Why do people continue to argue about evolution.?
952723
If evolution is untrue, then there is no such thing as knowledge. If evolution is not true then there is no difference between knowledge and belief. If evolution is not true, then we have no possibility of ever understanding anything about ourselves or the universe (or if there is a universe), including the alleged existence of mythical supreme beings.\n\nWithout the scientific theory of evolution, every life science, including modern medicine, collapses. To be true to their faith, all those who reject evolution should also refuse modern medical care since (without the theory of biological evolution to explain and justify it) it is no different than Voodoo and Witch doctoring.\n\n-----------------------------------------\nOdindmar -\n\nNo, it is about right and wrong. The evolution / creation debate is not one where we can agree to disagree. The earth is either 6000 years old or it is billions of years old. One side is right and the other is wrong. If the earth is only 6000 years old then the human brain is incapable of understanding anything, including a 6000 year old earth. Therefore, either way the creationists do not know what they are talking about.
528044
It does not matter what I believe. The theory of evolution by natural selection is overwhelmingly supported by fact and argument. Intelligent Design is not supported by any facts that I know of and the argument seems to be basically, " a argument from ignorance ".
1151753
You are correct in your thinking Jim,  when you get to a certain level of understanding here it is no longer possible to exchange ideas.  Both sides understand each other and both sides understand that they are directly opposed to each other..  What is there to exchange?  One can start bashing or belittleing, but once you come to the understanding then the real talking is over..  Christians can interact with other christians or debate new people that come on the forum but the old timers have done that.  The same for the evolutionists, they know the old timers and only some new christian can be debated..  \nI would boil it down to  BIBLE IS TRUTH CAMP  & EVOLUTION IS TRUTH CAMP  \nNot much left to debate..\nI see others trying to promote a middle ground, but once your mind is made up (on either side) then no middle ground is possible.  So anyway you are correct.
750492
Well, tell them that those structures have evolved several distinct times and distinct ways, including eyes nine times.  It sertainly is not direct proff of any kind of creation, and it is more supportive of common shared lineages.\n\nLook, god could make everyone 100 feet tall covered in purple pokadots, right?  It's god, it can do whatever it wants because it is magic or devine or whatever.\n\nTell them every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
681839
There is no need to replace evolution as there is no evidence that evoultion is in any way contradictory to reality or lacking in predictive power.\n\nBTW: Shouldn't this be in biology?
1157600
Evolution is NOT science. There is nothing scientific about it. It is a religion. You cannot prove that we came from nothing. Its not even possible. You cannot create nor distroy matter, thats physics. So then how did all this "matter" around us get here. There has to be a creator. The animals may have different variations but they're still the same kind. Everything comes after its own kind. Same with people, there are tall, short, skinny, big. You'll never get a bannana from a fish. The reason you say the earth is billions of years old is because you think if you give it enough time it might happen. God created everything.
255424
Alright I will jump into this. Bombs Away! I know some hot heads will respond but I live in a country where free speech is a given right.\nSo here I go.\nEvolution in and of itself has never been proven. Do the research for yourself. The faith that it takes to believe all of the scattered pieces of science ( which by the way changes daily) fit into one theory is enormous. There are people who wholeheartedly believe that science makes everything factual. It doesn't. Science is like a river, constantly changing even with the basic elements in tact.\nSo for it to be taught as a fact is wrong,wrong,wrong. \nYes,evolution should be tought, but as a scientific theory, and not the final word for all mankind.
894484
Of course evolution is real and it is the basis for all modern biological science. Many people here at YA debate this but there is no debate among scientists. In fact there's no debate among most of the Christian community; it's just a minority that are anti-science.\n\nThe answers you've received here are typical for this subject. There are a few honest responses with real information but, for the most part, you have misinformation, purposeful confusion, extraneous information, side-stepping, fallacious logic and outright lies. For example:\n\nIf humans evolved from apes why are there still apes?...\nIf evolution is right, why do humans have appendixes?...\nIf evolution is right, there are 30,000 stars being born every second, yet we've never seen one born...\nWe would just be zombies, not knowing anything, because there would be no life force within us...\nOnce upon a time, there was a lot full of weeds...\nIs evolution really scientific?...\n\nYahoo Answers is not the best place to explore evolution with any kind of impartiality. If you wish to explore this topic in more depth, why don't you start here:\nhttp://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/darwin1.htm\n\nScience has nothing to be afraid of - there is no debate - just continued research that adds data to a well-accepted explanation of the facts before us. You can believe evolution or not, but you can't use lies and obfuscation to subvert the facts - that may convince idiots but I hope you don't fall into that category. Creationists have no debate either - their faith uplifts them and that should be enough. Science can never investigate salvation - thank God for that – but neither will you find salvation by attacking science. Believing in God is much more than defending a personal opinion or trying to convince everyone that they should think just like you. Tell your friend to forget all this crap and just go find God.
204741
A lot of people,including myself and a lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.\n\n>Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n•According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n•However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n•The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n•Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n•Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n•Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n•It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n•Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n•Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n•Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n•The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n•Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n•The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n•New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n•"Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm
577976
Whether or not someone "believes" in evolution dosn't change the fact of it.\n\nAging most likely isn't a product of evolution. Living takes energy, and reproduction takes even more. The biological makeup of any organism can only tolerate just so much stress and normal wear and tear. After awhile, the organism begins to undergo chemical and organic breakdown. The differences in life spans between species are most likely the result of the sort of energy expenditures for which the particular species in question were programed for.
732459
As science demonstrates the evolutionary process in greater and greater detail, Creationists have to keep refining the rhetoric they use to disregard obvious facts.  They demand demontration of a new species arising, then when you show it to them, they demand a genus.  Show them a genus, they will demand a family.  I've actually seen demands for kingdom shifts.  They demand evolution be reproduced on a laboratory benchtop, but show them the results and they disregard them as artificial.  They claim there are no beneficial mutations, but show them one, and they disregard it for one reason or other.  Show them another that overcomes their objection, and they come up with a new objection.\n\nNothing has been demonstrated to adapt more rapidly than anti-evolution rhetoric.
244532
I think it's so funny that so-called scholars believe in evolution.  I say let them believe, that just shows how stupid they are.  If evolution were true, I ask who caused it to start, I would still give God the credit.  If there was a "big bang", then it was God that caused it.
70220
Ow!  My toes!  ;) (kidding)\n\nI think it's ludicrous that people are treating the theory as if there's any real debate among scientists on the matter.  Global Warming is far, far, far more contested than is evolution; yet in the popular press, you'd never know it.\n\nWhat I get sick of is all the crap about "missing links" or whatever.  Quite frankly, I don't give a rats @$$ about the fossil record.  Sure, it was important to Darwin when he formulated the theory, but one can't really expect that the fossil record should be any where near complete, and all the arguments against evolution focus on this field.  I studied molecular biology, and it is in molecular biology that you'll find way, way stronger support for the theory.\n\nWhen I list the sorts of evidence that come from molecular biology (Homologous proteins, the near universality of the genetic code (eg the relation between codons and amino acids), genetic drift in non-essential parts of homologous proetiens, DNA technology that can show relationship, developmental homology (ie ontogeny and it's relationship to phylogeny), etc) I get people acting like I presented no evidence because they couldn't even understand that the list I've given actually is evidence.  It takes a long time to understand the manner in which DNA becomes a protein, and the way that proteins fold, the way they work, and the way their related.  Until you understand that, the "Big Picture" is not clear.  But to those that *do* understand the Big Picture, it becoems obvious.\n\nI can't explain to a starving thrid world farmer why it's in his interests to become literate, along with the rest of his village, so they can better understand how to, say, help prevent epidemics in the short term (by being able to understand routes of transmission better) or bring about democracy in the long term.  But living in the industrialized west, the benefits of literacy are manifest.  The person who doesn't understand science seems to me in many ways to be like that starving farmer.\n\nPeople who understand science will dictate the fate of much in the world, and they will have the power to do much good.  By not making an effort to learn science, you set yourself back greatly.  But by actively attacking science--like the starving farming burning a public library, or like the Haitian who steals the copper wires set up to build an electrical infrastructure that would bring long-term prosperity in exchange for a short-term benefit in selling scrap metal--the skeptic zealots do themselves and the entire Christian faith a great disservice.\n\nIn response to your additional questions:\n1-4 are NOT--repeat, they are NOT--aspects of the theory of evolution by natural selection.  This is exactly what I'm talking about--people are criticizing a theory they don't even begin to understand.\n\n1) refers to the Big Bang theory, not evolution by natural selection.  2) is a theory of planetary formation, not a theory of speciation.  3) and 4) are aspects of a theory of abiogenesis, which is different from evolution.  Only 5) actually regards evolution.\n\nEvolution by natural selection dictates that small variations between members of a species accumulate over the long term to become major changes, resulting in speciation.  And yes, I believe that that happened.\n\nI have issues with the big bang, but those are not relevant here--they are for reasons of physics that go beyond what I can explain right here.\n\nPlanetary formation, while not a part of evolution, is largely unavoidable.  All matter has mass, and this results in gravitational attraction.  If dust is in space, it will collapse in on itself.  Physics-wise, this is about as mind-blowing as the fact that water + dirt = mud.  It would be a greater stretch of the imagination to imagine such formation not occuring, because the laws that dictate such a formation are at work all around us all the time.\n\n
1130770
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there yet.
550523
Just remember, evolution is an untested, unproven theory.  In fact, it cannot be tested or proven.  If one looks at the scientific method and what constitutes a theory, evolution barely qualifies, if at all.
862281
You must have a lot of time to spare if you invite creationists to "debate" with you. You cannot convince them of the truth because they don't want the truth. They have no understanding of scientific method or principles. The scientific world accepts evolution and continues accumulating molecular evidence that shows beyond any doubt evolution has occurred. There is a Mount Everest of evidence out there, yet every creationist/IDer ignores it. Why? They are not interested in truth.\n\nThe world has moved on - IDers are wallowing in the dark ages. Do yourself a favour, do something where you will achieve an outcome. Talking with creationists won't get you there.\n\n(As a rule of thumb - the more rabid the creationist, the worse the spelling and grammar. There IS a correlation, I swear!)
340817
Oh good grief.\n\nHow can someone not believe in evolution?  The evidence is freakin' everywhere.\n\nFirst off: evolution is not incompatible with creation theory.  You just have to widen your theological perspectives and stop being a tool.\n\nSecond, there is a host of evidence for evolution.  Just look at the biological tree.  Life has trended from simple life to complex.  There are also fossil records that demostrate quite concretely (excuse the pun) that creatures have changed over the centuries.\n\nIf you write such glaring evidence off as some sort of "demonic trickery" then I truly have to wonder about your gullibility.  I mean, some people seriously need to think about the full rammifications of their religious beliefs.