The Age-old Argument

[Tekki]

Just wanting to see what Civ Fanatics thought, what do you believe, or what do you think has more proof, evolution, or creation?

------------------
The protagonist is trying very, very hard to think very clearly about trying not to think about something else. Read it again

 

[gjts00]

I've heard so much, from so many different angles, that I honestly don't know which way to turn. There very good points on both sides of that argument.

------------------
Thou who goes to bed with an itchy butt wakes up with a smelly finger.

 

[Valdy]

Evolation. No, no. Creatution.

Oh, I'm going to bed..........

 

[Tekki]

Well, here's one for you: I dare anyone to give one clear proof of evolution. I bet no one can. A scientist has even offered 1,000 dollars to the person who can. He still has his 1,000 dollors

 

[weimar_republic]

hybird belif:

first there were lotsa monkeys. the one day god took one male monkey and one female monkey, and 'poufed' them into Adam and Eve

TA DA!!!

------------------
Whats the point of living if you cant do anything stupid?
<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/weimar_germany/KEEflag.gif" border=0>

 

[BlueMonday]

In terms of proof, evolution is the only explanation. We can see it every day. When we use pesticides to kill some insect infecting a peach tree some bugs become immune and evolve into a stronger species. Whenever we use antibiotics some basteria survive and thus evolve into a stronger life form. Evolution does happen, it can even be witnessed.

Furthermore, we can retrace previous evolution through common characteristics. From the fish came the amphibian...we can see that they both have underwater breathing apparatus and similar bone structures. From the amphibian came the reptile where we see the formation of lungs and legs. From there the tree splits into mammals and birds where we see the same ceolmatic body struture but the addition of warm bloodedness.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken."</FONT c>

 

[Pedro]

The proof?!?! You gotta be kidding! Nature *always* adjusts to a balance, so if we all start playing cvilization and all become the untrained, RSI-suffering, monitor obsessed geeks that we are, our brethren will be adjusted to that situatiion. On the other hand; if every human being will start to work out (and I mean *really* WORK OUT) then our children's children won't be the bony, skinny, half-blind people that I picture myself right now. Evolution exists, there's no denying it. If you do: prove me the opposite!!

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/exp/pedro_sig.gif" border=0>

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

You want proof? Go look at Thunderfall's George W. and the monkeys post.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blast.gif" border=0><FONT size="4"><FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase:</FONT c><FONT COLOR="red"> I don't know</FONT c></FONT s><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>

 

[Loaf Warden]

Evolution exists. This is a fact. This is not a subject of debate. Any person who understands what they are talking about will tell you evolution does happen.

What's under debate is whether or not evolution is how we got here. Some people say there is sufficient proof, others don't.

The biggest mistakes creationists make are 1) not understanding what the word 'evolution' actually means and therefore dismissing it as "just a theory" and 2) denying evolution because they feel it is mutually exclusive with, and therefore threatening to, their beliefs.

But even if God did create us, who's to say He didn't use evolution as His medium for it? I have some friends who believe this to be the case. As an agnostic, I neither believe nor disbelieve it. But I've also known people who were so adamant about their religious beliefs that they refused to listen to any facts about evolution because they considered them a threat. I will discuss the weather with such a person, but not theology.

 

[penvzila]

Loaf Warden is 100% correct about the existence of evolutionay change. It is only logical to extend this fact t ohumans.

 

[Archbob]

I lean toward evolution although I like the diest's view. I do not believe in the 7 days. I do think there is a higher being but Gensis I think is mostly fiction, it contridicts history in way too many places.

------------------
Join me in World Conquest

<FONT COLOR="blue"><FONT face="lucida handwriting">Hold on through today means that there will be a tommorrow
</FONT c></FONT f>
Check out Arcade Portal and

 

[Johan511]

I was trying to get this explanation of evolution going in my third eye thread but it just never formed, for that Tekki I am grateful to you. Of course evolution exists, If you'll take a look at the newspapers today we're just NOW catching on as a society that this thing as MORE of beef to it than the Christian society can disprove. But then when you look to God and the church you find alot of dead ends, this is because religions in the West are so very limited, they are mostly paper, and have to do with the first roots of Capitalism, something I’m sure will be discovered as the antichrist one day, but it isn’t capitalism that’s the devil, it’s plain human GREED!. If we were from a Taoistic descendent of old china we'd have absolutely no trouble understanding the earth and ourselves as a living rudiment of life, but since so many lies have infiltrated our “human” program it has progressed to the point that even the Chinese culture today we aren't sure what is what. IT's called Deception, what you didn't think it was happening all around the world?
Seek the TRUTH!

------------------
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

[This message has been edited by Johan511 (edited April 22, 2001).]

 

[stormerne]

Nice post Loaf Warden!

Most primitive societies and many more advanced ones have a creation myth. These myths are often very different in content but similar in structure. And they are usually encapsulated in religious teaching. Even my own religion, Heathenry, has a creation myth which I'm not inclined to believe literally.

Evolution is to me a powerful and undeniable force. But it doesn't logically exclude any act of creation, in total or in part. Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive! It just seems that many adherents of one or the other would like to think so.

Let's assume for a moment that it is not possible to prove or disprove either evolution or creation. And let's assume that therefore both evolution and creation are simply models which we can apply to our known universe to help us better to explain it and live within it. I would suggest that the evolutionary model has given us more and more useful insights into our civilization - certainly more progressive ones. What do you think?

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

posted by Pedro (is that a new sig? - like it!
The proof?!?! You gotta be kidding! Nature *always* adjusts to a balance, so if we all start playing cvilization and all become the untrained, RSI-suffering, monitor obsessed geeks that we are, our brethren will be
adjusted to that situatiion. On the other hand; if every human being will start to work out (and I mean *really* WORK OUT) then our children's children won't be the bony, skinny, half-blind people that I picture myself right now.

Pedro that is an old fallacy (I think it's from Lamarck but not sure without searching some books) which is pre-Darwin. It is not your developed characteristics that your children inherit, but your genes.

If I may oversimplify, Darwin did three important things:

one: he observed that breeding programs (in detail for racing pigeons, but also other domesticated species) could develop variations that could stabilize through future generations)

two: he observed that populations of similar species (particularly finches in the Galapagos islands) could exist in close proximity in circumstances in which it was extremely likely that they had a common origin.

three: he inferred a mechanism (the evolution of species under natural selection) that could account for the successful divergence of species that required no conscious intervention at any point.

posted by Tekki
I dare anyone to give one clear proof of
evolution. I bet no one can. A scientist has even offered 1,000 dollars to the person who can. He still has his 1,000 dollors

The only way a scientist could bet against proof of evolution is by behaving unscientifically. He only has to observe the kind of events that BlueMonday described. Controlled observation of populations of any species that has a rapid breeding cycle (so that you can see enough in a reasonable time) is all it takes to recognize the process.

But maybe the whole darn thing was originally created?

Does the creator intervene directly in our affairs? Does the creator take a close interest in the outcome? Does the creator care about the outcome? Does the creator still exist?

What is the relationship between religions and the putative existence of a creator? Why do so many religions contain codes of social morality (or at least behaviour)? There is no intrinsic link with the act of creation and the governance of poeple in communities.

Is one religion right and the others various degrees of wrong? Which one?

Is the fact of such a wide occurrence of religions in different parts of the world an indication of a common origin for population or is it so universal that surely there must be something in it? Or, is it merely the outcome of a common human trait of trying to understand ourselves and our world in circumstances where there was a lack of tools for scientific investigation?

Of one thing I am sure: the assertion that there must be a creator is false. If it were true, how could you explain the creation of the creator?

I had intended listing some books relevant to this thread in the COOL books thread. I will try to do that very soon now.

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited April 22, 2001).]

 

[CornMaster]

Here is my 2 cents:

I'm 100% Anti-God. Therefore there is only one other explaination....Evolution. Of course, there are people that will disagree with me. But besides by beliefs of non-God, there are also proof of Evolution. So....it's pretty, "case closed" to me......but others do not share my beliefs.

And I'll save my anti-God speech for a later time.

Oh.....and just because I don't beleive in God, don't think I'm a bad person....It's offensive when people jump to those conclusions.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

 

[Pedro]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
he observed that breeding programs (in detail for racing pigeons, but also other domesticated species) could develop variations that could stabilize through future generations)

Fascinating explanation, algernon! But I actually meant to say just what you explained here (only in a slighly different way

)

I think species will develop characteristics throughout time, depending on their life style, environment etc.
Just look at simple facts like giraffes having long necks to be able to reach leaves on high trees, people from hot countries having a darker skin to be protected from the sun etc. etc.

 

[Tekki]

If evolution is "obviously" a fact, then where are the billions and billions of transitional forms of animals? They haven't found one that hasn't been proven a hoax. In fact, evolution has no basis. The geoligic rock column was created by evolutionists because of the assumption that evolution was true. Evolutionists now cite the geological rock column as evidence of evolution.(Even though you'll never find rock levels anywhere in the world in the geological rock column order) Therefore, evolution is based on the assumption that it is true, which is circular reasoning: evolution proves evolution proves evolution...etc. Then, the theory was accepted by the public as a result of various "missing links" found by evolutionists. These finds have been proven as hoaxes. Nebraska man was a pig tooth, Southern Colorado man was horse tooth, Java man was made up of the bones of several Gibbons, Neanderthal man was an actual human(who was crippled, which means it wasn't a transitional partially-upright walking ape-human) and had 13% MORE cranial capacity than the average human, not less. Lucy was a 40% complete skeleton that was cited to be upright walking transitional form, based on the wearing of the lower femur, in actuallity, the lower femur was so crushed that it would be impossible to gather any such data from it. Piltdown man was an ape skull with filed down teeth that had been planted by an evolutionist eager to provide proof of evolution. All these finds were widely publicized and accepted. However, when they were proved as hoaxes, they were hardly given any publicity, and as a result, most people never knew that they were hoaxes. So as you can see, the entire base of evolution is its own assumption(circular reasoning), and they is absolutely no proof of Lamarkism, mutation with non-negative side effects, or transitional forms. Survival of the fittest is often applied wrong to certain situations, such as the peppered moths of old england. There were two main variaties, dark, and light. Before the Industrial Revolution, tree trunks were lighter colored, and the peppered moth population was mainly of the light variation, because of the difficulty of a dark moth hiding on a light trunk. After the air pollution industry brought, tree trunks became much darker, and therefore the dark moths had an easier time hiding and dominated the population. It is not survival of the fittest, because no moths changed their color, their environments simply changed; also, there are still light peppered moths. It is not evolution, because no moths "evolved" different colors, none of them adapted, they only naturally fit in better to their environment, because of the color change in the tree trunks.

------------------
The protagonist is trying very, very hard to think very clearly about trying not to think about something else. Read it again

 

[shadowdale]

Well Tekki can you come with one clear proof of Creation???

And about the Neanderthal man?? There has been more than 20 different humanoids finds that have all been classified as Neanderthal's. The original might have been proven to be a hoax, but most of the other finds have not.

I for one belive in Evolution, and until somebody come up with a better solution I'll continue to accept that as the truth.
Creation seems like the easy way out.

------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.

Coolbook:
Håkan Eriksson, Stormerne, vladmir_illych_lenin, Cunobelin Of Hippo, vanillacube.

 

[penvzila]

I wasn't going to post this, but I agree with CornMaster. Not only am i an atheist, I am an antitheist. Christianity represents repression, opression, discrimination, destrucion and massacres. I'll go into more detail if anyone cares to retort.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Oh dear Tekki. Where are you getting your information from?

Firstly, all forms of all species are transitional forms, including, potetially all current forms (it's only potentially because when a species dies out it may have become an evolutionary dead end.

Secondly, properly speaking evolution takes place in populations of a species, not in a species as a whole so you can do what I suggested and study any rapid breeding population until you see what is happening for yourself.

Thirdly, of course there have been hoaxes. But hoaxes amount to less than one thousandth of one per cent of fossil finds. So when you find someone shooting down Darwin because of some hoax they are deliberately ignoring almost all the work that has been done on the subject. And that is not a sound basis for an argument never mind a scientific investigation.

Read stuff for yourself with an open mind and see how persuasive the evidence and the reasoning is. It does not require an act of faith, simply an application of scientific method.

If you want to see the power of Darwin's intellect then you could read his work on a subject that has no emotional baggage for you. For example his description of how coral islands and coral reefs are formed is a masterpiece of lucid deduction and he wrote it before he had ever seen coral formations. He simply took the best scientific information available on the subject and worked out how it had to work.

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch