Who belives in evolution?

Who belives in evolution?

Created by feLisha443 on Oct 1, 2012

113 votes

Click on an option to vote

it is real

it is a lie

it is just a theory

god made us all

it aint in the bible

it is more like EVILution

it shouldnt be taught in are schools

i didnt come from no monkey

i aint belive it

it is foolish

Knowing

Columbia, KY

#62 Dec 21, 2012
quick question wrote:
<quoted text>
The God I believe in is powerful enough to include evolution in his (or her) plan. I cant bring myself to be self righteous enough to say it isnt. Apparently though, a lot of people can. Including people like "sense". Who are so in tune with God's intentions, they can never accept the possibility that God might want things to evolve so they they could adapt and survive as long as possible. The question you should ask yourself is..... Why cant you believe in both?
you are a total idiot
quick question

Elizabethtown, KY

#63 Dec 21, 2012
Knowing wrote:
<quoted text>how old wise one do you believe in both?
Also ...my belief in evolution is from scientific facts. Fossil records of organisms changing, adapting (or evolving) to survive.
My belief in God?.....pure faith!
Whats your excuse?
quick question

Elizabethtown, KY

#64 Dec 21, 2012
Knowing wrote:
<quoted text>you are a total idiot
Very thoughtful response.
Pot, meet kettle.
quick question

Elizabethtown, KY

#65 Dec 21, 2012
Knowing wrote:
<quoted text>you are a total idiot
you know with that kind of intellect and understanding, you might want to think about starting your own church
quick question

Elizabethtown, KY

#66 Dec 21, 2012
Knowing wrote:
<quoted text>you are a total idiot
I have a suggestion for your next name change. Instead of 'knowing' or ' sense', of which you have little. Maybe something a bit more honest. "Dumbass" maybe. Or just go with the 'mental midget' like I mentioned before.
Knowing

Columbia, KY

#67 Dec 21, 2012
quick question wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a suggestion for your next name change. Instead of 'knowing' or ' sense', of which you have little. Maybe something a bit more honest. "Dumbass" maybe. Or just go with the 'mental midget' like I mentioned before.
like I said total idiot
quick question

Elizabethtown, KY

#68 Dec 21, 2012
Knowing wrote:
<quoted text>like I said total idiot
Coming from someone who has demonstrated so much intellectual prowess, that really, REALLY hurts (insert sarcastic eye roll here)
Knowing

Columbia, KY

#69 Dec 21, 2012
quick question wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming from someone who has demonstrated so much intellectual prowess, that really, REALLY hurts (insert sarcastic eye roll here)
have a great day idiot!
quick question

Elizabethtown, KY

#70 Dec 21, 2012
Knowing wrote:
<quoted text>have a great day idiot!
pretty good day here. How bout yours? Those paint chips aren't gonna eat themselves are they?
pauly shore

AOL

#71 Dec 21, 2012
LOOK FOOLS ----

monkeys will NOT evolve into humans ,...

homo sapiens did NOT directly evolve from chimpanzees or great apes,....

but they all shared a common ancestor between 40 - 80 million years ago


an animal species can slowly evolve into a new and entirely different species - but it takes millions of years
Freethinker

Elizabethtown, KY

#72 Dec 24, 2012
Has even one of you 'geniuses' who doubt evolution bothered to read darwin- NOT just hear his ideas interpreted for you?

And you also might want to look up what a theory is in scientific terms. It's not just a guy sitting around thinking aloud- there's a LOT more to it....

If u deny evolution it's a fair bet u must also deny the basic physics, biology, astronomy etc... Really people? Some education would help- not to mention a good DETOX from being a religious sheep. Wanna know the truth? Read.
A JW

Cape Canaveral, FL

#73 Dec 25, 2012
Freethinker wrote:
Has even one of you 'geniuses' who doubt evolution bothered to read darwin- NOT just hear his ideas interpreted for you?
And you also might want to look up what a theory is in scientific terms. It's not just a guy sitting around thinking aloud- there's a LOT more to it....
If u deny evolution it's a fair bet u must also deny the basic physics, biology, astronomy etc... Really people? Some education would help- not to mention a good DETOX from being a religious sheep. Wanna know the truth? Read.
Fossil Follies
Commenting on the continuing competition among evolutionists as to who has found the oldest/best humanlike fossil, a recent editorial in The New York Times observed that paleoanthropology is a “science long on dramatic assertions and short on sure knowledge. Paleoanthropology draws upon the rigorous disciplines of anatomy and geology but includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject.”
The Times editorial noted the example of “English anatomists [who] uncritically accepted the Piltdown fossils that came to light around 1910”—later proved to be a hoax. To show that little has changed among today’s evolutionists, the book Missing Links is cited:“[Modern paleoanthropologists] are no less likely to cling to erroneous data that supports their preconceptions than were earlier investigators.” Why this lack of scientific objectivity? The Times suggests:“One reason may be that some theories attract more material support than others [or,“better” fossils get better funding].... The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.”
In any event, said the editorial,“Most of the [fossil] evidence would fit on a billiard table,” making anyone’s interpretation subject to sudden change.
Known Fact

Cape Canaveral, FL

#74 Dec 25, 2012
What About the Dates?
Evolution discussion
37 Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?
38 Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said:“Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”53
39 For example, the radiocarbon “clock.” This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.54
40 Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read:“Only six or seven thousand years ago ... civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.”55 The Last Two Million Years states:“In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says:“Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.”56 The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.
41 In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science:“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years.... You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”57
42 When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said:“The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded:“Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”
robots

Louisville, KY

#75 Dec 26, 2012
Known Fact wrote:
What About the Dates?
Evolution discussion
37 Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?
38 Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said:“Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”53
39 For example, the radiocarbon “clock.” This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.54
40 Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read:“Only six or seven thousand years ago ... civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.”55 The Last Two Million Years states:“In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says:“Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.”56 The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.
41 In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science:“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years.... You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”57
42 When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said:“The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded:“Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”
Jehovah Witnesses are not real people, they are zombies walking around on earth repeating what someone has told them. Just like the Mormons
Known Fact

Cape Canaveral, FL

#76 Dec 26, 2012
robots wrote:
<quoted text> Jehovah Witnesses are not real people, they are zombies walking around on earth repeating what someone has told them. Just like the Mormons
I beg to differ! We study the Bible and learn the truth for ourselves. We are absolutly nothing like the Mormons!
Sensible

Campbellsville, KY

#77 Dec 29, 2012
Josh wrote:
It's kind of hard to not believe in something that has been proven to be real.
Are you saying evolution has been proven to be real? Would you care to provide proof that it has been proven. Also how was it proven to be real? I think you are full of monkey poop if you believe that.
Known Fact

Cape Canaveral, FL

#78 Jan 4, 2013
Josh wrote:
It's kind of hard to not believe in something that has been proven to be real.
Nobody in their right mind believes in EVOLUTION. Mainly because no one was around millions of years ago to witness the so called evolution process taken place!
Known Fact

Cape Canaveral, FL

#79 Jan 4, 2013
Evolution is not fact that is why it is called a THEORY. A theory is nothing more than a wild guess and once it is proven then it becomes a FACT!
quick question

Elizabethtown, KY

#80 Jan 10, 2013
Known Fact wrote:
Evolution is not fact that is why it is called a THEORY. A theory is nothing more than a wild guess and once it is proven then it becomes a FACT!
Creationism is also a theory. So we can rule that out as well?
Known Fact

Cape Canaveral, FL

#81 Jan 11, 2013
quick question wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationism is also a theory. So we can rule that out as well?
Creation is all around us plus the universe. That makes Creation a fact. There is nothing evolving anywhere in the universe that is why it can never be anything but a theory (or a wild guess)!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 20 min Wisdom of God 170,598
Rats/informants. It's that time again. 7 hr It is I 19
Ridge Runner Liquor 9 hr Liquored up 1
Anywhere like spillway? 10 hr Young_Man 7
Sam Edwards Thu Truth 9
News Wes Bottoms, Russell Springs, KY at Journey to ... Thu Worried Grammie 23
threat Thu nobro 1
pva Wed rinngo 84

Columbia Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbia Mortgages