God used Evolution to create man

[morse86]

So let's trace the "roots" of evolution. So man came from a monkey....and that monkey came from a bird...and that bird came from a dinosaur...and that dinosaur came from fish and that fish came from a plankton and that plankton came from a amoeba and that amoeba came from ........a rock?

Ok, so where did the rock come from? The rock came from...............eventually....you have to admit it came from nothing (big bang theory).

How is this not religion? There is no proof for any of this. Evolution MUST answer origin, there is no escaping this.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So let's trace the "roots" of evolution. So man came from a monkey....and that monkey came from a bird...and that bird came from a dinosaur...and that dinosaur came from fish and that fish came from a plankton and that plankton came from a amoeba and that amoeba came from ........a rock?

Ok, so where did the rock come from? The rock came from...............eventually....you have to admit it came from nothing (big bang theory).

How is this not religion? There is no proof for any of this. Evolution MUST answer origin, there is no escaping this.

Monkeys do not come from birds, for one. Completely separate evolution pathway. And plankton didn't come from amoebas and amoebas didn't come from rocks, and abiogenesis is again a completely separate theory. Evolution as a theory only explains how life changes over time accross generations, no more, no less. It doesn't have to cover everything, no theory has to cover anything. Do you expect the theory of gravity to cover how infection works? Of course not.

No one thinks life came from rocks, and no one claims that is the position of abiogenesis or evolution except people who are against those theories

 

[DogmaHunter]

So let's trace the "roots" of evolution. So man came from a monkey....and that monkey came from a bird...and that bird came from a dinosaur...and that dinosaur came from fish and that fish came from a plankton and that plankton came from a amoeba and that amoeba came from ........a rock?

Ok, so where did the rock come from? The rock came from...............eventually....you have to admit it came from nothing (big bang theory).

How is this not religion? There is no proof for any of this. Evolution MUST answer origin, there is no escaping this.

What you stated here is neither religion nore science.

If you wish to argue for or against a theory of biology, it would be wise to first lean what it actually says.

And no, it doesn't need to adress the origins of life. Evolution is a process that living reproducing things go through. It has nothing to do with where life came from. The origins of life are irrelevant to evolution.

Life exists and we can study how it works without knowing where it came from.

Just like Newton was able to work out the laws of motion without knowing where gravity came from.

 

[EternalDragon]

Monkeys do not come from birds, for one. Completely separate evolution pathway. And plankton didn't come from amoebas and amoebas didn't come from rocks, and abiogenesis is again a completely separate theory. Evolution as a theory only explains how life changes over time accross generations, no more, no less. It doesn't have to cover everything, no theory has to cover anything. Do you expect the theory of gravity to cover how infection works? Of course not.

No one thinks life came from rocks, and no one claims that is the position of abiogenesis or evolution except people who are against those theories

Oh, but it is a whole lot more and you know it. Species changing characteristics and adapting to environment changes isn't really evolution. It's speciation within species populations.

You also forgot to mention in that list that men do not come from monkeys.

 

[lasthero]

Oh, but it is a whole lot more and you know it. Species changing characteristics and adapting to environment changes isn't really evolution. It's speciation within species populations.

No, it's evolution. Just because you have some special definition doesn't mean the rest of the world changes.

Also 'speciation within species' makes no sense.

 

[Dizredux]

It always amazes me, people coming here fighting evolution with all their might without a clue of what the theory actually says.

Dizredux

 

[EternalDragon]

It always amazes me, people coming here fighting evolution with all their might without a clue of what the theory actually says.

Dizredux

Sarah just gave the answer. Evolution as a theory only explains how life changes over time across generations, no more, no less.

See? Nothing more, nothing less. And as lasthero stated, just because there may be different words or definitions used doesn't mean the rest of the world changes.

 

[Dizredux]

Sarah just gave the answer. Evolution as a theory only explains how life changes over time across generations, no more, no less.

See? Nothing more, nothing less. And as lasthero stated, just because there may be different words or definitions used doesn't mean the rest of the world changes.

What does this have to do with what I posted?

It always amazes me, people coming here fighting evolution with all their might without a clue of what the theory actually says."

You unfortunately are a prime example.


Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

Where is the evidence for evolution?

A good place to start
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Another one

Welcome to Evolution 101!

There are many more but these are a good place to start. Let me know when you have read these and we can go from there.

If you are going to argue against something, it is a good idea to have some knowledge of the other side is saying. Helps credibility.


Dizredux

 

[RichardParker]

Let's NOT add words to God's word.

Let the bible speak for itself.....the word of God and evolution cannot even be mentioned in the same sentence...it's polar opposites. It was a 6 day creation, there was no gap theory, man was created in god's image.

Evolution is religion, they have no evidence (all of it is fake pseudo science)

Yeahhhhhhh...
No. No, really not.
Religion is one of the strongest scientific models we have.
If you are going to reject it, because your favorit book of religion disagrees with it, then that's fine.
But don't pretend that just because you have bad reasons for rejecting the demonstrable truth of evolution, that we also have to share this flaw with you.

 

[RichardParker]

So let's trace the "roots" of evolution. So man came from a monkey....and that monkey came from a bird...and that bird came from a dinosaur...and that dinosaur came from fish and that fish came from a plankton and that plankton came from a amoeba and that amoeba came from ........a rock?

Ok, so where did the rock come from? The rock came from...............eventually....you have to admit it came from nothing (big bang theory).

How is this not religion? There is no proof for any of this. Evolution MUST answer origin, there is no escaping this.

Wow...
Wow...
Morse86, are you a poe?
Because the only other explanation is, that you are really that uneducated about the theory of evolution, that you really believe that THIS incoherent rambeling you've posted here is actually a real representation of evolution.

I mean...
I don't even know where to start.
Monkeys came from birds? Where on earth did you hear such a piece of nonsense? I mean, I don't know WHAT model proposes that monkeys came from birds, but it certainly isn't evolution!
The same with the entire fish from plankton, and plankton from rock...
I mean, this is about as non-sensical as you can get, before you start introducing the idea of carving a woman from a man's rib!

Yes, IF that rambeling you've presented here was an accurate representation of evolution, then I would agree that it might be fair to make fun of it.
But the ACTUAL theory of evolution... do you have any objections to that?

 

[EternalDragon]

Yeahhhhhhh...
No. No, really not.
Religion is one of the strongest scientific models we have.
If you are going to reject it, because your favorit book of religion disagrees with it, then that's fine.
But don't pretend that just because you have bad reasons for rejecting the demonstrable truth of evolution, that we also have to share this flaw with you.

The problem isn't with the basic idea of evolution (which is simply change within species). It is with the false claims within the theory.

 

[Dizredux]

The problem isn't with the basic idea of evolution (which is simply change within species).

I will have to say one thing for you, when you are wrong, you don't do it in half measures.


Dizredux

 

[lasthero]

The problem isn't with the basic idea of evolution (which is simply change within species).

Oh, but it is a whole lot more and you know it. Species changing characteristics and adapting to environment changes isn't really evolution. It's speciation within species populations.

Am I the only one here who sees that these two positions don't match?

 

[RichardParker]

The problem isn't with the basic idea of evolution (which is simply change within species). It is with the false claims within the theory.

Well...
The guy I responded to clearly doesn't understand evolution, so in that comment, that was simply the point I wanted to respond.

Now, to your alleged problems:
What false claims? And why are you only reducing it to change within a species, when change from one species to the other is an equally well observed fact?

 

[morse86]

Obviously, the monkeys coming from birds is a joke to show how ridiculous it is that another animal is turning into a different animal....given millions of years.

It is also intended to show that eventually...the evolutionist is stuck with saying organic matter came from inorganic matter and eventually everything came from nothing.

 

[lasthero]

Obviously, the monkeys coming from birds is a joke

Heh. Sure it was.

show how ridiculous it is that another animal is turning into a different animal....given millions of years.

Yes, that is ridiculous...but it's not what the theory of evolution proposes, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

It is also intended to show that eventually...the evolutionist is stuck with saying organic matter came from inorganic matter and eventually everything came from nothing.

Neither of which have anything to do with evolution, which is a theory about how animals diversify, not how they started.

 

[Dizredux]

Obviously, the monkeys coming from birds is a joke to show how ridiculous it is that another animal is turning into a different animal....given millions of years.

It is also intended to show that eventually...the evolutionist is stuck with saying organic matter came from inorganic matter and eventually everything came from nothing.

If you are going to fight against evolution, don't you think it might be worthwhile to have at least some idea of how it works?

Right now, all you are doing is making yourself look foolish.

Dizredux

 

[EternalDragon]

Well...
The guy I responded to clearly doesn't understand evolution, so in that comment, that was simply the point I wanted to respond.

Now, to your alleged problems:
What false claims? And why are you only reducing it to change within a species, when change from one species to the other is an equally well observed fact?

Where? Name that species.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh, but it is a whole lot more and you know it. Species changing characteristics and adapting to environment changes isn't really evolution. It's speciation within species populations.

You also forgot to mention in that list that men do not come from monkeys.

I am sorry, but so much was incorrect in that statement that I didn't view correcting monkeys to apes as important enough to delay the post.

Speciation is explained within the theory of evolution. However, to be clear, the origin of life itself is not, and I despise ever so much that I have to state that so often.