Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
evolution stamp by Apsaravis evolution stamp by Apsaravis
I'm tired of all those people saying "I don't believe in evolution because [insert random creationist crap here]". (And creationism includes all that "Intelligent Design" stuff, hope it's obvious)
You can't say "I believe/don't believe in evolution", because, well, it's not a matter of belief. :roll:
People who reject evolution most often simply have no idea what it is about and that's rather sad.
_________

[link] - thanks, *SageGoat

_________

Comments are allowed again.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner 3 days ago
It seems you are contradicting yourself here. Adam and Eve are metaphor but not the deity who supposedly created them in the very same chapters you said were fiction?
And again, how would you demonstrate the "inclination to sin" when sin is only a guilt concept invented by the abrahamic religion as a mean to hold it's followers under it's power.

Finally, you not seeing how a natural process works without a deity won't remove the fact that natural processes occurs every single moment without any evidence of deities around them.
Reply
:icontidalwave21:
tidalwave21 Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2015
Fallen nature means that humans have an inclination to sin. A child is taught not to lie, but lying comes rather naturally. Adam and Eve are metaphors for humans being rebellious against God.

God isn't a metaphor for anything else, and I personally don't see natural processes working without a deity.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2015
Wouldn't accepting that Adam and Eve to be fictional character also mean that the god described in that compendium of books is also fictional?
And fallen nature? Sorry, but how would you demonstrate that?
Reply
:icontidalwave21:
tidalwave21 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2015
That's a really good point. Again, the deep metaphor is that humanity has a fallen nature. Jesus just paid for that fallen nature. That is the message in the Bible. Also, the idea of the Earth being created before the sun and life being created as it is now are simply archaic beliefs.

The Bible isn't supposed to be a scientific textbook. We aren't supposed to take it literally when it says the universe was created in 6 days. Adam and Eve aren't historical people. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this.  
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2015
However, if you don't take the earlier mythos as real, then you cannot take the whole "original sin" and later one Jesus' "sacrifice" to get "pay for our sin" as real either.

And technically, while evolution do not disproves the idea of a deity, it does disproves those of the mythologies claiming life was created as it is right now. The same way that the model of planet formation disproves the deity of mythos claiming that the earth was created before the sun.
Reply
:icontidalwave21:
tidalwave21 Featured By Owner Edited Jun 18, 2015
It depends on how you look at the Bible. The first eleven chapters of Genesis aren't meant to be taken literally. They're metaphor. Most of the priests I know tell me that Evolution and Christianity can live in harmony if the Bible is interpreted correctly. The Bible doesn't concern itself with Evolution, and the Evolutionary Theory doesn't concern itself with God at all. It doesn't prove or disprove Him.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2015
Does creationism claim life was created as it is today or not?
Reply
:icontidalwave21:
tidalwave21 Featured By Owner Jun 2, 2015
Okay, I want someone to debate me. Why can't the theory of evolution work with Creationism? Really, why not?
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner May 25, 2015
Or you know..you can simply read about the subject. Speciation is not dangerous.
Reply
:icongeneralobiwankenobi7:
Generalobiwankenobi7 Featured By Owner May 24, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Whenever people like that start ranting about "evolution is just a theory" I just want to say "pick up a ball and drop it. See it fall? That's the theory of gravity, it exists." Just because something is called a theory doesn't make it "unproven".
Reply
:iconkoshej:
Koshej Featured By Owner May 2, 2015
Are you telling ME about what Bible tells? :lol::lol::lol:
(Hint: I'm one of the biggest Bible-quoters around here, loool.)

I do have another theory based on the Flood event (and some commentaries on that).
It says that "seasons won't stop from now on", which implies that the Flood was MORE than just a big "tsunami" - it was literally a COSMIC cataclysm, which might very well have altered the very PHYSICS of Planet Earth (the story itself supports this idea pretty well, on more than one point).
Which means that all these "millions of years" only apply to the "post-Flood" calculations (as in, about 4000 years) - but we have NO IDEA about how time went before that.
Literally.
OUR physics might be totally different from the pre-Flood one, so there's NO WAY for us to "look beyond" that threshold.
That's a very simple, yet extremely powerful "assumption", that is scripture-compatible, yet destroys the entire "theory" of dinosaurs being "millions of years old".
More over, there are commentaries that say that pre-Flood creatures "used to interbreed extensively", evidently giving birth to all types of "mutants" (which COULD be what we call "dinos" and so on, lol) - and again, after the Flood, "all animals decided to stick to their species from now on", yet AGAIN making OUR scientific knowledge INSUFFICIENT for the pre-Flood understanding.
Sure, ALL of this is based on the single assumption that there WAS a Flood - but with that single assumption (and the adjoining commentaries), each and every "inconsistency" gets resolved in the BIBLE's favor, lol.
And the important part is, that all these commentaries were made centuries ago, when science spoke nothing of the topic yet - thus they definitely aren't "whimsical attempts to reject science", whilst the opposite can't be said with full surety, lol.
Reply
:iconazgchip:
AZGchip Featured By Owner May 1, 2015  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
One thing i find quite amusing is how evolutionists use fossils to back their theory,
which under normal circumstances would not form in the first place. much less continue forming perfectly in layers over time in order.
a fossil needs specific things to form:
1. a quick burial in mud,silt ,etc (very unlikely under normal circumstances)
2. needs specific conditions like acidity, pressure ,temperature.
3. water rich in minerals to replace bones with stone.

given that most animals get eaten after death and are most likely in a waterless area, it is seemingly impossible for them to be quickly buried and have water and specific conditions to be fossilized. but this is explained by the bible and it makes sense.
before the flood, it had never rained before, and all water for plants was provided by either heavy dew or water already in the ground.
Now your probably wondering where the water came from during the flood. but the answer for that is also in genesis, during the creation:

    And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”  So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.  God called the vault “sky.”
(Genesis 1:6-8)

It is believed that before the worldwide flood, there was a thick layer of ice surrounding the earth. this would block the sun's harmful rays and would explain why the people during those days lived so long.

now when this flood started, not only was water falling through the atmosphere and likely vaporizing and creating huge clouds of rain ,but there was also large amounts of water coming out of the ground.

during the worst of the flood, the planet's crust was torn apart and these plates smashed into each other. now the animals that were most likely dead by now, would be quickly buried in large numbers. these animals and plants either ended up fossilizing, decaying ,or turning into fossil fuels.

 
Reply
:iconkoshej:
Koshej Featured By Owner May 1, 2015
It astonishing, how strong human hypocrisy and arrogance can be, really.
They assault the "believers" for "not having any proof", yet they themselves believe in a "sci-fi" that has as little (if not less) actual scientific proof as well.
And they typically use such ridiculous excuses for their attitude, that it makes me almost believe that THEY actually might be evolved from monkeys, loool.
Reply
:iconazgchip:
AZGchip Featured By Owner May 1, 2015  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
I agree (:
Reply
:iconkoshej:
Koshej Featured By Owner May 1, 2015
It's a matter of ignorance, actually.
Just the other way than what you'd think, lol.
Reply
:iconkoshej:
Koshej Featured By Owner May 1, 2015
Yes, and Flish are invading your backyard right now.
Run for your life!!!
Reply
:iconkoshej:
Koshej Featured By Owner May 1, 2015
And THAT is where the word "belief" fits perfectly - evolutionists BELIEVE that all those extrapolations are some kind of an absolute truth, even though there's no way to test them practically whatsoever.
And by "test", I literally mean either seeing a bone being "DNA-transformed" into a live being, OR witnessing a level of evolution on at least the CLASS level or beyond (cab be in a lab, I don't care).
So far, evolution itself HAD been witnessed-but on so much SMALLER scale that it makes no PROOF for anything bigger (and there IS a logical distinction between "smaller" changes and "bigger" ones - mainly that all the bigger ones seem like 9000 details changing AT THE SAME TIME, or they wouldn't happen to begin with).
Reply
:iconchiletrek:
Chiletrek Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015
Hello:
 I think we both keep learning to express better in english since it is the most used language in all the internet "world".

 And about those people, it is true indeed that some people will not learn and that is because they don't want to learn, they don't want to really open their eyes. I guess there is a need to know when to stop, otherwise your own mental health will suffer.

 Keep it up!
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015
Good day.  English is not my native language either. However, reading a lot of materials on the subject do help a little bit when it comes to "debating" about it.
Alas, it is true that not all of them ends up learning a thing about evolution and, instead, keeps up with their strawman arguments.
Reply
:iconchiletrek:
Chiletrek Featured By Owner Apr 26, 2015
Hello:
 I agree with evolvemammal, because it would have also been hard for me to follow the discussion to it's very end... especially because english is not my native language, but I agree it is a matter of patience :) .
Reply
:iconazgchip:
AZGchip Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2015  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
Science cannot state absolutes.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Apr 6, 2015
It just takes patience. I admit that when I see someone make a strawman or display a lack of comprehension of the scientific theory of evolution, it's hard not to get into the discussion.
Reply
:iconevolvemammal:
evolvemammal Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2015  Student General Artist
melnazar i admire you for following this conversation to  its end. so many times i lack the will power to do so. I hope there are millions more of you out there to over shadow ignorance.
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Good for you.
Reply
:iconseeing-spades:
Seeing-Spades Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2015  Student General Artist
and this is why i dont bother with religion
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015
There is no disagreement, evolution is still the only scientific model which explains the diversity of life in science. No competing hypothesis is supported by everything observed in biology.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015
So we must agree to disagree.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2015
"So the simple age of something disqualifies it from acquiracy?"
No, but it wouldn't take into account our current understanding of evolution based on what we now know of genetic now wouldn't it?

" I do not need to provide biological documentation."
When making a claim about science, you are obligated to support your assertion with scientific peer review documentation of the fields in question. In the case of evolution, you have to provide biology related papers.

"you don't skip ahead to advanced details unless the basics proves trustworthy in the first place"
And the basis for the model of evolution has been demonstrated hence why it moved from being an hypothesis to being a scientific theory.


"The Evolution Hoax Exposed is entirely valid in first checking the fundamentals of the whole evolution hypothesis, and this means historical research into Darwin (and Huxley). Darwin admitted that he often doubted the validity of his own theories, and also admitted that if certain basic problems remained unresolved (the infertility of mutations such as mules, for example) his whole argument would fall flat on its face."
And evolution has been confirmed times and times again and not a single peer review paper in the fields related to biology denies it's validity.  It is a fact that life evolves and the scientific theory of evolution explains how. You denying it won't make it false, it just makes you wrong because you deny what is demonstrable with empirical evidences.

" I am not qualified in that area, nor do I need to be. "
Then you have no reason to deny the validity of the scientific theory or to claim it to be false.

"That being said, there is plenty of literature there for you to read or access."
None which are related to science. Again, when discussing a scientific subject, you read scientific documentation.

"Start with Expelled by Ben Stein"
A movie about intelligent design being shown to be creationism under a guise? Sorry, but that silly movie has been debunked so many times it's a wonder anyone gives it any credance.

"Only then can one hope to resolve a question, by hearing both sides."
Unfortunately for you, there is no "two sides" in science, only what is demonstrable with empirical evidence. Hence why evolution stands as the only model which explains the diversity of life.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2015
So the simple age of something disqualifies it from acquiracy? That can't be true, as our whole basis of knowledge is built what others have discovered in the past. And no, I do not need to provide biological documentation. Not because it doesn't exist, but because when you are testing the dependibility of a theory, religion, world view or purported fact, you begin with the fundamentals; you don't skip ahead to advanced details unless the basics proves trustworthy in the first place. If you study history and someone claims an event occurred which was the Battle of the Bulge, you begin by checking the basic fact - did such a battle even take place and who claimed it did? You don't jump to analysing soil residues from 1940's boots. The Evolution Hoax Exposed is entirely valid in first checking the fundamentals of the whole evolution hypothesis, and this means historical research into Darwin (and Huxley). Darwin admitted that he often doubted the validity of his own theories, and also admitted that if certain basic problems remained unresolved (the infertility of mutations such as mules, for example) his whole argument would fall flat on its face. Nothing has changed.
Given that the fundamental principles are flawed, there is no need for myself to provide more rigerous documentation. I am not qualified in that area, nor do I need to be. That being said, there is plenty of literature there for you to read or access. Start with Expelled by Ben Stein. But if you ask why evolution couldn't have happened, then refuse to access anything that demonstrates why it couldn't because you claim that by definition that makes it 'nonsense', then you are actually insisting upon a self fulfilling analysis, and are not pursuing the question with integrity.

Obviously though we don't agree on these issues, and as fruitless argument is useless, I don't see the point in continuing. But read the material, as it's as incumbent upon you to read what the real objections against evolution are as it is for me to know what Darwinistic scientists claim. Only then can one hope to resolve a question, by hearing both sides.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2015
A specie turning into a completely different specie? Hmm, perhaps you are confusing what evolution does.
Per instance, we are humans (homo sapiens) but we are still part of the hominidae (with the pans, the ourang outangs and the gorillas), we are still part of the  haplorhinis (with all the apes who lost their tail and has a non-working vitaminc C producing gene), we are still primates (which includes both haplorhinis and Strepsirhini), are are still placental mammals (like all mammals which grows in their mother's wombs), we are still synapsids (which includes all placental mammals, all marsupials and all monotremes). We are still tetrapods (which includes synapsids and sauropsidae (which includes all reptile and birds). And that is to name a few.

Here is a link to a basic explanation of what evolution is and how it works by the Berkeley university. It also has several examples to support what they claim :

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr…

Enjoy!
Reply
:iconmishinopolis:
Mishinopolis Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
why have I not found any acceptable empirical evidence that evolution can cause one species to turn into a completely different species? Such as a land dwelling wolf like creature becoming a whale. if you have any references, I would be interested in seeing them.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
So a book written in 1971 is your "documentation"? Sorry, I asked for biology peer review documentation. You can find hundreds of thoudands of them on the NCBI database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ )

Actual scientific documentation, no religious/intelligent design nonsense.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
Read The Evolution Hoax Exposed [link]www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Hoa…. The origins of the evolution theory are matters of history and historical research into the people who purported the theory. This book lays out how flimsy was (and remains) the idea and evidence (flimsiness recognised by Darwin and Huxley) and how little evidence there is behind the claims made by Darwinistic scientists. On top of this, Darwin on Trial is another worthwhile book. There is a wealth of literature on this, much of which is from leading scientists, but these are good starting points.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
Are you familiar with the term theory in a scientific term? Because it is different from "mere speculation" and closer to "a model which has been confirmed with empirical evidence that explains a particular phenomenon" (in the case of evolution, it is the diversity of life.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
Actually, evolution is still ongoing as we speak. The emergence of new species is called speciation and numerous cases as been observed in both animals and plants.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
What you think is irrelevant to the validity of the scientific theory of evolution. But if you claim it is false, then please, back up your assertion with biology peer review documentation (since it is a scientific subject, then you should based your thinking on scientific documentation).
Reply
:iconspinozillarex:
SpinozillaRex Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015
Scientific theory is different from societies version of theory

The theory you're talking about is more of a hypothesis, in a way.

Scientific theory is based off of mountains and mountains of evidence. Also evolution has been observed many times, such examples include the peppered moth, and most recently the yellow-bellied three-toed skink.

Also I feel pretty bad for that girl, but the best thing to do is educate her on the difference between science and religion.
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
I don't have to believe every little aspect in that theory. It's like people require you to completely believe in it without doubting anything in it.
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Why do you think that evolution is a fraud?
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Eye for an eye. 😄
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
*citation needed*
Reply
:icontabbi1994:
tabbi1994 Featured By Owner Edited Feb 10, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
But evolution is still a theory, we can't go back in time and check out if it was really like this.
When we had evolution in biology, though, a girl in my class raised her hand as the teacher was finished and asked "But, what about god!", and i'm not kidding you right here, the whole class (even the teacher) laughed at her. Just a moment later we found out that she was serious (we all thought that she was kidding). My teacher just said that "This topic is a topic for religion not biology.".
Until today I feel equally bad and not bad for what we did.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Any what?
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
I don't have any.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Nor yours.
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Wikipedia is written by professionals and scientists.
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
What a hatefull and arrogant person you're.
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Evolution is proven fact. Your opinions won't change anything.
Reply
:iconpantheratigris10:
pantheratigris10 Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
im sorry dude to say this but its not and im telling you the truth you are going to burn in hell plus what makes a dude that believes that we came from apes Darwin even said before he died his theories were junk. you people need someone to believe in not something to believe in
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2015
Religion aside I still don't think evolution is real. Sorry but it just isn't.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 10, 2009
Image Size
4.9 KB
Resolution
99×56
Thumb

Stats

Views
24,469 (3 today)
Favourites
1,802 (who?)
Comments
2,780
×