Do you feel Violated?

What amazes me is all these Theists think that evolution disproves their god(s) from creating us... err... not so...

Secondly, Creationism is taking the Bible Creation story/account literally... funny how the Adam and Eve story contradicts the 6-Day creation story, so I want to hear you explanation on that.

Thirdly, if you believe that (a) god(s) created us, then evolution can still be accepted. As stated above...

Fourthly, microevolution has been proven, macroevolution has almost been proven, but even when it is, you will not accept it.

Fifthy, I was indoctrinated when I was a little Kid... it was nothing horrible, it didnt cause problems afterwards, but Im still against it. In 7th grade, my friend brought the Davinci Code to school and read it during free time... the book was confiscated the teacher told him never to question his religion again. One time i questioned somthing, but i cannot remember what, which didnt make sense to me and I was immediately yelled at and sent to the Principles office. Wasnt even serious, but I got a detention. Ah well, I feel violated by the fact that I am not allowed to question MY PERSONAL BELIEFS.
 
So in other words macro evolution hasn't been proven - otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to tag the words "when it is proven" - fanatic christians do the same when they say you will understand god "when you go to hell"

-my point is that either way you are looking at a belief system
 
-my point is that either way you are looking at a belief system
Click to expand...

They are not parallelled.

I'm fed up with religious moderates trying to draw parallells between atheists and theists. They are the worst kind of religious people as at least fundamentalists, you can see where they are coming from.

Macro evolution is based on the fossil record, which is evidence. Call it a belief if you wish, but it is belief based on evidence. There is more evidence coming in all the time which supports rather than contradicts macro evolution, and if people were to educate themselves on evolution without bias, they could only come to one conclusion.
 
KennyJC said:
They are not parallelled.

I'm fed up with religious moderates trying to draw parallells between atheists and theists. They are the worst kind of religious people as at least fundamentalists, you can see where they are coming from.

Macro evolution is based on the fossil record, which is evidence. Call it a belief if you wish, but it is belief based on evidence. There is more evidence coming in all the time which supports rather than contradicts macro evolution, and if people were to educate themselves on evolution without bias, they could only come to one conclusion.
Click to expand...

Well if evolution is a fact but it hasn't been replicated in observable scientific experiments (which is generally what science holds as the distinction between a theory and a fact) what is it if not a belief? Maybe an educated guess .....

If you cannot see that then I guess it is just because you are too fixated in your belief system
 
Micro and Macroevolution were separated only because fundamentalist theists didnt want to admit evolution was proven when, what is now called microevolution, was proven. The evolutionary process has been proven in a short-term observation and yet you say it is not proven until we witness it in a long-term (millions of years) observation.... yea... right...
 
Well what else should be accepted in the absence of actual evidence? Charisma? Exhibitions of will power? How about throwing buckets of money at something?

The evidence wouldn't have to be so grand - just one evidence of one species turning into another one - shouldn't be too hard to find surely
 
We have evidence of that in fossil records... its pretty much impossible to see a species change into another ... ever... especially since we havnt accounted for SO MANY species, we wouldnt know if it was evolution or a newly discovered one... so... yea

plus, evolution doesnt just mean changing from one species to another... it just means change... which insects have done to repellant... so in my eyes, evolution is proven, especially with the loads of scientific evidence giving it a 99.99999999999999% chance of being total fact...
 
The evidence wouldn't have to be so grand - just one evidence of one species turning into another one
Click to expand...

Done and dusted.

In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.

Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.

---------

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse occurred less than 250 years after humans brought it to the island. Species identification in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could not be performed with the parent stock . (S. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1979, p. 41)

----------

After five years of selective crossbreeding, E. Pasterniani in 1969 produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of corn. The species were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids, which were not used for future breeding. (Zea mays L. Evolution 23, pp. 534547)

etc etc etc.
 
Provita said:
We have evidence of that in fossil records... its pretty much impossible to see a species change into another ... ever... especially since we havnt accounted for SO MANY species, we wouldnt know if it was evolution or a newly discovered one... so... yea

plus, evolution doesnt just mean changing from one species to another... it just means change... which insects have done to repellant... so in my eyes, evolution is proven, especially with the loads of scientific evidence giving it a 99.99999999999999% chance of being total fact...
Click to expand...

The problem is though that it seems every species is suffering from the enigmatic "missing link"
 
ROTFLMAO, yet again lightgigantic, you are the master of mirth, my hat goes of to you man, you are beyond hilarious, fantastic.
 
spiritual, LOL, to the delusional maybe, beyond to the general concensus means: On the far side of; past or Later than; after.
 
Beyond the hilarious once again - seems like you just keep making more and more spiritual advancement despite yourself
Click to expand...

Hey, you ignored my post! You said all it took was one piece of evidence. The facts have been laid before you. Where you gone?
 
Provita said:
We have evidence of that in fossil records... its pretty much impossible to see a species change into another ... ever... especially since we havnt accounted for SO MANY species, we wouldnt know if it was evolution or a newly discovered one... so... yea

plus, evolution doesnt just mean changing from one species to another... it just means change... which insects have done to repellant... so in my eyes, evolution is proven, especially with the loads of scientific evidence giving it a 99.99999999999999% chance of being total fact...
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: The cockroach has lived on Earth 250 million years and has never changed.
 
SnakeLord said:
Hey, you ignored my post! You said all it took was one piece of evidence. The facts have been laid before you. Where you gone?
Click to expand...

Don't go and do a silly thing like post some facts directed at a theist. Denial is a powerful weapon as is ignorance. I don't think I've seen anyone pull it off the way Jan Ardena does... but lightgigantic is getting there...
 
Lawdog said:
One species cannot change into another. Read your Aristotle.
Click to expand...

What does it matter what Aristotle thought? He wasn't alive at a time when the theory of evolution was (properly at least) addressed bearing witness to evidence.

Maybe you should read up on what scientists of the present day have to say about it rather than ancient Greek philosophers.

As for species changing into another, well I suppose they do, but theists take this a little bit too literally... as quotes I've read from theists here usually say something like "how can a dog turn into a chicken" which clearly demonstrates lack of understanding of evolution. What we call a species describes that living thing at a particular snapshot in time. However, throughout a longer timeframe, you merely have an organisim which replicates and adapts to enivonmental changes over millions/billions of years.

Take a huge landmass in which an island breaks away: from that point on you have a new direction of evolution, which explains the variety on many of the worlds most remote islands.

Just the immense pressures of time, change and new environments has a gradual but dramatic change on what form life takes. It's really elegant and simple if you think about it for a moment without religious bias.
 
Ok, I will read up on evolution if you want, but it will take time and I will be sceptical. i would also expect you to read up on classical philosophy.

Some thoughts and conclusions which the ancient philosophers like Aristotle made cannot be disputed, for they are the basis of sound reasoning. Aristotle himself designed the discipline of formal logic. Ancient philosophy is not merely old and no longer relevant just because science has made a few discoveries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top