Evolution

[Jerichi]

>evidence against Evolution

Mind presenting it?

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Jerichi

>evidence against Evolution

Mind presenting it?

I'm sure a quick google would answer that for you. ;)

How about you present yours first (that Humans evolved from Neanderthal-Cavemen-like primate monkey-apes), since in the scheme of things, evolutionary theory came much later then the creation theory.

[Doppleganger]

A big problem with evolution debates is one party has a loaded definition they're unwilling to budge from, so when they make a strong claim like "there's no evidence for evolution" people with a mutally agreed upon but fundamentally different definition of evolution end up frustrated they can't sway the first party away from their view. It's not a debate unless one has a shared understanding of what words mean. In parliamentary debate, this is why, after the topic, definitions are the second most important criteria for an affirmative team to lay out.

So unownmew, before we talk more, what is your definition of evolution? Based on what you say, even the scientists on this forum could agree/disagree with its existence.

[ObviousUser2010]

There's plenty of evidence against evolution. Creationists like me want evolution to be proven, but evolutionists consistently fail to provide anything remotely resembling a plausible origins theory.

[Ethereal]

>evolutionary theory came much later then the creation theory

I'm sure it'd be easier for me to come to the conclusion that the sun is some sort of omnipotent power instead of a big flaming ball of gas if I didn't know better.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

A big problem with evolution debates is one party has a loaded definition they're unwilling to budge from, so when they make a strong claim like "there's no evidence for evolution" people with a mutally agreed upon but fundamentally different definition of evolution end up frustrated they can't sway the first party away from their view. It's not a debate unless one has a shared understanding of what words mean. In parliamentary debate, this is why, after the topic, definitions are the second most important criteria for an affirmative team to lay out.

So unownmew, before we talk more, what is your definition of evolution? Based on what you say, even the scientists on this forum could agree/disagree with its existence.

Very true. Though if we're going to debate, we should probably take it to the debate forum instead of this troll post.

As for my Definition, Evolution is the gadual change in appearance/genetics due to mutations in DNA or selective breeding (usualy having something to do with survival of the species as a whole) which over time creates a completely new species (this is mandatory for it to be true "evolution").

This can include abnormal mutations with drastic changes, or small things like blondes marrying only other blondes so there are more blondes in the world then Brunettes. However, there is a sharp distinction between those two examples in terms of how they "evolve." One supposedly creates a new species, the other has yet to do so in the history of humanity.

[Jerichi]

>One supposedly creates a new species, the other has yet to do so in the history of humanity.

This is a rather shoddy foundation for a belief.

"I can't see it happen actively so therefore it doesn't exist" isn't a very good policy.

I am also in the process of typing up a lengthy post that refutes some common arguments against evolution courtesy of Google, as per your suggestion. If I get what I really need to do done, I may just post it. Would you be interested in a civil debate?

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Jerichi

>One supposedly creates a new species, the other has yet to do so in the history of humanity.

This is a rather shoddy foundation for a belief.

"I can't see it happen actively so therefore it doesn't exist" isn't a very good policy.

I am also in the process of typing up a lengthy post that refutes some common arguments against evolution courtesy of Google, as per your suggestion. If I get what I really need to do done, I may just post it. Would you be interested in a civil debate?

That part was a summary of the differences between the two types of evolution, the definition was the paragraph above it.

I'm looking forward to your refutements.
I'm usualy not one to insult or anything during a debate, so bring it on.

[Talon87]

Creationists? I see it's time to bring this bad boy back out: What Would Jesus NOT Do?

Someone mentioned Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. Umm ... here, educate yourself. Or, if you don't have access to Cell, content yourself with a second-hand account. Either way, the point is that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are believed to be two separate branches of hominids. You can think of this as being similar to how chimpanzees and humans are two separate branches of primates, the parent group to which the subgroup of hominids belongs.

[Loki]

[activates trolling systems]

I don't believe in God.

Go! Go! Go!

[Talon87]

I dunno: I felt trolled the moment he said he was a Creationist.

[Doppleganger]

He's not even trolliing, he's "using".

[big bad birtha]

What the fuck is everyone smoking? James Bond is our god!

[Ethereal]

No, Arceus is.
Sillyhead.
THUS PROOVING EVOLUTION IS FACT
SORRY LUVDISC, SHIT HAPPENS

[Loki]

But Acreus promotes Creationism because he created the Pokemon.

[Rangeet]

Evidence that there is a God plz

[Ethereal]

Arceus is the perfect marriage of creation and evolution.
Thank you and have a good day.

[ObviousUser2010]

You felt trolled? Olol, there's a new one. I am a creationist, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

[Loki]

Originally Posted by ObviousUser2010

You felt trolled? Olol, there's a new one. I am a creationist, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

Then why bring evolution up?

It's like going into a Church and walking up the priest and saying, "I don't believe in God." Then after he gives you a long speech about why you should believe in God or something, you just go "Nothing you say can change that."

Why waste time with this? If you don't believe in evolution, then don't believe in evolution! Because otherwise, you're basically doing this:

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by ObviousUser2010

hee-haw! hee-haw! hee-haw!

We weren't trying very hard.

[ObviousUser2010]

Originally Posted by Loki

Then why bring evolution up?

It's like going into a Church and walking up the priest and saying, "I don't believe in God." Then after he gives you a long speech about why you should believe in God or something, you just go "Nothing you say can change that."

Why waste time with this? If you don't believe in evolution, then don't believe in evolution! Because otherwise, you're basically doing this:

XD, the point ---->.





(O_O)<---you

[Lonely Cubone]

Man, this dude seems like a hoot.

[ObviousUser2010]

By the way, not ALL churches have priests. They have pastor's, clergy, and then there's the congregation. By the way, if you want to see a massive amount of evidence against evolution, then go to the site www.trueorigin.org.

Needless to say I have been following the creation-evolution controversy for quite some time, since I was about 16 or so, and I have been told that not only am I ignorant for not accepting evolution, but that I'm crazy for believing in God. People will try to rile me up because of my beliefs, and I would appreciate it if this topic did not turn into the ones I have started in the past that degenerate into mudslinging.

[M. M.]

Just gonna say that I'm Catholic and I really don't care about this matter but I've been taught by a teacher sponsored by the church itself saying that it's fine to believe in evolution as long as the person believe that somewhere during the process the human was given a soul and free will.

[Ethereal]

^Same here. ObviousTroll2010 probably just wanted to argue for shiz and giggles.