Anyone want to try and disprove evolution?

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Anyone want to try and disprove evolution?
  • Previous Page
Author Message
Posted: Jul 4, 2009 at 0:06 Quote
Ok conservative christians, go ahead. Try and disprove evolution, something regarded as fact by the scientific community.

Posted: Jul 4, 2009 at 9:20 Quote
Really??

Sorry dude but your coming off like a complete dick...


No one can completely disprove evolution on this site as we aren't scientists... But I can certainly raise questions to display my skepticism of grand evolution... How did we go from non living organisms to living organisms... and for that matter... Where did all the matter that formed the earth come from...



and I thought evolution was survival of the fittest... Why do we still have politicians?


also it may be worth pointing out that evolution is defined in the websters dictionary as " a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"... a theory not a fact...

Do you believe in continental drift?? well its also a theory... yes a widely accepted theory that they teach students but to say it is a fact is incorrect...

Posted: Jul 4, 2009 at 11:02 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
also it may be worth pointing out that evolution is defined in the websters dictionary as " a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"... a theory not a fact...

Do you believe in continental drift?? well its also a theory... yes a widely accepted theory that they teach students but to say it is a fact is incorrect...
This is the weakest argument against evolution that I've ever heard. What about the theory of gravity? Just a theory right? A theory is just a collection of ideas supported by facts.

Continental drift is a theory yes, but supported by tons of observations and data. In other words, its supported by facts. So yes, I would say evolution, gravity, and continental drifts are all facts and are all highly observable and widely documented.

The matter that formed the earth is the same matter that formed all the other planets, solar systems and galaxies... matter in space brought together by gravity.

As for non-living to living, I'm not sure... just because we do not know at the present does not mean we will never know. I mean, we once thought the earth was a flat disk. Today we know that to be false. However, I do recall reading an article about how the creation of amino acids and protiens, etc. from non-living matter was recreated in a lab setting.

Posted: Jul 4, 2009 at 11:40 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
Really??

Sorry dude but your coming off like a complete dick...


No one can completely disprove evolution on this site as we aren't scientists... But I can certainly raise questions to display my skepticism of grand evolution... How did we go from non living organisms to living organisms... and for that matter... Where did all the matter that formed the earth come from...



and I thought evolution was survival of the fittest... Why do we still have politicians?


also it may be worth pointing out that evolution is defined in the websters dictionary as " a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"... a theory not a fact...

Do you believe in continental drift?? well its also a theory... yes a widely accepted theory that they teach students but to say it is a fact is incorrect...

you're confusing abiogensis with evolution. And you're mixing up physics with biology... So your whole first paragraph is irrelevant.
Evolution is fact and theory. Just like gravity. We know that apples fall from trees, but if suddenly we found out that the theory was wrong, apples wouldnt stop falling from trees. How we calculate it would be different. Same thing with evolution. The fact is that evolution does happen, the theory is how we evolved, not whether or not we did.
We have huge amounts of evidence from fossil records and carbon dating that show that evolution does happen. There are over 20,000 peer reviewed papers on it.

And the reason why I'm coming off like a complete dick is because I'm tired of people, who know nothing about evolution, saying that it's wrong, usually just because of their religion

I see that someone tried to answer the first paragraph anyways of how life came to be so I might as well throw in my 2 cents. Ok the building blocks of life are present all over earth and space. Meteorites have actually been found containing amino acids, so yes we could be formed from outerspace. But anyways, the building blocks of life are not rare. During the great bombardment, meteorites could have brought amino acids, or the earth could have had them, I don't think that we know right now. But the impact from the moon hitting us would have killed any life on earth, so there is speculation that life could have come from the moon. Studies in the lab have shown that amino acids could withstand the impact, and that they could have turned from amino acids into peptides in the impact, a more complex form of life. Peptides link together to form proteins, and it just went from there.

Posted: Jul 4, 2009 at 19:00 Quote
Yes I realize that theories are widely accepted... I'm just saying the way you put it made it sound like there is no room for interpretation or anything...

Personally I believe in evolution but with some supernatural power pushing it along...

As for the origin of organic matter... I'm aware you can recreate some simple amino acids... but until the 20 essential ones can be created I'll remain a skeptic... Currently the body produces I think 12 and 8 are found in nature... If they came from the moon my question remains (but apparently doesn't pertain to evolution)... How were there amino acids on the moon... Or how was there even a moon... but I don't think anyone has a reasonable argument for any of that... and until stuff like this is proven I'll continue being a skeptic of evolution without any sort of supernatural interference.

Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 14:17 Quote
The theory of evolution does not explain how life started or how different animals came in to existence. It explains that plants and animals go through changes to suit the environment they live in.

Posted: Jul 8, 2009 at 17:32 Quote
dhdemo840 wrote:
The theory of evolution does not explain how life started or how different animals came in to existence. It explains that plants and animals go through changes to suit the environment they live in.
Rolleyes

Posted: Jul 8, 2009 at 21:16 Quote
bikerdude64 wrote:
dhdemo840 wrote:
The theory of evolution does not explain how life started or how different animals came in to existence. It explains that plants and animals go through changes to suit the environment they live in.
Rolleyes

Obviously certain animals have a relatively tight time line to demonstrate the possibility of evolution. However the evolutionary theory still doesn't explain how the whole scope of animals came to be. Going by evolutionary theory, everything would've descended from something else and frankly there isn't enough proof to back such a large claim hence the "missing link(s)" that ties it all together.

Posted: Jul 8, 2009 at 21:31 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
Ok conservative christians, go ahead. Try and disprove evolution, something regarded as fact by the scientific community.

"This appears to be the link between Australopithecus and Ardipithecus as two different species,” White said. The major noticeable difference between the phases of man can be seen in Australopithecus’ bigger chewing teeth to eat harder food, he said.

While it’s looking more likely, it is not a sure thing that Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus, he said. The finding does not completely rule out Ardipithecus dying off as a genus and Australopithecus developing independently."

Fossil discovery fills gap in human evolution

In short there is never going to be a conclusive yes or no on evolution. There may be strong proof to support it, but short of some magical being coming forward and saying they saw the whole thing, at best it will just be a bunch of humans sitting down and trying to interpret old stories into truths. *When I put it that way it sounds a lot like the basis of religion too*.

Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 10:35 Quote
ezekiel wrote:
*When I put it that way it sounds a lot like the basis of religion too*.

I like that comment, it goes with a lot that I believe.
As far as I'm concerned, Atheism is a religion.

Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 10:36 Quote
marty660 wrote:
ezekiel wrote:
*When I put it that way it sounds a lot like the basis of religion too*.

I like that comment, it goes with a lot that I believe.
As far as I'm concerned, Atheism is a religion.
Well, then you don't know what atheism is, nor what a religion actually is. Evolution has nothing to do with religion, nor does any other theory. You cannot test or observe a supernatural being, therefore it has no merit in science. Science and religious believe should not conflict and are two totally separate things.

Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 10:54 Quote
pinkboyo wrote:
marty660 wrote:
ezekiel wrote:
*When I put it that way it sounds a lot like the basis of religion too*.

I like that comment, it goes with a lot that I believe.
As far as I'm concerned, Atheism is a religion.
Well, then you don't know what atheism is, nor what a religion actually is. Evolution has nothing to do with religion, nor does any other theory. You cannot test or observe a supernatural being, therefore it has no merit in science. Science and religious believe should not conflict and are two totally separate things.

That has nothing to do with anything I just said.
Many people (an increasing number) take every new theory as hard, indisputable fact.
"Religious" people take what is written in a book as hard, indisputable fact
The same thing.

Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 10:57 Quote
marty660 wrote:
pinkboyo wrote:
marty660 wrote:


I like that comment, it goes with a lot that I believe.
As far as I'm concerned, Atheism is a religion.
Well, then you don't know what atheism is, nor what a religion actually is. Evolution has nothing to do with religion, nor does any other theory. You cannot test or observe a supernatural being, therefore it has no merit in science. Science and religious believe should not conflict and are two totally separate things.

That has nothing to do with anything I just said.
Many people (an increasing number) take every new theory as hard, indisputable fact.
"Religious" people take what is written in a book as hard, indisputable fact
The same thing.
One is based on evidence and observations. The facts are there if you care to look into it. All claims are peer reviewed, its not one guy making stuff up.

The other is based on stories, subject to the individual's own interpretations. No evidence or facts involved.

Anyhow, atheism has nothing to do with evolution. You can be atheist and believe in some ridiculous creation story, but you can also be Christian and believe in evolution. It goes both ways.

Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 17:05 Quote
ezekiel wrote:
bikerdude64 wrote:
dhdemo840 wrote:
The theory of evolution does not explain how life started or how different animals came in to existence. It explains that plants and animals go through changes to suit the environment they live in.
Rolleyes

Obviously certain animals have a relatively tight time line to demonstrate the possibility of evolution. However the evolutionary theory still doesn't explain how the whole scope of animals came to be. Going by evolutionary theory, everything would've descended from something else and frankly there isn't enough proof to back such a large claim hence the "missing link(s)" that ties it all together.


Just to let you know, evolution doesnt claim to show how animals came to be, it shows how they evolved. Abiogenesis is how animals came to be. Also we have seen evolution in our own generation, such as bacteria creating a resistance to antibiotics.

Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 17:09 Quote
ezekiel wrote:
ledzeppie wrote:
Ok conservative christians, go ahead. Try and disprove evolution, something regarded as fact by the scientific community.

"This appears to be the link between Australopithecus and Ardipithecus as two different species,” White said. The major noticeable difference between the phases of man can be seen in Australopithecus’ bigger chewing teeth to eat harder food, he said.

While it’s looking more likely, it is not a sure thing that Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus, he said. The finding does not completely rule out Ardipithecus dying off as a genus and Australopithecus developing independently."

Fossil discovery fills gap in human evolution

In short there is never going to be a conclusive yes or no on evolution. There may be strong proof to support it, but short of some magical being coming forward and saying they saw the whole thing, at best it will just be a bunch of humans sitting down and trying to interpret old stories into truths. *When I put it that way it sounds a lot like the basis of religion too*.
Once again, there is/will be a yes or no on evolution. We HAVE seen evolution in the last 100 years. Again bacteiria creating a resistance to antibiotics. Thats just 1 thing, there are others.

  • Previous Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.013857
Mobile Version of Website