Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[mzungu]

I don't see a denial of evolution as a failure to think critically. It's a theory for a reason and just like everyone says I shouldn't just accept things from the bible without critical thinking people shouldn't accept theories as fact. Micro evolution makes sense and is factual but the theory of evolution is not. Evolution is nothing more then a flawed theory. I've never seen a half monkey half man.... And where's that missing link again??? It can't be fact if it's not proven.

So if you believe in evolution tell us why.

In science one does not "believe" in a Theory; one "Accepts" a Theory.
Science is not faith based like religions are. We accept something and have no problems if and when it is revised, improved upon or basically changed when the scientific conditions are adhered to; eg: Peer review, empirical evidence etc.

 

[JacksBratt]

In science one does not "believe" in a Theory; one "Accepts" a Theory.
Science is not faith based like religions are. We accept something and have no problems if and when it is revised, improved upon or basically changed when the scientific conditions are adhered to; eg: Peer review, empirical evidence etc.

The theory of evolution has faith in the fact that life started somehow, without a designer. They have faith in the fact that somehow, out of nothing came, not only life, but information. This information was organized in an unexplainable and unbelievably organized fashion in DNA.

All of this, with no explanation and no desire to even touch that subject.
That, takes faith.

 

[SteveB28]

The theory of evolution has faith in the fact that life started somehow, without a designer. They have faith in the fact that somehow, out of nothing came, not only life, but information. This information was organized in an unexplainable and unbelievably organized fashion in DNA.

All of this, with no explanation and no desire to even touch that subject.
That, takes faith.

As is the case with so many of the creationist mindset, you have an extremely poor idea of what it is that you think you are attacking.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the beginnings of life. It has nothing to say about the genesis of 'information'.

Like Don Quixote, you are attempting to confront an enemy, when none exists.

 

[crjmurray]

The theory of evolution has faith in the fact that life started somehow, without a designer. They have faith in the fact that somehow, out of nothing came, not only life, but information. This information was organized in an unexplainable and unbelievably organized fashion in DNA.

All of this, with no explanation and no desire to even touch that subject.
That, takes faith.

That's abiogenisis, not evolution.

 

[crjmurray]

HUZZAH!!!!!

 

[SteveB28]

Ah, thank you Mr Murray!

Reading Cervantes was a real enjoyment as a child.

 

[crjmurray]

Ah, thank you Mr Murray!

Reading Cervantes was a real enjoyment as a child.

I'm a fan of visual aids.

 

[Queller]

The theory of evolution has faith in the fact that life started somehow, without a designer.

Wrong. The theory of evolution does not care how life began, only that it did begin.

They have faith in the fact that somehow, out of nothing came, not only life, but information.

Who is "they"? I thought you were talking about the theory of evolution?

 

[Split Rock]

The theory of evolution has faith in the fact that life started somehow, without a designer. They have faith in the fact that somehow, out of nothing came, not only life, but information. This information was organized in an unexplainable and unbelievably organized fashion in DNA.

All of this, with no explanation and no desire to even touch that subject.
That, takes faith.

It does not take faith to believe life started. It is funny to read such an assertion from a creationist who thinks life is not only evident , but evidence of the work of his god. There are some hypotheses concening the origin of life but no theories, as of yet. It is an active area of research, despite your claim to the contrary. Evolution simply does not cover the origin of life, since it is a theory that explains the Origin of Species. Sound familiar?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The theory of evolution has faith in the fact that life started somehow, without a designer.

Actually, that's not true -- The theory of evolution only requires that life started, period. Given that life exists, that's not exactly a leap of faith.

In fact, Christians who are theistic evolutionists are pretty much living proof that your first premise is a misconception.

They have faith in the fact that somehow, out of nothing came, not only life, but information. This information was organized in an unexplainable and unbelievably organized fashion in DNA.

Misconception #2 -- DNA is hardly unexplainable.

All of this, with no explanation and no desire to even touch that subject.

Misconception #3 -- Remember theistic evolutionists?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The theory of evolution has faith in the fact that life started somehow, without a designer. They have faith in the fact that somehow, out of nothing came, not only life, but information. This information was organized in an unexplainable and unbelievably organized fashion in DNA.

All of this, with no explanation and no desire to even touch that subject.
That, takes faith.

Incorrect; evolution makes no claims in regards to deities or other possible designers. They aren't included or excluded, feel free to include them if you feel like you need to.

Actually, evolution doesn't cover the origins of life, just how it changes over time. This is a common error. The theory you would take issue with in this regard would be abiogenesis. Furthermore, no one claims anything came from nothing. Even before the Big Bang, there was something. Not a something that we find all that comprehensible, due to everything such as time and space being created in the Big Bang, but something nevertheless.

DNA has been explained very well, we know why it organizes into the shape and why it contains certain chemicals. We know how it reproduces itself. We know enough about DNA to fill years of your life with just information about it.

Biology is one of the most well-explained scientific fields, your explanations are literally a Google search away.

 

[mzungu]

Incorrect; evolution makes no claims in regards to deities or other possible designers. They aren't included or excluded, feel free to include them if you feel like you need to.

Actually, evolution doesn't cover the origins of life, just how it changes over time. This is a common error. The theory you would take issue with in this regard would be abiogenesis. Furthermore, no one claims anything came from nothing. Even before the Big Bang, there was something. Not a something that we find all that comprehensible, due to everything such as time and space being created in the Big Bang, but something nevertheless.

DNA has been explained very well, we know why it organizes into the shape and why it contains certain chemicals. We know how it reproduces itself. We know enough about DNA to fill years of your life with just information about it.

Biology is one of the most well-explained scientific fields, your explanations are literally a Google search away.

Indeed, and if I may add, Abiogenesis is not even a Theory at present; it is just a hypothesis and a lot of research is done in this field. There will come a time when a Theory will be postulated that will explain how life began.

 

[AV1611VET]

There will come a time when a Theory will be postulated that will explain how life began.

Probably during the Tribulation period, when the Antichrist will take evolution to the pinnacle of understanding; and explain it so easily that a child will be able to fully-grasp its intricacies.

Complete with a demonstration.

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[mzungu]

Probably during the Tribulation period, when the Antichrist will take evolution to the pinnacle of understanding; and explain it so easily that a child will be able to fully-grasp its intricacies.

Complete with a demonstration.

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[Davian]

Probably during the Tribulation period, when the Antichrist will take evolution to the pinnacle of understanding; and explain it so easily that a child will be able to fully-grasp its intricacies.

Complete with a demonstration.

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Did you mean evolution or abiogenesis?

 

[whois]

As is the case with so many of the creationist mindset, you have an extremely poor idea of what it is that you think you are attacking.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the beginnings of life. It has nothing to say about the genesis of 'information'.

Like Don Quixote, you are attempting to confront an enemy, when none exists.

this sort of thing always makes me chuckle.
regardless of what the origins of life is connected to, there is still no proof that life "arose" from the elements.

another thing, why is it you must continually point this out to people?
could it be that people got this impression from what they were taught in school?

if evolution disowns the origins of life then that should be spelled out to our students.

actually, evolution is all about a "no god" scenario in regards to life and its diversity and does indeed include the origins of life.

 

[mzungu]

this sort of thing always makes me chuckle.
regardless of what the origins of life is connected to, there is still no proof that life "arose" from the elements.

another thing, why is it you must continually point this out to people?
could it be that people got this impression from what they were taught in school?

if evolution disowns the origins of life then that should be spelled out to our students.

actually, evolution is all about a "no god" scenario in regards to life and its diversity and does indeed include the origins of life.

Origin of the species and origin of life are two completely different things. You are in essence bearing false witness when you say that evolution includes the origin of life.

The Theory of Evolution does not disown the hypothesis of Abiogenesis just as Chemistry does not disown Biology. If as you say ToE disowns the origin of life then what you are saying is that ToE says that life does not exist! A paradox if ever there was one!

Really now; what are your credentials that allow you to judge the Theory of Evolution?

 

[whois]

Origin of the species and origin of life are two completely different things.

i disagree.
it's one thing, a no god explanation to life on earth.
it falls flat on its face in regards to abiogenesis.
the concept of transposons make "small accumulating changes" ludicrous.
the fossil records does not support "ape to man".
there are no experiments that determine any kind of change for an organism. it's never been observed so it's assumed "it takes a long time".
i await those that will cloud the issue by saying we HAVE observed change.
to those i say "you know exactly what i'm talking about".
tear it apart brother, see what you REALLY know about evolution.

i know what your reasoning is.
you reason that since "god" sounds so ludicrous then evolution MUST be true.
and that simply is not the case.
i do know this, we will never know by blindly following the leader.

You are in essence bearing false witness when you say that evolution includes the origin of life.

i state a fact when i say "evolution is all about life with no god".

If as you say ToE disowns the origin of life then what you are saying is that ToE says that life does not exist! A paradox if ever there was one!

ok, now what?
the fact still remains, life comes from life, you know biogenesis.

Really now; what are your credentials that allow you to judge the Theory of Evolution?

evidence . . . or lack thereof.

 

[Gracchus]

this sort of thing always makes me chuckle.
regardless of what the origins of life is connected to, there is still no proof that life "arose" from the elements.

Well, however it arose, it is composed mostly of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, all, if you hadn't noticed, are elements.

another thing, why is it you must continually point this out to people?
could it be that people got this impression from what they were taught in school?

That could very well be. There are some unqualified biology teachers out there. And then of course, there are those whose paid little or no attention to what was being taught, and a few more, perhaps who just couldn't seem to grasp the concepts.

if evolution disowns the origins of life then that should be spelled out to our students.

Well, there is nothing to keep you from bringing that up at the next PTA meeting.

actually, evolution is all about a "no god" scenario in regards to life and its diversity and does indeed include the origins of life.

It is about a "no god scenario" to the same extent that it is about a no leprechaun scenario, or a no "aliens from the planet Kolob" scenario. Science is about what can be observed and demonstrated.

 

[whois]

Well, however it arose, it is composed mostly of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, all, if you hadn't noticed, are elements.

life might not be composed of "elements".
a certain configuration of these elements might make it possible for life to manifest itself.
life and the living cell might be 2 entirely different things.

it could also be that life never arose at all, it has always been here.

That could very well be. There are some unqualified biology teachers out there. And then of course, there are those whose paid little or no attention to what was being taught, and a few more, perhaps who just couldn't seem to grasp the concepts.

i'm not prepared to call college educated teachers "ignorant" or "unqualified".
when someone brings this up, ask them why they think the way they do.

Well, there is nothing to keep you from bringing that up at the next PTA meeting.

this stuff belongs on the shoulders of those that approve our text books.

It is about a "no god scenario" to the same extent that it is about a no leprechaun scenario, or a no "aliens from the planet Kolob" scenario. Science is about what can be observed and demonstrated.

yes, that's what science is supposed to be about.
i have clearly demonstrated that this is not the case with evolution.
it isn't just the creationists, it's the darwinists too, that are willing to go as far as willful blindness.
like i said before:
creationists can be excused.
there is NO excuse for the other.