evolution- yes/no

[blukazoo159]

I just want to know what you think. i argue with my dad if it is ( it is) or not.

[Slider]

Yes, but in SOME cases. for ex. I DON'T believe in human's evolution from apes!!! (Then how come the rest of the apes haven't evolved) and many other cases in my mind!
in short, it depends

[ThroneofDravaris]

Originally Posted by Slider

I DON'T believe in human's evolution from apes!!! (Then how come the rest of the apes haven't evolved)

Apes and humans share a common ancestry; the apes that exist today are not the species we 'evolved' from. The apes that exist today have indeed evolved, just into another form of ape rather than humans.

Or at least that is what I got from my limited understanding of the subject.

[Xartex]

Evolution, ofc, what else is there to belive in. that god created all species, that is imo just very stupid. I mean seriously wtf.

Originally Posted by ThroneofDravaris

Apes and humans share a common ancestry; the apes that exist today are not the species we 'evolved' from. The apes that exist today have indeed evolved, just into another form of ape rather than humans.

about this, that is how i understand it was, we were the same a looong time ago but then we evolved into different thing depending on the enviorment and stuff like that

[Spiff]

I believe that the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than creationism. There's a lot of evidence to support it and given a couple thousand years and you may have a law.

[FantasyFanatic]

Absolutely right, there is a ton more evidence supporting evolution than creationism. Like we all just popped out of nowhere? Please...actually the Bible quotes "born from the Earth" but whatever. Scientists have actually recently discovered that Neanderthals(sp) are not our ancestors but an entirely different species. Neanderthals developed in Europe while another similar species of human ancestor called Homo Erectus(I think) developed in the African continents. This species traveled north, wiping out the Neanderthals. I watched this on the discovery channel, lol. But they have tracked our lineage back, what 3 million years i think the show said, so I find that more likely than us popping out of thin air. Sorry if I offend anyone this is just my belief.

[Squall Lionheart]

Some opinions might depend on faith, evolution as well as mutations are already acknowledged and proven...
As for humans, it's only a theory but they were created...

[Phoenix Flame]

God is the author of life. To be God - by definition - one would have to have no boundaries imposed on oneself. Therefore, nothing our finite (again, by definition) minds would be able to comprehend. My belief is that God created...matter, dark matter, x-rays, gamma rays, visible light, ocean, earth, stars, etc...whatever happened afterwards and whether or not some species evolved doesn't concern me.

What DOES concern me is that if there is NO God, that means my life has no meaning. I will have nowhere to go when I pass away - no lasting legacy. THAT is what concerns me. To know in my heart and soul that there IS a God that loved me enough to paint a background for my story with thoughts and words, to give me all I would need and could ever hope for, and to provide friends along the way: these are essential to my being. Something inside of me whispers, "There is more to life..." And I'm not talking about a 'simple' thing like what I should choose as a career path. I mean purpose...meaning. Isn't that what everyone is searching for? To know that they belong - that they matter. For the rest of us...what do you hope for? If you do not truely have a destiny, what is your life but a vapor?

[Staircase]

Originally Posted by reasoniamalive

God is the author of life. To be God - by definition - one would have to have no boundaries imposed on oneself. Therefore, nothing our finite (again, by definition) minds would be able to comprehend. My belief is that God created...matter, dark matter, x-rays, gamma rays, visible light, ocean, earth, stars, etc...whatever happened afterwards and whether or not some species evolved doesn't concern me.

What DOES concern me is that if there is NO God, that means my life has no meaning. I will have nowhere to go when I pass away - no lasting legacy. THAT is what concerns me. To know in my heart and soul that there IS a God that loved me enough to paint a background for my story with thoughts and words, to give me all I would need and could ever hope for, and to provide friends along the way: these are essential to my being. Something inside of me whispers, "There is more to life..." And I'm not talking about a 'simple' thing like what I should choose as a career path. I mean purpose...meaning. Isn't that what everyone is searching for? To know that they belong - that they matter. For the rest of us...what do you hope for? If you do not truely have a destiny, what is your life but a vapor?

wow.....

Amazing, you must get 100s on all of your essays because not only did i agree with all of that, but it was so well written it should be published. =0
I too cant believe that life is a mere coincidence. There has to be something behind all of it. But i can see where other people get their ideas from.

Originally Posted by FantasyFanatic

Like we all just popped out of nowhere? Please...actually the Bible quotes "born from the Earth" but whatever.

Also, i don't think if evolution is proved with humans, that it contradicts Christianity at all. I'm a Christian and i believe in evolution.

[Xartex]

Imo, if god had created it all i doubt it would be as complicated as everything is, I mean, why make hundreds of different elements when u could make it work with just 1 or 2. Considering if he created it he could problably be able to make it work with just a few. And also, why would he make earth just a tiny planet, i mean, there are just so many planets, u saying that he created them all just for fun. Also, if there really was a god who created earth, why would he make earth in the end of one galaxy and not in the middle of everything. I don't think we all have a destiny, we have a free will and do what we do. Just think of for example the alcoholics or the drug addicts, can you honestly say that you think it is their destiny to be what they are.

That is what I think anyway.

[Phoenix Flame]

Ok,..I really wanted to reply to your questions Xartex. They are good questions. I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability. I know one thing though - just the fact that you are asking them means something's going on in your mind...and heart. I hope you find truth.

About complicatedness - we could argue back and forth all day...all week. The main ideas that pop into my head just have to do with the make-up of the human body. If everything were based off of hydrogen and oxygen...sodium and chlorine, even add some nitrogen and iron, and none - absolutely none of the (human) body's systems or tissues would function. If you knew more about the electrophysiology of just the heart - it blows my mind how the ventricles serve as back up pacing to a back up pacing system in the heart. Or that you can sever the portion of the nervous system that links your brian to your heart and it will beat all on its own! :O But it lies deeper than that. Have you though about how complicated the Sun is? Or a black hole/supernova/pulsar? How do you know we ARE NOT the center of the universe - science hasn't mapped even 2% of the KNOWN universe. What about something we take for granted...gravity. Anyone ever comprehend that what keeps our feet on the ground also distorts time and space itself? You did contradict yourself though...on one hand you say we have free will - then ask if alcoholics and drug addicts have a 'destiny.' Its free will all the way baby!

My main thoughts: the world is complicated. LOL duh, right? But I would like everyone to ask themselves a question: let's say that God exists, do you think that He is wild? Can you fathom a God that desires adventure? Look around...what do you see? War, poverty, greed, anger, brokenness, envy - they all suck right? Some people here already know that there is a bigger picture. The bible says that when someone is tempted to do evil, he should never say that God is tempting him - because He is not capable of evil. But I believe that there is a sort of Adamantoise reason why all of these things happen. He is trying to restore His creation back from the way it is now - because of evil - to the way things were in the beginning where there was no evil. It's amazing, difficult to conceive - yet simple. HE, loves US?!?!?! Indescribeable!

[Staircase]

Originally Posted by Xartex

And also, why would he make earth just a tiny planet, i mean, there are just so many planets, u saying that he created them all just for fun. Also, if there really was a god who created earth, why would he make earth in the end of one galaxy and not in the middle of everything.

My opinion on the matter is this...

Think about this... the earth can be lived on because we are perfect distance away from the sun, correct? Well, think about all the other stars in the entire universe. There has to be millions of other planets that are also "the perfect distance" away from a star, thus having life on them. That, in my opinion, is why we aren't the center of the universe.

[Unknown Kaze]

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.

3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.

7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures.
Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.

I really hope I dont need to say anything else as to why Evolution is as untrue as Santa Claus.

[Spec Highwind]

So... tell me... if our organisms/minds/whatever MUST BE deSIGNED BY "SOMEONE", Who designed that "god"?

[Staircase]

0.o
Nice info Kaze... Very nice info indeed!

And about spec's question:
I think that is pure faith. =)