MEMBER LOGIN   |   Username: Password:
Twitter: (The Twitter thing is temporarily down due to a Twitter-related bug or something!)
Recent Updates: The New Site is now open! (6 years ago) Which of [these facial express... Vulpin Adventure OST| "Blast to the past!", a review of Plazma Burst 2 by Rating Orb Duogduogduog
...
Pseudolonewolf`s Avatar Evolution Fri 17th Sep 2010 9:33pm

Category: Religion

It would seem that evolution is something that comes up in religion-related debates in this era. It used to be geocentricism, before the Church admitted *eventually* that science was indeed right and the religious types now generally accept that the Earth orbits the sun and isn't the centre of the universe, with few exceptions.
Such a belief, by the way, goes against scripture; it's clear that the Bible speaks of an unmoving Earth around which the rest of the cosmos was created as mere decoration. But of course nobody seriously believes this now, right? It's just *metaphor*, right? Even though the Earth was made before all else in the Genesis account (or one of the two Genesis accounts of creation, anyway).
Yes, the scientific evidence is too strong to argue against.

The same applies to evolution. Its evidence is strong indeed, and it's only a matter of time before the creationists realise this. At the moment, most get by by completely ignoring any actual research on the topic, listening to unqualified dismissers from their church and so on, rather than actual biologists. Sometimes they get lucky though and a pious (and usually unskilled) biologist comes up, insisting that there are 'holes' and 'flaws' in the 'just-a-theory' of evolution, which he can expose, and that there's a *conspiracy* going on amongst scientists to *cover this up*, through threats of withdrawing funding or even, in some extreme cases, physical violence. Those evil scientists!!
These renegade creationist-biologists are usually regarded highly by creationists, I've noticed, and even when their arguments are shown with huge quantities of evidence to be false, nobody wants to ever change their minds. Indeed, it just supports their idea that scientists are nasty, evil monsters who are too closed-minded to see their point of view! Those evil scientists!!

(Interestingly, creationists are quick to dismiss scientific evidence that goes against their worldview, calling it false, lies, irrelevant, stating that faith is more important than that, calling it blasphemy, etc, etc. However, they're quick to jump on 'science' that SUPPORTS their ideas, even when it doesn't! And can you imagine them saying the same dismissive faith-trumps-scientific-evidence sort of stuff if evidence for, say, the Biblical Garden of Eden was ever found? I highly doubt it!)

I wish I was educated in biology so I could address this topic more clearly. I wasn't, though; I've never done biology at school (largely due to objections to and fear of dissection, apparently!). So all my information on the topic is just derived from various sources online.

Just A Theory
There is one thing I'd like to address clearly first of all though, something that really, really gets on my nerves, and on the nerves of anyone else with a spark of intelligence, an open mind and a basic understanding of science, too.
It's the argument that claims that evolution is 'just a theory'.

'Theory' is a word that has different meanings in Science and in everyday use.
The layman's use of the word 'theory' refers to a wild guess, a hypothesis. "I have a theory that the world's Elite are actually 12-foot reptilians from the fourth dimension" and so on. It's this definition that the creationists try to apply to the 'theory of evolution'.

However, THE WORD 'THEORY' IN SCIENCE HAS A VERY DIFFERENT MEANING.
There are facts in nature, which are things that we observe. An apple falling is a fact.
A 'law' in science describes these facts. For example, the law of gravity states that the apple will fall to the ground (or rather, be attracted to the Earth). It doesn't say how, though.
The THEORY is the collection of concepts, explanations and formulae and such that describe HOW the law works. The theory of gravity explains the mathematics behind gravity, and the reason it works as it does.
A theory would never get 'promoted to' a law because they are different things entirely. If there were a 'hierarchy' at all in terms of scientific definitions, a theory would actually be ABOVE a law.
Scientific ideas have to go through rigorous testing and experimentation in order to become a theory at all. If something doesn't fit, it's scrapped, or replaced with something that does. This is how science advances.
Saying that it's 'just a theory' is like calling an athlete 'just a gold medal winner'.

Here is basically the same that that I just said, but in different words: [LINK]
(I feel I have to write it out here because people may be reluctant to listen if I merely provide some links and expect them to read.)

Science is not 'unsure' of the 'just-a-theory' of evolution. The facts are clear and known. We don't know perfectly yet *exactly how* evolution occurs, but we know for sure that it does.

And if you're going to say that science changes its mind and will soon change its mind about evolution when they see it's wrong, then that's not accurate.
Science does change its mind, yes, and this is perhaps the most amazing thing about it (and a huge contrast with faith-based religion). However, they are only ever *improvements* over existing concepts, rather than drastic replacements... At least, recently, anyway, when we've distanced ourselves from superstitious nonsense.
Newton's Laws of Motion were proven by Einstein to be not entirely true at certain extreme speeds, but this doesn't mean that they were 'always wrong'. The laws DO apply and are very useful in every day life. It's just that Einstein 'added more refinement and detail', you could say.

However, some old ideas are indeed completely dismissed rather than merely refined when they are found to be wrong, when new evidence comes up. One of these ideas is thousands of years old, and science now understands it to be rubbish. Yet some people still cling to it, apparently. Hmm.

Abiogenesis, Cosmology, etc
Evolution DOES NOT EXPLAIN the origins of life or the universe. All it explains is how life came from single cells to what it is today. Things like the Big Bang are *entirely* unrelated to evolution.
It would appear that theists, with their all-encompassing religious life views, expect that science proposes a similar all-encompassing theory, evolution, to explain everything, but it doesn't.
There are different areas of science for different things.

Darwin
Something I've come across enough to mention it is how people seem to assume that 'evolutionists' worship Darwin like they, the creationists, worship their god or prophets or saints or whatever, and that 'On the Origin of Species' is like some holy book to 'the religion of evolution'.
This is rubbish, of course, because science doesn't work like that. We can admire Darwin for 'opening the door', so to speak, but he's not the sole source of evolutionary theory.
He just started the ball rolling. Since his time, science has merely added more and more support to his ideas, and proven time and time again that he was right, even in ways that he didn't know about.
DNA wasn't discovered until after Darwin's time, for example, yet when it was, it fit perfectly into the idea of creatures that gradually evolve. It's one of the best sources for clear evidence of common descent.

Science works by trying to prove things wrong, because if it can't, it means that that idea is solid and worth using. Since Darwin's time, science has failed to prove his ideas wrong, and instead has just added more and more support to them.

Not a Religion
Evolution is not a religion, nor is it 'faith-based'. Again, science doesn't work like this.
I'm wondering actually whether creationists do this as a way of intentionally putting evolutionary theory 'on the same level as' creationism, or whether they're just completely unaware that other people might have minds that work unlike their own, which AREN'T based on a foundation of dogma, obedience, rationalisation, deceit, and *faith*.

Science finds and tests evidence and ideas, then derives answers from these findings. It can be proven wrong, and when it is, that's a great thing because it means *advancement*. No good scientifically-minded person would ever stick to old ideas if strong evidence came up to prove them wrong. They'd be more likely to have a party or something! If scientists had parties. I don't like parties!!

We don't have 'faith' in evolution in the same way we don't have 'faith' in gravity. We may base our thoughts on sensible assumptions - like that the apple will always fall to the floor instead of randomly falling up one time for no good reason - but this is not the same as the 'faith' that Believers have, where they cling to the idea in the face of contradictory evidence or despite the lack of any positive evidence, refusing to change their minds.
We don't assume based on nothing; we have evidence.

So where's this supposed evidence, then?
I simply don't know where to start. There's just so MUCH of it that there's no clear place to begin. I also repeat that I am not a biologist, so I wouldn't be able to do a decent job of describing it all.
There's plenty of places online to find out about this evidence. I am going to provide a few links here, since they do a better job of explaining than I can. They're all from Wikipedia, because that's generally more reliable (on the big issues) than Some Random Website By Some Guy or a the site of a biased organisation with an agenda.
If you have to resort to calling Wikipedia lies in order to keep thinking you're right, then I'm sorry, but you're very closed-minded.
(And no, I am not 'closed-minded' for 'blindly accepting everything Wikipedia tells me', before anyone says that. It is the collective consciousness of humanity, in a way, and the consensus of experts. It is non-biased, and has many strict rules that prevent it from containing unsourced misinformation, original research or fringe ideas with no basis in reality.)

This one seems a good starting place if you've never done any research on the matter:
[LINK]

This is a short part of an article on misconceptions in general, about evolution:
[LINK]

This one describes the 'not a theory' thing that I attempted to do here:
[LINK]

This one's more in-depth:
[LINK]

This is an FAQ answering many naive questions that creationists who've never really studied the topic tend to have as a result of church propaganda:
[LINK]

Open-mindedness
If you are unwilling to read about the information, and prefer instead to just search for things *which support your existing views*, like running Google searches for 'evidence against evolution' and then masturbating to the soothing lies that support your own wilfully ignorant bigotry, then you can't honestly call yourself 'open-minded'.

And no, people who believe science are not 'closed-minded' for dismissing the beliefs you happen to have been taught as a child. Are you 'closed-minded' for dismissing other religious beliefs, drastically different to your own, like the Australian Aborigines' beliefs about the rainbow serpent and the dreamtime and all that? No, those beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny, and neither do yours from a mind that isn't *trying* to believe them.

Scientists the world over agree on scientific theories because of the analytical and experimentation-based way that science works and adapts. Scientists are always trying to prove other parts of science wrong, all the time.

Everyone in the world other than people in your religion would generally agree that your religion is wrong, which is interesting. However, people from your religion are always trying to show that their religion is right and generally refusing to criticise it too closely because that's blasphemous and the work of the Devil.

Please, please do not argue about evolution if you don't understand the first thing about it!
309 comments

 

309 Commentson 37 roots

Johnwater`s Avatar
Rating Orb Johnwater 13 Singapore MelancholicPhlegmatic 40C 20F
7 years ago | (2)
Ok, just a minor point. I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned somewhere else, but I think I need to make a point.

If the Church that has been so openly criticised for its former stance on geocentrism had its way today, then we wouldn't have such hefty debates. The Cathoilic Church (yes, the same one that opposed Galileo ages ago) does agree with evolution. Just so that people won't have a mistaken association between he Church and anti-intellectualism/Creationsim
Pseudolonewolf`s Avatar
Rating Orb A β Pseudolonewolf 23 United Kingdom MelancholicPhlegmatic 2257C 559F
7 years ago | (3)
If the lovely Catholic Church - with all its idol worship and extravagant hierarchy and prayer ceremonies, all things explicitly forbidden and condemned by the Bible itself, and its polytheism (saints, trinity) - had its way, then we'd also have no contraception. The countries that already suffer from being ruled by Catholics live in agony because they end up having more children than they can support, so poverty and disease and such run rampant.
So while their position on evolution is better than other religious groups, it most certainly doesn't by itself make them superior to other religious groups. I'd rather endure creationist bigots than catholics who forbid safe, recreational sex. At least the creationism is relatively harmless.
Raconteur`s Avatar
Rating Orb Raconteur 16 United States MelancholicPhlegmatic 6C 13F
6 years ago | (2)
The accusation of idolotry is unfouded. Catholics don't worship religious icons even if they do face them when they pray. Every school day since I have entered kindergarten I have recited the pledge of allegiance facing the flag of my country. Pledging to follow a piece of cloth would be as absurd as praying to a plaster carving; these objects are simply physical representations that serve to remind people of more intangible concepts.
Pseudolonewolf`s Avatar
Rating Orb A β Pseudolonewolf 23 United Kingdom MelancholicPhlegmatic 2257C 559F
7 years ago | (2)
Evolution is inconsistent with actual Catholic religious beliefs, anyway. What of Adam and Eve? Did they evolve? If so, what creatures were they? Homo sapiens? Scientists know that we didn't just descend from two people like that. Or is the Genesis story just an allegory, a fable? If so, what of Original Sin, one of the most important parts of the belief system? Did the thing with tree of knowledge of good and evil really happen, or not?
How do these two concepts tie together, evolution and Original Sin? I suppose a lot of rationalisation needs to be done to make sense of anything religious.
Johnwater`s Avatar
Rating Orb Johnwater 13 Singapore MelancholicPhlegmatic 40C 20F
7 years ago | (1)
Well, personally, I accept the Vatican's account: that of theistic evolution, that man evolved but there was a first homo sapiens (evolved from single-cell creaturs) whose descendants became us. The garden of Eden is, yes, a figurative story, explaining that man is inherently sinful, breaking god's command for lust of power, fulfilment of curiosity, pursuit of knowledge, etc. THAT is original sin. And if you read up, "actual Catholic religious beliefs" are in fact dictated by the Pope, the same pope who supports evolution! So no that condracdictory after all, eh? And deeper research will show that our beliefs actually aren't as ridiculous as you make them sound, we do not worship statues, most christians believe in the trinity, saints are intecessors not gods, a simpler solution is "DON"T HAVE SEX", etc.
1 Reply
Raconteur`s Avatar
Rating Orb Raconteur 16 United States MelancholicPhlegmatic 6C 13F
6 years ago | (1)
Firstly, the theory of evolution does not contradict Catholic beliefs. The Vatican under Pope John Paul II affirmed that Evolution was the most accurate scientific explanation for the origin of man. The only difference between your opinion and the Catholic opinion is that they believe that God began this process and guided it. Secondly, you have mentioned multiple times the contradictions between the Bible and what can be rationaly proven through empirical evidence. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is to be taken litteraly. Instead, they maintain that the Bible teaches "religiouse truth" not "litteral truth" by which they mean the Bible is meant to serve as an example of how to live our lives and not as a history textbook. Oh and by the way, it is true that the Catholic Church views birth control methods as morally wrong. However, they view rampant AIDs and other STDs to be an even greater problem, so they are okay if not wildly in favor of some methods of birth control.
1 Reply
Mahdi`s Avatar
Rating Orb Mahdi 14 United States 41C 0F
7 years ago | (2)
well, most of these comments were commenting about how great and true evolution really is, but there are some things that need to be cleared up. Logic and science is how you explain evolution, but can logic and science disprove evolution O.o? since i am not a very educated man, nor have I lived long enough to know all about it. This is why I will give you some links to someone who has. If there is anything wrong with what he says, disprove it yourselves! Earlier there was something that i gave that was disproven, and I admit to the mistake. If you want an open mind than i guess you have to be open to new forms of thinking and logic. Do not marvel at the art itself, rather marvel at the artist. before you start hating me, expand on your ideas. This is not disproving evolution, rather it is explaining it in ways that are understandable. Do not watch part of it and then yell at me for being a waste of space. Watch all of it then formulate with proof, weather it is fact, or falsifiable. Slowly, we can end ignorance once and for all in all of the world, so that people may see things from more than one angle, rather than judging something they know nothing about.

Part 1 [LINK]

Part 2 [LINK]

Part 3 [LINK]

Pseudolonewolf`s Avatar
Rating Orb A β Pseudolonewolf 23 United Kingdom MelancholicPhlegmatic 2257C 559F
7 years ago | (12)
Sigh, I've seen so many things like this... I will watch at least the first part and comment here as I go along.

He used the word 'evolutionists', which immediately makes him lose a good deal of credibility. This is several minutes into the video too; the rest of the time he's basically just been talking about how amazing Islam and its god are.

He uses the word 'theories' in such a way - obvious by his tone of voice - that he doesn't understand the distinction between scientific Theory and the layman's usage of the word 'theory' (I already explained this in the post this comment is on).

He speaks about the Big Bang, which has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. I think it's maybe called 'cosmogenesis', the start of the universe (or maybe it's a different word, I'm unsure), and it has nothing to do with biological evolution, since that only applies to *organisms*. I get the feeling that in a minute, he'll talk about the first life in a 'but where did that come from?!?' sort of way, which is also not linked to evolution; that's abiogenesis and it's an unsolved mystery at the present time (I should point out that it being unsolved does not mean that the religious have the answer; holes are not opportunities to plug in your favourite ideas).

The first wings didn't come about from fish jumping out of the water... And what of these 'gnats and bugs and things' that he speaks of? Were they simply just *there* before the actual life had wings? o_O

He just stated that point again. Nobody sane says that wings developed from jumping fish. Besides, wings have come about in many different ways in different types of life through convergent evolution; bats, butterflies, and birds all fly, but by very different means that aren't evolutionarily connected.
At least he's pointed out that yes, the 'bugs had wings already', which is why his mad example never worked in the first place. Again, nobody says that. There aren't even any flying creatures that are directly descended from fish. What'd be the *point* of flying if you could swim through the entire ocean?
"Where did they get this idea from?!", he says. They didn't. It's ridiculous and not playing fair to *make up an absurd example which nobody actually thinks* and then knock it down. I think that's called a Strawman or something.

He's talking about lungs now, and his argument, it seems, for not accepting that they *did* change is what's called an 'argument from ignorance'; 'I don't know enough to understand it, so it seems ridiculous and couldn't happen!'
There are surely countless scientific works published on this exact area of evolution, but I suppose some people don't want to actually *look* for them and would rather try to speak as if their ignorance gives them the right to criticise instead.
It was likely annoying to you when I suggested that the Quran was originally in Hebrew, yes? Clearly I didn't know what I was talking about so I didn't have the right to criticise. But this here is exactly the same thing; this man is saying the equivalent of my ignorant remark, and it's frustrating to me that anyone would listen to him after showing such ignorance. He doesn't even know the basics.

"Birds are build completely different from fish!"
Well, obviously! They also *did not come from fish*. That is of course a ridiculous leap, like comparing a baby to an adult and then not understanding how one suddenly became the other. *Time* is involved, for one thing. Loosely speaking, fish became amphibians first; the similarities there are more apparent, since amphibians are basically fish with legs. Then they became reptiles; again, a fairly clear similarity, as reptiles are like less slimy amphibians. The next is vaguely reptiles to birds, but if you look at the body plans of dinosaurs (which were reptiles) and birds, you can see the many clear similarities between the two.
He's set up another absurd example that is not playing fair or which shows he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yes, 'indoctrinated', that's a totally fair word to use, and laughable coming from a religious person. People are not 'indoctrinated' into believing evolution; they are *educated* about its process so then they can actually understand how biology works.
I wonder if things like this are deliberate slander - that is, he knows its not indoctrination but wants to paint it that way to assert superiority and to dismiss it - or whether it's genuine ignorance born from not realising that not everyone is taught in the same way that religious people are taught. Maybe he really doesn't understand that anything can be taught and believed in a way that isn't based around indoctrination.

What on Earth is he talking about now? 'A number of scientists' said that things *just appeared on the scene*? It must have been a very small number with little credibility, because even saying something like that ('nope, it just appeared!') would be an anti-scientific non-answer which no credible scientist would openly say (just because it's essentially running from the challenge of trying to understand it; usually 'I don't know yet, but I'd like to find out!' is used for things we don't yet understand in science).
Hopefully he's not referring to Behe and his ilk... Let's see...

Good lord, he *is*! The 'ID' jokers! I've read and heard so much about this that it's the sort of thing that would make me 'facepalm' if I were the type to do memey things like that, which I'm not.
This man has lost all credibility (not that he seemed to have much to begin with), but it's beyond the scope of this comment to explain why.
Basically though, he is now talking about something I am deeply familiar with and which I know is essentially a bunch of scammers who refuse to play by the rules and yet insist that they're right without actual evidence.

"They're not going to say there's a God", he says of the 'IDiots' (as they're known), which they technically do try to claim, but anyone can see that they're religiously-motivated, being funded or run by religious organisations like the Discovery Institute and so on.
"How long before they wake up and realise that intelligent design was by God?!" Yes, they already are aware of that, but the reason they don't claim it is not because they don't think it, but because they're half-arsedly trying to play by science's rules (badly).

"What makes more sense to you: what Allah says or what a scientist says?!"
Why, what Thor says is more reliable, of course! Or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or *maybe*, just maybe, I'd trust a scientist about his field of expertise more than a religious person with an agenda.
*Groan*, he just spoke of the big bang as a 'chaotic explosion'... D:
This man doesn't understand what he's talking about in the slightest; his whole reason for dismissing the science he's mentioning is *because he does not understand it*.
I feel I'm not doing a good job of explaining why and how he's wrong, but it's hard to know where to start when every single little thing is so blatantly wrong and delivered with such incredulity... I'd suggest reading secular scientific information about things like the Big Bang to see how well scientists understand it, and how what he's saying is wrong, but the unfortunate thing about such science is that it's generally inaccessible to laymen due to its technicality; it takes a degree in the field to properly understand what you read. It's easy then for non-experts like this man to incredulously dismiss it like this, because it is *hard* to understand.

Then he talks about the Quran thing and how 'all life came from water', which I can't really argue with since to me it's just a 'coincidence', and it's not specific enough to be useful either way. Many creation myths had this kind of thing which are vague enough that they can be tied to real science if you try hard enough. It's more accurate than the Bible saying that man came from dust, but still inaccurate since it suggests that life is derived from H20, which is is not; it *includes* it in its chemical makeup in some way, and it first evolved in water, but in one sense it's not 'from' water exclusively. This is what I mean by 'vague'; the comparison can only be drawn one way.

Anyway, I've finished watching part 1 now, and I'm sorry but I can't watch the other two. There's simply no point. It's like you watching a criticism of the Quran in three parts where the first one claims that it was originally written in Hebrew. Would you? They'd clearly have no idea what they were talking about and wouldn't even have *properly looked* at the thing they were criticising, so why would they have any real points to make about it?

I've spent longer than I meant to on this comment, and I feel I've not really explained much here myself, but it's up to you, I'd say, to do the research yourself in a non-biased way.
First, let's start with Intelligent Design, since I know a lot about that. Dry articles can't convey what I'd like to, but I don't have the time to be thorough myself... Looking at [these] [articles], you can see that the 'Intelligent Design' thing was basically a political strategy by creationists to get around bans on the teaching of religious ideas in science classes. It's been referred to as 'creationism in a cheap suit', and is decried by scientists and was kicked out of court for being no different to creationism.

This is a brief article mentioning various ideas for how flight in birds could have developed: [LINK]
It's basically a big 'we don't know', but the point is that it doesn't suggest that fish became birds by jumping to eat flies. Nobody thinks that.

There's more I could go into, but I really do need to be getting back to work now... Hopefully I haven't completely wasted time writing this, though.

But please don't speak of others not understanding what they are criticising or dismissing then post something which does the exact same thing... D:
Mahdi`s Avatar
Rating Orb Mahdi 14 United States 41C 0F
7 years ago | (3)
I did research into the topic and came into a conclusion. Gregor Mendel proposed theories about genetic variation and recombination. There are phenotypes and genotypes, phenotypes being what can be seen, and genotypes being what the organism is made up of. If two brown dogs mate, and produce offspring, it is very possible that they can produce a white dog. because of the genotype, the genetic makeup, it allows dogs to be different in color. This is combined with the many other genes dogs have. So saying that, the formula for how many variations of one species (without mutations present) is 2^# of genes. Organisms have a certain chromosome number, so closely related species, with chromosomes and genes closely related, can breed (although they do not do this very often so this is something else that is also considered rare). The offspring becomes infertile. On even rarer occasions, the offspring can produce offspring. this is all extremely rare so it probably takes a good amount of time to happen. Also there are mutations that can occur, which is also rare, and on even rarer occasions the mutation results in something that is positive. Saying all of this it takes a very large amount of time for one organism to change. Good so far? Now fish appeared on the fossil record about 500 million years ago (according to the fossil record) and they evolved over time into amphibians, which took approximately 135 million years, and then evolved into reptiles which took 65 million years. This all happened and took a very very long time to happen. Now saying all of this, mass extinctions wiped out lots of species save a few, according to what current science will tell you. the ones that were still there continued on and became new species and these new species changed, so on so forth. So anyway you may be asking yourself, where am I going with this all I am doing is agreeing with what happened which shows that I know what I am talking about. Now it takes a great amount of time for all of this to happen. I am not denying that evolution did not happen ever to some extent, but I will point out some things based on what science will tell you.

If evolution was so random, is it not also random that something other than what was explained could have imprinted a certain shape into a rock? If a reptile gradually became weightless the faster it ran, then over time it would not help the reptile because it would not be as able to run as fast because it would be have an amount of thrust that would be actually a bad mutation that would not help the organism at all, making it lose control the faster it moved. That explains why cars and airplanes are built so differently, if it goes "in between" it would be extremely difficult to maneuver. And what about sudden changes in the fossil record? You can find a type of organism not changing drastically over a long period of time and find multiple fossils of that same organism, but a drastic change after a couple million years probably explains it better right? How do you explain an organism hibernating, and migrating? When a climate change hits the earth as a whole its terrible but what about changing seasons that are happening all the time? If an animal lives near the arctic and it suddenly gets colder, wouldn't it migrate to where conditions are more ideal? Just because a theory is intact doesn't mean it is perfect. It just does not have a better way to prove something. Aren't viruses alive? Is that explained by the cell theory?

Many things that are explained in Quran have a meaning in them. Many things said in the Quran are just being proved today as true, although it is almost 1500 years old. Quran was spoken in Arabic, memorized, and written, so how could it change over time? How could the Quran be something so primitive, and close minded, if the first word ever revealed was "read". If all life was random, why does anyone see a need to worship? Just think about it, look very deep inside of you, do you think it was all random? There are plenty of slave/master relationships that nobody criticizes. Why does nobody complain about a dog/human relationship? Obviously one is a slave, and one is a master, but that does not mean that they both do not express love for each other. He does not punish those who do not believe that did not surpass puberty, because he has mercy for those who are not mature enough to understand. If you never received the message, he does not blame you, he blames those who did not tell them about it. Theories are disproven over relatively short amounts of time, but for almost 1500 years, nobody can argue about the science in the Quran. Why did he mention man and woman 23 times each? Want some links to actual Quran being read and translated, instead of judging that it is all bologna?

Surat Al-rahman [LINK]

Surat Al-alaq [LINK]

these are just two of the 114 surahs in the entire Quran.
2 Replies
Mahdi`s Avatar
Rating Orb Mahdi 14 United States 41C 0F
7 years ago | (0)
Hmm If you do manage to read this I just want you to think about two questions. Do you have humility when you see g0d as an equal? Does it make sense if he wanted to be treated like an equal? God (that was on purpose) did not have omniscience or omnipotence, so the reason I do not believe in him is just that. Only a god with omniscience and omnipotence has a right to be worshiped.
1 Reply
SavageWolf`s Avatar
Rating Orb β SavageWolf 17 United Kingdom CholericMelancholic 533C 105F
7 years ago | (3)
I suppose I'll watch it and comment on it too, just so there are multiple people... Uh, I am an "educated man"; I have Standard Grade Chemistry and Physics, and am working on my Highers now (See: [LINK] ).

Your Comments
Logic and science disprove evolution? Where?

Are you open minded? You linked to a video that is clearly made by the people supporting your point, and they don't give any evidence... ("The book" is not evidence). And I am not close minded, I meditate and such, and try to understand new concepts...

What are you talking about, "Art"... That analogy doesn't fit in anywhere...

I have seen things from more than one angle, it's just that I don't think the other angle is accurate.

Part 1

"Facets of Islam"... "Peace TV"... Wow, real original sources...

"When you talk about religion, you'd be surprised to hear the word 'evolution'"... Yes, clearly... Hilarious... You dismiss it casually normally...

"If you even say the word evolution, they're gunna go white", seriously... This is a subtle ploy to get viewers thinking that evolutionism is bad...

"The only one that has the answers is Islam"... In a pro-Islam video irrelevant to Islam... It's at this point that this video would be noted as propaganda in my mind...

Why are you telling me about your god? This is supposed to be about evolution... And there is no other creator bar your god, got that... How long is this going to last... OH DEAR GODS DON'T LIST THEM! Damnit!

Quarter of the way into the video we talk about evolution... Finally...

Yes, the big bang is silly... Clearly a big guy in a white robe, long beard etc. made it by magic. Surely that is more probable... Also, things sent flying by the big bang magically evolved into other things... Do you even KNOW anything about the big bang?

Evolution doesn't state that the earth was 100% covered in water... Also, blue-green allege? Try single cell life forms... But yes, fish like creatures, eventually...

Wait, they jumped out the water to get bugs and gnats? Despite the fact that they don't exist yet? Also, they need somewhere to land, oh! Wait! There is no flat land...

Fun fact: Birds came after the dinosaurs died out.

What land? Assuming land magically appeared, what food? Also, primates postdate the dinosaurs too... Ah, finally we make mention to lizards...

Instant fun: Give him sock puppets.

Heh, "Because of the way it's presented in the books". See my point about the bearded guy above.

"It's not that we denounce or deny that such things happen." What was the first half of the video about then?

Uh... You made the fish idea up... This is the first time in a video I have ever seen a person denounce his own point...

Fish breath Oxygen, it's just mixed in the water... Nobody said birds were the same as fish... Except you...

Who said that some things "just appeared on the spot"? Who said there must be some intelligent design in the universe? Did they have a degree in Biology?

See, how do we know your god is the only one that ever existed, if he does?

Oh god... More quotations... I think my money is with the people who invented computers and medicine. And paper... Maybe...

So poor understanding of Physics... Also, what does dropping a glass have to do with creating the universe? We certainly didn't say that...

OK, he brought life out of water... Yes... And you have proof that there was water on earth, how surprising... And lifeforms are made of water... Maybe because it's so plentiful... We are also made up of carbon based compounds, so we came from coal, clearly...

And does it matter if we knew it 14 000 years ago? And yes, talk about evolution... We adhere to the "theory" that we are 90% water (It's 60-70%, actually), thank you.

Part 2/3

Gibbons, apes etc. exist, just to clear that up. Also, Apes are not the precursor to humans... They evolved from the same base animal thing. It's kind of like a brother/sister thing. That also explains the child's question. How do we not know the thing I just described? Why do monkeys have opposable thumbs then?

I just explained that... Also, his next point confuses me...

And here we are back to your god again... And I still don't understand the point you are talking about... And I don't think I trust that scientist...

So your god destroyed everything... He made us in his own image... Yadda yadda yadda...

Why are we talking about aliens now? What? And we are going into belief of religions without any cause...

And you have a god that transforms things... And it is really difficult to understand him...

Wow, you know about genders..! And you are citing untrustworthy sources again...

And back to your god again... Or Gods in general anyway... What does this have to do with evolution... Christianity has god outwith creation too, I think...

He knows about childbirth as well as genders! I think he is a very educated man! How do we know they didn't know that babies get hearing first? It's as simple as calling the baby's name and having it respond...

Conclusion
That video was not very much about evolution... It started like that, but at the end resorted to "MY GOD IS RIGHT!!11!"... It is rife with blatant misunderstandings and poor citations... Not to mention it assumes you have complete faith to Islamism (Or whatever it is)...
Mahdi`s Avatar
Rating Orb Mahdi 14 United States 41C 0F
7 years ago | (3)
At first I thought you said Mbombo the white giant as a racial slurr, but if you actually think that is what we belive in then of course you truly are a "trustworthy source". It is pretty obvious that what i have said is correct and you went on some random site, that has nothing to do with islam, and watch it lie and blow things out of proportion. When has the movie ever mentioned him saying Mbombo the white giant!!! URRGH!! I am not the most educated man in the world, I am only 14 years old, but when I see someone greatly lying about my religion, and citing mumbo jumbo facts about something you are so clueless about, then obviously I will get angry!
DetroitLionsFan`s Avatar
Rating Orb DetroitLionsFan 16 United States PhlegmaticSanguine 188C 99F
7 years ago | (1)
Hmm...I doubt that anyone's going to READ this, but on the off-chance that they do, I'll still write it.

On the "Just a Theory" bullet point of your post, let me commend you for describing the differences between scientific theory and layman's theory so eloquently. In my school, my circle of friends and I were talking about scientific theory and one of my friends pointed out that gravity is "just a theory" and therefore cannot be explained (obviously, he believes that gravity exists, but he basically fell into the "theory" trap you outlined earlier), and though I weakly argued back the differences between scientific theory and the common use of the word theory (which my friend obviously confused), I could not find the words to convince him the difference between the two terms. I though about relating the law and theory of gravity with the law and theory of evolution, but I restrained myself as evolution is more controversial than gravity (though neither are that controversial).

I did read your post before this argument, but I merely skimmed it and didn't pick up on the facts. Oh, how I wish I read your post in-depth before that day. Well, again, thanks for the vivid description between the two terms. You've enlightened me about the differences between the scientific and common terms (something my middle school never did!).
Daorack`s Avatar
Rating Orb Daorack 23 United States 26C 27F
7 years ago | (3)
I want to add one quick note I just thought of, for this topic.

Not only have we witnessed such changes. But we, as humans, have actually caused them, ourselves. By manipulating breeding habits and controlling where dogs go and what kind of environment dogs were in, we, as humans, have actually manipulated and created different breeds as a result.

As for the monkey to human issue. To be rather honest, aside from the vocal abilities, which is not all that drastic of a change, a few facial features, and a slight change in basic body shape and removal of hair, there really is not all that drastic of a difference.

We have caused more drastic changes in dogs than this, by our actions and manipulations of their breeding habits over generations. So how can we deny the possibility? Where's the proof?

Creationists try to debunk evolution by saying we have never been able to witness it, yet not only have we witnessed it, we actually manipulated it and created a greater change in dogs than what it would take to turn a monkey into a human or human like species.
ChapterXIII`s Avatar
Rating Orb ChapterXIII 17 Malaysia Phlegmatic 18C 5F
7 years ago | (1)
but i thought the phenotypic traits of dogs only require a change of less than 1%o.O wiki time again...(if i can even find the darn article) well i guess even if its such a low percentage dogs are pretty adaptive animals so i can agree with you...as for the human side of the matter it is quite obvious our changes are slightly more than just skin deep...we have the ability to decide when and what to do or a sense of conscience mostly due to the frontal lobe...although i cannot say that dogs and other animals do not have such, but what i can say that its a matter of time before someone finally mutates an animal that can speak human language AND understand it(despite ethical and moral values i may add) and when that happens i guess creationists have to nod and say yea maybe your right...but for now as ever, this theory will probably continue to be opposed till kingdom come, or until people lose their fingers and tongues
Zuriki`s Avatar
Rating Orb Zuriki 18 United Kingdom Melancholic 234C 84F
7 years ago | (1)
I would think the manipulation of breeding in cattle so they produce higher meat value would be more applicable to your argument than dog breeding (even though it's still valid) - breeding out a gene which controls muscle growth in a particular cow caused it's muscle mass to continue to increase, resulting in vast quantities of meat.
Daorack`s Avatar
Rating Orb Daorack 23 United States 26C 27F
7 years ago | (0)
Hmm, even though your technically still agreeing with me, I must say, you raise a very valid point. Well done.

I agree, that is a greater display of the point I was trying to make than the example I used. +1 for you for doing the research.
COLDOG16`s Avatar
Rating Orb COLDOG16 16 Australia CholericMelancholic 3C 0F
7 years ago | (0)
@Paulreaper I believe you are making a reference to a Phenotypic adaptation as opposed to Genotypic adaptations.
I believe these are better described as tollerances and resistances rather then an adaptation.
Also I personally believe that evidence of genotypic adaptations throughout time is too strong for anyone to disprove evolution I advise you take an in depth look into the different Taxanomic ranks for organisms such as genus and phylums and observe the relations between modern day organism and the megafauna of earlier times.
ChapterXIII`s Avatar
Rating Orb ChapterXIII 17 Malaysia Phlegmatic 18C 5F
7 years ago | (5)
Sooo...i have mulled over this subject for a wile and i have realised some thing........why cant the two theories or ermmm......many theories be little pieces of the real picture maybe Creationism is right and God made life on this earth...and perhaps Evolution is right that we didnt just plop out of the murky mire as pretty(or handsome) or as smart as we now are(we are smart are we?).
Perhaps Creationism is wrong and God didnt LITERALLY make us in a day but over time through evolution.But Evolution can also be wrong and that we were made by God instead of evolving from a tiny microorganism billions of years ago.I believe that the Bible where Creationists derive their theory from is in all its strange ambiguous they dont plainly say what they mean and thus different people read the Bible differently, and being such an important book its been reprinted AND retranslated over the many centuries, even today we have several versions of the English Bible although the differences are minute and discrete there are differences what more of a Chinese or Japanese version?
And as for Evolution I think you people are getting tired of this but humans DONT KNOW EVERYTHING!!!That is why science can still expand and grow with each century BECAUSE WE ARE FINDING NEW THINGS!!!
Berans`s Avatar
Rating Orb Berans 20 Australia CholericPhlegmatic 103C 35F
7 years ago | (3)
No sane person contests that it is inherently POSSIBLE that a deity had a hand in creation/evolution, since there is no viable way to even get close to proving or disproving that. Many people (including myself) are strongly inclined to believe things on the basis of evidence presented to them, and, with a lack thereof, do not believe such a deity exists.

And you're right, humans don't know everything, as a matter of fact, I strongly believe we don't know ANYTHING. In terms of absolute knowledge, I believe such a thing cannot exist. We perceive the world through our senses, but we have no way of telling if those are reliable. As such, I can't even be sure that the world outside of me exists.
However, I have an image of the world that is consistent, and seems consistent with what other people perceive. So for practical reasons it is useful to describe this world. Within such a practical frame, we CAN have, what we can comfortably call, absolute knowledge of something.
A person does not need to know everything to be able to ascertain something as true, precisely because we need a practical definition of truth that lies within the realms of possibility for us. Evolution is one of those things we know is true within a practical framework. Surely, there are flaws and gaps in the theory, as the incredible complexity of the world pretty much ensures, but at least on a rudimentary level we know that the mechanism the theory describes accurately predicts what happens, even if we do not possess knowledge of everything ever.

Of course I have no way of verifying that every one of my sources are actually correct, since I haven't actually performed the research myself. Thankfully, peer review helps us determine if research is accurate, which is why science continuously refines itself.

Whew, went on something of an odd existentialism tangent there, not sure how to tie that back in so I hope it stands up on its own.
Of course all of this is pure speculation from the inner workings of my brain (and those of others, I didn't come up with all these ideas by myself :P), but maybe it'll help you think about the topic in a different light. Even if it doesn't change your mind in any way, if this makes you think about things I feel I've accomplished something.

So yeah, I'll just go with my traditional tl;dr bits I do when my posts reach a certain level of convolution (and length) so here goes

tl;dr version:
No one is claiming god CAN'T have been involved, but many people dismiss the idea for lack of evidence. Just because we don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean we cannot know something (evolution) with a degree of certainty beyond reasonable doubt.
Myrradek`s Avatar
Rating Orb Myrradek 18 Canada PhlegmaticMelancholic 5C 0F
7 years ago | (5)
I read your post, and having the short attention span that I do, can't be bothered to read the comments, long as they are... at this time. Maybe I'll come back to it later, that's definitely a possibility, considering what I've read so far. What I've come to understand is that the debate has come to a stand still, because only one side of the debate is making an effort to come to an agreement. Every argument I've seen... no... wait... Every intelligent argument I have seen regarding "Creationism vs Evolution...ism?" is that Creationists are saying "You are wrong." and Evolutionists say "We may both be right." and I've begin to wonder... why is this?

Why is it that Creationists strive so hard to not believe that [i][u]maybe[/u][/i] we did come from a species similar to that of monkeys? Is it hard to believe? I don't believe so. Man has watched for generations, as species changed to where we put them... I think. I'm not going to claim to be an expert, and I have seen few intelligent arguments on the matter.

So, initially, am I correct in my observation? If so, then why am I correct? I'm merely a person, living their life day by day. I don't believe god exists, but frankly, if he does, I don't care. I have yet to see him intervene in any time where it would be... I don't know... beneficial maybe? So I don't believe he does. In fact, I've read something on the matter regarding the idea of an omnipotent, benevolent god. It went like this:
"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?"
I've no Idea where it comes from, but where I saw it claims it came from Epicurus. The very first time I read it. I said one word and one word only, "Wow."
This isn't to the "close-mindedness" of whomever said it. It's to the truth against an omnipotent benevolent god. It is a statement of awe. I had long wondered before hand if I were the only one to think in this manner, and clearly, am not.
But this is irrelevant, I admit that, my observation is that Creationists are, and possibly may remain the only people refusing irrefutable evidence against their claims, where as the evolutionists are merely stating that if we follow it back, we came from a great big cesspool of cells... I think?

I don't care if you are religious, I don't care if you're not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not if I'm right. If you decide the only reply I need is "You're wrong" then don't bother, I already believe that. But if you decide you'd maybe like to take the idea, improve upon it, and give that back to me, by all means. I maintain that everyone has a right to believe. They may be right, they may be wrong, but who are we to judge? We are human, we are imperfect, as I'd assume everything is. And imperfect creatures, in my belief anyway, don't deserve to lay claims to "Right" or "Wrong."

Anyway, enough of my rambling among various points... and have fun with a funny quote I stole from someone a while back.

"If a man kills another, He is a murderer. If he kills many, he's a hero. If he kills them all, He's favored by the gods! or just clinically insane."

P.S.: This entire post was 3311 characters. Including this entire post script.

-Myrra
cofro17`s Avatar
Rating Orb cofro17 20 United States 14C 0F
7 years ago | (12)
"Please, please do not argue about evolution if you don't understand the first thing about it!"

damn
i wish i could be as open-minded as psuedo.

I guess i was just raised wrong...
Pseudolonewolf`s Avatar
Rating Orb A β Pseudolonewolf 23 United Kingdom MelancholicPhlegmatic 2257C 559F
7 years ago | (8)
So do you think then that people *should* be able to freely argue about the validity of things they *don't know the first thing about*?
Selow`s Avatar
Rating Orb Selow 17 Canada 41C 3F
7 years ago | (7)
People already do that in society, media, and politics, and my gods does it get annoying.

["Please, please do not argue about evolution if you don't understand the first thing about it!"

damn
i wish i could be as open-minded as psuedo.

I guess i was just raised wrong... ]

Pseudo has a point when he says that. Do you have any clue as to how much it ticks people off when you go on and on about a topic and make yourself look like an idiot? I mean, fine go ahead and argue since you have a right to do that, but please keep in mind the sanity of others as well, who do know what they're talking about and have to end up explaining things to a retard who can't do his research.
1 Reply
The Crimson Sun`s Avatar
Rating Orb The Crimson Sun 20 Australia MelancholicPhlegmatic 89C 9F
7 years ago | (6)
I don't know how many times this has come up, but people don't seem to be getting the message, so I'm going to repeat it here for everyone to see.
Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, just occurring on different scales.
Taken straight from the mouths of scientists around the world, the actual definition of microevolution is "any change below the level of species", while macroevolution is described as "any change at the species level or above". It is simply a matter of scale; there is no real difference between the two.
People seem to accept that microevolution is possible, (or at least they pretend to, in order to seem more reasonable and 'open-minded') while stating blatantly that macroevolution is not possible. To all the people on this site who are guilty of this, please take note of the following:
First of all, it is important to understand what is required for two populations of animals to be considered as separate species. Basically, if two separate populations can't or won't interbreed, and consequently don't produce viable offspring, then they are considered separate species.

A note or two on this:
- All domestic dog breeds (or at least the vast majority of them) can be interbred and are thus of the same species. In truth, they are actually all of the same subspecies, Canis lupus familiaris, descended from the species Canis lupus, or Gray Wolf. And yet, just by looking at them, you can see how diverse they are. You continue to say that such diversity is not possible through any kind of evolution, and yet here it is, and caused by the very microevolution you all claim to believe in.
- On the other side of things, you have the finches of the Galapagos Islands. Physically they are all very similar, the variation between them present mainly in the shape of their beaks. And yet, these are all different species. These finches are the product of the macroevolution that you claim to be impossible, and yet all it takes is for the birds to choose what food their beaks are best at eating, and then for them and their offspring to continue eating that food over a long period of time. Any sensible bird can do that.

What I’m getting at is that your use of these words (micro and macroevolution) is ill-informed, and invariably incorrect.
Do you know why I never quote the Bible when I’m trying to prove my arguments? It’s because I haven’t read it, and I know very little about it.
Why then, should you be allowed to misuse scientific definitions that you have just as little understanding of?
The answer of that question should be obvious, so I’ll leave it up to you. But please people, if you are going to form an argument against evolution, (which you have every right to do) then at least make sure you actually understand it first.
Berans`s Avatar
Rating Orb Berans 20 Australia CholericPhlegmatic 103C 35F
7 years ago | (3)
Although I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say here, I feel a minor correction is in order. Members of different species often can, and regularly do, interbreed. The offspring of different species is just inviable in that it is born sterile and so cannot breed any further. Of course this is only true for species that are relatively closely related, as there is a certain point at which it is physically impossible to produce offspring at all for a multitude of possible reasons.
The Crimson Sun`s Avatar
Rating Orb The Crimson Sun 20 Australia MelancholicPhlegmatic 89C 9F
7 years ago | (4)
Hmm, I thought someone would bring that up. I did mention it briefly, I believe, but perhaps not in enough detail. In any case, thanks for the clarification.
Furthermore, for those who are interested in such things, there are a number of documented cases of interbreeding between species resulting in live, if infertile offspring. Such cases include ligers (lion X tiger) and zonkeys (zebra X donkey).
Most interestingly, there is a hybrid known as a wholphin, caused by a 'false killer whale' mating with a Bottlenose dolphin (look it up on Wikipedia). Technically speaking, both are dolphins, but they are still clearly from different species. The resulting wholphin have been shown to be capable of giving birth, and their offspring in turn have been observed to survive until maturity. So it turns out interbreeding between species can produce viable offspring. However, as this interbreeding is already rare, and fertile offspring are rarer still, such hybrids rarely persist outside of captivity, and the two interbreeding animals are still considered to be separate species.
1 Reply
barules`s Avatar
Rating Orb barules 16 India 69C 30F
7 years ago | (1)
Science has an all-encompassing theory(known as TIE's or Theory Of Everything) - that of combining the electromagnetic theory and the atomic theory , but for now, however, scientists have not been able to mathematically express it, consequently which renders the theory,as of now, worthless(since, in science , a theory is only considered a hypothesis unless it can be expressed mathematically).When the scientists will devise a way to express the theory mathematically , then this can be considered a TIE. It is only a matter of time (about a decade or so,I expect) before they will be able to express it mathematically and make into an all-encompassing theory.
barules`s Avatar
Rating Orb barules 16 India 69C 30F
7 years ago | (1)
NOTE - this is not a reply to my earlier comment, it is merely another comment on the above article by Pseudo.
Science is not based on blind faith.Instead, it is based on hard logic and reason.While a religions' power may be weakened if its theories are proved wrong, science only gets stronger if its theories are proved wrong.

This is the strength behind Science.

Another of Science's strengths against religion is that while religion uses force to make the people believe in its theories,(for instance,Galileo was placed under house arrest when he refused to believe in the Church's theory that the Sun revolves around the earth)Science ,instead uses irrefutable reason.Brute force cannot stand against reason for very long.Hence ,the decline of the Church soon after Galileo's death.
barules`s Avatar
Rating Orb barules 16 India 69C 30F
7 years ago | (1)
I recently found a pretty interesting video of an evolutionist' rebuttal to a creationist named Rick Warren.This Rick Warren man had written a book in which he has said that evolution is "blasphemy" and all that crap.The evolutionist, in his video,takes the book apart point by point. Here it is - [LINK]
Page 1 of 4: