Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

But we always want to know, don't we? That's why we've had explorers all through history and scientists and philosophers and religions and all of it. Because we do want to know how, why, what, when, where and with whom, right? Humans are inquisitive. This is why we have science now.

So, Evolution. Great theory. Sure you could bring up a few dozen really could questions questioning the theory of evolution like what about that and what happened here or why can't we find that fossil or whatever, but it's a pretty solid theory and it makes sense to me.

you can't go around saying evolution is wrong without giving me an alternative. Genesis, just doesn't cut it.

originally posted by: JipStix
I am a religious man, and believe in Jesus Christ. I also believe Jesus Christ to be one of the same as Horus, Krishna, etc... I just try to live my life as a giving, happy, and loving person.

That being said, I see no problem with evolution as a religious person. My view is that a supreme creator created the initial singularity, and from there what we call nature did the rest, IE, evolution over time.

I don't see why some people immediately discount evolution and say it can't coexist with the religious belief of creation. Why can't it be that God created the universe, and evolution is just a mechanism used to advance life.

I mean, why do people feel the need to dismiss it all as hogwash?

It seems rather close-minded and somewhat of a cop-out.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by JipStix]

Man, if more people like you were around the world could coexist more. This is such a great response.

a reply to: flyingfish
i am not trying to pick a fight with you. I would like to show you, however, that your post works both ways:

Blah blah blah... You have absolutely no clue of the truth and refuse to even begin to listen to the truth. The truth is that your ideas and understanding of evolution and science in general are wrong, no different than most other evos on this forum.
You need to question those ideas in order to try to correct them. It's when you believe most strongly that you have it right that you actually have it the most wrong. I find it unbelievable that anyone should dare to post and prate and posture and prance around as you do without the slightest knowledge of what you're talking about. 
See you how that works?

If you have real evidence that macro evolution is indeed settled science then show it.
Let's discuss it in a civil manner so we both can understand one another a little better.

IMHO, the entire debate is illogical. Our nonsensical search for relative "truth" is illogical....Our entire existence is illogical....

However, time marches on...

I can ask each and every one of you who the greatest basketball player of all time is...and the answers would vary, with facts to support those claims...
To narrow it down even more, I could ask who the greatest power forward of all time is...and the answers would still vary, with even more facts to support those claims...

I do not believe anyone honestly goes around simply believing in random things without some sort of evidence to support their claims. Whether it be empirical, statistical, personal, or what-have you....there is almost always SOME evidence to support a belief or belief system...

This debate...is illogical.
You ask me why I believe in creation...and I can literally throw a book at you full of reasons and facts that support my claims...
Just as well, I can ask the same for your belief in what-have-you...and I'm sure you can throw various reasons and facts that support YOUR claim...

It's nonsense and unending...Let's just...

AGREE2DISAGREE....

a reply to: stuff1


I finished reading the thread and your contribution to it which is funny I recently ran across something that can summarize it all nicely.

Basicaly your are saying.



Which also explains why you seemingly have abandoned your thread. A long time ago at that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vasaga

Then we are in agreement then. Like I said evolution is real, god being real has no evidence for or against it. Evolution makes no claims against god and can even co-exist alongside god as a how life develops.

So what's your point?

Evolution is real regardless if god exists or not.

I disagree that random mutations and natural selection are solely responsible for all the diversity of life on this planet, especially in regards with 'primitive' creatures like sponges to 'complex' creatures like whales and butterflies.

I'll be leaving this here too:

a reply to: vasaga

Your problems conceptualizing evolution is because you cannot properly conceptualize the time scales involved and the number of generations of species involved.

It actually makes less sense that life doesn't work that way. The entire universe seems to be geared around things gradually going from something smaller to more and more complex structures. From atoms starting out as just hydrogen and eventually getting all the various elements we have now thanks to several generations of stars to how life ages. Life starts as a singular cell and develops over time until it is a person who gets born, then grows up, getting older and more complex over time. So life developing like evolution says it does makes the most sense. Like why would you think if everything else in the universe develops into greater complexity over time, that life would be the one exception?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
"Atoms starting out as just hydrogen"?
There is no such thing as just hydrogen. It is an atom.


There had to be protons and electrons before the hydrogen atom.
You are still basing your arguments off of unsettled science.

a reply to: vasaga

It's a simple question, Vasaga. Why is 20 million years not enough time for evolution of life at the time?

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

Here's an article that explains this paper:

arxiv.org...

I believe this is the experiment that Quad referenced. The one that shows there is plenty of time for evolution. Or maybe it doesn't? If you've got better numbers, I'd be interested in seeing them.. or at least make some kind of argument.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: tsingtao
thanks for the civil response, barcs.

there is a crapload of species alive today and some disappearing everyday.

it's logical to believe that we would have seen some macro-evo or some written account over the last few millenia, of animals that were once there in the past with humans.

I have to stop you right here. Macro evolution is just a description for evolution over long periods of time. There is nothing different about it. Humans have documented history for the last 10,000 years give or take. What on earth makes you believe that we would have witnessed and documented "macro" evolution first hand in that incredibly short time period? Most evolution deniers claim the Cambrian explosion (a 50 million year + process) was sudden. Scientifically we've only been studying evolution for 150 years and have witnessed speciation, which is the first step of "macro" evolution. The evolution of a new species. The only way to witness long term evolution, is to study the fossil record.

or living side by side with their "ancestors" today.

Domesticated cats and dogs do not count? We have drastically affected their genetic lines over time. Dogs evolved from wolves because humans were able to domesticate the tamer ones, so humans became natural selection for that particular trait.

lol, no they don't count. they are still canines and felines and we did it. by breeding for certain traits.
that is NOT macro evo. they will always be felines and canines.

well thanks for admitting that no one ever seen macro evo with their own eyes.
like i asked before, does macro happen all at the same time for everything?

one would expect to see something out of the ordinary if macro wasn't synced, right?

a reply to: tsingtao

What you're basically saying is "yes evolution is a thing but la la la la I'm not listening la la la ".

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vasaga

Then we are in agreement then. Like I said evolution is real, god being real has no evidence for or against it. Evolution makes no claims against god and can even co-exist alongside god as a how life develops.

So what's your point?

Evolution is real regardless if god exists or not.

I disagree that random mutations and natural selection are solely responsible for all the diversity of life on this planet, especially in regards with 'primitive' creatures like sponges to 'complex' creatures like whales and butterflies.

I'll be leaving this here too:

i like that vid.

i'll watch one of his longer vids tonite.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: tsingtao

What you're basically saying is "yes evolution is a thing but la la la la I'm not listening la la la ".

hey, i'm not closed minded like some.

i can entertain the thought of evolution because i was brainwashed as a kid and believed it, hook line and sinker.

now i have questions about it and can't find the solid answers i need, to get back to that innocent time of my life, when i believed the so called experts.

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: tsingtao

What you're basically saying is "yes evolution is a thing but la la la la I'm not listening la la la ".

hey, i'm not closed minded like some.

i can entertain the thought of evolution because i was brainwashed as a kid and believed it, hook line and sinker.

now i have questions about it and can't find the solid answers i need, to get back to that innocent time of my life, when i believed the so called experts.

I also don't take things at face value and I'm very sorry for making such an assumption. It was a knee-jerk reaction to some of the idiots from not only this thread, but this site and I ought to have thought twice before posting.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Wow!
Good job Base.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
"Atoms starting out as just hydrogen"?
There is no such thing as just hydrogen. It is an atom.


There had to be protons and electrons before the hydrogen atom.
You are still basing your arguments off of unsettled science.

All I was trying to say with that statement is that hydrogen was the first element that existed in the universe. Of course protons and electrons existed before the hydrogen. I was just being overly simple for the sake of clarity.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
It is thought that hydrogen atoms were the first atoms because (as far as I know) they are the easiest to create. This happening is, scientifically, the best guess as of yet. It is settled by no means.
I was not trying to argue with you. I was just correcting your statement for clarity (no pun intended).
Quad

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
I can ask each and every one of you who the greatest basketball player of all time is...and the answers would vary, with facts to support those claims...

Not the greatest example, are you aware of Michael Jordan?.....6-0?

To narrow it down even more, I could ask who the greatest power forward of all time is...and the answers would still vary, with even more facts to support those claims...

A better example, but this could produce many PFs with an equal amount of evidence.

I do not believe anyone honestly goes around simply believing in random things without some sort of evidence to support their claims. Whether it be empirical, statistical, personal, or what-have you....there is almost always SOME evidence to support a belief or belief system...

This is true, however there are varying levels/standards of evidence.

You ask me why I believe in creation...and I can literally throw a book at you full of reasons and facts that support my claims...
Just as well, I can ask the same for your belief in what-have-you...and I'm sure you can throw various reasons and facts that support YOUR claim...

This assumes that the evidence for both claims is equal, that there is as much evidence and as many reasons to believe creation as there is 'what-have-you', and there just isn't. Such an assumption shows a level of ignorance on the topic.

And you know this websites motto right?

a reply to: Quadrivium

So now we are reduced to splitting hairs about each other's posts? If the person I was talking to and the world in general got my point, I think that is all that matters. Have I demonstrated to you any indication that I'm not smart enough to know the distinction that you are trying to make?

Do you care to debate anything else about my post or were we just clearing things up for everyone?

originally posted by: tsingtao
lol, no they don't count. they are still canines and felines and we did it. by breeding for certain traits.
that is NOT macro evo. they will always be felines and canines.

Again you misunderstand that macro evolution is simply micro evolution on a long time scale. A dog isn't going to suddenly give birth to a cat. Genes slowly change over time and the changes add up. Cats and dogs are the best examples of evolution during human recorded history, which is what you asked for (in a mere 10,000 years). Obviously nobody's going to witness a species changing family, genus or bigger. When a species changes over and over and over and over again it can eventually lead to bigger changes. If you have evidence that suggests these changes can not add up past a certain level, then you need to present it. "Macro" evolution is clearly demonstrated by the fossil record.

well thanks for admitting that no one ever seen macro evo with their own eyes.
like i asked before, does macro happen all at the same time for everything?

"Macro" evolution is NOT a separate process from micro. They are exactly the same. Of course nobody has witnessed long term evolution, it takes millions of years. They have witnessed evolution, however. The bigger changes can be observed via the fossil record.

one would expect to see something out of the ordinary if macro wasn't synced, right?

Explain. Nothing in evolution is synced. It follows the environment. You could say that really big extinction level events affect numerous species at once, so large scale change happens fast.

originally posted by: tsingtao
hey, i'm not closed minded like some.

i can entertain the thought of evolution because i was brainwashed as a kid and believed it, hook line and sinker.

now i have questions about it and can't find the solid answers i need, to get back to that innocent time of my life, when i believed the so called experts.

If you have valid questions about the details of evolution, you should read a book or ask a biologist. You can post them here, and some of us can answer the easier ones. Please just try to present valid questions, rather than some nonsensical claim like "they will always be felines and canines" a statement that you cannot prove. The fossil record says that is not true, because canines and felines both did not exist prior to 60 million years ago (give or take), and that alone shows they weren't always felines or canines. If you are open minded as you claim, then this should help you on your thirst for knowledge.