First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Discussion of theories on Evolution
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:

You may be right, I should have used a better article, and I'm sorry for the assumptions he made, they don't reflect my views at all. I do know this website does have much information in Intelligent design and discusses evolutionary problems. http://creation.com/ http://www.icr.org/. They are both scientific institutions.


But was the author correct when he said that Creationists believe that natural selection occurs? If so then that means Creationists acknowledge that macroevolution does occur in nature, since natural selection can cause speciation over long periods of time.


Yes, the vast majority of creationists do believe that natural selection occurs (I personally do as well). We don't believe that natural selection precedes evolution though. We hold that natural selection is what it says it is, the stronger genes being passed on over time because the organisms with the weaker genes die and therefore cannot have offspring to carry those weaker genes. We hold to "microevolution" and that viruses and bacteria do obtain new genetic material that changes them, but we do not believe that all species have originated by means of evolution. We also don't believe that the first life form spontaneously generated due to acts of random chance.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/2/09 , edited 5/2/09

digs wrote:
Yes, the vast majority of creationists do believe that natural selection occurs (I personally do as well). We don't believe that natural selection precedes evolution though. We hold that natural selection is what it says it is, the stronger genes being passed on over time because the organisms with the weaker genes die and therefore cannot have offspring to carry those weaker genes.

The weaker genes being eliminated causes a change in the geneome of a population. Changes in a population's genome=evolution.


We hold to "microevolution" and that viruses and bacteria do obtain new genetic material that changes them, but we do not believe that all species have originated by means of evolution.

In that case Creationism doesn't really go against evolution, it goes against phylogeny. The fact that all sources that I've read that try to discredit evolution from a creationist point of view constantly use the word "evolution," when in reality they are targeting phylogeny, suggests that creatonists in general don't really understand what evolution is when applied to biology.



We also don't believe that the first life form spontaneously generated due to acts of random chance.

That's abiogenesis, evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, only how life has changed and diversified since then.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/09
^ (I'm having trouble quoting your post)

definition of Genome: Genome: All of the genetic information, the entire genetic complement, all of the hereditary material possessed by an organism.

Weaker genes are not eliminated via natural selection, the are just replaced by stronger genes. If the change in genes resulted in a new species via natural selection, then each human generation could be classified as a new species because of stronger/weaker genes being added to the genome.

And you are correct, creationism doesn't go against evolution. However, intelligent design does. Creationists debate phylogeny, but they also debate ideas in evolution (those sites I posted have many).

I agree with you and I know that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, but it is dependent on abiogenesis.

Typically, what intelligent design and creationism go against is evolution and materialism/naturalism.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/2/09

digs wrote:

^ (I'm having trouble quoting your post)

definition of Genome: Genome: All of the genetic information, the entire genetic complement, all of the hereditary material possessed by an organism.

Weaker genes are not eliminated via natural selection, the are just replaced by stronger genes. If the change in genes resulted in a new species via natural selection, then each human generation could be classified as a new species because of stronger/weaker genes being added to the genome.


When referring to a population, genome=all of the genes present in a population. You're right that the "weaker" genes aren't necessarily eliminated from the genome, but their phenotypic frequency does decrease, so those traits appear less often or not at all. I don't know if that's technically evolution on a small scale, since I'm not sure if changing phenotypic frequencies counts as changing the genome. Changing the genome of a population does not necessarily create a new species, but if it is done enough times over a long period of time then it could.



I agree with you and I know that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, but it is dependent on abiogenesis.


Not necessarily, evolution could have started when a higher power first created life, if that it what you choose to believe.
23334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/15/09
could it just happend "just because"? or just for a "random" reason?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/15/09 , edited 5/15/09

digs wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:

You may be right, I should have used a better article, and I'm sorry for the assumptions he made, they don't reflect my views at all. I do know this website does have much information in Intelligent design and discusses evolutionary problems. http://creation.com/ http://www.icr.org/. They are both scientific institutions.


But was the author correct when he said that Creationists believe that natural selection occurs? If so then that means Creationists acknowledge that macroevolution does occur in nature, since natural selection can cause speciation over long periods of time.


Yes, the vast majority of creationists do believe that natural selection occurs (I personally do as well). We don't believe that natural selection precedes evolution though. We hold that natural selection is what it says it is, the stronger genes being passed on over time because the organisms with the weaker genes die and therefore cannot have offspring to carry those weaker genes. We hold to "microevolution" and that viruses and bacteria do obtain new genetic material that changes them, but we do not believe that all species have originated by means of evolution. We also don't believe that the first life form spontaneously generated due to acts of random chance.


Lol, all life is is recycled stardust, that all humans, trees, buildings(the latter obviously arent life, but they too are just recycled stardust), the earth really is, recycled stardust, we are the result of the carbon fusion that once was inside the kernel of a star.


Besides if all the raw materials are present for life to happen, and the conditions are right, eventually life will form. It didn't "spontanously generate", it had all the time in the world to come together. And it did, the proof of that is life on earth. and all the other planets life is present on.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/13/09 , edited 7/18/09
Why is knowing how evolution works help us in the long run?

Like all biological systems, both disease-causing organisms and their victims evolve. Understanding evolution can make a big difference in how we treat disease. The evolution of disease-causing organisms may outpace our ability to invent new treatments, but studying the evolution of drug resistance can help us slow it. Learning about the evolutionary origins of diseases may provide clues about how to treat them. And considering the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases.

Flu viruses evolve rapidly.
As they circulate through populations around the world and switch hosts, flu viruses change so much that our vaccines are rendered obsolete every year. The flu is a problem for which a solution must be redesigned and rebuilt every year, like a bridge that gets washed away every flood season. Only by understanding the flu as an evolving entity can we understand why our solution to the problem must change every year.

Every day we come into contact with millions of bacteria and viruses. Some are harmful and others are beneficial, while the rest have no apparent effect on our health. When harmful microorganisms enter our bodies, a battle ensues.

Rapid reproduction and natural selection
Because bacteria and viruses reproduce rapidly, they evolve rapidly. These short generation times, some bacteria have a generation time of just 15 minutes, meaning that natural selection acts quickly. In each pathogen generation, new mutations and gene combinations are generated that then pass through the selective filter of our drugs and immune response. Over the course of many pathogen generations (a small fraction of a single human lifetime), they adapt to our defenses, evolving right out from under our attempts to rid ourselves of them.




Antibiotic resistance: delaying the inevitable

Only a few decades ago, antibiotics were considered to be wonder drugs because they worked so well to cure deadly diseases. Ironically, though, many antibiotics have become less effective, precisely because they have worked so well and have been used so often.

Making inroads against infectious disease
The antibiotic era began in 1929 with Alexander Fleming's observation that bacteria would not grow near colonies of the mold Penicillium. In the decades that followed this breakthrough discovery, molecules produced by fungi and bacteria have been successfully used to combat bacterial diseases such as tuberculosis and pneumonia. Antibiotics drastically reduced death rates associated with many infectious diseases.

Infectious diseases strike back
The golden age of antibiotics proved to be a short-lived one. During the past few decades, many strains of bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics. An example of this is Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the bacteria that causes gonorrhea, shown at right. In the 1960s penicillin and ampicillin were able to control most cases of gonorrhea. Today, more than 24 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in the U.S. are resistant to at least one antibiotic, and 98 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in Southeast Asia are resistant to penicillin.1 Infectious bacteria are much harder to control than their predecessors were ten or twenty years ago.

Doctors miss the "good old days," when the antibiotics they prescribed consistently cured their patients. However, evolutionary theory suggests some specific tactics to help slow the rate at which bacteria become resistant to our drugs.

Applying our knowledge of evolution
Evolutionary theory predicted that bacterial resistance would happen. Given time, heredity, and variation, any living organisms (including bacteria) will evolve when a selective pressure (like an antibiotic) is introduced. But evolutionary theory also gives doctors and patients some specific strategies for delaying even more widespread evolution of antibiotic resistance. These strategies include:

1.) Don't use antibiotics to treat viral infections.
Antibiotics kill bacteria, not viruses. If you take antibiotics for a viral infection (like a cold or the flu), you will not kill the viruses, but you will introduce a selective pressure on bacteria in your body, inadvertently selecting for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Basically, you want your bacteria to be "antibiotic virgins," so that if they someday get out of hand and cause an infection that your immune system can't handle, they can be killed by a readily available antibiotic.


2.) Avoid mild doses of antibiotics over long time periods.
If an infection needs to be controlled with antibiotics, a short-term, high-dosage prescription is preferable. This is because you want to kill all of the illness-causing bacteria, leaving no bacterial survivors. Any bacteria that survive a mild dose are likely to be somewhat resistant. Basically, if you are going to introduce a selective pressure (antibiotics), make it so strong that you cause the extinction of the illness-causing bacteria in the host and not their evolution into resistant forms.


3.) When treating a bacterial infection with antibiotics, take all your pills.
Just as mild doses can breed resistance, an incomplete regimen of antibiotics can let bacteria survive and adapt. If you are going to introduce a selective pressure (antibiotics), make it a really strong one and a long enough one to cause the extinction of the illness-causing bacteria and not their evolution.


4.) Use a combination of drugs to treat a bacterial infection.
If one particular drug doesn't help with a bacterial infection, you may be dealing with a resistant strain. Giving a stronger dose of the same antibiotic just increases the strength of the same selective pressure — and may even cause the evolution of a "super-resistant" strain. Instead, you might want to try an entirely different antibiotic that the bacteria have never encountered before. This new and different selective pressure might do a better job of causing their extinction, not their evolution.


5.) Reduce or eliminate the "preventive" use of antibiotics on livestock and crops.
Unnecessary use of antibiotics for agricultural and livestock purposes may lead to the evolution of resistant strains. Later, these strains will not be able to be controlled by antibiotics when it really is necessary. Preventive use of antibiotics on livestock and crops can also introduce antibiotics into the bodies of the humans who eat them.



Ultimately, recognizing bacteria as evolving entities and understanding their evolution should help us to control that evolution, allowing us to prolong the useful lifespan of antibiotics.




HIV: the ultimate evolver

Evolutionary biologists can help uncover clues to new ways to treat or vaccinate against HIV. These clues emerge from the evolutionary origins of the virus, how human populations have evolved under pressure from other deadly pathogens, and how the virus evolves resistance to the drugs we've designed. Controlling the disease may be a matter of controlling the evolution of this constantly adapting virus.

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV, shown here budding from a white blood cell) is one of the fastest evolving entities known. It reproduces sloppily, accumulating lots of mutations when it copies its genetic material. It also reproduces at a lightning-fast rate — a single virus can spawn billions of copies in just one day. To fight HIV, we must understand its evolution within the human body and then ultimately find a way to control its evolution.

Taking an evolutionary perspective on HIV has led scientists to look in three new directions in their search for treatments and vaccines:


{What are the evolutionary origins of HIV?}
{Why are some people resistant to HIV? }
{How can we control HIV's evolution of resistance to our drugs?}

1. What are the evolutionary origins of HIV?
HIV, like any evolving entity, has been deeply marked by its history. Scientists studying the evolutionary history of HIV found that it is closely related to other viruses. Those viruses include SIVs (simian immunodeficiency viruses), which infect primates, and the more distantly related FIVs (the feline strains), which infect cats.

However, studies of these related viral lineages showed something surprising: primates with SIV and wild cats with FIV don't seem to be harmed by the viruses they carry. If scientists can figure out how non-human primates and wild cats are able to live with these viruses, they may learn how to better treat HIV infections or prevent them altogether.

The diagram shows some of the evolutionary history of HIV as we know it today. An ancestral virus (bottom) evolved into strains that infected chimpanzees (SIV). Over time, new strains began to infect humans (HIV).



2. Why are some people resistant to HIV?
HIV is by no means the first plague that human populations have weathered. Many pathogens have deeply affected our evolutionary history. In fact, the human genome is littered with the remnants of our past battles with pathogens — and one of these remnants, a mutation to a gene called CCR5, may lead researchers to a new treatment for HIV.
The mutant CCR5 allele probably began to spread in northern Europe during the past 700 years when the population was ravaged by a plague. (It may have been bubonic plague or some other pathogen; research on this topic continues.) The mutant CCR5 probably made its bearers resistant to the disease, and so its frequency increased.

In some parts of Europe today, up to 20% of the population carry at least one copy of the protective allele. However, the populations of Asia and Africa were not exposed to the same epidemics; very few Asians and Africans now carry the allele (see map above). Thus, CCR5 is fairly common in northern Europe but its frequency diminishes as one moves south, and the mutation is rare in the rest of the world.

We now know that the mutant CCR5 allele has an unexpected side effect: it confers resistance to HIV. Scientists hope that studying this by-product of past selection will help them develop new treatments for the HIV epidemic ravaging human populations today.


3. How can we control HIV's evolution of resistance to our drugs?
HIV evolves so quickly that it evolves right out from under our treatments. When a patient begins taking an HIV drug, the drug keeps many of the viruses from reproducing, but some survive because they happen to have a certain level of resistance. Because of HIV's speedy evolution, it responds to selection pressures quickly: viruses that happen to survive the drug are favored, and resistant virus strains evolve within the patient, sometimes in just a few weeks. However, basic evolutionary theory points out a way that this evolution of resistant viral strains can be delayed. Patients are prescribed "drug cocktails" — several different HIV drugs taken together.

When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage.

But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower. Although multiple-drug-resistant HIV strains do eventually evolve, drug cocktails delay their evolution.

An evolutionary trade-off
If a patient is already infected with a drug-resistant HIV strain, basic evolutionary theory has also pointed out a way to make the drug useful again. Studies of the evolution of resistance often show that you don't get something for nothing. Specifically, it "costs" a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.

Consider a patient who takes a particular drug and winds up with viruses resistant to the drug. If the patient stops taking the drug for a while, evolutionary theory predicts that her viral load will evolve back towards a non-resistant strain. If she then takes very strong doses of the drug, it may be able to halt the replication of those non-resistant viruses and reduce her viral load to very low levels.

This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients' virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease.

Ultimately, understanding the evolutionary history of HIV and its pattern of evolutionary change may help us control this disease.






Huntington's chorea is a devastating human genetic disease. A close look at its genetic origins and evolutionary history explains its persistence and points to a potential solution to this population-level problem.
People who inherit this genetic disease have an abnormal dominant allele that disrupts the function of their nerve cells, slowly eroding their control over their bodies and minds and ultimately leading to death. In the fishing villages located near Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela, there are more people with Huntington's disease than anywhere else in the world. In some villages, more than half the people may develop the disease.

How is it possible that such a devastating genetic disease is so common in some populations? Shouldn't natural selection remove genetic defects from human populations? Research on the evolutionary genetics of this disease suggests that there are two main reasons for the persistence of Huntington's in human populations: mutation coupled with weak selection.

Mutation
In 1993, a collaborative research group discovered the culprit responsible for Huntington's: a stretch of DNA that repeats itself over and over again, CAGCAGCAGCAG... and so on. People carrying too many CAGs in the Huntington's gene (more than about 35 repeats) develop the disease. In most cases, those affected by Huntington's inherited a disease-causing allele from a parent. Others may have no family history of the disease, but may have new mutations which cause Huntington's.

If a mutation ends up inserting extra CAGs into the Huntington's gene, new Huntington's alleles may be created. Of course it's also possible for a mutation to remove CAGs. But research suggests that for Huntington's, mutation is biased; additions of CAGs are more likely than losses of CAGs.







Selection
As though that weren't bad enough, Huntington's belongs to a class of genetic diseases that largely escape natural selection. Huntington's is often "invisible" to natural selection for a very simple reason: it generally does not affect people until after they've reproduced. In this way, the alleles for late-onset Huntington's may evade natural selection, "sneaking" into the next generation, despite its deleterious effects. Early-onset cases of Huntington's are rare; these are an exception, and are strongly selected against.

Persistence
These mechanisms of evolution, mutation and selection, can help us understand the persistence of Huntington's in populations. In general, Huntington's is rare — 30-70 cases per million people in most Western countries — but it is not entirely eliminated because selection does a relatively poor job of weeding these alleles out, while mutation continues creating new ones.


Dr. Nancy Wexler has been studying the remarkably high frequency of Huntington's in Lake Maracaibo since the 1970s. She has found that the high incidence of this disease there is explained by an evolutionary event called the founder effect. About 200 years ago, a single woman who happened to carry the Huntington's allele bore 10 children — and today, many residents of Lake Maracaibo trace their ancestry (and their disease-causing gene) back to this lineage. A simple fluke of history, high-birth rates, and weak selection are responsible for the genetic burden shouldered by this population.

Solutions?
Currently, physicians don't have any cures for Huntington's disease — there's no miracle pill that will stop the progress of the disease. However, understanding the evolutionary history of the disease — a recurrent mutation that is often "missed" by natural selection — points out a way to reduce the frequency of the disease in the long term: allowing people to make more informed reproductive choices.

Today, genetic testing can identify people who carry a Huntington's allele long before the onset of the disease and before they have made their reproductive choices. The genetic test that identifies the Huntington's allele works sort of like DNA fingerprinting. A DNA sample is copied and cut into pieces. The pieces are then spread out on a gel (see right). The banding pattern can tell researchers whether a person carries an allele that is likely to cause Huntington's.

Having this information could allow people to make more-informed reproductive decisions. For example, at Lake Maracaibo, researchers and health workers have tried to make contraception available to the local population so that they can make reproductive choices based on their own family history with the disease. But whatever people eventually decide to do with this knowledge, a deep understanding of the disease would not be possible without the historical perspective offered by evolution.



Understanding evolution is important

Understanding evolution helps us solve biological problems that impact our lives. There are excellent examples of this in the field of medicine. To stay one step ahead of pathogenic diseases, researchers must understand the evolutionary patterns of disease-causing organisms. To control hereditary diseases in people, researchers study the evolutionary histories of the disease-causing genes. In these ways, a knowledge of evolution can improve the quality of human life.

4408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Cavite, Philippines
Offline
Posted 6/13/09
I remembered a saying that goes like this: "The only thing constant in this world is change." Evolution is change, deal with it creationists!
131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 6/25/09
What proof do you have that it is a fact? If god is almighty he might just as well made us believe in evolution, like a test or something? By the way i do believe in evolution and find the idea of something almighty hard to believe, i´m just saying that nothing in life is a fact. For all we know the world might have been created whenever the bible says it was. Now many will say that we have a lot of proof that that is not the case considering, for example, findings from before that time frame but if god is almighty he might as well have put them there. Well i´m starting to repeat my self so... i have a tendency to do that when i talk about things i really don´t know much about.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/25/09

daywolf wrote:

What proof do you have that it is a fact? If god is almighty he might just as well made us believe in evolution, like a test or something? By the way i do believe in evolution and find the idea of something almighty hard to believe, i´m just saying that nothing in life is a fact. For all we know the world might have been created whenever the bible says it was. Now many will say that we have a lot of proof that that is not the case considering, for example, findings from before that time frame but if god is almighty he might as well have put them there. Well i´m starting to repeat my self so... i have a tendency to do that when i talk about things i really don´t know much about.


Evolution is an observable fact.
On top of that we can use DNA like a road map and compare it with other things showing evidence where we or the other animals split off from them. We also have Fossil evidence, a lot of are medicine today is based off from Evolution. If it was not true than the medican made from are understanding of evolution would not be working.
131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 6/26/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


daywolf wrote:

What proof do you have that it is a fact? If god is almighty he might just as well made us believe in evolution, like a test or something? By the way i do believe in evolution and find the idea of something almighty hard to believe, i´m just saying that nothing in life is a fact. For all we know the world might have been created whenever the bible says it was. Now many will say that we have a lot of proof that that is not the case considering, for example, findings from before that time frame but if god is almighty he might as well have put them there. Well i´m starting to repeat my self so... i have a tendency to do that when i talk about things i really don´t know much about.


Evolution is an observable fact.
On top of that we can use DNA like a road map and compare it with other things showing evidence where we or the other animals split off from them. We also have Fossil evidence, a lot of are medicine today is based off from Evolution. If it was not true than the medican made from are understanding of evolution would not be working.


Like I said... I´m not denying any of the evidence and lika i also said i am not a beliver and evolution makes sense all i´m saying that god i supposedly almighty what makes you so sure that every thing you observe is planted by some god?
Well this is more a philosofical stand point than scientific view on the subject, all i am trying to point out is that no one can be 100% sure of anything but even i am like 99.9% (rtandom number again, just trying to point out that i do belive in evolution) sure there are no god and that evolution is a "fact". I will always believe that you are right, but.... yea... almighty, our pathetic human minds are so far from understanding something almighty that it is possible that there are a slim possibilety that such a creature (although i would not really call it a creature) could exist.

1870 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / London, England.
Offline
Posted 6/26/09
We don't know whether Evolution OR religion is real.

When a scientist can disprove the existance of God, why don't you try coming back to me with all this evolution stuff?
because until then, they might as well not bother, because religion can always ahve a counter argument for the Evolutionary one, and vice versa.

And when God can get his arse down here and fuckin' prove his existance, then maybe the scientists might shut the hell up.
there's no solid proof for any truth whatsoever within religion.
NONE.
We have religious books that are supposedly written by this person we've never even seen had any evidence that they exist.
despite having kings editing the bible in the past few centuries, Christians still refuse to beleive there's any wrong in what
they're reading.

Evolution is on the way to proving itself, but it's not done.

SCIENTIST CAN NOT DISPROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

They have not said,
"God does not exist because:
reason 1
reason 2
reason 3"

You know?
So they can't make anyone beleive either one.
We're not obliged to.

I am not going to waste time trying to sort between which on is actually correct.
When someone can come to me with some goddamned hard evidence, maybe I'll start taking some heed.

Right now, I think we should relax, and see which one comes through.

(I'm sorry if I offended anyone, I'm just extremely opinionated when it comes to these things. I didn't mean to sound too mean~!)
- Yori~ ;3 x
xxxx
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 6/26/09

Saiyori_xo wrote:

We don't know whether Evolution OR religion is real.

When a scientist can disprove the existance of God, why don't you try coming back to me with all this evolution stuff?
because until then, they might as well not bother, because religion can always ahve a counter argument for the Evolutionary one, and vice versa.

And when God can get his arse down here and fuckin' prove his existance, then maybe the scientists might shut the hell up.
there's no solid proof for any truth whatsoever within religion.
NONE.
We have religious books that are supposedly written by this person we've never even seen had any evidence that they exist.
despite having kings editing the bible in the past few centuries, Christians still refuse to beleive there's any wrong in what
they're reading.

Evolution is on the way to proving itself, but it's not done.

SCIENTIST CAN NOT DISPROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

They have not said,
"God does not exist because:
reason 1
reason 2
reason 3"

You know?
So they can't make anyone beleive either one.
We're not obliged to.

I am not going to waste time trying to sort between which on is actually correct.
When someone can come to me with some goddamned hard evidence, maybe I'll start taking some heed.

Right now, I think we should relax, and see which one comes through.

(I'm sorry if I offended anyone, I'm just extremely opinionated when it comes to these things. I didn't mean to sound too mean~!)
- Yori~ ;3 x
xxxx


Religion and God doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you have to be willfully ignorant to justify your beliefs. Evolution is pretty much considered fact right now, and unscientific religious belief can't seriously challenge it. So God and religion have nothing to do with this, it's just science and facts.
1870 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / London, England.
Offline
Posted 6/26/09
it really does though.
evolution kinda implies that god didn't create the world.
where are the facts to prove evolutions?
there are still pot holes in it.
we don't really know that evolution is correct yet.
i'm not really in the mood to argue anymore now lmfao.
i'm not going to cme up with any better arguments, and am therefore not going to reply again to this post.
and p.s, allot of people who are religious ARE ignorant to justify their beliefs.
that would be bacause science contradicts them, and they believe more in one than the other, and therefroe shun science as a result.
god and religion have everything to do with it, really.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 6/26/09 , edited 6/26/09

Saiyori_xo wrote:

it really does though.
evolution kinda implies that god didn't create the world.
where are the facts to prove evolutions?
there are still pot holes in it.
we don't really know that evolution is correct yet.
i'm not really in the mood to argue anymore now lmfao.
i'm not going to cme up with any better arguments, and am therefore not going to reply again to this post.
and p.s, allot of people who are religious ARE ignorant to justify their beliefs.
that would be bacause science contradicts them, and they believe more in one than the other, and therefroe shun science as a result.
god and religion have everything to do with it, really.


Evolution doesn't imply that God didn't create the world, it doesn't say anything about God or religion actually, I don't think Darwin talked about any of those things. Many religious people accept evolution, I think it only threatens people that are insecure with their beliefs, like literalists or fundamentalists.

Almost nothing can be proven 100%, but we have more than enough evidence to accept evolution, just like every other accepted scientific theory. Scientists all pretty much agree on evolution, and If the best argument against it is that it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then that's just a sad attempt to protect insecure beliefs.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.