I asked for real hard evidence,not a lecture on the defination of a theory,where is the evidence?did you independently verify these theories you were taught in school or you just believe it because scientific experts told you?
Well, you want proof:
First of all it's a fact that species mutate. While copying or DNA, there can be a mistake and our genes can mutate, this can be for the better or worse. If it's worse, the creature dies, if it's better, the animal will have more chances of surviving than the rest of its species (natural selection). Eventually it'll also have a bigger chance of passing on its genes and giving its traits to its offspring and so on. => evolution
Second of all: archeology. There are bones in the ground of old animals and creatures, people have found them and documented them = facts. The deeper you go in the ground, meaning how further back you go in time, the more you see that the creatures are less advanced than in ground above. Also, there are species that used to live, but don't exist anymore, and there are species that didn't live back than but do now. A primary example: humans. archeologists estimate that humans have only been around for about 200,000 years, based on the facts that they found in the ground. Before that, there is no sign of humans anywhere. So there has been all sorts of life on earth for billions of years without humans which proofs that creationism is a made up thing.
Also the humans didn't just drop on earth. archeologists have found that apes did actually evolve into humans. First growing a larger brain and learning to walk, and getting smarter and smarter over time
This can be shown in the finding of skulls:
Also, in regards to an earlier post of yours, no one claims humans evolved from monkeys or whatever. If that is your (paltry) understanding of evolution, no wonder you don't accept it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Buyonce1814
I'm neither for evolution or creationism. I simply don't care. But for those that believe in evolution - I read this and thought it was interesting. What do you think?
1/F) To accept evolution does not mean to claim to have 100% of the answers for the origin of every living thing. Therein lies the difference between science and religion/"creationism". The scientific stance is, "we don't know all the answers, let's apply the scientific method to find them out piece by piece", while the latter's stance is "we know all the answers, GAWD did it! Now let's close our eyes and ears and say 'GAWD did that!' every time the scientists discover new findings!"
The fact that we still have learning to do about the evolution of the trilobyte in general does nothing to disprove evolution, it's just pointing out something scientists already know about the work we have ahead of us. "There's still something you haven't figured out!" is pretty much the gist of 90% of the creationists attempts to disprove evolution, which is silly. It would be like me asking you a difficult math equation on the spot, and if you can't answer it, claiming that that disproves mathematics.
2/A) Because the lifespans of most animals are far too long, there is lacking evidence of mammals evolving "before our eyes", so to speak. There is, however, evidence of many forms of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, a form of natural selection as a result of our use of antibiotics. Similarly, I recall there being some type of moth/butterfly in the UK which developed a spotted black wing pattern during the industrial age, to camouflage with the tried which were becoming covered in soot. Look them up, I have an interview to get to and can't go digging for links There's also a famous example of green/brown beetles of some kind, with the green ones evolving to be more prominent due to their camouflaging from predatory birds.
The "we have't seen dogs do it!" argument is so lame
I'll get to the other points if you want after I get home
First of all it's a fact that species mutate. While copying or DNA, there can be a mistake and our genes can mutate, this can be for the better or worse. If it's worse, the creature dies, if it's better, the animal will have more chances of surviving than the rest of its species (natural selection). Eventually it'll also have a bigger chance of passing on its genes and giving its traits to its offspring and so on. => evolution
Second of all: archeology. There are bones in the ground of old animals and creatures, people have found them and documented them = facts. The deeper you go in the ground, meaning how further back you go in time, the more you see that the creatures are less advanced than in ground above. Also, there are species that used to live, but don't exist anymore, and there are species that didn't live back than but do now. A primary example: humans. archeologists estimate that humans have only been around for about 200,000 years, based on the facts that they found in the ground. Before that, there is no sign of humans anywhere. So there has been all sorts of life on earth for billions of years without humans which proofs that creationism is a made up thing.
Also the humans didn't just drop on earth. archeologists have found that apes did actually evolve into humans. First growing a larger brain and learning to walk, and getting smarter and smarter over time
This can be shown in the finding of skulls:
I've read and come across all these things you speak of.But can I ask you a simple question?
how come we've never seen a monkey evolve into a human being till date?the issue here is that this theory has still not proven beyond reasonable doubt the source of life,even darwin could not answer some sailent questions satisfactorily.
This is the literal definition of a logical fallacy. The Soviet Communist regime, for one thing, emerged as a product of the violence surrounding religious conflict in other parts of the world, and Mao Zedong's politics were not atheism-based. He may have been an atheist, but it's technically incorrect to say that his actions stemmed from his religious views since the Cultural Revolution was borne more out of anti-imperialism and cultural dogma than explicit religious views.
All instances of Communist-driven genocide were horrifically brutal, but you cannot place atheism behind them, per say, regardless of the movements' leaders' beliefs, because no part of atheism advocates for...anything. That's where the fundamental difference between Atheist-Communist connections and religious conflicts comes in - faith-based massacres generally stem from the idea that ___'s faith is the One True Faith, and all other must be eliminated/people must be converted, etc., and constituents of these policies support them from their respective holy texts. Atheism has no holy texts. The whole point of it is that it isn't a religion. Therefore, claiming that any single cultural movement against religion by, for example, Communists, is inherently an atheism-driven act is incorrect, since atheism has no compelling component. Which I realize doesn't make a lot of sense, but there is a philosophical element to it so bear with me.
The USSR was a horrific case of violent atheism, undeniably, but it was catalyzed by every preceding instance of violent theism, like, ever. I don't know enough about it to comment further, but people with the capacity for evil will always find an impetus, which applies to both sides of this issue, and any other.
In other words, because there are no characteristics of atheism besides being an atheist, meaning one just doesn't follow any organized faith or believe in a deity, any rampaging leader who committed religious genocide may have taken on the atheist moniker out of, you know, convenience. There are very few examples (speaking comparatively) of actual anti-religious massacres originating definitely from atheism. In the Soviet Union (where my family is from, by the way, and I say that not because I think it gives me any extraneous insight but because I was raised by people who actually experienced said injustices, and made sure I understood them), the idea of the atheist state existed as part of the idea of Marxism-Leninism in the 20th century. Because it went hand in hand with Communism, and was formed primarily from Karl Marx's historical knowledge, can you really blame the concept itself? With theism, a convincing argument can be made to that effect, whereas with atheism...it's trickier.
This is the most eloquent argument I've ever read on ATRL.
I've read and come across all these things you speak of.But can I ask you a simple question?
how come we've never seen a monkey evolve into a human being till date?the issue here is that this theory has still not proven beyond reasonable doubt the source of life,even darwin could not answer some sailent questions satisfactorily.
Firstly, humans aren't "evolved" from monkeys or apes. We share a common ancestor. Secondly, human evolution has taken millions of years of natural selection to manifest, it can't be "observed in the way you're talking about, but there is a mountain of evidence to support it.
Firstly, humans aren't "evolved" from monkeys or apes. We share a common ancestor. Secondly, human evolution has taken millions of years of natural selection to manifest, it can't be "observed in the way you're talking about, but there is a mountain of evidence to support it.
So the evolution stoped when apes evolved to humans?
I've read and come across all these things you speak of.But can I ask you a simple question?
how come we've never seen a monkey evolve into a human being till date?the issue here is that this theory has still not proven beyond reasonable doubt the source of life,even darwin could not answer some sailent questions satisfactorily.
Evolution doesn't just happen suddenly. The evolution theorie doesn't even exist for more than 200 years. There's no way a monkey could just evolve in such short time, it takes millions of years to do that
However there has been a recent case of natural selection (a part of evolution) in butterflies. You can read about that here:
So the evolution stoped when apes evolved to humans?
We are still evolving (every species is). We've just been monotering it for such a little time and over just a few generations, that pretty much nothing has changed. However, if we're going to look at humans in let's say 5,000-10,000 years, there will be a noticeable difference.
Evolution doesn't just happen suddenly. The evolution theorie doesn't even exist for more than 200 years. There's no way a monkey could just evolve in such short time, it takes millions of years to do that
However there has been a recent case of natural selection (a part of evolution) in butterflies. You can read about that here:
Sorry,I don't know about butterflies,I'm only concerned about origin of those thing you all claim created life,I never claimed that creationism was factual,but that the theory of evolution is not foolproof either,all these evidence have not proven the source of life.
Sorry,I don't know about butterflies,I'm only concerned about origin of those thing you all claim created life,I never claimed that creationism was factual,but that the theory of evolution is not foolproof either,all these evidence have not proven the source of life.
The fact that butterflies can evolve mean that every species can evolve. Humans are animals. too, just more advanced
But if you want to know the source of life: here's a simple video
Sorry,I don't know about butterflies,I'm only concerned about origin of those thing you all claim created life,I never claimed that creationism was factual,but that the theory of evolution is not foolproof either,all these evidence have not proven the source of life.
the source of life? what does that have to do with evolution? that is abiogenesis
Sorry,I don't know about butterflies,I'm only concerned about origin of those thing you all claim created life,I never claimed that creationism was factual,but that the theory of evolution is not foolproof either,all these evidence have not proven the source of life.
As someone said evolution and the creation of life is different. How things all started is very out their right now. There are theories meteorites hit the planet which had the necessary ingredients or even life forms on it. etc etc etc. Now however whenever life started to proliferate onto the planet that is when evolution and natural selection came in.
I don't like it. They should teach both tbh since neither one is proven to be true
One is heavily supported by various fields in the sciences while the other is only based of a religious book that has no factual evidence supporting the idea of Creationism. You say they should teach both then shouldn't they also teach all other major religions as well? Cut out religion from science classes please If anything about religion is going to be taught is should be done in a religion education class that talks about multiple religions. Someone already said it, but I think a better class would be a Sociology class that handles multiple topics instead of solely religion. Also History class tends to brush up on these type of topics a lot and sometimes English depending on the book you read and where the discussion is directed.
The main issue here is that non of the theories have been proven be true,if you are going to ban one,you might as well ban the other since the opposing sides believe that each theory is BS.
There's also a famous example of green/brown beetles of some kind, with the green ones evolving to be more prominent due to their camouflaging from predatory birds.
If anything about religion is going to be taught is should be done in a religion education class that talks about multiple religions. Someone already said it, but I think a better class would be a Sociology class that handles multiple topics instead of solely religion. Also History class tends to brush up on these type of topics a lot and sometimes English depending on the book you read and where the discussion is directed.