Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
December 22, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 626

Why do you belive or disbelive in evolution

:iconabeautiful-world:
abeautiful-world Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
okay I have read a lot of posts on here where People slate creationist and keep mentioning how evolution proves them wrong and having heated arguments with name calling where no real points are getting raised so I am confused.

How does believing in a god change the fact of evolution?

if you don't believe in evolution at all why not?

if you believe evolution is an uncompleted theory with not enough facts why do you believe this.

hopefully we can have a decent conversation and I can find out why people believe what they do.

but bearing in mind this is the net i am sure we will get some trolls and people who just want an argument so this is how i will work.

if you insult me or anyone else I don't care how good your so called points are I wont bother acknowledging them.

if you don't agree with someone else points feel free to say why you don't agree but don't call them names.

now hopefully we can all learn something thought im sure the trolls will see this as bait.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconechointhevoid:
EchoInTheVoid Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student Writer
This is my teen mind speaking but, I feel that God put us as a fish first and gave us the resources to evolve, just like the big bang I believe it happened but I am convinced that God caused it.
Reply
:iconthewerewolfpuppy:
TheWerewolfPuppy Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I believe in evolution because atm it's the best explanation we have. Besides, scientists have found many "proofs" that strengthens the theory of evolution :)
Reply
:iconpanthera--shadow:
Panthera--Shadow Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student General Artist
DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS. IT'S JUST HOW I THINK OF IT.

I believe evolution is a possibility. It could be how humans were created.
How else could evolution work? It would take far more than three or four billion years for single-cell chemosynthetic organisms to evolve into humans, with our complex brains, perfect balance of chemicals for emotion, and optimal anatomy for our role on earth. It's like taking a grain of sand and expecting it to turn into a self-sustainable nuclear power plant that interacts with its customers entirely on accident.
I have similar views on the Big Bang.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
>It's like taking a grain of sand and expecting it to turn into a self-sustainable nuclear power plant that interacts with its customers entirely on accident.

I don't know about a grain of sand, but if you take a pile of hydrogen, that will actually genuinely happen spontaneously. Just saying...your argument underestimate/fails to grasp the power of large numbers...which is what makes evolution and much of modern science possible.

VE.
Reply
:iconpanthera--shadow:
Panthera--Shadow Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student General Artist
I understand that, but I was using a visual example.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
So was I, but since it seems better we be straightforward in order to convey my meaning and clear any confusion between us, well, here we go.

My point stated more clearly is that while we understand "the everyday world" and the "everyday math" that comes with it in a very intuitive fashion, the world of the very large, the very small, the very long (in time), the very short (in time) are all rife with activities/possibilities that escape our "everyday experience".

So that a statement such as It would take far more than three or four billion years for single-cell chemosynthetic organisms to evolve into humans, with our complex brains, perfect balance of chemicals for emotion, and optimal anatomy for our role on earth. is only a reflection of the difficulty we may have in intuitively grasping those things that occur at different scales than the one of our daily lives.

As such, we can not trust our intuition, but must rely on other tools. So that statement of yours appeared to me as too "anthropocentric", hence my use of a (scientifically correct) adjustment to your argument showing that when expanded to other scale where suddenly, it makes sense, where suddenly the strange not only can, but does occur.

Have a nice evening,

VE.
Reply
:iconhametsunocharge:
HametsuNoCharge Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I believe in evolution for the sheer fact that there is no way in hell god managed to make all those species in one afternoon. That and creationism it doesn't explain how species adapts, mutate, become extinct and why the dinosaurs are supposed to have feathers on :stare:
Reply
:icondidj:
Didj Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
Creationism doesn't really explain anything at all. Only that everything just sort of popped into existence by the will of an impossible being because... magic.
Reply
:iconhametsunocharge:
HametsuNoCharge Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
lol that's technically an explanation. A shitty one but an explanation. I would love to be able to use "...because MAGIC!" as an answer =P
Reply
:iconthehistoryfreak13:
thehistoryfreak13 Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Student General Artist
Well in my opinion its really a pointless debate. I mean I believe that we all went through evolution, but I don't think we were monkeys at first, i just think we adapted so much to our environment. But does it really matter? What good does this do for our future? I mean I constantly see people argue over the smallest of things, even though they have more in common than they think. It just seems that people always want to prove that they are the right ones and they are on top all the time and honestly that is just unnecessary.

I mean instead of talking about something that happened millions of years ago, shouldn't we be talking about the world and how to mmake it better? I mean there is so much shit going on all over. The shootings that happened, the fact that alot of people don't have the chances to get a decent meal, the fact that right now people are dying in the Middle East for their freedom, like we Americans did 200 years ago and no one is helping them. The fact that the world is always in constant conflict... I mean isn't that more important? Why live in the past?
For hundreds of years people have always been fighting over the smallest of things. Europeans fought over Protestantism and Catholicism and caused so many deaths, even though they are still both Christian and believe in God. They believe in the same thing yet they fight. And not just Christians, other religions too it is seen constantly. Buddist monks in Burma want all the Muslims there to die even though they both could just live in peace.
Is there a point in living in the past? Why cares if we were in monkeys or weren't monkeys? What matters is here and now and our future that is what we should be focusing on. We should instead of fighting strive for a better tomorrow, where less people are starving, where people can get together in talk about what they love, where no one has to die to have a peaceful life.
THAT IS WHAT MATTERS! THE NOW, NOT THEN!
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist
"Is this really a fact which definitively proves a human-chimp common ancestry? It is our contention that the percentage is misleading. In fact, when the data is examined more closely, the human-chimp genome comparisons turn out to contradict what would be predicted by evolution."

"In reality, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are probably greater than 2%. More recent studies have shown that the true genetic divergence between humans and apes is probably closer to 5%. Thus, the "over 98% similarity" argument is probably an overstatement."
Reply
:iconmimer:
mimer Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
1. we did not evolve from monkeys. We are more closely related to apes, and apes and humans share a common ancestor.

2. what good does it do? To argue actual science over religious dogma in a science context? Well, for starters, the massive breakthroughs that we enjoy daily in medicine, agriculture, and pretty much any field where biology is a factor you mean?

3. it didn't just happen millions of years ago, evolution is a continous process. It hasn't stopped.

4. there is no problem with both caring about proper science and humanitarian issues. They are often linked.

5. These arguments are rearely if ever about which particular ancestor you think we had. It is almost always about science objecting to teaching unfounded religious ideas instead of science in science classrooms. You want to believe that we did not all evolve from a common ancestor? You want to think that the most solid scientific theory we have is innacurate? Go for it, most people really wont care, as long as you don't try to spout nonsense in a classroom or actively obstruct actual science.

5. Please, don't be one of those creationists who cant distinguish between evolution and the theory of evolution. They are not synonyms.
Reply
:icondotb18:
DOTB18 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
Turns out we DID come from monkeys! [link]
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
To add to what eggain said, some languages do not even differ the words 'ape' and 'monkey.' And even some English text-books call the entire ape line monkeys. What defines 'monkey' is pretty arbitrary, since there are no traits an ape has that a monkey does not. Including tail-less monkeys. Aside that, I agree.
Reply
:iconcake-fiend:
cake-fiend Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
"Monkey" isn't a taxon though, it's not a real scientific classification. Two separate monophyletic groups are referred to as monkeys. So I don't think it's unreasonable to call our tree dwelling primate ancestors monkeys.
Reply
:iconthehistoryfreak13:
thehistoryfreak13 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Student General Artist
Woah when did i bring religion into this? I just think that arguing about it is pointless.
Reply
:iconmimer:
mimer Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
My point is that the only time scientist actually have to argue this, it's because of the lack of comprehension from the creationist fringe who, invariably, argue from a faith perspective. They attempt to bring religion into science classrooms, scientists point out what a horrible idea this is.

The argument isn't over the "durr, I dont have a monkey for an ancestor"-malarkey, it's a fight to keep religious indoctrination from gaining a foothold in schools, specifically science classrooms. That would be disastrous and is well worth opposing at every turn.

Again, you don't want to think evolution happends, your call. Do you by any chance use any vaccinations?
Reply
:iconthehistoryfreak13:
thehistoryfreak13 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Student General Artist
I'm not saying that evolution doesn't happen, im only saying that their is no point in arguing about it. But last time I checked schools don't really oppose teaching evolution anymore, well except catholic schools. But I see what u mean
Reply
:iconmimer:
mimer Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
Again, the arguments usually happend because evangelical christian groups attempt to put creationism into schools curriculums, more specifically science classes.

That argument should be taken evety single time, because the alternative is downright dangerous.
Reply
:iconthehistoryfreak13:
thehistoryfreak13 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Student General Artist
(shrug) I just think that there are other priorities thats all
Reply
:iconmimer:
mimer Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
so we don't have time making sure that religious dogma doesnt replace science in schools?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconabeautiful-world:
abeautiful-world Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
I think you really misunderstand why we spend so much time learning about evolution.

If we can discover what causes mutations, we can discover how to stop bad ones Diseases i.e cancer and allergies e.t.c.

Also if we stop assuming that the appendix and wisdom teeth and all these are useless things we inherited from the past that go wrong a lot and actually investigated why they go wrong we might be able to stop the appendix bursting e.t.c.

and we might also be able to figure out how the appendix might works to stop diarhoia and other diseases which could help people in country's that don't have sanitation and maybe save millions of lifes.

So this debate is far more important than you make out!

also the only way to make the future better is to look at the mistakes of the past.

if we always live in the now and present and never look back we will never see all the mistakes we keep making!

so we need debates about this to show people how old Darwin's ideas are and how science is updating and could possibly give us answers if scientists stooped arguing the pointless bits and started concentrating on the facts in-front of them.
Reply
:iconthehistoryfreak13:
thehistoryfreak13 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Student General Artist
Alright, then we can learn about evolution. I must haves stated it wrong, then. I don't think learning about Evolution is bad, I just think its a waste of time to fight about it. I just personally feel that there are more important things to prioritize ourselves in. I mean sure evolution might have help in knowing about our biological development. But arguing if we were or weren't monkeys isn't helping anyone or anything develop. That's my take one it. Believe it or dont thats ur call.
Reply
:iconabeautiful-world:
abeautiful-world Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
well that's kind of true but in order to learn more about evolution we have to learn why people believe we came from monkeys and all that and then see if monkeys do get the same diseases as us.

This way we can try and pin point exactly what animals with what Genetics get what diseases then start examining what causes them.

Unfortunately however if you tell anyone we might of came from an ape it sparks a debate.
Also the debate it sparks is based on really old science that's really out of date.

so i designed this forum to try and find out why people believe or disbelieve and what evidence they have so i could investigate it myself.
Reply
:iconthehistoryfreak13:
thehistoryfreak13 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Student General Artist
(shrug) i just think arguing about it is pointless and endless.
Reply
:iconabeautiful-world:
abeautiful-world Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
well that's up to you but i feel you don't learn anything if everyone always agrees with you
Reply
:iconthehistoryfreak13:
thehistoryfreak13 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Student General Artist
That is a good point actually i didnt think about that. Hmmm but still i just have this feeling like arguig about evolution wouldn't help much
Reply
:iconabeautiful-world:
abeautiful-world Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
well that is true arguing about it wont help much but discussing alternative views might.

Unfortunately there's quite a few people on this site who despise religion and any suggestion that there precious evolution might actually be wrong makes them go into a rage and they spout the stuff they where taught in class (badly) that's really old science.

Then they have the cheek to say people into religion live in the past and never change there mind lol.

however I occasionally run into people that know what there taking about and they pointed me to some experiments I never knew about.

Now These experiments strongly suggest that junk DNA is not junk like we where taught in the past so 98% of are DNA needed to be re looked at.

then i found a project that did exactly that and started to make medicines that can change the junk DNA and cure basic things, so maybe one day there be able to cure diseases by thinking like a disease lol.

i.e a disease acts like a mutation and changes your dna (orginaly scientist thought it did this directly) but now they believe it does it by playing around with your junk dna (non coding dna), so they have started creating drugs to search out whats changing the junk dna and attack it.

Im hoping this might be a scientific break threw but the drugs are so new they haven't really been tested yet so it will be many years before we know if they worked and there only curing basic things right now.

so it will be even longer before we can cure things like cancer but its a step in the right direction.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsmkiller:
Smkiller Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist
By figuring out the past, we can better the future.
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist
I am going to tell you this again, evolution is not scientific because it makes statements about times, places and events that have never been nor ever will be observed or measured by men. "That is why it is only a theory and not fact." Today, we can even begin to call it theory and that is a fact. The question of what happened "billions of years ago" is not based on scientific observation, but on assumptions and speculation and guesses. Therefore, the evolutionary view of natural history is a theory and can only be a theory. "It can never be a fact." In addition, the theory of evolution is not scientific, because the analyses evolutionists make of present day observations based upon that theory lead to conclusions that violate known "Scientific Laws."
Reply
:iconsmkiller:
Smkiller Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist
"I am going to tell you this again"

You mean the same bullshit that you keep on pulling of your biased lil' sphincter chasm? Let me know when you change it up to something that's actually intelligent, and I'll take whatever you might be saying seriously.
Reply
:iconthehistoryfreak13:
thehistoryfreak13 Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Student General Artist
What kind of future would arguing about evolution bring? I don't see any to be honest
Reply
:iconabeautiful-world:
abeautiful-world Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
evolution try's to shows how are body works and how mutations happen.

Not all mutations are good so bring really horrible diseases.

If we can find out what causes these we might find a cure.

A cure for cancer to me seems like a pretty big thing that could change the future.

It seems almost as big a thing as the fact smallpox is pretty much considered a old disease now because of the great work scientists did in the past!
science and its debates have shaped are world for many generations and helped make it a better place why religions just fight and kill themselves thinking there making a better world!

Personally i know which one i think is more important and will leave a better future
Reply
:iconthehistoryfreak13:
thehistoryfreak13 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Student General Artist
Alright, then we can learn about evolution. I must haves stated it wrong, then. I don't think learning about Evolution is bad, I just think its a waste of time to fight about it. I just personally feel that there are more important things to prioritize ourselves in. I mean sure evolution might have help in knowing about our biological development. But arguing if we were or weren't monkeys isn't helping anyone or anything develop. That's my take one it. Believe it or dont thats ur call.
Reply
:iconhametsunocharge:
HametsuNoCharge Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
We were NEVER monkeys! We were supposedly primeval ape-like creatures probably more closely related to the chimpanzee :)
Reply
:icontheon-hawke:
Theon-Hawke Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
How does believing in a god change the fact of evolution?
Did you mean, how does the fact of evolution change a belief in (a) god(s)?

if you don't believe in evolution at all why not?
I don't believe in evolution because I understand why it's true.
Reply
:icondidj:
Didj Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
Wait, you don't believe in something because you understand why it's true? Was that contradictory statement a typo?
Reply
:iconsmkiller:
Smkiller Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013  Hobbyist
I think what he's trying to get at is kind of similar to Helge129's posts.
Reply
:iconthetoxiceden:
TheToxicEden Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
Actually, I do think "evolution" is based on the mutation by nuclear radiation, as there always is and was a minimal radiation on earth.
As we now handle with nuclear powers to gain energy, mutations(what we call evolution) will appear wide more faster and take quite less time.
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
You need to read an evolutionary text book stat!
Reply
:iconafter--life:
After--Life Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013  Student Digital Artist
I believe in something called 'Guided Evolution'.

Basically, it is the process of evolution but it was not just formed out of randomness, there was an all powerful intelligent being...MASTERMIND that put all the puzzle pieces together in such a perfect harmonious construction.

And he set rules and laws for this universe to abide by as it grows.

It is like a tree that grows, but the branches only come sprouting at the top and the leaves only start coming out at the tops of the branches, not covering the entire wooded area...this is basically what guided evolution is.

God set the standards, and he controls whichever aspects of it as he pleases, and the moon and the sun are under his control, as he set the laws and set them FIRM in place.

Creationism is false, because God simply did not *POOF* create everything out of nothing.

God started it with the Big Bang, as it was stated in the Holy Qur'an, and he started expanding it, again, mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, and he started forming one of the most ESSENTIAL parts of LIFE...water. Again, mentioned in the Holy Qur'an.

All of these things were not formed out of random, but they were constructed with blueprints, and the laws set them firm and balanced.
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013
i don't think i believe or disbelieve in evolution. i mean i'm aware of a process in nature that is sometimes referred to as evolution, but i'm not going to veritably wax dogmatic about human observations, especially as they may apply to the natural universe.
Reply
:iconcopper-viper:
Copper-Viper Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2013
Evolution is not a theory; it is fact, therefore, it cannot be called a 'theroy'
Believing in something that cannot be proven to exist is stupid, tis why I hate people who try to make me be like them because 'god is the only way to go!'
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist
It's true! We cann't even begin to call a theory and that is a fact. Because, the problem of extending "microevolution" into "macroevolution." Now, Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called "microevolution." Microevolution, can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But, even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else. That's why God says, from the beginning, He created all the animals species; "after their kind", "after his kind", or "its own kind." And, not from one kind to another kind. We read this truth in the light of the book of (Genesis 1:20-21 and Genesis 1:24-25).

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...Genesis 1:20-21."

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good...Geneis 1:24-25."

Wherefore, Long-term evolution, though, requires "macroevolution," which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a "Chihuahua" or a "Great Dane." Macroevolution would turn a "fish into a cow or a duck." But, there is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does NOT support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an "ERROR" in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been "HIGHJACKED" as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.

Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don't know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.
Reply
:iconpippintookoftheshire:
PippinTookoftheShire Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Most definitions of micro vs. macro say that micro is change within kinds and macro is change between kinds. However, 'kind' is a broad term. If you mean kind as in species, then consider how blacks used to be considered a different species, or how the difference between subspecies of wolf wasn't noted in Aristotle (grandfather of species classification)'s time. Therefore, microevolution is no different from macroevolution except in scale. The rest of your post involves 'bible Jeezus Gawd creation blah blah'
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist
Micro and Macro evolution contradict each other.
Reply
:iconpippintookoftheshire:
PippinTookoftheShire Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
How?
Reply
:icondidj:
Didj Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
That's like saying that a minute contradicts a year.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
No they don't.

VE.
Reply
:iconabeautiful-world:
abeautiful-world Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
Evolution perhaps is a fact
but how we understand it or "Darwin's theory of evolution" is exactly what it says on the tin just a theory about how it supposedly works and scientists are now finding out that there's a lot more to Evolution than we originally thought so the "Facts" are slowly changing.

Now because new facts are shedding new light on how dna works and how much we actually share with apes i personally believe its about time we reevaluated the theory of evolution.
Reply
Add a Comment: