HOME | DD
Nekromanda β Stamp: Evolution
Published: 2012-11-22 04:34:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 6033; Favourites: 313; Downloads: 9
Redirect to original
Description
Yip yip yip yipBG : [link]
Related content
Comments: 492
Nope, evolution is a theory, look it up. Get over it, you people are only making yourselfs look like anti theists. XD
π: 0 β©: 1
There is actual proof of evolution. We are SUPPOSE to call it a theory because some religions are against it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not really. If they called a theory a fact without solid proof, it's an assumption.
π: 0 β©: 1
No there is solid proof
π: 0 β©: 1
No, not really.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are assuming
π: 0 β©: 1
There is proof of evolution from DNA and fossils. If that's not enough for you since humans have been around we watched wolves evolve to domestic dogs. If you don't count that as proof you are blind
π: 0 β©: 1
Those came in pieces, why not in one huge bundle?
"If that's not enough for you since humans have been around we watched wolves evolve to domestic dogs. If you don't count that as proof you are blind."
Actually, there are arguments against the origin of dogs. Where is this "watch" you talk about? It's like comparing all species of sapiens and saying they all came from monkeys.
Keep calling people blind. It doesn't do anything good for you.
π: 0 β©: 1
We were there to see them change. Also what about DNA and fossil records? You're just denying facts.
π: 0 β©: 1
Were they there to see the origin of life? As for fossil records, the records they give are in pieces. Passing them off as complete facts without authentication is like calling out a suspect and arresting that person just because they were present at the scene.
π: 0 β©: 1
Asking if they were there to see the origin if life is off topic. No they weren't but that doesn't make any difference. And you're completely wrong about the fossil records. There is definitely enough to show that evolution is fact. Maybe more than enough. I guess you think DNA is lying to us too.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm a Christian and an evolutionist. I think that the "how did we evolve from apes if there's still apes" and the "it's just a theory" people should be ignored. It really isn't worth trying to argue with them because they are obviously to stubborn and narrow minded to even consider anything different from what their parents and schools told them to be true.
π: 0 β©: 0
People who use the argument "But evolution is just a theory!" do not seem to understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is made when a thing has been tested with the scientific method, and when all of the evidence points in the direction of what the thing is. That means that all of the evidence uncovered has supported evolution.Β
*Braces self for shitstorm*
π: 0 β©: 0
If evolution is real, then why can't we find any fossils showing a transition? Or watch an ape become a man?
Also, if it took a long time for evolving, wouldn't the creature die out too quickly to produce because it's not able to defend itself from predators and thus rapidly lead the species to extinction?
Please answer kindly. I want to just hear what you think.
π: 0 β©: 4
Well in fact, sir, we have found many, many of these 'transitional species' that share traits of two different species. If you think about it, all species are 'transitional' because the evolutionary process of natural selection is constantly in effect.
Also, humans did not evolve directly from apes. We share a common ancestor whose lineage branched off into what eventually became us and chimpanzees.
As for your last question, could you please re-word it? Forgive me, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I want to be absolutely sure.
If you have any other questions, it would be my pleasure to enlighten you!
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, could you link me some of them, please?
Ah, and for that last question... If let's say the ancestor to a certain bird of your choice was not able to barely defend itself and was easily killed, wouldn't they all just die off too quickly before any changes take place? I hope that makes more sense, haha.
Thank you kindly for replying. : )
π: 0 β©: 1
Here's a general list of all the major species from the Smithsonian Institute:Β humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hβ¦
If you're looking for something more detailed, a simple Google search of something like 'timeline of human evolution' or 'human evolutionary tree' yield many alternative sources.
Okay, I see what you're getting at!
If a species cannot adapt to survive or is unfit to survive in its particular environment, then it is natural that it dies off and other species that are better able to adapt to the conditions in which they live survive and reproduce. That's the core concept of natural selection.
It is my pleasure to reply! Especially since you seem genuinely keen to understand this concept!
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, thank you!
Yes, yes. I don't want to just be someone who knows only one side of an argument. It's good to know more about the other side too. : )
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree 100%!
I myself am constantly seeking out arguments made by creationists in order to assess their validity! Heck, I'm even well on my way to reading the Bible cover-to-cover!
I've found that it is important to question everything, and now that we have all of human endeavour at our fingertips, answering our questions and finding different points of view has never been easier!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, yes, that is wonderful to hear! People are always looking for someone to conflict with now instead of agreeing. D:
How is your reading so far?
We have much information available to use for sure. But there's also a large amount of information that isn't accurate so we all need to be careful. Quite sad to see that people don't know many basic things about certain subjects nowadays just because of others passing on the inaccurate facts... : (
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, unfortunately it seems to be in our nature to disagree! I mean, try to name a time where there has been world peace!
Well, I gave up reading the books in order once I got to Leviticus. It's just too tedious! Or maybe it just seems that way because I haven't had much time to read lately. (School, don't you know...)
So I've been mainly reading in chunks. I've gotten thorough the majority of Job and Judges this way. I'm putting off Deuteronomy and Psalms for as long as I can, again for tedious reasons.
Indeed. That is the major disadvantage to the Internet. Misinformation was a pain before, but the fact that nowadays anyone can easily pass off their opinions as fact compounds the problem.
π: 0 β©: 1
Exactly! And when there'sΒ peaceful times, there's always someone who will rise up to power and start another downfall. Truly a confounding thing of our world...
Ah, yes. How's the material you're reading in it though? What do you think so far?
Plus at this rate, we're going to be in a constantΒ battle to show who's got the real facts about stuff. And what I think makes it harder is that people like to stick to something else that is a fallacyΒ because they find it 'more pleasing' to hear rather than accept the truth. Quite a struggle, yes.
π: 0 β©: 1
(Sorry for the long wait. You know, school and such...)
The material I've read so far ranges from hilarious to excruciatingly dull (I'm looking at you, Psalms.)
In general it's quite interesting. Before delving into the Bible's pages I learned as much as I could from historians and theologians on the topic of ancient writings, and one thing I found that interested me; it seems as though telling stories that aren't literally true with the goal of getting a point across was the dominant style of writing at the time.
For example, stories that involved Jesus healing the sick and feeding the hungry might not actually have happened literally, but they serve to convey that Jesus was a helpful, kind man of the people.
Thus, I am approaching the Bible, especially the New Testament, with this mindset.
And yes, the truth can be a hard pill to swallow, but it's better to accept it and try to do something about it than to cover your ears and pretend it doesn't exist.
π: 0 β©: 1
(Oh, don't worry! I completely understand.)
May I inquire as to what is so hilarious to you? :>
Ah, I must give you a little tip: don't read about books before reading the actual book because then you'll only be able to see it through the different people's set view on it. Perhaps you may have heard this before, but I must remind you that just to be safe. Better to be prepared, right? :'D
Plus when you don't know what to expect, that often is when you can actually better understand something new. That's what I have found in my life lessons and such.
That's very true about truth! (Hehe.)
And I must share with you that there is one thing I learned from life so far in my time on Earth:
While people are clinging to the most ridiculous and complicated answers to a simple question, it turns out to have just a simple answer to it. Sure, there's detail but if you can see where I'm going, the simplicity becomes the complexity. Suddenly I am feeling like Confucius...
π: 0 β©: 1
What I find amusing is simply many laws and quotes that are very outdated. It's just not the kind of stuff you read on and everyday basis!
I will gladly take your advice in the future, but the main reason I was doing this research was a matter of wondering how to interpret what I read. For example, I've read through "The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka multiple times (as it is very short), each time with a different perspective: the first time I took the story literally, the second metaphorically, etc.
Not wanting to do the same with a massive tome like the Bible, I've been constantly seeking out new points of view and using them to form my own as I go along.
I completely agree with you. Part of what fascinates me so much about quantum physics and mechanics, for example, is the fact that many genius (yet relatively simple) concepts can be extremely complicated and difficult to prove and recreate.Β
The problem with problems is that we tend to either overthink or under-think them.
π: 0 β©: 0
Actually, we do have proof and fossils of the transition. I've seen a marvelous documentary that wasn't just some mumbo-jumbo but it had the facts needed to prove evolution. See, one of the little evolution pieces that are still happening today, for example, the wisdom teeth. It is said that our ancestors used to eat lush green foods before finding out that meat is edible. We used to need the wisdom teeth to grind up the greenery. After starting to eat uncooked meat, we supposedly used to have fangs but after we found out how to cook meat-it was easier to chew it and the fangs slowly "dissolved" into our modern day "fangs". And because of finding out that meat is edible, the wisom teeth were not that convenient anymore and nowadays only a few people actually grow wisdom teeth.
Β All of us could argue all we want but even with facts evolution is still quite questionable... and the...the theory of...God creating everything well...er.... it's questionable too...
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, what do you know about the theory of evolution right now?
π: 0 β©: 0
to your question "watch an ape become a man"
man did not evolve from a modern-day ape. we evolved from a common ancestor
π: 0 β©: 1
Why don't we have any proof that outdates the dinosaurs or so then?
Wouldn't we be able to find LOTS of skeletons of this common ancestor?
Thank you for responding maturely. I can't ask these things most of the time now without a person shredding you apart with insults.
π: 0 β©: 1
Because the common ancestor evolved after the KT extinction. And there are plenty of remains from before the dinosaurs, that's how we're aware of creatures like anomalocaris.
π: 0 β©: 0
I believe in guided evolution. Meaning that evolution happened, but God guided it. I'd be lying out my ass if I said dinosaurs never existed and that fossils are fake. There are many things that we don't understand in this world, so I am thankful for evolution to help us get a better explanation of how things came to be.
π: 0 β©: 0
The amount of stupid bible trolls commenting on this stamp is amazing.
π: 0 β©: 1
Creationists are a wierd bunch. They wet their pants at the notion of humans evolving from a prehistoric ancestor, yet they have no problem believing that a dirty hippie turned water into wine...
π: 0 β©: 1
It's sad because it's true
π: 0 β©: 1
Creationists: Because some of us have evolved less than others.
π: 0 β©: 1
My hardcore, Christian-bashing science teacher (I still love him regardless) would have to disagree with you. Take a moment to think why.
It seems some people heard quite a few of this already, so yeah. Christians know gravity is fact and that natural selection, variation and adaptions are fact too. Those are just evidences used to support evolution, though, not the other way around.
Honestly, the whole subject of science would not suffer at all if evolution were taken out of the picture.
Also, you can't see evolution. That takes millions of years. You HAVE to take a person's word on it. It's faith.
Just as many can't see God or Jesus and have to take another's word for it, the Holy Bible. That's why it's called faith.
π: 0 β©: 3
Some Christian churches teach that the evolution is a very good proof of God's creation - 'God created everything in millions of years and His creation still continues'.
For example I was once a member of The Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and nearly all members of that church believed in evolution. That church teached that we should not read the Bible literally - the creation story of the Bible is only a metaphor. The priests and other teachers of that churc told that of course those people who lived many thousands of years ago didn't know how old the Earth really was because they didn't have the modern science equipment. So because of that the Bible can't include 100% scientifically accurate information how God really created the universe.
I don't understand why so many other Christian churches think that evolution is a bad thing and does not exist - and why so many people really think that the world was literally created in 6 days (which were 24 hours long each). Why they also can't think that God created this universe really long time ago and he also created evolution - and the Bible story is 'only' a beautiful metaphor for all that.
So it is a false information that all Christians don't believe in evolution. Many Christians thinks that the science is a very good thing because it only proves how great God really is. That his universe is really old, it is possible that he has created many other planets that can sustain life and his creation never ends.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't look to man first. God and the Bible must go first.
Genesis 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Numbers 15:32-36
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day... And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died.
Matthew 12:1-2, 8
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day... For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
I cannot interpret "evening and morning" as anything other than a 24 hour day. So yes, the creation week is literal. This is backed up later in Exodus, where God commands the Jews work six days and rest the seventh (sabbath) as He did. Disobeying is punishable by death as seen in Numbers. If the Jews had misinterpreted what God actually meant, there was room for correction when the issue of the sabbath is brought to Jesus in Matthew 12.
π: 0 β©: 0
I entirely disagree with your notion that taking out evolution would not cause science to suffer as a whole. While I understand you're speaking directly about certain sects of science, perhaps like something such as physics or chemistry, it would be the idea Β of science that would suffer. Science, more or less, is the human endeavor to explore and explain how the world around us functions and behaves by compiling falsifiable evidences which can be repeated. Β Excluding evolution, regardless of one accepts the theory or not, would be intellectually dishonest from the evidence we do have.Β
On another note, I disagree that accepting macro-evolution would be considered faith. The definition of faith refers to holding complete confidence in a subject or person, regardless of the evidence behind it. Simply because one cannot directly observe macro-evolution does not mean that is does not have evidence behind it. There are many indirect evidences of evolution, such as the fossil record, DNA, junk DNA, shared DNA, homologous structures, immunities to pesticides, and many others. Dismissing indirect evidence as no evidence at all completely defeats the purpose of science, as we can confidently deduce that each of these indirect evidences have stemmed from some sort of genetic variation over successive generations, i.e. evolution.Β
A great example of indirect evidence is knowing the composition of the sun; we do not have direct evidence of the sun's composition, and will (most likely) never be able to take a direct sample of the sun to measure. But utilizing knowledge of how hydrogen affects the light spectrum, we can confidently state that the sun is composed of hydrogen. The same principle applies with our knowledge of genetics. We know that organisms acquire genetic variations that can be passed down through successive generations of their offspring. Scientists have observed what we classify as micro-evolution definitely occurs in nature, which can range from bone density, the shape of a skull, skin/fur color, and many more traits. Over time, scientists can confidently state that with the direct evidence of micro-evolution and the indirect evidence of the list mentioned in the previous paragraph, evolution does occur.Β
That's not to say scientists have discovered every aspect of evolution, or how every species has individually evolved. There's still a lot to discover about how evolution works. Simply stating that evolution, (and more specifically, macro-evolution) is based just on someone's word is not only misleading, but intellectually dishonest.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Lies and nonsense. Evolution has been observed by humans. Get informed.
Science would suffer immensely if the biological process of evolution was 'dropped' entirely. Again, you're so bankrupt when it comes to information you have no idea what's going on in the real world.
π: 0 β©: 1
I didn't quite say evolution was unobservable. I said the evidences to support it are observable, such as wolf to dog.
My last statement was referring to the implications of evolution, such as reptile to bird, which would require millions of years and obviously cannot be observed.
I will admit the statement saying science will not be affected if evolution were dropped is in error, since entire branches are built around it, but the mistake many others hold is that EVERYTHING will be affected such as medicine. www.answersingenesis.org/articβ¦
You have already assumed I was a liar before you even met me. You didn't even make an intelligent argument. If this is your best example for evolution, I'd hate to see your worst.
π: 0 β©: 1
'Reptile' to bird can be observed genetically and in the fossil record.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's not observation.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's indirect observation.
Sorry for butting in.
π: 0 β©: 1
what if god created evolution
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>