Who belives in evolution?
Click on an option to vote
#1 Oct 1, 2012
It's kind of hard to not believe in something that has been proven to be real.
#2 Oct 1, 2012
Charles Darwin entitled his book "The THEORY of Evolution." Even Darwin knew that this new idea was incredibly flawed. Reading the book makes that very evident. But in a time when it was popular to view things in a scientific manner, the idea of evolution took off.
I encourage you to read the last sentence in Darwin's book. He states, "that life originated by having been originally breathed by the Creator...”—Page 450, Mentor edition.
With regard to the origin of complex molecules that make up living organisms, evolutionists believe the following:
1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.
2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.
3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.
How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.
What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down. Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”
To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building. Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.
It is true, a large section of the scientific community accepts the theory of evolution, but that in itself does not establish a theory as a fact. The weight of evidence for creation has moved many leading scientists to speak publicly of creation and a Creator. Among these have been William T. Kelvin, Dmitri Mendeleev, Robert A. Millikan, Arthur H. Compton, Paul Dirac, George Gamov, Warren Weaver and Wernher von Braun, to name some. Further, among the few prominent scientists who still accept the theory of evolution as true, there are many widely diversified and often conflicting theories as to how evolution has come about.
You might want to research a little further into your belief so you can see that even the fossil record, among other hard evidence, crumbles even the slightest foundation for evolution.
#3 Oct 1, 2012
Actually, the title was "The Origin Of Species", or in its original 1859 form, "On The Origin Of Species From Natural Selection". Don't pretend to be an expert on a book you don't even know the title.
I don't have a "Mentor Edition",lol. In my book (you know, the one with the REAL title, the word "creator" does not appear in the last sentence, page 460. Makes you wonder what was in those ten pages the "Mentor Edition" left out, huh?
If you had truly read the entire book and had any basic understanding of the theory or the science behind it whatsoever, you wouldn't be embarassing yourself by asking such a ridiculously elementary question.
Only if your mind is already closed to anything other than a magical invisible creator in the clouds.
#4 Oct 1, 2012
The "odds" of evolution occurring by chance are so infinitely small that it is a miracle in itself that such things are still taught as if they were a "fact" of science. For someone who desperately needs to appear different from others, most likely for shock value alone, you sure are easily swayed.
The following excerpts are from: "A Closer Look at the Evidence" by Richard and Tina Kleiss, scientists and former evolutionists. They illustrate why evolution is (for all practical purposes) a dying, if not dead, theory.
"At one time living cells were considered no more complex than empty ping pong balls. As biochemists have learned more about the complexity of life, it has become increasingly apparent that thousands of specific and complex chemicals are required for any form of life to survive."
Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism at 1/10340,000,000. By comparison only 1020 grains of sand could fit within a cubic mile and 10 billion times more (1030) would fit inside the entire earth. So, the probability of forming a simple cell by chance processes is infinitely less likely than having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand.
There is nowhere near enough time, nor matter in the entire universe, for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!
Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."
"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?"
"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility.
You said, "Only if your mind is already closed to anything other than a magical invisible creator in the clouds." Much better to believe in a magical invisible creator in the clouds than a magical, impossible coincidence.
I can see you are sourly irrational and misled. I pity you. On your deathbed, just remember not to pray, for there is no one to hear you.
I leave this conversation to chance. You have even fewer odds of a reply from me than the odds of evolution.
#5 Oct 1, 2012
Local, these are just some immature students who have gained a little "knowledge", and I use that term very loosely, and think they hold the secrets to the universe. They lack any type of wisdom. They also lack social skills and are unable to hold a simple conversation. Children become defensive when they are challenged and are unable to answer intelligently. Thank you, however, for sharing your knowledge. I know you won't read this post again, but if you do, know that if evolution is true, their kind will quickly die out.
#6 Oct 2, 2012
You do know that gravity is also only a theory, right?
#7 Oct 3, 2012
Josh, you are one stupid fool. Gravity - natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses. Gravity is a LAW of nature, not a theory. It is a proven fact. Did you not attend sixth grade?
Skinny, you are just an idiot.
I graduated from UK with a natural science degree and have worked in the field of archaeology for several years. I promise you "Local" is right on the money. Yes, she made a mistake with the title, but her facts are correct.
If you are going to start threads like this, you should tuck away your arrogant attitude and learn to have a conversation. Both of you are very immature.
#8 Oct 3, 2012
Oh lawdy, you really brought out the Jeebus worshipping crazies on this one! Hahahaha!!! Looking at how desperate they are, throwing around insults and copying and pasting quotes from crackpot "scientists" who also believe in the Magic Sky Daddy!
A natural science "degree" from UK!!! What a thing to brag about ... sounds like one of those POS degrees they hand out to the b-ball players like "communications" or "general studies".
#9 Oct 3, 2012
GRAND JURY EVIDENCE:
FACT: The defendant had a sound motive for killing the victim.
FACT: The defendant did not have an alibi for his whereabouts during the time the victim was murdered.
FACT: A tool was found in the defendant’s home which matched the victim's fatal stab wound.
FACT: Although no blood was detected on the tool, it was forensically proven that the weapon had been soaked in bleach.
*** It's the prosecution’s THEORY that the defendant soaked the tool in bleach to remove blood evidence from the weapon.
FACT: Blood was detected on two articles of clothing owned by the defendant.
FACT: The articles of clothing were found in the defendant's washing machine.
FACT: It was proven that the clothing had been washed in a strong concentration of bleach, which did not fully remove all blood stains.
FACT: Because of the bleach they could not perform DNA testing on the blood stains found on the clothing
FACT: They were, however, able to determine the blood type which matched the victims’ blood type.
*** It's the prosecution’s THEORY that the defendant washed the clothing in bleach to remove the blood evidence.
FACT: Very few finger prints were found at the crime scene where you would expect to find prints.
FACT: Only two full prints and twelve partial prints were found at the crime scene.
FACT: Four of the partial prints found at the crime scene had enough information to match the victim's prints.
FACT: Two of the partial prints found at the crime scene had enough information to match the defendant's prints.
FACT: Most of the surface areas where you would expect to find finger prints had been coated with a disinfectant soap film.
FACT: A used sanitizer wipe cloth was found in the trash near the crime scene.
FACT: The soap on the cloth matched the soap found on the crime scene surfaces.
FACT: A box of pocket sanitizer wipe cloths was found in the defendant’s home.
FACT: The soap on the sanitizer cloths found at the defendants home matched the soap found at the crime scene.
*** It's the prosecution’s THEORY that the defendant attempted to remove the finger prints from the crime scene with a pocket sanitizer wipe.
In Summation: To the Grand Jury; based on all the physical evidence, it is the prosecution’s THEORY that the defendant murdered the victim and should be held over for trial!
Now would you drop all charges and release the defendant because it's only a THEORY???
Since: Jul 09
#10 Oct 5, 2012
When ever you refer To God,Jesus The Lord ect.( if you believe in God as I do )to show respect always use capital letters...
HAVE A BLESSED DAY !!!
#11 Oct 6, 2012
Nobody gives a crap about your phony god, jesus the mexican, or whatever supernatural being you can come up with.
#12 Oct 7, 2012
So, you counter with 'odds'?? Tell me, what are the 'odds' of your alternative?
Really? Exerpts from whom? LOL.
How so? As if it weren't a magical, impossible coincidence you happen to have an invisible entity that exists on another plane somewhere above the clouds that magically poofed you and the rest of the entire universe into existance? Wow.
#13 Oct 7, 2012
Wow, with a resume like that, we should all just cede this debate to you right now.
She didn't even know the title to Darwin's work, yet you want us to take her opinions of it as fact?
I didn't start this thread, Einstien.
#14 Oct 8, 2012
Settle down, now. The topix community will not have you talking to a UK graduate like that. I mean, she ALMOST made it out of the state. That's a big deal.
#15 Oct 11, 2012
I doubt either of them graduated high school as they obviously have Evolutionary Theory confused with Bio-Genesis.
When Darwin first proposed his theory, it was denounced on aesthetic grounds because it claimed modern humans and modern primates shared a common ancestor in the distant past. Once the fossil record validated this, the creationists kept moving to less easily refuted stances.
One by one, they fell. When 'irreducible complexity' bit the dust, they had nowhere else to go but making grandiose claims of the "impossible odds' of Biogenesis.
Yet here we are.
A rational mind would deduce that either
1- we are an extremely improbable accident
2- we don't have enough knowledge of biogenesis factors yet to make accurate conclusions on the odds of life
The creationist mind runs straight to "Life is impossible, so it must have been magically poofed outta nothingness by the invisible sky fairy". How exactly is THAT stance more credible??
It's just moving the mystery of creation from 'Earth Life' to 'God Life'. How was their "God" created?
"He has always been there". How convenient.
#16 Oct 11, 2012
did u no dat ebbalooshun be raysis?????/ it iz!
yessahday muh baybe gurl.....hurr name be fritolay....comz hawmm frum da skoo in sez da teecha be talkin bout da ebbalooshun.., so i axed hur in sez fritolay wat be da ebbalooshun>? n shee sez da ebalooshun be meenin dat we is munkees!!!!
NO DAM HONKEE KRAKAH ASSD TEECHAH GON BE KALLEN MUH BAYBEE UH MUNKEE!!!! DATS RAYSUS!!!!!!!11
#17 Oct 13, 2012
If there is yet not enough knowledge to draw conclusions, then I submit they just need to talk to "Grace". She went to UK and has it all figured out.
#18 Oct 14, 2012
#19 Dec 12, 2012
If you want a balanced view on the subject you can get the book "LIFE How did it get here by Evolution? Or by Creation?" published by Jehovah's Witnesses You can obtain a copy free of charge from any one of Jehovah's Witnesses or you can request on by going on line to www.jw.org
#20 Dec 12, 2012
If people are crazy enough to think we came from monkeys, I have one question, as smart as the people in the world are supposedly now, why the monkeys not still evolving into humans?
Add your comments below
|pva||5 min||Mister Clean||75|
|hospital news||16 min||Mister Clean||10|
|Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10)||46 min||for all religions||147,241|
|angie rowe||1 hr||micheal bryant||1|
|Coy m||1 hr||john bryant||25|
|Casey Norris||1 hr||john bryant||10|
Find what you want!
Search Columbia Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC