Anyone want to try and disprove evolution?

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Anyone want to try and disprove evolution?
Author Message
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 17:12 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.

Its not the same thing at all. Thats like saying that by crawling you are moving somewhere, and by driving you are moving somewhere, thus they are the same thing. And the theories have wayyyyyy more scientific evidence to them than the bible does....
flag ezekiel
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 19:19 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
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.

What we've seen is micro-evolution, which are baby steps in the grand scheme of the universe.
flag ezekiel
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 19:28 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
And the theories have wayyyyyy more scientific evidence to them than the bible does....

Let's use the newspaper as an example because ultimately that's what the stories of the bible are, documented events. You read an old newspaper article, you go to the spot that is described and there's no evidence, no witnesses, nothing to corroborate the story you just read. At this point in time should we all assume that the newspaper is a big lie because there is no known proof existing on that day?
flag natephillips
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 21:12 Quote
ezekiel wrote:
ledzeppie wrote:
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.

What we've seen is micro-evolution, which are baby steps in the grand scheme of the universe.
Micro-evolution is macro-evolution. Its like we know 1+1=2, so we can assume with enough 1's, we can eventually get to 1,000,000.
flag gibson19
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 22:09 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
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.


Ya microevolution... no one disputes that... Its macroevolution that seem improbable to some
flag natephillips
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 22:10 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
ledzeppie wrote:
ezekiel wrote:


"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.


Ya microevolution... no one disputes that... Its macroevolution that seem improbable to some
Its the same thing
flag gibson19
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 22:11 Quote
pinkboyo wrote:
ezekiel wrote:
ledzeppie wrote:
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.

What we've seen is micro-evolution, which are baby steps in the grand scheme of the universe.
Micro-evolution is macro-evolution. Its like we know 1+1=2, so we can assume with enough 1's, we can eventually get to 1,000,000.

But thats not how it is... Macro evolution is a change in species not within species...
flag marty660
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 22:12 Quote
The argument is, it's not proven yet that a fish can somehow become a human.
flag gibson19
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 22:14 Quote
pinkboyo wrote:
gibson19 wrote:

Ya microevolution... no one disputes that... Its macroevolution that seem improbable to some
Its the same thing

uhh... no... its not...

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVADefinition.shtml

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species levelhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
flag natephillips
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 22:16 Quote
marty660 wrote:
The argument is, it's not proven yet that a fish can somehow become a human.
And it will never be proven... because that doesn't happen. Take a basic high-school level Biology course and get back to me.
flag natephillips
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 22:22 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
pinkboyo wrote:
gibson19 wrote:

Ya microevolution... no one disputes that... Its macroevolution that seem improbable to some
Its the same thing

uhh... no... its not...

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVADefinition.shtml

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species levelhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
Micro-evolution turns into macro-evolution with enough time... a population is never static, gene pools are never static, individuals enter and leave population fairly frequently. A change in one population can affect the whole species with enough time.
flag gibson19
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 22:23 Quote
pinkboyo wrote:
gibson19 wrote:
pinkboyo wrote:

Its the same thing

uhh... no... its not...

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVADefinition.shtml

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species levelhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
Micro-evolution turns into macro-evolution with enough time... a population is never static, gene pools are never static, a change in one population can affect the whole species with enough time.

Links??
flag natephillips
Posted: Jul 9, 2009 at 22:28 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
pinkboyo wrote:
gibson19 wrote:


uhh... no... its not...

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVADefinition.shtml

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species levelhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
Micro-evolution turns into macro-evolution with enough time... a population is never static, gene pools are never static, a change in one population can affect the whole species with enough time.

Links??
Here
flag Termenaitor
Posted: Jul 10, 2009 at 11:07 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
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.

That's just you trying to push your stupid god theory into anything that disproves it..sorry but religious people, specificly christians, are the dumbest people on the planet.
flag natephillips
Posted: Jul 10, 2009 at 15:20 Quote
Termenaitor wrote:
gibson19 wrote:
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.

That's just you trying to push your stupid god theory into anything that disproves it..sorry but religious people, specificly christians, are the dumbest people on the planet.
Sorry, but that is a pretty big judgement seeing that you haven't met all the Christians (not to mention all the religious people) on the planet.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.017453
Mobile Version of Website