Do you believe in evolution?

[Vilho]

Even if Jesus existed, he wasn't the only one who got crucified, turned water into wine, had 12 disciples not to mention, had done all he did and now we're talking about centuries and thousands of years. There have been several sons of gods who have been born on the same day as Jesus, died around the same age as he and which have everything in common. Jesus is one of the many Messiah's, and he just happens to be our time's Christ.

Um.  What? Where did you hear this?

Zeitgeist - The Movie

And no, it IS NOT a movie. I expect that at least the major debaters, ie. 8th Account, The Geologist and Onegram, would watch the first part, which treats the subject of this very article. The part itself lasts for 40 minutes but it'll be worth watching, and it will answer many questions if you're willing to receive them.

And please, don't flame me if you have seen it already.

[Psycho]

--- Psycho
 it's like this. Maybe my life was changed for the better when I took up this faith. Even if God isn't real, I am still happier in believing He is, so why give it up?

Well we all can live in blissfull ignorance believing whatever we want to believe, but I don't need things like that to live happy.

[Demonic]

Vilho: Zeitgeist is full of bullcrap. Just read up on Horus and Krisna on wikipedia - they made some major factual errors. Misthraism, however, would be a different topic, and the movie is good at highlighting the astronomical relevances of religion, which indeed are common within almost every major belief-system in the world. Huzzah.

As for a post back two pages or so ago:

First, let's different the things that Jesus existed and whetever or not he was resurrected. The Bible is most of the time not factual, and literal interpretation would be catastrophic - however, just as the Old Testament stands as a more-or-less accurate  source of jewish history, the New Testament testifies the existance of Jesus.

To put it short, the fast spreading teachings of this religion which at first seemed like a jewish sect, the fact that it became dominant within two-three hundred years, means that there was a man who traveled through the lands and spread his word. Conspiracy theories don't work out aswell as you think: no one needed to make up a Jesus-person, because he lived, he taught, and he was crucified. These are facts, supported by other records than the Bible aswell, altough you can't expect precise documentation from the first century, because being literate was very, very rare, and being a scribe didn't pay the bills aswell. Questioning the existance of Jesus is like questioning the existance of Mohammed.

Now, whetever he was a son of a carpenter or a roman legionare, just a travelling rabbi who, even by jewish law was unjustly killed, or he was indeed the son of God, who died, descended to hell for three days and resurrected, to relieve us from our sins and give us hope that there is victory over death - that is a question of belief. No more, no less. It's pretty senseless trying to convert an atheist with logical reasoning built up for a belief-question, and it's interesting how atheists seem to bite on this, like it pains you fellows if we believe in this.

If I look at the big picture, in which we are nothing but measly dustballs, and there's one hope for me to get out of it all alive - thank you very much, I'll take it. You name what I lose, how am I a worse man than anyone else this way, and I'll convert to scientology.

[Smegma]

I used to believe in god, so I think I've been there yes.

You used to,  but clearly not enough.

[Psycho]

If I look at the big picture, in which we are nothing but measly dustballs, and there's one hope for me to get out of it all alive - thank you very much, I'll take it. You name what I lose, how am I a worse man than anyone else this way, and I'll convert to scientology.

Yeah that's just the thing. People have always been afraid of dieing, so they take to religion because atleast there is a HOPE of living on. Better stay on the safe side eh.

I used to believe in god, so I think I've been there yes.

You used to, but clearly not enough.

Whats that supposed to mean? If you mean brainwashed beyond having the capability to look objectively at the matter and make my own decision instead of going blindly with the sheepflock, then no.

[woo]

I don't belive in evolution, I know it's true.

[8th_account]

8th Account

You say the Bible was not very 'globalized' and well preserved, but over 24000 partial and complete texts of the New Testament were discovered between the first known manuscript and when the document was authored (about 25 years?). You can compare this to Homer's Iliad which had about 600 texts within 500 years. In fact the rapid globalization of the Bible has been a popular argument by Christians in support of the Bible.

Actually I ment that a lot of the individual stories that would later fill the bible weren't stored or globalized well before being written down in the Old Testament. What happened to those stories and their validity before being merged into the bible is anyone's guess.

There was more than one author of a long period of time who wrote the Bible - and hundreds of witnesses to support a few events mentioned in the Bible. Can't this be seen as a primitive form of the scientific method?

Did the authors describe their fact finding methods? I'm gonna have to say No on this one.

Now a few more thoughts:
The Bible was altered during its authoring stages and today is still being altered (altered here means changing metaphors, and implications). The Bible continues to be researched not only in meaning but validity. It is still not a solid, reliable historical book.

The Theory of Evolution also continues to be altered today. Various experiments and even observations have further approved the theory. ... But is it solid yet? Is it completely flawless and is no further study needed to validate the Theory?

In the end, I still believe it comes down to age.

A theory can never be taken as a truth, however valid it may seem. However, the modern evolutionary synthesis is so stable that it hasn't been altered since the 60s. The current talk about it has to do with extending it, not changing its current tenets or implications.

As for the bible, it didn't use reliable facts to begin with. It's as good as impossible to uncover good enough data nowadays that would classify it as a scientific theory.

[BondJamesBond]

As someone who studies evolution, tell me a flaw with it.

Anyways Darwin married his cousin and collected seagulls.
-=Edit
My god I just disproved evolution right there.

-=Edit2
Why is pigeons filtered into seagulls

-=Edit3

-=Edit4
The modern synthesis makes evolution essentially factual, otherwise all modern biology is messed up O_o

No nononnonon don't put me up against evolution, you should look back to see what my stance is on this.

As for the bible, it didn't use reliable facts to begin with. It's as good as impossible to uncover good enough data nowadays that would classify it as a scientific theory.

... all I can say is that is where faith comes in.. =\ gg

seagull.... wtfux

[8th_account]

So the original point being that the resurrection cannot be proven remains true.

[BondJamesBond]

No, it does not - but you don't have to believe it... We can't continue this argument because all it sums up to is:

8th_account: You can't prove the Resurrection
BondJamesBond: You can't disprove the Resurrection.

[8th_account]

But it does not matter if the resurrection cannot be disproven. The original point was that the resurrection could not be proven.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I expect that at least the major debaters, ie. 8th Account, The Geologist and Onegram, would watch the first part

Aw...I guess I'm not considered a major debater anymore...

Date Posted: May 28, 2008, 01:46:47 pmHere are the responses tht I've promised people, in reverse order.  I know they're not really relevant anymore, but I still feel obligated to respond to the people who responded to me.

Concerning heaven and hell:
I'm convinced that heaven and hell exist, but I believe the whole "fire" thing is purely metaphorical (mainly because there's no physical pain in a spiritual place).  Simply put, heaven is the place where God is, and hell is the place where God isn't.  However, that itself is huge.  Even if you're an atheist, God is still present in the world, despite your disbelief in him.  But in hell, God's presence is gone.  It's worse than being totally alone.  Your only companions are people who hate themselves and hate you, and there's utter hopelessness all around.  That spiritual agony is much, much worse than just being burned.  Why does God send people there if he loves everyone? It's simply because sin cannot exist in heaven.  If anyone has any sin in them, they are excluded from his presence.

Concerning free will:
Knowing what will happen doesn't change whether or not it's a choice.  If I saw my friend looking bored and holding a football and I asked, "Want to toss that around a bit?", I clearly know that he's going to say yes.  However, I didn't force him to answer that way.  The same is true with God and free will.  He's outside time, so he can see everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen.  But he doesn't control what we do; he only gives us a choice and knows what we'll pick.

Concerning Christianity and evolution co-existing:
I've said this before, but it bears repeating.  If you're a Christian, you're obligated to believe the entire Bible.   Otherwise, you're just picking and choosing which parts are true and which are false, and that's no religion.  That's you living how you want and believing what you want and pretending that you have the support of a religious book.  Therefore, Bible-believing Christians have to accept creationism as fact, or else it would undermine all that we believe in.  After all, if we decide that the Bible is wrong about creation, what's to stop us for saying that it's wrong about how to get into heaven?

Concerning this:

Why have fish that spend their entire lives underground in cave-pools go blind? Evolution.

Or, one could argue that it was a genetic defect that didn't hurt the fish, so it was passed on.  I don't think you'll find anyone who believes that birth defects are a good thing; also, I'm pretty sure they're caused by a loss of genetic information (meaning that it's not at all conducive to the creation of new types of animals).

Concerning 8th_account's reply from page 2 - Carbon Dating vs other isotopes:
At least twice in my post I said that I wasn't limiting my discussion to carbon dating.  I'm well aware of the limitations of carbon dating.

Concerning 8th_account's reply - Stratigraphy
I believe that different layers of the earth are different ages.  That's only logical.  However, I think that they were laid down significantly faster than you do.  I'll address that a bit later, when I talk about the Genesis flood.

Concerning 8th_account's reply - Transitional Fossils
I'm aware of the existence of "transitional fossils", but they assume that a similar structure implies chronological order.  Aside from dating methods (which can't necessarily be trusted, as I'll show later), there's no proof that they are a link between two other fossils.  Is a platypus just a transition between a duck-like creature and a furry mammal?  And where are the real transitional fossils, the ones that show bones and other things like that evolving?  In horse evolution, we see one fossil with three toes and another with one toe.  However, we don't actually see toes forming or degenerating.  We just see very distinct fossils that only slightly resemble each other.  More can be found here: http://www.sciencevsevolution.com/horseevolution.html

Concerning The Geologist's reply from page 2 - Millions of years required to form the geologic layers
This is a common misconception that is simply not true.  For example, even evolutionists have to admit that the layers surrounding polystrate fossils must have formed quickly.  Other notable examples are man-made objects found in coal and other rocks that take "millions of years" to form, as well as soft tissue somehow preserved in dinosaur bones:
http://www.byerly.org/whatifo.htm
http://www.strangemag.com/erraticenigmatics.html
http://www.skybooksusa.com/time-travel/experime/paleozoi.htm
http://www.geocities.com/truedino/sherlock.htm#Dino%20Tissue

Fossilization and petrification also can happen quickly.  There are fossils of dinosaurs giving birth, fish eating other fish, and so on.  This couldn't happen if it took millions of years for fossils to form.


As for the Genesis flood, you'll have to wait.  I'm sorry for all the build-up and all, but this post is long enough as it is.  Maybe I'll make a new post about it; I'm sure that there will be a substantial amount of discussion on just that one topic anyway.

[Smegma]

Whats that supposed to mean? If you mean brainwashed beyond having the capability to look objectively at the matter and make my own decision instead of going blindly with the sheepflock, then no.

Nope.

[8th_account]

Concerning 8th_account's reply from page 2 - Carbon Dating vs other isotopes:
At least twice in my post I said that I wasn't limiting my discussion to carbon dating.  I'm well aware of the limitations of carbon dating.

Concerning 8th_account's reply - Stratigraphy
I believe that different layers of the earth are different ages.  That's only logical.  However, I think that they were laid down significantly faster than you do.  I'll address that a bit later, when I talk about the Genesis flood.

I'm eagerly waiting for your "evidence."

Concerning 8th_account's reply - Transitional Fossils
I'm aware of the existence of "transitional fossils", but they assume that a similar structure implies chronological order.  Aside from dating methods (which can't necessarily be trusted, as I'll show later), there's no proof that they are a link between two other fossils.  Is a platypus just a transition between a duck-like creature and a furry mammal?  And where are the real transitional fossils, the ones that show bones and other things like that evolving?  In horse evolution, we see one fossil with three toes and another with one toe.  However, we don't actually see toes forming or degenerating.  We just see very distinct fossils that only slightly resemble each other.  More can be found here: http://www.sciencevsevolution.com/horseevolution.html

The site you provided starts off by quoting the bible. No doubt about the author's objectivity then...

As for the page's content, they're using textbooks from the 1950s as references. And the quotes are completely taken out of context. The phrase "continuous transformation" in the quotes refers to the old theory of linear evolution of the horse, not the evolution of the horse itself.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
And especially:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse#History_of_research


If this is how you aquire your arguments then you should stop posting here right away. You've disqualified yourself as a reasonable and intelligent debater by using extremly baised and unreliable sources.

[The Geologist]

This post was so shiny I had to make it an entirely new post instead of just a modification.

Concerning The Geologist's reply from page 2 - Millions of years required to form the geologic layers
This is a common misconception that is simply not true.  For example, even evolutionists have to admit that the layers surrounding polystrate fossils must have formed quickly.  Other notable examples are man-made objects found in coal and other rocks that take "millions of years" to form, as well as soft tissue somehow preserved in dinosaur bones:
http://www.byerly.org/whatifo.htm
http://www.strangemag.com/erraticenigmatics.html
http://www.skybooksusa.com/time-travel/experime/paleozoi.htm
http://www.geocities.com/truedino/sherlock.htm#Dino%20Tissue

Fossilization and petrification also can happen quickly.  There are fossils of dinosaurs giving birth, fish eating other fish, and so on.  This couldn't happen if it took millions of years for fossils to form.

Alright...now that I don't have to run out the door for an appointment, I'll take some time to reply to your post in a more serious nature.  Which will basically consist of reworking and expanding what I said earlier.  But before I get to that, I have to agree with 8th account on your lack of ability to find an unbiased source that isn't concerned with "the brainwashing of children with atheistic evolutionism" (quoted directly from your last link).

Allow me to clarify on the point which you addressed me on.  A bit more explanation on my part would have been better, but I got lazy - when fossils come up in conversation, I instantly think sedimentary rocks.  Not necessarily a good thing, as I'll explain in a moment.  You are correct in saying that there are certain rocks/strata which form quickly.  This does not apply to the entire stratigraphic column (i.e. all the sedimentary blanket overlaying the deeper "basement rocks", which are the igneous and metamorphic roots of continental crust), but rather unique layers within it. 

You're edging at one of the classic debates of geology, that of uniformitarianism versus catastrophism.  Yes, there are fossils of such special events as dinosaurs giving birth, fish eating fish, and so on.  But these are tied to particular geologic events, for example, volcanic activity such as lahars, ash fall/flow, etc.  That'd stem from the catastrophic end of things.  The modern conception of things is a mix of the two; periods of continuous cycles of deposition, erosion, metamorphism at depth, and so on down the line with episodes of sudden "catastrophic" events peppered in every now and again.  These could be massive eruptions, or meteor impacts, large earthquakes...you get the picture.  There are plenty of ways to bury dinosaurs, or many other things for that matter, very quickly. 

And on that note, preservation isn't an issue either.  Create the right anoxic conditions (rare, but it happens) and you can preserve anything from people to bivalves.  Then again, I never did care much for dinosaurs or paleontology.  Too boring, even for me.  Also, the fact that so many of those news reports of man made objects in coal deposits from Scotland makes me wonder if those people were breaking up coal or peat.  Not to mention, as stated, many of these claims are from newspapers and books from the 1800s.  People did a lot of dumb stuff back then.  That nonsense about the childs jaw in a coal deposits wasn't even cited, despite how contradictory it was in it's proof.  The spark plug in the geode is equally preposterous, and looks like a spark plug in the center of a ball of slag/smelting waste.  Hexagonal wood?  What!?  In fact, the description of that geode is unlike any I have ever heard of, and sounds like complete nonsense when you consider that animals don't live in the type of environments that are conducive to precipitating copper.  "Unnamed geologists" don't exactly make for good evidence of anything.  500-600 Ma shoes prints?  Give me a break.  There's no print even there - it's a weathered piece of rock.  No one in the scientific community takes these claims seriously for a reason.

Now, let me get to the point at hand.  There is plenty of evidence for strata forming over millions of years.  For starters, let's stop calling it strata - that's a very vague term.  Specific formations are what's in question here.  Let's take, for example, some of the formations I'm most familiar with - those in Colorado.  Let's get even more specific and look at the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara formation (specifically the chalk, as there is a larger Niobrara group with other rock types), famous both for it's numerous fossils as well as it's thickness (considering the Niobrara is chalk, an ~ 200 ft. thickness, not to mention is spans across numerous states).  These oceanic deposits are a prime example of the length of processes involved when you consider how long it takes for the extremely tiny exoskeletons of the critters and bugs that, through their life, create calcium carbonate shells.  Living in the water column, when they die said shells float down to the bottom.  This takes an extremely long time to happen.

You can confirm this for yourself by taking a clump of dirt, dropping it in a jar with water, shaking it up, and seeing how long it takes the various particle sizes to settle in still water.  The clay fraction will take the longest, while the silt and sand fall out first.  The critters I'm referring to above are even smaller than the clay fraction and take much, much longer to settle out.  In order to create such widespread, thick deposits the process could have not taken place in a year, or a thousand years, or even ten thousand years.  This is part of the reason there is such a large geologic time scale in the first place - because deposition of this sort occurs on a scale of millions of years.  Oceans move in and out repeatedly, erosion constantly grinds away what's laid down, and that's recycled back into the process. 

Take a look out in Utah, where you'll find even thicker sedimentary units of sandstones, shales, etc.  The sandstones in particular record, in their bedforms, the very patterns we see today in any riverbed.  Layers of various types of crossbeds that record, among other things, the progression and change in a given rivers direction throughout time.  And the numerous individual layers in a given formation, or even more specifically, a member of a given formation (yet another subdivision, I know - geologists love to get specific) point to loads of time. 

Mind you, I haven't even brought up igneous or metamorphic processes (with the exception of mention ash/mud flows). But, this should be enough for the time being.  Been typing for what seems like forever - been a while since I serious addresses a post on these forums.

Enjoy.

On an interesting side note - since you had to mention the Genesis flood, I thought I'd post this site.  I actually came across it after becoming curious about how thick the stratigraphic column was in certain areas.  Didn't read through the whole thing, but a glance down towards the lower portions of the page did leave me laughing at literally stumbling over a source with a fair amount of references for their argument.  Citations lacking in the sites you posted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#column

No 19th century newspaper citations there.

[unforgiven]

i don't believe in evolution co'z i believe in GOD

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

As for the page's content, they're using textbooks from the 1950s as references.

Oh snaps.  Didn't even notice that.  On the other hand, the horse evolution list is exactly the same as the one here, except Wikipedia had added Parahippus.  Incidentally, it seems the the main issue you have with the site is its out-of-date quotes, and not with any errors in the description of the horse evolutionary tree.

If this is how you aquire your arguments then you should stop posting here right away. You've disqualified yourself as a reasonable and intelligent debater by using extremly baised and unreliable sources.

Extremely biased? If they present accurate facts, how does the bias matter? I don't tell you that your sources aren't credible because they're extremely biased towards evolution, despite the fact that that's definitely the case.  When rocks and fossils and genetics and all that are studied, the scientists ask, "How does this support evolution?" instead of "What might this imply for other theories?" That's called a confirmation bias, and there's no way you can say that such a bias is in the best interests of the scientific community.

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life.

Geologist, I'll get to responding to you in a bit.

[Demonic]

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.  If you're a Christian, you're obligated to believe the entire Bible.   Otherwise, you're just picking and choosing which parts are true and which are false, and that's no religion.  That's you living how you want and believing what you want and pretending that you have the support of a religious book.  Therefore, Bible-believing Christians have to accept creationism as fact, or else it would undermine all that we believe in.  After all, if we decide that the Bible is wrong about creation, what's to stop us for saying that it's wrong about how to get into heaven?

Thanks, but no thanks.
So, do I have to believe in the whole bible literaly, or am I free to interpret parts of it as metaphorical? In the latter case, different people will have different interpretations, which boils down to different christian factions. What about the unitarians? The annihilists? Seventh day adventists? Jehova's witnesses? They all believe everything which the Bible says - altough in very, very different ways. Who are you, or who am I to judge which interpretation is correct?
Creationism is whack. It contradicts everything we feel, perceive and know about the world that surrounds us. And to repeat my previous statement: is it so hard to imagine God creating such a fine working system which builds itself up? Or the whole omnipotent thing goes better with the flashy description of him just putting stuff here and there. Let there be light is a much more simple description than 'let there be the big bang and then let mass revolve in circular motion and then gases and and and...'.

[8th_account]

As for the page's content, they're using textbooks from the 1950s as references.

Oh snaps.  Didn't even notice that.  On the other hand, the horse evolution list is exactly the same as the one here, except Wikipedia had added Parahippus.  Incidentally, it seems the the main issue you have with the site is its out-of-date quotes, and not with any errors in the description of the horse evolutionary tree.

The author of the site assumes a linear evolution of the horse, as in the old textbooks. What this means is that the author is bashing a theory that has been replaced for almost 60 years. Why doesn't he attempt to falsify the new one? And the sequence of the transitional fossils is only representative, and should not be construed to represent a linear evolution.

If this is how you aquire your arguments then you should stop posting here right away. You've disqualified yourself as a reasonable and intelligent debater by using extremly baised and unreliable sources.

Extremely biased? If they present accurate facts, how does the bias matter? I don't tell you that your sources aren't credible because they're extremely biased towards evolution, despite the fact that that's definitely the case.  When rocks and fossils and genetics and all that are studied, the scientists ask, "How does this support evolution?" instead of "What might this imply for other theories?" That's called a confirmation bias, and there's no way you can say that such a bias is in the best interests of the scientific community.

A few lines of facts wrapped around a net of wrong assumptions, exagerations and quotes taken intentionally out of context isn't much of an article. Now tell me, how are my sources baised? The content on those wiki pages comes from peer-reviewed scientific litterature. You seem to be very cynical about society in not even trusting scientists.

[numgun]

I do believe in evolution, but the fact how and what the universe is still bothers me.
Are there actual limits within our universe or is it ultimately infinate? Since like now it looks like from the articles i've read that the universe is a limited disk, and long time ago us humans thought that the earth was flat. I dont feel convinced by the amazing "big bang" theory either, i mean what the hell: A sudden huge explosion that came out of nowhere? Bollocks I say.

Also I do believe loosely that there is a superior force in this universe or something like that we have come to call "God". I think there is god, but he's/it's not really what we are told nowadays.
Religions in my opinion, are thought out so that a human could define this god something and believe in him, and to aid that, human wrote and spreaded the word about "God" using the various significant events that happened in the history. Vilho's zeitgeist movie pretty much sums that up.
I havent really checked if the information in this documental movie is true or not, but it seems logical enough to me to make it believable. As for heaven and hell, I'd say some people might have developed a way to use religions to manipulate and control other people to be leaders using fear of God's mighty power that can punish the ones that dont obey you, thus gaining superiority and control over other to a certain extent. Just a theory, but its a believable one.

Sorry for going a bit off-topic (maybe) there, but it has been bothering me for a while now.