said this in Post #13

What does everyone think of this: http://www.trueorigin.org/

It's the "creationists answer to talk.origins" and it actually seems scientific, although I don't know enough about science to accept what they say, so what do all you scientists think?

 

[wblastyn]

So they're like a glorified AiG?

 

[rbaker7385]

Macroevolution, Macroevolution There is much misinformation about these two words, and yet, understanding them is perhaps the crucial prerequisite for understanding the creation/evolution issue.

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (II Timothy 4:4)
I believe in creation

 

[rbaker7385]

Dr George Wald 1967 Nobel Peace in science.
When it comes to the origin of life on this earth ,there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation there is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds ( personal reasons ) Therefore we choose to believe the impossible. That life arose from spontaneously by chance we can not accept creation.

He refused to believe in a God and believed in the disproved

 

[Arikay]

I believe you ment micro and macro.

Yep, the missinformation is that evolution actually believe in " micro and macro" evolution. When in fact they were created by creationists so creationists could believe Half of evolution and not the other half.

From my understanding it goes like this:

MicroEvolution: The changes within a species. The changed animal can still successfully mate with others of its species.

MacroEvolution: The change of one species to another. The new species cant mate successfully with the old species.

Today at 12:40 PM rbaker7385 said this in Post #17

Macroevolution, Macroevolution There is much misinformation about these two words, and yet, understanding them is perhaps the crucial prerequisite for understanding the creation/evolution issue.

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (II Timothy 4:4)
I believe in creation

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:59 PM wblastyn said this in Post #13

What does everyone think of this: http://www.trueorigin.org/

It's the "creationists answer to talk.origins" and it actually seems scientific, although I don't know enough about science to accept what they say, so what do all you scientists think?

Typical creationist mumbo jumbo. Yes, it looks good ... in the dark or at a distance. But then Well's Icons of Evolution looks good if you don't look at it too closely, also.

When you really start to critically think about it, then it falls apart.  Notice that none of the creationist sources are in the scientific literature?

Now, when Darwin wanted to convince creationists that evolution was viable, who did he address his arguments to?  The lay public? Nope. Fellow scientists.  So where Talkorigins quotes the scientific literature, trueorigins misquotes it.