[Debate] Evolution. Were we really envolve from monkeys?

[theRPGdude]

Well this topic has been on my mind for quite a while. And I found no cuclusive evidence to the matter. Turns out there's no evidence supporting that we really envolve. We basically who made from a high being. Evolution denotes that life's were made by chance. That's everything just suddenly happen. It's false. If you look around you and see the marvelous thugs in the world it makes me wonder. Were we really created by nothing? Or were we designed? This is not a rant this is a debate on what YOU think. I honestly don't know. And I was wondering if you guys have studied this or believe in God. Cause me I honestly don't believe it. Just seems a bit to far fetched if you ask me. So what you guys think?

[3MESSIAH]

we were created by plot no jutsu

[Monster nagato]

no we wernt i hate how science try to make you belive anything they say if we came from monkeys why are there monkeys now?


and i thought you where gone

[★-Star-]

It's all fluff one way or the other.

Only thing I care about is that I'm here right now, and I'm human.

[Hipster Madara]

OMG, only ignorants who do not understand the basics of evolution think we evolved from monkeys...

Anyways, idk if it was this "God" that made life, but I highly doubt he made us "in his image" but that we just evolved into what we are now through natural selection.

In b4 religious flame war or closed thread

[Yusuke Urameshi]

C.S. Lewis quotes, roughly, "evolutionists believe thoughts are chemicals. If that's true, how can we trust our own thoughts if they're made by chance. Evolution is a thought, so how can we trust that thought?" Roughly, that makes evolution collapse on itself. I believe in adapting or 'evolving' in that sense. Humans that live closer to the equator are going to be darker-skinned because they adapted, or evolved. Also, if we evolved from monkeys, why aren't they still evolving? Why are we not evolving? Charles Darwin on his deathbed even said he realizes evolution can't be true.

Also, if the earth was millions of years old, the oceans would be salt. The moon would be out of our gravitational orbit. There are many more natural things that disprove evolution, but I've written enough.

[Hipster Madara]

C.S. Lewis quotes, roughly, "evolutionists believe thoughts are chemicals. If that's true, how can we trust our own thoughts if they're made by chance. Evolution is a thought, so how can we trust that thought?" Roughly, that makes evolution collapse on itself. I believe in adapting or 'evolving' in that sense. Humans that live closer to the equator are going to be darker-skinned because they adapted, or evolved. Also, if we evolved from monkeys, why aren't they still evolving? Why are we not evolving? Charles Darwin on his deathbed even said he realizes evolution can't be true.

Also, if the earth was millions of years old, the oceans would be salt. The moon would be out of our gravitational orbit. There are many more natural things that disprove evolution, but I've written enough.

*flips over table*
We are evolving a little bit but it takes thousand of years and our technology is interfering with the average lifespans/survival rate for different things ---> evolution

[AP2k]

We have a common ancestor we didn't evolve from them. Didn't you just say you were going to college? Have fun.

[Yusuke Urameshi]

*flips over table*
We are evolving a little bit but it takes thousand of years and our technology is interfering with the average lifespans/survival rate for different things ---> evolution

True. What about the rest of it though? And another thing, like he said. Creation also disproves evolution. There are videos of an evolutionist turned creationist that talks about animal's anatomy and how they couldn't have evolved. Ex: some woodpecker, the bombardier beetle, etc.

[AP2k]

C.S. Lewis quotes, roughly, "evolutionists believe thoughts are chemicals. If that's true, how can we trust our own thoughts if they're made by chance. Evolution is a thought, so how can we trust that thought?" Roughly, that makes evolution collapse on itself. I believe in adapting or 'evolving' in that sense. Humans that live closer to the equator are going to be darker-skinned because they adapted, or evolved. Also, if we evolved from monkeys, why aren't they still evolving? Why are we not evolving? Charles Darwin on his deathbed even said he realizes evolution can't be true.

Also, if the earth was millions of years old, the oceans would be salt. The moon would be out of our gravitational orbit. There are many more natural things that disprove evolution, but I've written enough.

Wow, what an absolute retard. How can you possibly live your life with such blatant disregard to basic knowledge?
For starters, earths gravitational field affects planets like mars, if you wanna preach the young earth theory, at leat realize that your argument is invalid, especially since the moon only moves at less then a centimeter a year.

The oceans aren't salt because of the water cycle, ya know, that diagram you had in fourth grade? There was a river and it wad the sunny, the water evaporated up and the clouds filled up and it rains? Yeah, that one.

3) charles darwin never said that.
4)monkeys are still evolving
5)people closer to the equator are darker skinned because of evolution and adaptation, but there is a theory that humans first evolved in both africa and asia, hence why asians and others have slightly different features.
5)that's by far the worst thought ever. Evolutionists didn't invent chemicals nor the perception of them.

[Germanicus]

It's proven scientific fact, it's not even a theory anymore. All life forms originated from the duplication of a single cell, and all life, from one thing or another, descends from common ancestors. The man from monkey debate is just one part of a much larger, vital study in the progress of life on earth. But yes, it is one hundred percent true.

[kmrasengan]

Wow, what an absolute retard. How can you possibly live your life with such blatant disregard to basic knowledge?
For starters, earths gravitational field affects planets like mars, if you wanna preach the young earth theory, at leat realize that your argument is invalid, especially since the moon only moves at less then a centimeter a year.

The oceans aren't salt because of the water cycle, ya know, that diagram you had in fourth grade? There was a river and it wad the sunny, the water evaporated up and the clouds filled up and it rains? Yeah, that one.

3) charles darwin never said that.
4)monkeys are still evolving
5)people closer to the equator are darker skinned because of evolution and adaptation, but there is a theory that humans first evolved in both africa and asia, hence why asians and others have slightly different features.
5)that's by far the worst thought ever. Evolutionists didn't invent chemicals nor the perception of them. Just slit your wrists in the bath tub.

you took the words from my mouth about the common ancestor and the cycle of water.

[AP2k]

It's proven scientific fact, it's not even a theory anymore. All life forms originated from the duplication of a single cell, and all life, from one thing or another, descends from common ancestors. The man from monkey debate is just one part of a much larger, vital study in the progress of life on earth. But yes, it is one hundred percent true.

True words from a general of Daein

[Germanicus]

True words from a general of Daein

You don't become a general in Daein without proper scientific background. We are soldiers, not barbarians.

[narutokage99]

There is no theory of evolution like an house cannot stand without a foundation.

[Germanicus]

There is no theory of evolution like an house cannot stand without a foundation.

You serious? Evolution has more foundation than a fricking Victorian mansion. Scientists have built up support for this for so long it might as well be considered in the same department as gravity is what holds us to the earth, and that the chemical formula of Oxygen is O2. There is simply no arguing against it.

[Yusuke Urameshi]

Wow, what an absolute retard. How can you possibly live your life with such blatant disregard to basic knowledge?
For starters, earths gravitational field affects planets like mars, if you wanna preach the young earth theory, at leat realize that your argument is invalid, especially since the moon only moves at less then a centimeter a year.

The oceans aren't salt because of the water cycle, ya know, that diagram you had in fourth grade? There was a river and it wad the sunny, the water evaporated up and the clouds filled up and it rains? Yeah, that one.

3) charles darwin never said that.
4)monkeys are still evolving
5)people closer to the equator are darker skinned because of evolution and adaptation, but there is a theory that humans first evolved in both africa and asia, hence why asians and others have slightly different features.
5)that's by far the worst thought ever. Evolutionists didn't invent chemicals nor the perception of them. Just slit your wrists in the bath tub.

1. The moon moves at a very slow rate away from the earth. After millions of years, you could come to the assumption it would mess up the gravitational orbit. One could also argue that the universe would adapt to this, which is a fair argument.

2. The oceans are getting saltier every year. After millions of years, the ocean would become pretty much salt, proving the earth is not millions of years old.

3. That's not what I've heard.

4. Proof? Please and thank you.

5. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that people and things adapt. In that sense, evolution is fine. Africans have dark skin because of a chemical called melanin. (I'm guessing you know that already). Darker-skinned people create eumelanin, and lighter-skinned people create pheomelanin. When adapting, I'm guessing lighter people stared the switch from pheomelanin to eumelanin. Adaptation. Concerning Asians, my father told me they have squjnty eyes because at the time, they had to squint due to the deserts and such. They naturally adapted to their habitat. I'm not against natural adaptation.

6*. Some evolutionists believe in the whole, 'Love is a random chemical colliding with another chemical, blah, blah, blah.' That's why I derived my point from.

7. Whatever you believe, or don't believe is your choice entirely. Because of that, you should not try to belittle Christians or anything that is against what you believe. Telling me to slit my wrists in a bathtub, really? That is just immature. Everyone has their own beliefs, deal with it.

You serious? Evolution has more foundation than a fricking Victorian mansion. Scientists have built up support for this for so long it might as well be considered in the same department as gravity is what holds us to the earth, and that the chemical formula of Oxygen is O2. There is simply no arguing against it.

It is 100% evidence + faith. A creationist can say the exact same thing about there being a diving Creator. In the end, it's what we believe by faith, seeing as you can't physically prove evolution, and I can't physically prove creation. I don't understand why people have to try and belittle others because of differing religious or philosophical views.

[Germanicus]

1. The moon moves at a very slow rate away from the earth. After millions of years, you could come to the assumption it would mess up the gravitational orbit. One could also argue that the universe would adapt to this, which is a fair argument.

2. The oceans are getting saltier every year. After millions of years, the ocean would become pretty much salt, proving the earth is not millions of years old.

3. That's not what I've heard.

4. Proof? Please and thank you.

5. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that people and things adapt. In that sense, evolution is fine. Africans have dark skin because of a chemical called melanin. (I'm guessing you know that already). Darker-skinned people create eumelanin, and lighter-skinned people create pheomelanin. When adapting, I'm guessing lighter people stared the switch from pheomelanin to eumelanin. Adaptation. Concerning Asians, my father told me they have squjnty eyes because at the time, they had to squint due to the deserts and such. They naturally adapted to their habitat. I'm not against natural adaptation.

6*. Some evolutionists believe in the whole, 'Love is a random chemical colliding with another chemical, blah, blah, blah.' That's why I derived my point from.

7. Whatever you believe, or don't believe is your choice entirely. Because of that, you don't know to try to belittle Christians or anything that is against what you believe. Telling me to slit my wrists in a bathtub, really? That is just immature. Everyone has their own beliefs, deal with it.

If I may; the adaptation you're addressing is known as descent with modification, which supports the theory of natural selection that was a main staple of Darwin's theory. Adaptations such as that are a response to environmental stimuli, which made those traits best suited to the conditions around them.

And whether or not you're Christian makes almost no difference whatsoever. If God did indeed create life, why is it so important that he specifically made man as man? Why not make man through a prolonged, practiced experiment in which he acquires the best traits for his individual sector by living through the conditions that surround them...say, through evolution.

[narutokage99]

You serious? Evolution has more foundation than a fricking Victorian mansion. Scientists have built up support for this for so long it might as well be considered in the same department as gravity is what holds us to the earth, and that the chemical formula of Oxygen is O2. There is simply no arguing against it.

Evolution is a theory. A bad one. And the fact that it is a theory does NOT mean it has been validated. If it is validated, it then becomes a fact. Evolution has never been validated. Everything from mutations to natural selection has been demonstrated to NOT support the theory of evolution from “simple” to complex.

[hokutoshinken]

Sex was invented by bacteria and that bacteria changed into humans? Who believes that?

[Germanicus]

Evolution is a theory. A bad one. And the fact that it is a theory does NOT mean it has been validated. If it is validated, it then becomes a fact. Evolution has never been validated. Everything from mutations to natural selection has been demonstrated to NOT support the theory of evolution from “simple” to complex.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Read please. All of this is from a verified data base with words and excerpts from people who are much more qualified than you, and admittedly to me, on what is and is not true. Hopefully this will give you some to perspective to how much proof evolution really has behind it.

[Yusuke Urameshi]

If I may; the adaptation you're addressing is known as descent with modification, which supports the theory of natural selection that was a main staple of Darwin's theory. Adaptations such as that are a response to environmental stimuli, which made those traits best suited to the conditions around them.

And whether or not you're Christian makes almost no difference whatsoever. If God did indeed create life, why is it so important that he specifically made man as man? Why not make man through a prolonged, practiced experiment in which he acquires the best traits for his individual sector by living through the conditions that surround them...say, through evolution.

Mark Twain said, "God made man because he was disappointed in the monkey." We weren't the experiment, we were the finished product. Creation and animals were made before Adam and Eve. That is just a humorous quote turning your question around, yet still answers your question.

[Germanicus]

Mark Twain said, "God made man because he was disappointed in the monkey." We weren't the experiment, we were the finished product. Creation and animals were made before Adam and Eve. That is just a humorous quote turning your question around, yet still answers your question.

On this, I have to ask if you even tried to take anything from what I wrote in the first place? And second, Mark Twain was not a scientist, and did not ever touch anywhere near being so. He had little to no interaction with any kind of scientific theory. His claim to fame was cutting wit on society; science he couldn't begin to touch. He has no credibility there and therefore your argument is invalid.

[hokutoshinken]

According to pope Darwin himself, if anything could be demonstrated to NOT have come about by numerous tiny modifications over time, it would prove his theory false. Well, Michael Behe is just one of many modern scientists who have demonstrated that biological processes like the coagulation cascade of blood could not have come about by numerous tiny modifications. Any living thing “evolving” blood coagulation would be dead. And dead things don’t evolve.

[Germanicus]

According to pope Darwin himself, if anything could be demonstrated to NOT have come about by numerous tiny modifications over time, it would prove his theory false. Well, Michael Behe is just one of many modern scientists who have demonstrated that biological processes like the coagulation cascade of blood could not have come about by numerous tiny modifications. Any living thing “evolving” blood coagulation would be dead. And dead things don’t evolve.

Did I ever call him a pope? And further, you really don't get the point of descent with modification. There can be factors that were a part of life in the first place that didn't evolve from anything. You can safely determine that most life forms have blood in their systems. And coagulation is by no means exclusive to any one organism, which would make the function moot on the evolution argument. Nice try, genius. And by the way, bacteria reproduce asexually you dip.