Do you beileve in evolution? Why or why not?

Danghis Khan said:
Did all this come up because it's Darwin's birthday or just happy coincidence?

It's all coincidence. We end up having a new thread on this every week or so.
 
Sophie 378 said:
Only if you're being really pedantic!
Oh I admit it, I was making a trivial correction, but it's not everyday I get to beat correct an expert on thier subject of expertise.

Sophie 378 said:
Nevertheless, 1 point to Perfy.
May I redeem it for a soft drink?
 
oh my, another thread on this:

a) 'believing' isn't - evolution is a scientific theory.
b) said theory is the by far best explanation we have for the matters it deals with (not, e.g. the bog bang).
 
There is no believe, it is correct. There might be some assumptions along its many paths and convolution, but the fundamental core of it is correct. It shouldn't really be any argument about it actually..
 
Yes, I think evolution is right. From my viewpoint as someone not trained in any higher scientific field, yet having read up on it, it makes perfect sense and those scientists really do seem to have gotten all their ducks in a pretty good row with the evidence.

Now, if you were to ask me what brought about evolution, randomness or God, the answer is obviously and indisputably God (but schools just just stay out of this second question).
 
VRWCAgent said:
Yes, I think evolution is right. From my viewpoint as someone not trained in any higher scientific field, yet having read up on it, it makes perfect sense and those scientists really do seem to have gotten all their ducks in a pretty good row with the evidence.

Now, if you were to ask me what brought about evolution, randomness or God, the answer is obviously and indisputably God (but schools just just stay out of this second question).
Are you rejecting abiogenesis? Or do you merely relegate god to something akin to the "cause" of the big bang.
 
Perfection said:
Are you rejecting abiogenesis? Or do you merely relegate god to something akin to the "cause" of the big bang.
[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] a·bi·o·gen·e·sis [/SIZE][/FONT] (
amacr.gif
lprime.gif
b
imacr.gif
-
omacr.gif
-j
ebreve.gif
n
prime.gif
ibreve.gif
-s
ibreve.gif
s) [SIZE=-2] KEY [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1] NOUN: [/SIZE]
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1], [/SIZE][/FONT] spontaneous generation [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1].[/SIZE][/FONT]
Why would I reject that? Didn't the very first, simplest life forms develop from non-living matter? That doesn't mean God wasn't behind it. SOMETHING caused those first bits of matter to form the earliest and first lifeforms, from non-living matter, and it sure wasn't just the 1 in a googol chance amazingly coming out on top.

Now, if you are referring to spontaneous generation in the way that Pasteur disproved, then no, I do not accept that as valid.
 
Rambuchan said:
I have a blind faith in evolution.
The good thing about evolution is that you don't need blind faith. You can prove it to yourself with a little garden. :)
 
I think evolution is correct, for the simple reason that if it's wrong, we end up having to throw out
  • Geology
  • History
  • Biology
  • Medicine
  • Forensics
  • Archæology
  • Chemistry
  • and most modern drugs.

SuperBeaverInc. said:
It's all coincidence. We end up having a new thread on this every week or so.
Not nearly that often. While we used to have them weekly (and I could set my clock my them :p), this is the first one in a month that I've noticed.
 
Xanikk999 said:
:goodjob: Studying up on biology is my number #1 hobby outside video games. I mean its so convincing if you read the stuff!
Creation is a hobby of Mine and seeing the evidences for it is just amazing.
 
mrtn said:
Give an opposable thumb to a blind man! :cool:
Sorry for the delayed response, I was smashing opening a nut with a rock. I should have put some kind of sarcasm / tongue in cheek markings by my earlier posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom