Politiks

Ulyanov · Sun May 06, 2007 4:23 pm Evolution?

Believe in it or not? I do, it may not be completely proven but it's more proven than any alternative.

Maximus Vigilus · Sun May 06, 2007 4:34 pm

I believe there is a lack of evidence to say for sure evolution is true and a lack to totally disprove it, furthermore I believe that we will likely never know for sure.

Redneck · Sun May 06, 2007 6:19 pm

I think Evolution is true. it makes a lot more sense than good creating man and saying "and it was good".

Dark Blaze · Sun May 06, 2007 10:16 pm

I say it's a bit of both evolution and creation.

Houndstooth · Mon May 07, 2007 1:16 am

Evolution does not exist, nor has it in the earth's past. There is no proof (and no, I'm not going to supply you with proof for God now because I'm not arguing this from a religious perspective). There is much proof against evolution. The most popular pro-evolution arguments have easily deduced flaws.

Evolution makes sense if you take out what they've found and supplant in its place what they want to have found. For instance, the geological structure upon which evolution is based is theoretically derived. Evolutionists have taken what they deem "newer" ground and placed it (on their charts) on top of "older" and worked from there. The problem is that these rock formations (heh, pardon the pun, but the "foundations" of evolution) are not found in older under newer in nature. The exact opposite is many times true. Not only that, but the "newer" from one part of the earth that they place on top of the "older" is from a different section of the world. And to add to that, there are slabs of rock in positions which have been mathematically proven (did you know that mathematics can almost single-handedly disprove evolution?) impossible to exist given the "older" "newer" categories of evolutionists.

I can go on for a while. Evolution is a hoax. The only part that has been proven is horizontal speciation - that we can artificially take one bird and make it a slightly different one. It's still a bird. It didn't come from a reptile. The Finches don't prove anything but that the best suited survive. How they change into different genuses has never been discovered nor artificially derived.

Bob Frankenberry · Mon May 07, 2007 2:26 am

I am not an expert in the fields of biology, or geology. So am I unable to determine if it is accurate.

I accept Evolution, however.

Though, in all honesty, I could give a monkeys about which is right.

--B. "Give a monkeys?" F.

Roy's Our Boy · Mon May 07, 2007 3:58 am

Redneck wrote: I think Evolution is true. it makes a lot more sense than good creating man and saying "and it was good".

So you say.

Ulyanov · Sun May 13, 2007 12:34 pm

Houndstooth wrote: Evolution does not exist, nor has it in the earth's past. There is no proof (and no, I'm not going to supply you with proof for God now because I'm not arguing this from a religious perspective). There is much proof against evolution. The most popular pro-evolution arguments have easily deduced flaws.

Evolution makes sense if you take out what they've found and supplant in its place what they want to have found. For instance, the geological structure upon which evolution is based is theoretically derived. Evolutionists have taken what they deem "newer" ground and placed it (on their charts) on top of "older" and worked from there. The problem is that these rock formations (heh, pardon the pun, but the "foundations" of evolution) are not found in older under newer in nature. The exact opposite is many times true. Not only that, but the "newer" from one part of the earth that they place on top of the "older" is from a different section of the world. And to add to that, there are slabs of rock in positions which have been mathematically proven (did you know that mathematics can almost single-handedly disprove evolution?) impossible to exist given the "older" "newer" categories of evolutionists.

I can go on for a while. Evolution is a hoax. The only part that has been proven is horizontal speciation - that we can artificially take one bird and make it a slightly different one. It's still a bird. It didn't come from a reptile. The Finches don't prove anything but that the best suited survive. How they change into different genuses has never been discovered nor artificially derived.
It's not completely proven, but it has more to back it up than any other theory. I'll accept it as a theory until I see a better one, eventually they might prove it or they might prove a different idea, or Maximus might be right.

Houndstooth · Sun May 13, 2007 1:18 pm

Ulyanov wrote: Houndstooth wrote: Evolution does not exist, nor has it in the earth's past. There is no proof (and no, I'm not going to supply you with proof for God now because I'm not arguing this from a religious perspective). There is much proof against evolution. The most popular pro-evolution arguments have easily deduced flaws.

Evolution makes sense if you take out what they've found and supplant in its place what they want to have found. For instance, the geological structure upon which evolution is based is theoretically derived. Evolutionists have taken what they deem "newer" ground and placed it (on their charts) on top of "older" and worked from there. The problem is that these rock formations (heh, pardon the pun, but the "foundations" of evolution) are not found in older under newer in nature. The exact opposite is many times true. Not only that, but the "newer" from one part of the earth that they place on top of the "older" is from a different section of the world. And to add to that, there are slabs of rock in positions which have been mathematically proven (did you know that mathematics can almost single-handedly disprove evolution?) impossible to exist given the "older" "newer" categories of evolutionists.

I can go on for a while. Evolution is a hoax. The only part that has been proven is horizontal speciation - that we can artificially take one bird and make it a slightly different one. It's still a bird. It didn't come from a reptile. The Finches don't prove anything but that the best suited survive. How they change into different genuses has never been discovered nor artificially derived.
It's not completely proven, but it has more to back it up than any other theory. I'll accept it as a theory until I see a better one, eventually they might prove it or they might prove a different idea, or Maximus might be right. If evolution just had a bunch of missing links and other holes, I'd accept your answer. But this is not the case with the evolutiont theory: there are many, many examples of natural occurences and other properties of the Universe which contradict evolution. Basically, what you've said (and anyone who is willing to just "accept" evolution) is that you are ok with a theory which describes and defines our existence having flaws. That seems like a very important theory to me, too important for so many people to accept regardless of its impossibility.

You're accepting something that is false - not just incomplete, but erroneous.

Bob Frankenberry · Sun May 13, 2007 9:27 pm

Houndstooth, what are you sources for your information?

Houndstooth · Sun May 13, 2007 9:37 pm

The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse
AnswersInGensis.org
The Waters Above by Joseph C. Dillow (a very interesting read)
Wikipedia.org
Some biology text books I've gotten a hold of during the school year
And a few articles I may have gotten from Roy at one point (I can't remember if he sent me them or if I looked them up on my own).

What are yours?

Bob Frankenberry · Sun May 13, 2007 9:40 pm

Houndstooth wrote: The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse
AnswersInGensis.org
The Waters Above by Joseph C. Dillow (a very interesting read)
Wikipedia.org
Some biology text books I've gotten a hold of during the school year
And a few articles I may have gotten from Roy at one point (I can't remember if he sent me them or if I looked them up on my own).

What are yours?

What I can find from these links, which are links that direct me to databases of information.

Bob Frankenberry · Sun May 13, 2007 9:50 pm

Bob Frankenberry wrote: Houndstooth wrote: The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse
AnswersInGensis.org
The Waters Above by Joseph C. Dillow (a very interesting read)
Wikipedia.org
Some biology text books I've gotten a hold of during the school year
And a few articles I may have gotten from Roy at one point (I can't remember if he sent me them or if I looked them up on my own).

What are yours?

What I can find from these links, which are links that direct me to databases of information.

There's also various web articles and things from other websites I go to, that I forgot to add.

Houndstooth · Sun May 13, 2007 9:59 pm

Can I borrow your Campus Connect Username?...

Ulyanov · Mon May 14, 2007 9:17 pm

Houndstooth wrote: Ulyanov wrote: Houndstooth wrote: Evolution does not exist, nor has it in the earth's past. There is no proof (and no, I'm not going to supply you with proof for God now because I'm not arguing this from a religious perspective). There is much proof against evolution. The most popular pro-evolution arguments have easily deduced flaws.

Evolution makes sense if you take out what they've found and supplant in its place what they want to have found. For instance, the geological structure upon which evolution is based is theoretically derived. Evolutionists have taken what they deem "newer" ground and placed it (on their charts) on top of "older" and worked from there. The problem is that these rock formations (heh, pardon the pun, but the "foundations" of evolution) are not found in older under newer in nature. The exact opposite is many times true. Not only that, but the "newer" from one part of the earth that they place on top of the "older" is from a different section of the world. And to add to that, there are slabs of rock in positions which have been mathematically proven (did you know that mathematics can almost single-handedly disprove evolution?) impossible to exist given the "older" "newer" categories of evolutionists.

I can go on for a while. Evolution is a hoax. The only part that has been proven is horizontal speciation - that we can artificially take one bird and make it a slightly different one. It's still a bird. It didn't come from a reptile. The Finches don't prove anything but that the best suited survive. How they change into different genuses has never been discovered nor artificially derived.
It's not completely proven, but it has more to back it up than any other theory. I'll accept it as a theory until I see a better one, eventually they might prove it or they might prove a different idea, or Maximus might be right. If evolution just had a bunch of missing links and other holes, I'd accept your answer. But this is not the case with the evolutiont theory: there are many, many examples of natural occurences and other properties of the Universe which contradict evolution. Basically, what you've said (and anyone who is willing to just "accept" evolution) is that you are ok with a theory which describes and defines our existence having flaws. That seems like a very important theory to me, too important for so many people to accept regardless of its impossibility.
I'm unconvinced it's impossible, and the fact that it's not proven is why I'm accepting it as theory not fact. If someone comes up with a better theory, then that'll change.

Houndstooth · Fri May 18, 2007 1:33 am

How much have you read about it?

Ulyanov · Sat May 19, 2007 2:26 pm

Houndstooth wrote: How much have you read about it?
Not a tremendous amount, which would be why I don't try to convince others of it and am not very attached to it. I assume you consider yourself well-read on the idea.

Houndstooth · Mon May 21, 2007 1:53 am

Ulyanov wrote: Houndstooth wrote: How much have you read about it?
Not a tremendous amount, which would be why I don't try to convince others of it and am not very attached to it. I assume you consider yourself well-read on the idea. Nope. I consider myself able to argue against the typical "proofs" of evolution that evolutionists who don't really know their stuff like to throw around. But I've never tried to talk to an "expert" on evolution. I'm just wondering what a person who accepts evolution as truth (even though many scientists laugh at the thought that people still go around believing that Darwinism stuff) has really heard/read about it.