user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Man did not descend from apes, according to evolution, but branched from a common ancestor.
IMO, evolution is still flawed, but in teh right direction. Whatever the mechanism, I do believe it was set in place by a God.
Proof? None. Just my personal belief.
Cathexis
In case of interest.
Arthur Young .The reflexive Universe and Viktor Schauberger
Nokola Tesla (honourable mention )
Man did not descend from apes, according to evolution, but branched from a common ancestor.
But this common ancestor has not been found yet. Oh well. Evolution is still obviously completely correct and should never ever be challenged.
That's blasphemey! I have a sudden urge to throw my own feces, I'm so mad.
c_s: Not at all! These kinds of things *should* continue to be challenged!
I have no doubt that scientists do not have it right yet ... and there is always the possibility that they are on an entirely wrong track that sounded good, but didn't bear up!
If something is true, it will bear up to questioning. If people ever want to keep something from being questioned, chances are it isn't true.
In the beginning, about early 90s , I was a big fan of James Randi. I thought someone like him if genuine was exactly what was needed.I was always keen to listen to the Dawkins ' and Hawking and Sagan types. Prior to finding out they were frauds who engaged in dubious practices and exposed by their own people I began to already grow wearisome of people who's arguments are littered with derogatory statements and careers based on smirking mugshots for the camera.Debates with these kind of unsavoury characters degenerates even before its begun.
Scientific Theories that are valid are often also reflected by the integrity of its proponents.
Simply put.If you are asshole Im not listening
By the by Dani_dumgirl
Be sure to check out teleological evolution
Arthur Young has a website (before he stiffed ) and his book is called The Reflexive Universe
Its perfectly complemented to the GENIUS of Viktor Schauberger and Nikola Tesla and their ilk
YEA , IT BE RAININ' FROM ABOVE THERE WILL BE GREAT GNASHING OF
evolution is a fact, "God" is a manmade definition to describe natural phenomena.
teleogical evolution is a fact
neo-darwinists are embarrasing themselves
Sorry Cathexis. I was being sarcastic. Not one of my best traits, but it keeps me sane sometimes.
There are lots of questions to be asked of the Theory of Evolution. But as bigmonkeynuts said, the debate is wrecked before the start by evolutionists that engage in the worst sort of smears and slurs on their questioners. Thankfully most people that want to find out about the catastrophic lie that is evolution aren't put off by comments like, "evolution is a fact, "God" is a manmade definition to describe natural phenomena.
by CouchGnome on Jul 12, 2004".
I find it absurd that people actually believe that life is made up of dead matter and that it somehow put itself together by accident. Evolution never was proven and never will be, because it is pure imagination designed to deny the existence of God.
Is it O.K. Yes! It is fine to beleive that we evolved form Apes and to still beleive in God. We beleive in God for the simply reason that we need to beleive in soemthing bigger than us, something better, something more. That's faith and we all need it. As i've said in a previous post on another ballot both agruments for evolution and creation needs a leap of faith here and there, and that's where someone belief in God will come in.
The only thing that presents evidence AGAINST god/a god creating the universe AND setting evolution in motion would be the bible really. Evolution pretty much discredits most things the bible says and, *deep breath*, lets be honest here, even if you do believe that god exists the bible has so many flaws and has been changed so many times when its been disproven leading to " new interpretations" that its really just a crock of s**t isnt it?
The other philosophical point is that GOD is omniscient and thus knows everything that HAS, IS, and WILL happen ever. So why would he bother creating something as potracted and cruel to so many species as evolution when he knows what the end result will be anyway? Its not gona be a suprise to him/her if we turn out to have 50 arms and a penis on our heads is it? Is God bored that he creates such pointless pursuits to pass his time?
evelution teaches us that humans and apes had a common ansestor, do your research next time.
by seon on Sat Aug 21, 04 11:40pm
[+]
Absolutely.
Cretin_slap will tell you he's not evolved from apes. He's right and here's the proof: The average ape is a LOT smarter than cretin_slap.
Ouch! Got me there, Neal.
George W. Bush is proof that humans are still evolving from apes.
evolution is a fact, by CouchGnome on Jul 12, 2004
No, it's a theory, not a fact. It's even still a controversial theory in the real scientific community for numerous reasons.
Just for one example of a problem in evolution is the evolvement of the human eye. For example, if they want to explain the human eye, they would have to specify the genome of some ancestral animal that did not have an eye. Then they would have to specify a change in the genome of that animal that would result in the first step in the formation of the modern human eye. Let's keep in mind that a gene just tells a cell how to make a specific protein from amino acid subparts. So they should be able to tell us what protein the mutated gene would produce. We also have to keep in mind that this protein would have to have an effect in the course of the development of the organism, starting from the egg.
So they should be able to specify how the biochemical pathway by which this protein would have some effect, way downstream in the cell division process, perhaps after tens of thousands of cell divisions, so that the first part of the eye is produced in the organism. Then they would have to explain how this change in the gene, etc., would become spread throughout and fixed in a breeding population. They would have to explain how this change would contribute to the fitness of the individuals in that population in a specific environment. Then they would have to iterate this process, to explain the next step in the production of the eye.
Keep in mind, we are not just talking about the structure of the eye. There would have to be an optic nerve that could carry signals to the brain. The eye would also have to have sets of muscles to control it, and these would require nerves going to the brain, and the brain itself would have to have a neuronal structure capable of processing the signals from the eye. The development of each of these subsystems would have to be specified in exactly the same way as described above. You will find no such explanation in any biology text or scientific journal.
Btw, I do believe in the basic premise of evolution, but I lean more towards the "intelligent design" school of thought. I also believe in devolution; look at GW Bush Snr (a brilliant man), look at his son (a moron).
Bilogical evolution is a fact whether you want to face it or not.
the way i see it the bible sounds like a fairy tale, i belive we have more proof of evolution than god. according to the bible how old is the earth? only some thousand years right? well we know for sure that the earth is 12.5 billion years old. someone please explain that.
To evolve does not imply "improvement," it is more (or less) about adaptability to conditions encountered in order to sustain life, or to perform tasks not possible before. The most troubling aspect of perpetuating impossible theories is ignoring all the necessary ingredients on hand to
make everything that has
been made, thought or will be made without seeing a design to it all. Purpose can be debated indefinitely but
theory is basically non
proven conclusion(s) that actually suggest (later model) humans are
superior to the ones thought to have appeared first.
|
|
