has evolution become another blind belief system ?

Created by aristotle on Oct 18, 2007

392 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

dont question 9/11 n evolution

questioning evolution is taboo

questioning 9/11 is a taboo

questioning religeon is taboo

First Prev
of 15
Next Last
Ossuary

United States

#1 Oct 18, 2007
I voted no, but it's an intriguing question nonetheless. I get a little irritated when "evolutionists" focus exclusively on natural selection and rule out any contribution of "chance" - to me, that smacks of "Darwinism", which isn't the same as evolution, although they're not mutual exclusive. I guess what I'm saying is that I would have chosen the "maybe" option, if it had been available.
aristotle

Manchester, UK

#2 Oct 18, 2007
Ossuary wrote:
I voted no, but it's an intriguing question nonetheless. I get a little irritated when "evolutionists" focus exclusively on natural selection and rule out any contribution of "chance" - to me, that smacks of "Darwinism", which isn't the same as evolution, although they're not mutual exclusive. I guess what I'm saying is that I would have chosen the "maybe" option, if it had been available.
our human comprehension clearly tells us that such astronomical chances r in the realms of impossibilty, unless life has been here trillions of years, which clearly it has nt.
Ossuary

Waltham, MA

#3 Oct 18, 2007
aristotle wrote:
<quoted text>our human comprehension clearly tells us that such astronomical chances r in the realms of impossibilty, unless life has been here trillions of years, which clearly it has nt.
"Our?" Speak for yourself. I see nothing improbable in the notion of mixing a few elemental compounds and throwing in the odd lightning-bolt to create a chemical that behaves like a life-form. There are rock formations in Australia that have never been underwater, that give very strong clues to photosynthetic life-forms existing here on Earth within about 900 million years of Earth being formed, or about 800 million years after the Moon was formed, billions of years before there was what we would consider a breathable atmosphere.
aristotle

Manchester, UK

#4 Oct 18, 2007
Ossuary wrote:
<quoted text>
"Our?" Speak for yourself. I see nothing improbable in the notion of mixing a few elemental compounds and throwing in the odd lightning-bolt to create a chemical that behaves like a life-form. There are rock formations in Australia that have never been underwater, that give very strong clues to photosynthetic life-forms existing here on Earth within about 900 million years of Earth being formed, or about 800 million years after the Moon was formed, billions of years before there was what we would consider a breathable atmosphere.
theres nothing wrong wis takeing wild guesses but i cant go further than understand that some sort of intelligence could only have put such intricate pieces in place,im pretty sure this is where u also would get stuck if not yet.
Will

AOL

#5 Oct 19, 2007
Yes, it has.

We always had to belive what the church had to say, and now, we have to belive what the scientists have to say.

America would be better off if everyone would shut their traps and belive whatever they want.
Will

AOL

#6 Oct 19, 2007
Goes back to John T. Scopes in the 1920's.

“It's like a bad dream ”

Since: May 07

Small Town, South Georgia

#7 Oct 19, 2007
It worries me to think that so many people dont believe evolution happens. i worry for the future of this country. This is 2007 people, get an education, learn something real, put away the fairy tales. Just wake up.
Ossuary

United States

#8 Oct 19, 2007
aristotle wrote:
<quoted text>theres nothing wrong wis takeing wild guesses but i cant go further than understand that some sort of intelligence could only have put such intricate pieces in place,im pretty sure this is where u also would get stuck if not yet.
There are no "wild guesses" in what I said, Aristotle, just the steady accretion of human knowledge from the four corners of the world. Read the work of Aleksandr Oparin, "The Origins of Life", published in 1924, in which he postulated "gels" becoming "autotrophs" (organisms that metabolize non-living material, e.g. algae). Then you should read the paper, "A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions", by Stanley Miller, published in Science, May 1953. Miller demonstrated that he could create amino acids within two days of putting together some basic elements that were almost boundless on Earth in its formative times, and that within three months these acids spawned the precursor molecules of life that Oparin had hypothesized.(Three months! It took Planet Earth 900 million years to get to its first equivalent life-forms.) The list of publications expanding on this work is almost endless: over 50 major works in the 1990s alone. Far from being "stuck", as you put it, I'm strongly inclined to accept the projections of scientists in the field, that they are within "a few decades" of creating BIOLOGICAL life, rather than just "coascervate cells". I accept that +you+ can't go further, but don't map your reluctance onto mankind. Even your most illustrious forebear, Aristotle [384-322 BCE] was convinced: in his "History of Animals" he said that some kinds of living beings are created directly from the elements. If you look over your shoulder, aristotle, you'll see knowledge sneaking up behind you.
aristotle

Chesterfield, UK

#9 Oct 19, 2007
Free Thinking American wrote:
It worries me to think that so many people dont believe evolution happens. i worry for the future of this country. This is 2007 people, get an education, learn something real, put away the fairy tales. Just wake up.
yes ofcourse its 2007 not 1847, so giv us proof of evolution ?
aristotle

Chesterfield, UK

#10 Oct 19, 2007
Ossuary wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no "wild guesses" in what I said, Aristotle, just the steady accretion of human knowledge from the four corners of the world. Read the work of Aleksandr Oparin, "The Origins of Life", published in 1924, in which he postulated "gels" becoming "autotrophs" (organisms that metabolize non-living material, e.g. algae). Then you should read the paper, "A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions", by Stanley Miller, published in Science, May 1953. Miller demonstrated that he could create amino acids within two days of putting together some basic elements that were almost boundless on Earth in its formative times, and that within three months these acids spawned the precursor molecules of life that Oparin had hypothesized.(Three months! It took Planet Earth 900 million years to get to its first equivalent life-forms.) The list of publications expanding on this work is almost endless: over 50 major works in the 1990s alone. Far from being "stuck", as you put it, I'm strongly inclined to accept the projections of scientists in the field, that they are within "a few decades" of creating BIOLOGICAL life, rather than just "coascervate cells". I accept that +you+ can't go further, but don't map your reluctance onto mankind. Even your most illustrious forebear, Aristotle [384-322 BCE] was convinced: in his "History of Animals" he said that some kinds of living beings are created directly from the elements. If you look over your shoulder, aristotle, you'll see knowledge sneaking up behind you.
if u read more about stanley millers experiment u will learn that even he admited that his experiment was flawed.
aristotle

Chesterfield, UK

#11 Oct 19, 2007
by scientists bieng optimistic about creating bilogical life whithin the next few decades is only becuase of the supreme intelligence of them indviduals,if u had to leave such expirements to a bunch of apes then i might had to wait just that bit longer, or if stanley miller was an orang utan he would certianly not have sifted wat he thought was amino acids formed dureing the process of his experiment.
Columbia_MO

Bergholz, OH

#12 Oct 19, 2007
I respect your peoples belief and faith. There is one problem though. Faith and Belief do not make fact. Faith is the belief in something without factual evidence. Science is the study of an issue to gain understanding of an issue to allow a logical discourse of the facts on the issue.

If you understand evolution the first thing you learn is scientific study is the basis of evolution. Belief is optional. The only requirement is an open mind willing to except the facts when they are presented to you.

When you start to consider science as a religion you loose touch with fact. Religion requires faith without fact. Science requires study evidence and fact, faith is not a requirement.
Ossuary

United States

#13 Oct 19, 2007
aristotle wrote:
<quoted text>if u read more about stanley millers experiment u will learn that even he admited that his experiment was flawed.
Of course it was flawed! Otherwise we'd have found the answers back in 1954. But so what? Proof that radio waves exist came more than 15 years after the first mobile phone - does that make the early +hypothesis+ of their existence wrong? Clearly not. Like almost all science, knowledge is a steady accretion: scientist (A) makes a hestitant step forward, scientist (B) looks at how to balance, scientist (C) considers surface friction - and so on, and so on, and so on, and eventually, we get to the point where humans can walk! Miller's experiment was no more flawed than Louis Pasteur's, and yet Pasteur - rejecting 90% of his own experimentation, a brave move by any scientist - correctly projected cell development.
Ossuary

United States

#14 Oct 19, 2007
aristotle wrote:
by scientists bieng optimistic about creating bilogical life whithin the next few decades is only becuase of the supreme intelligence of them indviduals,if u had to leave such expirements to a bunch of apes then i might had to wait just that bit longer, or if stanley miller was an orang utan he would certianly not have sifted wat he thought was amino acids formed dureing the process of his experiment.
You are being disingenuous, and you know it.

The major argument put forward by creationists against evolution is that life itself cannot have come into existence spontaneously - that evolution is at most the progressive change of a living organism to better fit its surroundings. You say that first "living organism" was God-made; I say that there is steadily accumulating evidence that it +could+ have occurred spontaneously.

Neither of us is arguing about what followed after life came into existence, 3.9 billion years ago.

“It's like a bad dream ”

Since: May 07

Small Town, South Georgia

#15 Oct 19, 2007
aristotle wrote:
<quoted text>yes ofcourse its 2007 not 1847, so giv us proof of evolution ?
Its 2007 not 500 AD. We have evolved enough so that we dont need to create gods and myths to explain things that we don't understand. We have science, logic and reason.

There is a boatload of proof out there for evolution. Show us real proof of your creationism.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
Columbia_MO

Bergholz, OH

#16 Oct 19, 2007
aristotle wrote:
<quoted text>yes ofcourse its 2007 not 1847, so giv us proof of evolution ?
The aligator would be a good place to start look it up its history dates back ohhh 65 million years or so and it has changed over time things like size the legs were one time fins and flippers thats evolution that has been proven. Read something other than comic books and bibles you might learn something.
Jesse_B_Simple

Richmond, VA

#17 Oct 19, 2007
Columbia_MO wrote:
I respect your peoples belief and faith. There is one problem though. Faith and Belief do not make fact. Faith is the belief in something without factual evidence. Science is the study of an issue to gain understanding of an issue to allow a logical discourse of the facts on the issue.
If you understand evolution the first thing you learn is scientific study is the basis of evolution. Belief is optional. The only requirement is an open mind willing to except the facts when they are presented to you.
When you start to consider science as a religion you loose touch with fact. Religion requires faith without fact. Science requires study evidence and fact, faith is not a requirement.
If evolution is so scientific, why is it contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that everything goes from order to disorder? Engineers and scientist are familiar with this principle! The presumption of evolution, which is for self-justification by some, is that everything goes from disorder to order. A direct opposite of scientific and observed experiential fact. It takes more faith believing in evolution, which has its own holes and gaps that are suppressed, than the Bible!
Ossuary

United States

#18 Oct 19, 2007
Jesse_B_Simple wrote:
<quoted text>
If evolution is so scientific, why is it contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that everything goes from order to disorder? Engineers and scientist are familiar with this principle! The presumption of evolution, which is for self-justification by some, is that everything goes from disorder to order. A direct opposite of scientific and observed experiential fact. It takes more faith believing in evolution, which has its own holes and gaps that are suppressed, than the Bible!
Who said that evolution is scientific? Me, I thought the +study+ of evolution to be scientific. Evolution is the progressive adaptation of life-forms to their environment - if the environment changes erratically (e.g. global warming) then evolution brings slow adaptation to it. Did you know, for example, that chipmunks are progressively moving to higher ground in the US?(Naturalists +theorize+ that this is because they're not well-able to regulate their body temperatures, so seek cooler climes.) Presumably they'll learn to adapt, or develop modified teeth/claws/digestive systems to deal with a different diet. Gophers and rattlesnakes go through continual change: when venom fails to kill, either the rattlesnake adapts or it starves; when adapted venom appears, the gopher adapts or it becomes extinct. All natural processes, and both rattlesnakes and gophers continue on, as I'm sure you know. Presumably our immune systems will adapt to MRSA sometime, and there's already some evidence of AIDS immunity emerging in young populations.

BTW, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is descriptive of a trend, not a universal law; it states that the entropy of an ISOLATED SYSTEM which is not in equilibrium will +tend+ to increase over time, approaching a maximum at equilibrium.
aristotle

Chesterfield, UK

#19 Oct 19, 2007
Many defenders of evolution try to argue that entropy only applies to a closed system, and that the Earth is not a closed system. This is facetious; entropy increases when systems are mixed, and the first life forms could not have survived except under very particular conditions. They had to have a closed system, or at least a very sheltered system, initially to survive! Any way you look at it, a self—replicating entity had to gain in complexity at the molecular level despite increasing entropic pressures. There has to be a guiding principle involved. You just can`t make order out of chaos! Systems decay.

In fact, genes and chromosomes decay on a regular basis. One of the largest causes of mental retardation is called fragile X syndrome, and it is the result of chromosomal decay where one of the legs of the X has crumbled away. The Chromosome is no longer an X but isn`t a Y either, and this results in numerous problems. Mutations of genetic material happens regularly, and is rarely of any benefit to the unlucky inheritor. A benevolent mutation generally requires an increase in complexity, not a disintigration of the chromosome or gene. Disintigration generally means decay. Decay makes you sick, or dead; it does not make you grow. Evolution claims you can decay your way up!

Another paradox in Darwin`s theory is the lowly virus. A virus is basically a free floating strand of DNA (or RNA for the most ancient varieties like the Filoviruses which cause Ebola) which invades a cell and takes over the cell`s control functions. The virus suddenly comes to life, reproducing at a prodigious rate. After exhausting the cell, the virus returns to it`s quiet slumber.
aristotle

Chesterfield, UK

#20 Oct 19, 2007
Now, the virus must predate the cellular organisms, and yet there is no way a virus can reproduce without a host. We have no examples of self—replicating viruses, viruses which can exist on their own. What we see is reverse evolution; the virus is evolved to feed on the more complex organism.

It is possible that early viruses were able to exist without a host, and that the change in the Earth`s atmosphere killed them. Perhaps none of them could tolerate oxygen. One would still expect to find remnants of these ancient viral life forms in sheltered places. We don`t, and regular viruses require a host. The problem is that there doesn`t appear to be any way for these organisms to have flourished.

Next we come to the problems with the fossil record. Everyone has heard of the missing link; the transition creature between Man and the Apes. We`ve never really found him—in fact, we`ve never really found any link between one species and another. Scientists have found species with similarities, but the transitions are simply not there. It is inherent in Darwinism that species make a smooth, seamless transition from one form to another. The reality is that we see no such transitions in the fossil record, and evolutionists struggle to hide or explain away this embarrasing fact.

Furthermore, we don`t even see crossovers between the 5 Phylla (classes of animals) anywhere, at any time. Where are the giant mammaried mosquitos? Where are the snakes which deliver live young? I haven`t seen too many feathered fish around lately!

The species remain distinct, and they shouldn`t if Darwin is correct. Consider the Permian Triassic Extinction, the so called ``Great Dying``, 250 million years ago,in which 9 out of 10 marine creatures and 7 out of 10 land creatures died. Before the Great Dying five phylla walked the Earth; insects, mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles. After the Great Dying we had the same 5. If Darwin`s concept of Natural Selection is correct we should have seen numerous crossovers as species from all branches competed to fill in the newly vacated gaps in the ecology. That we can find no evidence of any crossover is damning of Darwin`s theory.

Another point to consider is the matter of the size of animal life on Earth. During the Jurassic, Dinosaurs grew to enormous sizes, fueled by plentiful food and a high atmospheric oxygen content. Yet we see mammals grow large during the Pleistocene, with Mastadons, giant beavers, Saber—Toothed Tigers all being larger than creatures today. This was an era of scarcity and lower oxygen, yet we witness the same response to the environment. Why? If Natural Selection is correct, the most successful creatures during the Ice Age would be the smaller ones. We see the same biological response to two radically different conditions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

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.

Dinosaur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Tyrannosaurus vs Giganotosaurus vs Spinosaurus (Jul '09) 7 hr tyrannospinus 2,033
Let's Talk About: Alien 7 hr tyrannospinus 1
Ceratosaurus vs Triceratops Sat tyrannospinus 1
Spinosaurus would easily beat T rex in a fight (Jun '14) Sat tyrannospinus 58
Spinosaurus vs. t-rex (Dec '07) Sat spinosaurs baryonx 5,749
The Latest Anti-Science War: Christians Against... Sat Fartosaurus Rex 4
Largest animal on Earth Feb 27 Sammy 26
More from around the web