Do you believe in Evolution?

[Asilynne]

Ok first lets look at the two main theories:
Intellegent Design vs Evolution

Most people can only think in black and white, for one to be right the other must be wrong. But I dont believe that, I believe that they are both right in a sense because they in fact dont conflict as much as some may think.

Look at it this way.

In the Bible it says the Universe and earth and all its creatures were created in 6 days, and on the 7th God rested. Now if taken literally this does indeed sound daunting to believe in for many people. But, take into consideration the kind of being we are dealing with. God is said to be omnipresent "In the beginning there was God". Ageless limitless etc. We as humans live short lives, an hour, a day, a year, all of these are measureable to us in ways that are easy for us to comprehend. You can watch an hour go by if you stare at the clock long enough, you can count a year by crossing off days on the calendar. We see a day pass by the rising and setting of the sun. We are comfortable with our concept of that which is in reality unmeasureable--Time.
What is a day to one such as God then? He has no set limit on his life, no age, or at least not one we can comprehend. A day to someone who can live forever may be a million years. So the earth may not have been made in a human day, but a day for God, which would fit with the theory of the world being formed over thousands of years.
Now personally I dont believe in evolution, Darwin had some screwed up ideas. They wont print it in todays books, they abidge him now, but when he first wrote his orgin of species he also wrote about the "evolution" of the human race, which nowadays would be considered racist. I do however believe in the concept of adaptation, the belief that animals will adapt to their suroundings in order to survive. The finches on the galapagos Islands didnt stop being finches, they didnt become another higher form of bird like eagles, they just adapted their feeding tools to where they lived. They stayed the same species, just with different shaped beaks so that they could feed on the food sources unique to their homes. Black people, White people, asians etc. are all the same species, but over time due to environment and diet, adapted with different features to better suit where they live.
Humans probably ddnt appear on earth as the exact being we are today. I know there was a lower form of human in the past, but its ridiculous to believe that humans developed out of an entirely different species such as apes. Many people try to argue that humans and chimps have only about a (I believe) 8% difference in genome, as if that means we are related. Considering how big the genome is, and considering how even a slight variant can have wildly different outcomes, this certainly doesnt prove we came from the same ancient ancestor.

So in conclusion if taking into account the fact that time for us is relative and that for a supreme being a day may span much farther than our lifetimes, and understanding that an animal adapting to its surroundings makes more sense than an animal changing into a completely different animal, these two theories are not bitter rivalling enemies at all. They may be hard to grasp together, and may be worded in different ways, but they both speak of the same thing. If you know how to look at something with an open mind, you can see that the way the world works can be very simple, in a scientific or a divine way.


Oh and you dont have to agree with me, I just like getting what I think out there ^-^ Keep the religion bashing to a minimum please, lets all respect each other as people

[Heald]

You see, in the US, there's this whole 'Evolution versus God' thing and nutjobs trying to keep evolution out of schools and such, whereas in the UK, evolution is more or less taken as fact, or at least, a scientific theory with a lot of evidence to prove it and very little to the contrary. Hell, even our clergymen understand that evolution is probably fact and that it doesn't necessarily contradict Christianity.

Not trying to prove a point, just making an interesting observation. However, I guess our schools are actually taught the facts about evolution and not the watered-down version I gather some of your schools teach in order not to offend the idiots.

Also, to Raz - doesn't Genesis say that Eve was naked at the time? If a naked woman asked you to sample her fruit, wouldn't you take her up on her offer?

[DarkTemplarZero]

Depends, was Eve hot? And what about her brother Steve?

Razola: Hahah great quote. "Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

Asilynne: That had to be the single most idiotic rambling I have seen in my entire life. In that entire paragraph I think you had one train of thought that could be considered rational and the rest was just trash. I'm not bashing religion or you in particular, I just don't want anybody mistaking what you said for something that makes sense.

First of all, humans and chimps differ by less than 2% genetically, with a great deal of common genes. Using the beauty of computational biology we can infer that the concestor (most recent common ancestor) between chimps and humans lived about 5-7 million years ago (See Richard Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life").

And while I agree that Darwin's Finches were still Finches, your knowledge of taxonomy is clearly lacking, because each of Darwin's Finches is a different species, belonging to the same Kingdom, Phylum, Class, and Order, yes, but each a different Species and 4-6 different Genera, depending on your source.

Next, your argument about geological time is valid, but self-defeating. You believe in adaptation, but you don't believe that over a sufficient time minor changes can result in a net large change. Again I'll point you to read up on simulated annealing to see that random changes over time with an impetus toward a certain goal do lead toward that goal.

"Considering how big the genome is, and considering how even a slight variant can have wildly different outcomes, this certainly doesnt prove we came from the same ancient ancestor"
Why thank you, I guess we can agree that even a slight variation can cause wildly different outcomes. And how easy is it to cause a slight variation? Incredibly easy, random mutations occur all the time in your body. In a sufficiently large population variation is ridiculously common. Now about that not proving a common ancestor, true, 2% difference is huge, however, there's the fossil record for proof, considering that humans looked like this:


(Austrolopithecus, the commonly accepted ancestor of homo habilis, homo erectus, etc. and therefore modern humans from approximately 1-4 million years ago)

about 3 million years ago, is it that much of a stretch to believe that humans shared a common ancestor with Chimpanzees? And also you forget, we humans are classified as part of the family Hominidae, along with gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans, so technically, we're still apes.

[pokemasterfrank]

Apology accepted :> If youd care to rewrite it so you dont sound like an ass Ill check it out ^-~

Depends, was Eve hot? And what about her brother Steve?

Razola: Hahah great quote. "Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

Asilynne: That had to be the single most idiotic rambling I have seen in my entire life. In that entire paragraph I think you had one train of thought that could be considered rational and the rest was just trash. I'm not bashing religion or you in particular, I just don't want anybody mistaking what you said for something that makes sense.

First of all, humans and chimps differ by less than 2% genetically, with a great deal of common genes. Using the beauty of computational biology we can infer that the concestor (most recent common ancestor) between chimps and humans lived about 5-7 million years ago (See Richard Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life").

And while I agree that Darwin's Finches were still Finches, your knowledge of taxonomy is clearly lacking, because each of Darwin's Finches is a different species, belonging to the same Kingdom, Phylum, Class, and Order, yes, but each a different Species and 4-6 different Genera, depending on your source.

Next, your argument about geological time is valid, but self-defeating. You believe in adaptation, but you don't believe that over a sufficient time minor changes can result in a net large change. Again I'll point you to read up on simulated annealing to see that random changes over time with an impetus toward a certain goal do lead toward that goal.

"Considering how big the genome is, and considering how even a slight variant can have wildly different outcomes, this certainly doesnt prove we came from the same ancient ancestor"
Why thank you, I guess we can agree that even a slight variation can cause wildly different outcomes. And how easy is it to cause a slight variation? Incredibly easy, random mutations occur all the time in your body. In a sufficiently large population variation is ridiculously common. Now about that not proving a common ancestor, true, 2% difference is huge, however, there's the fossil record for proof, considering that humans looked like this:


(Austrolopithecus, the commonly accepted ancestor of homo habilis, homo erectus, etc. and therefore modern humans from approximately 1-4 million years ago)

about 3 million years ago, is it that much of a stretch to believe that humans shared a common ancestor with Chimpanzees? And also you forget, we humans are classified as part of the family Hominidae, along with gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans, so technically, we're still apes.

Fix. lol

I agree with DTZ on this one. Points are valid.

Evolution is sound in logic. And it can be easily integrated into religious beliefs - but that doesn't stop people from refusing to believe it.

EDIT: wtf. I have to spell out strike?

[Razola]

Say that Eve was naked at the time? If a naked woman asked you to sample her fruit, wouldn't you take her up on her offer?

If we're following the Bible, you must remember that clothing doesn't exist. She's always naked and hey, you're the only guy on Earth. You're also in Eden, which apparently is PARADISE and I bet living there is like having awesome nonstop sex.

My point is a naked chick in Eden probably had less sway than a naked chick does today.

[Heald]

I think we're looking too much into this.

[Razola]

I think we're looking too much into this.

Well, it's a silly thread to begin with.

[Heald]

John Wayne Gacy agrees.