Why is evolution still relevant?

reply to post by Loken68

But don't worry soon thing's will be sorted out. Imagine this though If the athiest win and are correct life will end and we will have no further thought's on the matter. But if the believers win, Hell's hot for the loser. Which side do you want to be on?

Back to the old extortion game are we?

reply to post by FearNoEvil

only a few tens of thousands of years old

How did you come to this conclusion?

Did you read this part of the article?

Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. "It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled," reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."

First, listing a bunch of known hoaxes and claiming that modern evolutionary theory is built off of those hoaxes leaves the argument with no credibilty. Not only that the majority of the listed hoaxes are from the late 19th and early 20th centuries prior to technological advances and modern scientific techniques.

Also, it should be noted that the scientific community denounced the known hoaxes as soon as it was discovered, proving that the thoery of evolution was not founded on them. This is even in the sources the threads author provides, negating the purpose of the topic.

Second point. Macro evolution and micro evolution are the same. Claiming they are different is a strawman argument. All known life is based on a genetic structure that defines an organism. Any change in the genetics from one generation to the other -- whether it is a single change or a culmination of changes -- is the same thing.

I love how stereologist cleans up some of the popular creationist misconceptions...well done mate!

I went to church in Cali with the family of one of my best friends. I'm agnostic, but whatever, I never backed away from a new experience. Anyway, the pastor made some outrageous, and just plain stupid remarks regarding evolution...and it wasn't easy to hold back and let the church goers being lied to. The problem is, they're so blind in their faith, it's really hard to convince them otherwise. Think about it, if you've followed a religion your hole life, and suddenly something your spiritual guide at church is wrong (and you accept that it's wrong), that should lead you to question your whole faith...or at least the church's interpretation. The problem with that is, that you have to admit that YOU were wrong in the first place...and people don't like to be wrong

I also find it hilarious when creationists attack evolution, and then value those attacks as a validation for creationism. The whole "evolution is a religion" is nothing but a clever campaign by creationists. If they can convince enough people that it is in fact a religion, they can tell people to chose one of the 2 "religions"...and guess which "religion" they're gonna chose...the one they've always been following. So in one sweep, they stole all credibility of evolution...wrongfully so of course, because as every human with a WORKING brain knows, it's backed up by evidence far beyond some "fairy tale" book like the bible.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Loken68

 

But don't worry soon thing's will be sorted out. Imagine this though If the athiest win and are correct life will end and we will have no further thought's on the matter. But if the believers win, Hell's hot for the loser. Which side do you want to be on?

Back to the old extortion game are we?

I think he's essentially resorted to "Pascal's Wager" which fails on every level.

1. It assumes a false dichotomy, that there is one right answer(his religion) and one wrong answer(something backed by evidence and reason like evolution). It ignores other heavens and other hells, who is to say that just because you avoid your God's hell that you've avoided every God's hell? Every religion has the same amount of evidence, or lack there of.
2.It assumes that worhipping and believing costs nothing. Which simply isn't true. If this is the one and only life we get, then every moment you spend in worship, prayer, donations to your church, all time spent in reverence is wasted on a false belief. I'd say that's a pretty grave consequence.
3. Lastly, this assumes a "covering my ass" scenario. Belief is not subject to the will. If you're believing as a way to avoid hell and hopefully have an eternal ghost party in the afterlife then won't your omnipotent and omniscient God realize this and just send you to hell out of spite?

I'd suggest you not use such an argument in the future, it's really very weak.

Originally posted by six67seven
When answering the question in the said title, there are obviously many different parts to the one answer. But instead of answering the question directly, let me just state that the theory of evolution should be extinct. I'm talking about macro-evolution. First let me note that the Smithsonian is administered and funded by the United States government (and is located in Washington, D.C). This is important because its obvious to logical thinkers that our government is agenda-ridden, suppressive, and controlling to say the least. This correlation cannot be overlooked. The amount of misinformation and disinformation flowing out of government institutions is appalling and nothing less than a hindrance to a comfortable society and what should be basic knowledge of truths and human history.

Exhibit A: Nebraska man.
Nebraska man was recreated by the discovery of one (1) tooth. The portrayal of Nebraska man didn't stop there. A display of Nebraska man and his wife was created from this one (1) tooth as published in Illustrated London News in 1922. Later it was determined that the one (1) tooth was that from a pig. Nice start evolution!

Exhibit B: Piltdown man.
Piltdown man was named and recreated when a skull and jaw were "discovered" in England. Turned out that someone had filed down an ape's jaw to fit a human skull. But in its glory, the New York Times published a story in their paper titled "Darwin Theory is Proved True" on Sunday, December 22, 1912. Stay classy evolution!

Exhibit C: Lucy
Lucy is the evolutionists Ark of the Covenant, although she is very controversial to say the least. Although only 6 fragments of a skull were found, a full and detailed skull was constructed for her along with human hands and feet, even though NO bones of a hand or foot were ever discovered. The curator for the St. Louis Zoo, which has a Lucy exhibit, said their purpose of the display is not for education but for indoctrination in evolution theory. Professor David Menton from Washington University said, the statue is "a complete misrepresentation and I believe they know it is a misrepresentation." They like to stand by her "valgus knee" which they state means she normally walked upright, when what they evidently found was a tree hanging chimpanzee. They also say that due to her length ratio of humerus to femur, either her arms were beginning to shorten, her legs beginning to lengthen, or that both were occurring simultaneously. This is nothing more than filling the gaps to fit their theory. It's a Chimpanzee.
"Zoo officials have no plan to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct." --Bruce L. Carr - zoo's director of education. As seen in St. Louis Post Dispatch on July 22, 1996 page 1. What he is saying is that it's just fine to lie to kids and adults alike to give the impression that evolution is true. Their theory is more important than the facts. By the way, Lucy is still in textbooks. Evolution: Where imagination meets ignorance!

Exhibit D: Peking man.
Peking man was constructed from pieces of monkey skull found near primitive tools in the 1920s in Peking, China. They All evidence was lost in WWII. What wasn't told to the public is that at least 10 human skeletons were also found at the same site. This is nothing more than a group of people that dine on monkey brains. It still takes place today.

Exhibit E: Java man.
Java man (originally called Pithecanthropus erectus - meaning erect ape man and now called Homo erectus and dated by evolutionists at 500,000 years old) was made from a few scraps of bone found in 1891 in Java, Indonesia. Dutch anatomist Dr. Dubois believed in evolution and had gone to Java to look for missing links.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by six67seven]

How does any of that crap even remotely disprove evolution?

[edit on 19-5-2010 by NegativeBeef]

Originally posted by six67seven

Macroevolution - change from one kind of animal to another kind, i.e. bird to reptile
[edit on 14-5-2010 by six67seven]

organisms do not evolve into other organisms that already exists

Originally posted by six67seven

do i need to define species for you too? maybe variation?

[edit on 14-5-2010 by six67seven]

why would we want to hear your definition of species when you can't even define "macro-evolution?"

Originally posted by six67seven
You worship your "god" called science and your religion is evolution.

LOL so science is our god now? That has to be the most hilarious thing I've ever heard anyone say. Let me tell you this buddy, science has done infinitely more for humanity than your imaginary friend ever have or ever will.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by NegativeBeef]

Originally posted by Loken68


Mammals and birds are the highest forms of life and the most "evolved".

There is no such thing as "most evolved." Mammals and birds are not the most evolved forms of life they are just the most recent. Mammals and birds are no more evolved than a single celled bacteria. That right there ends any credibility you had in regards to evolution. Next!

@OP

It is still relevant because it a scientific field that is ever changing and allows us to learn about where we came from.

More importantly, ask yourself why Creationism/ID has ever been relevant as it is unchanging in its presentation and is constructed on debunking evolution science.

Any "belief" based on the "That is wrong here's why.So, by default, I am right." premise is worthless.

I can't believe people keep saying this...

HUMANS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS!!!
BIRDS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM "LIZARDS"!!!

They share A COMMON ANCESTOR!
How hard is it to understand that!

Look, this is a (simplified) evolutionary tree:


See? There's no horizontal line, that would be what you people are wrongly calling "macroevolution" Look at humans on the top, they do not follow monkeys in the branch THEY COME FROM THE SAME PREVIOUS BRANCHING (or whatever the word is).

I love debate, but the ground has to be stablished, first learn THE CORRECT DEFINITIONS EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCES MAKE. then if you want, argue against those, but don't argue at the air, that's dumb...

[edit on 19/5/2010 by drakus]