Time and time again I see statements such as why are there still monkeys
We evolved from monkeys ect...Made as an argument against Evolution .To make such a statement shows a lack of understanding of evolution as a working process
So I would like to know is this doubt due to lack of education in this field or has real evidence been found to discredit it

I would like to know why some believers discount evolution

What do you base your doubt on?

What evidence have you found out side of your religious teaching to make you doubt it as a working biological process?

Ok first off its that we shared a common Ancestor with Apes, not that we eveloved from Apes

You beat me to it!

I have no doubt in the biological process of evolution. But just because bilogical evolution exists, dosent mean we evolved from earlier primemates.

I do believe humans were created by aliens cross-mixing their genes with either apes or other primates.

......lol.......there is clear evidence that shows our exact route of evolution

Most creationists would agree that micro evolution exists but macro evolution is impossible, and has no evidence to support its claims.

Really?????? Show me.

FYI, there is still alot of discrepency and debate among anthropolgists what the exact lineage is. People have ruff ideas, but its NOT clear-cut and exact.

As far as evolution is concerned, i dont believe in it because of religion, and because scientific tests are almost never accurate. I just cant bring myself to believe that an earth as beautiful as ours was created by a bang, or that Humans were created from...monkeys...

On a more scientific based way of saying it, when it comes to the tests they use to prove their theory, they are almost never accurate, for instance when the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago

just some thoughts...

i also found this to be very helpful...

http://www.susancanthony.com/AboutSusan/evolution.html

Evidence against evolution, nine points to keep you busy!

1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
LINK

2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
link

3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
link

4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
LINK

5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Link

6 The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Link

7. Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Link

8. Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Link

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
Link

Evidence against religion, nine points to keep you busy!

1-9. religion has severe logical inconsistencies.

Irish just having a bit of fun hope you don't mind LOL

Good job you said SOME believers LOL cuz this believer right here ME believes in evolution....yup I sure do...God created the bacteria from which we all evolved
I dont believe in the Adam & Eve Story...LOL

And what religious tests have been accurate?

Adam & Eve never existed..think about it if you can...look at all the asian folk..many kinds black people while folk red, yellow..so what you are saying that Adam & Eve lived for hundreds of years breading all kinds of humans ...lol sorry lovie I dont buy that...but if you buy that story then so be it..but I can think beyond it myself..I dont undestand as to why people cant accept the fact that maybe just maybe God was the one that created the bacteria from which all living things formed.....evolution took time and VOLA here we are today...evolution does not mean there is no God..cuz IMO there is a God and always has been ...cuz God created evolution

Browsing around on gwynys link i found this about the source provided by gywny this is taken from that site:
My husband and I have been blessed with excellent Bible teachers in the last few years. At one time we attended three in-depth Bible studies as well as church every week. One of our teachers gave me Ken Ham's series of videos on creation. That led me to read every book I could find on evolution and creation, including Darwin's Origin of Species. I read numerous books attacking creationism, and others attacking the theory of evolution. After reviewing and weighing all the evidence I could find, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the theory of evolution I was taught cannot be true. That doesn't necessarily mean the Bible is true, of course, but it certainly leaves open the possibility. I continued to study the Bible, and am convinced it could not have been written by humans on their own.

As all this was going on, I found myself speaking to more and more groups of Christian home schoolers who invited me because they liked my books. I was meeting joyful Christians, people I admired. Everything worked together. God had a plan and my mother's prayers were answered. I reconnected with the foundation and the pieces began to come together.

Jesus is Lord! The Bible is true. I am saved by grace. Praise God!

Gwyny why is it that you guys use the bible to prove the bible???

"I continued to study the Bible, and am CONVINCED it could not have been written by humans on their own."
Convinced is the operative word here. one is convinced that the bible is truth over their own truth that is found inside this ladys story illustrates that beautifully....In order for religion to be effective one must be convinced that every thing it knows is wrong and the bible is right ..its not rocket science and then one spends their days arguing about things that make no sense trying to make sense of them......to say evolution just can't be is absurd...LOL

Ok...so take the Colorado River. That big ole' thing called the Grand Canyon took a long time to get that way didn't it? One small river made one BIG hole. And along the way, it left it's telltale path of where it used to be and where it flowed, etc. We can SEE history. Well, you can't see evolution and you can't see creationism because they are THEORIES. The difficulty is figuring out HOW we got to where we are today since there is no clearly marked path from where we started to present. I would much rather believe that we evolved from apes (intelligent animals) rather than believe I, a woman, was manifested from a RIB.


So you believe that humans have not evolved? I believe our accomplishments clearly show that we have. We went from building pyramids to building skyscrapers. From stairs to elevators. The abacus to calculators and computers. We are a "higher order" because we continue to challenge ourselves for what we believe is a better lifestyle. All it takes is the ape one day deciding to use a tool...then to build something...you know how the story goes. A new way of thinking is all it is. The more thinking done by an individual, the more progress they will make in life. Albert Einstein decided that E should equal MC squared. Hence pushing the human race CLOSER to a more knowledgable world. People were sword fighting a thousand years ago and now we can launch nukes around the world and send rockets and probes into our universe. This is a form of EVOLVING.


Bread. Moisture. Put them in your cupboard and forget about it for a month. You get mold. Something DIFFERENT caused by the mixture of two things. Cross-breeding. Ligers. Do that for millions and billions of years throughout history and tell me...what is the possibility?


Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Not one single PROVEN FACT has been shown or reproduced from that book, the Bible, that was written 2 thousand years ago. No one can find one single remnant from those stories. Now, the people looking for something to prove evolution...I mean come on. They are trying to find things from thousands and thousands and millions and millions of years ago. Give them some credit. You show me the Holy Grail or Noah's Ark and then we can talk.


Ok...twelve hominids. Out of an entire era of life on this planet over the last 15-20 billion years. At least they are TRYING. Show me how a snake can talk and a woman can be made from a man's rib...or better yet, how 7 billion different cultured, different colored people came from TWO people in just a few thousand years and then we can talk.


Ditto about creationism. Global flood...still working on it. The Red Sea was parted...ah, well, still working on proving that too. I'm not debating Jesus was real or anything, but not the son of God, not from a virgin mother, and not resurrected. That whole story is INCONSISTANT with SCIENCE.


But still not proven.

All I'm saying is that Evolution and Creationism are THEORIES. Don't bring proof into the argument because it doesn't hold up either way. We may not know the truth for a million years, if ever. We could find out tomorrow that one is true and the other isn't. Or perhaps, they are both wrong and a whole other theory that has not been realized is the truth. Maybe they are both right (see quote below). I don't know, you don't know, no one does. But if one theory is found to be correct, do you really think the rest of the population who believes otherwise will just convert? No. Say evolution is proven correct. Creationists will not suddenly go "ohhhhhh, damn, oh well, when is the next evolution class." Do you think Evolutionists will suddenly become followers of God if Creationism was proven? No. People will still debate this even if there is proof because the other side will always say it isn't real.


Finally! Another person who shares my POV! Thank you for reiterating a perfectly plausible argument

there is a mound of fossil evedence showing many transisional speicies including fish, birds, early humans, amphibians, scorpions and spiders. there is much more evedence of evolution than of creation of all life as it is by a god

This is true...very true

When you leave anything mouldy sitting for a while you bread all sorts...it happens

i hate when people use the bible to prove the bible.

i was at that dumb godhatesamerica site, and in there FAQ, it says, "how do you know the bible is right", and there answer is "when you look deep inside, you know its right." what a load of crap.

i myself tink jesus was a mentally unstable person. (no offense)
becuase if you look at some famous serial killers, they thought they were jesus, (such as the man who started the waco incident).
i think jesus was simply the first person to "think they were jesus" lol. if you get what i mean.

So because there where a few unstable serial killers that went on killing sprees..and called themselves Jesus that must mean that Jesus himself was mentally unstable??? that dont make sense

So if a number of famous people went on more killing spree's and called themselves - Buddha...would this mean Buddha was ALSO mentally unstable? come on lad get a grip :sleepy:Dont insult Jesus like that

Darwin was never touted as infallable and yes, the theory has changed since he originally brought forth his theory. If it is wrong and there is evidence to show this fact, as it already has, it changes the theory. One difference doesn't prove the theory wrong because the theory can be modified. Think about it like this "PI is 3.1, wait no 3.14... wait no 3.141..." Do you get my meaning?
Geometry isn't wrong because the area of the circle cannot be exactly accurate when children use imprecise measurements, but its getting closer all the time. Tell me, what is PI exactly? Do you not believe in Geometry? No, it takes a little faith to realize that while it is "correct," we may never know what it is exactly. Herein lies the problem. Some people have trouble putting faith in two different things. Can you be Christian an still believe in evolution? I submit that you can... as surely as you can be Christian and believe that a circle with a two foot radius has an area of six point two eight square feet and that a full orbit of the earth around the sun takes 365.25 day (give or take.) This is an oversimplification to be sure, but I think the point is valid.

EDIT Evidently there is a movie called "PI" that I have never seen. This is in no way a reference to it.

EDIT 2, well I hope nobody saw the messed up math... was running on no sleep...I'll keep it here to teach me humility and as a warning to others not to post while exhausted.

3.14159 , that's as far as i can remember , but it is a number that has an infinate number of decimal places of non repeating numbers

All this proves is a lack of definitive evidence, not a lack of evolution



Please define higher order.



Assumptions nothing more, can you prove its impossible, no.



see response to point one.



A Universal flood is an impossibility, not enough water.

I think people forget that artificial selection can be seen everywhere today .pedigree dog’s agricultural livestock have all been selectively bred through successive generations as to enhance pacific biological traits this is artificial selection would the people who doubt evolution agree that this exists as a process ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection

edit added as after thought


As an after thought this search for a transitional species implies that Evolution is a sudden event this is clearly not the case its the gradual adaptation over time however there are some residual left over’s from previous forms that can be found in life today Google for a pick of a python skeleton and ask your self why does it have an obsolete leg structure within its anatomy

Link transitional species

Some discount it because it is not in the the Bible. Some because they just don't believe it could happen. When it comes right down to it, evolution cannot be proven on a macro-scale.
Personally, I don't have anything against the evolutionary possibility. It makes some amount of sense. What it does not do though is disprove God. Some think that just because there's evolution then God dissapears in a puff of proverbial smoke. If evolution exists, I see it as the vehicle by which God created the earth. The one doesn't preclude the other.

Except that Jesus didn't tell his followers to lock themselves in a room and set the building on fire...... *coughcoughdavidkoreshcough*

Regards, PA

Please forgive my blatant plugs for two other threads.

I know the topic of this thread is merely to find the cause of why certain believers do not hold with evolution, but the following threads do go into the actual explanations for the individual causes.

Proof of Evolution is essentially a question and answer thread. It is not to debate the existance of evolution, but rather to explain evolutionary theory. Proof of Creationism is for those who believe in some form of creationism and who believe that it is scientifically defendable, to post their hypothesis. To date, no one has been able to post a scientifically valid explanation of creationism (let alone a supportable one).


Proof of Evolution

Proof of Creationism

So P/a if as you say Evolution has no evidence to suggest it works on a macro-scale would you say evidence exists on a micro scale ? And if so if it is confined to within one generation one population then how would one account for artificial selection and pedigree dogs? Is that not evidence of both macro and micro?

Oh and yes even if the evidence for evolution was accepted by believers it doesn’t prove that god doesn’t exist nor would I expect it too as you say I would think it would be in the interest of religion to accept evolution as the workings of god rather than appose it out of miss understanding and say it is non existent

It is lack of understanding... Most (note that I said ->most<- and I will continue doing it) people have just heard a thing or two about it from some forum from some complete stranger without getting a full picture of it. Since religion claims evolution is false and since most people in America are religious then they only learn a few things about it from various unreliable sources due to lack of interest. Then some stranger on some strange forum posts "proof" that evolution doesn't exist and they believe it... So next time they see a topic similar to this they post this "proof" and so it spreads... Also let's not forget those christian "scientists" who make idiotic claims that they have proof of God and that they can disprove evolution. After a while these claims are bashed by real scientists but the regular person (one of the most stupid and easily manipulated animals) already took it as a fact and will continue believing in it.

Also there are quite a few that find evolving from ape-like (not apes) beasts is discusting, so they refuse believing it...

Ofcourse there are missing links in the theory of evolution, some fossils not found etc but evolution has atleast some proof, enough proof to make it a believable theory. Christianity and other religions on the other hand have no proof what so ever. They blindly follow a storybook written and changed by man, without having any proof that the stories in the bible are true or if something similar happened then there is no proof that it was caused by god. And just because a skizo called Jesus actualy lived in the past doesn't mean that he was what he claimed to be and certainly doesn't prove god...

In kundali they talk in terms of Energy... evolution or God creation.. both comes under term energy.. energy is must to run anything..

science beleive there should be another universe too.. but i beleive there should be so many unvierse in space..

consider our body as universe.. two universe create one more universe.. can anyone explain how one bang created this beautiful world.. or anyone can explain how one sprem can create something like us.....

[/quote]consider our body as universe.. two universe create one more universe.. can anyone explain how one bang created this beautiful world.. or anyone can explain how one sprem can create something like us[quote]

The short answer is yes both can be explained the later more so than the former but that’s another thread entirely

I wouldn't consider it "micro-evolution" either. Adaption, maybe. Selective breeding brings out desirable traits, but it doesn't turn a dog into a fish, if you know what I mean.

As I said, I'm not against evolution, and fully believe it to be a plausible and believable answer as ot how we got here (though the beginnings are somewhat contested - was it the Big Bang, or was the universe always here?, for example)

Regards, PA

Just a thought, if the adam and eve theory is correct and we all came from them, how can there be so many different types of people? Maybe we all looked the same in the beginning, started to roam around and found different kinds of food, and hot/cold climates, and we evolved according to our enviroment.

If people adapt as a form of survival/evolve.
How is it that Eskimos/Inuit are almost hairless humans living in the extreme coldest part of our world?
And the people with the most body hair are from the Mediterranean? Logically it should be the other way round.
Irish

If man originated in the oceans and migrated to the land he would have an affinity to water should he have not have developed some better physical enhancement to better suit the swimming?

Other than the fact of invention and technologies mans mental capacity/intellect has not improved much from the ancient philosophers and pyramid builders. Why is this so?

Irish

From what I know actually Irish, the more body hair you have in a cold climate ( homo sapian speaking ) the worse it is. When you sweat, the hair absorbs this, and wets the skin. This in return can cause hypothermia. I learned this while taking an arctic survival course. You are told to run to keep warm, however, when you stop, the cold air will freeze the sweat on your body hair, causing your body to freeze.

Firstly, there is a difference between hypothesis and theory. Creationists often say that evolution, "is just a theory," like some hick just made it up yesterday and that it has nothing to back it up. A hypothesis is simply a guess or a prediction. A Theory is a hypothesis that seems to fit all of the available data. A law is a theory that is proven to always be true. The law of gravity was once a hypothesis, then a theory. However, evolution is not so quick in it's transition to a law, because it is very complicated and new possible instances of evolution are occurring all the time.

Creation Science web site.


15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

The list is:

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

Irish the web site you gave has the same arguments....just worded different.
A recap on the last page of the web site I used:

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM

i offered my own theory of universal origins on another thread

Man has undergone evolution but has always been man from the begining and not a monkey. See the discourse below from Bahai writings.

MAN AND EVOLUTION

Certain European philosophers agree that the species grows and develops, and that even change and alteration are also possible. One of the proofs that they give for this theory is that through the attentive study and verification of the science of geology it has become clear that the existence of the vegetable preceded that of the animal, and that of the animal preceded that of man. They admit that both the vegetable and the animal species have changed,  308  for in some of the strata of the earth they have discovered plants which existed in the past and are now extinct; they have progressed, grown in strength, their form and appearance have changed, and so the species have altered. In the same way, in the strata of the earth there are some species of animals which have changed and are transformed. One of these animals is the serpent. There are indications that the serpent once had feet; but through the lapse of time those members have disappeared. In the same way, in the vertebral column of man there is an indication which amounts to a proof that, like other animals, he once had a tail. At one time that member was useful, but when man developed it was no longer of use, and therefore it gradually disappeared. As the serpent took refuge under the ground, and became a creeping animal, it was no longer in need of feet, so they disappeared; but their traces survive. The principal argument is this: that the existence of traces of members proves that they once existed; and as now they are no longer of service, they have gradually disappeared. Therefore while the perfect and necessary members have remained, those which are unnecessary have gradually disappeared by the modification of the species, but the traces of them continue.

The first answer to this argument is the fact that the animal having preceded man is not a proof of the evolution, change, and alteration of the species, nor that man was raised from the animal world to the human world. For while the individual appearance of these different beings is certain, it is possible that man came into existence after the animal. So when we examine the vegetable kingdom, we see that the fruits of the different trees do not arrive at maturity at one time; on the contrary, some come first and others afterwards. This priority does not prove that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another tree.

Secondly, these slight signs and traces of members have perhaps a great reason of which the mind is not yet cognizant. How many things exist of which we do not yet know the reason! So the science of physiology, that is to say the knowledge of the composition of the members, records that the reason and cause of the difference in the colors of animals, and of the hair of men, of the  309  redness of the lips, and of the variety of the colors of birds, is still unknown; it is secret and hidden. But it is known that the pupil of the eye is black, so as to attract the rays of the sun; for if it were another color, that is, uniformly white, it would not attract the rays of the sun. Therefore, as the reason of the things we have mentioned is unknown, it is possible that the reason and the wisdom of these traces of members, whether they be in the animal or man, are equally unknown. Certainly there is a reason, even though it is not known.

Thirdly, let us suppose that there was a time when some animals, or even man, possessed some members which have now disappeared; this is not a sufficient proof of the change and evolution of the species. For man, from the beginning of the embryonic period till he reaches the degree of maturity, goes through different forms and appearances. His aspect, his form, his appearance, and color change; he passes from one form to another, and from one appearance to another. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the embryonic period he is of the species of man; that is to say, an embryo of a man, and not of an animal; but this is not at first apparent, but later it becomes visible and evident. For example, let us suppose that man once resembled the animal, and that now he has progressed and changed; supposing this to be true, it is still not a proof of the change of species; no, as before mentioned, it is merely like the change and alteration of the embryo of man until it reaches the degree of reason and perfection. We will state it more clearly: let us suppose that there was a time when man walked on his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and alteration is like that of the foetus in the womb of the mother; although it changes in all ways, and grows and develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species. We also see in the vegetable kingdom that the original species of the genus do not change and alter, but the form, color, and bulk will change and alter, or even progress.

To recapitulate: as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period -- in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in  310  the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species, that is, man, and has gradually evolved from one form to another. Therefore this change of appearance, this evolution of members, this development and growth, even though we admit the reality of growth and progress, does not prevent the species from being original. Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, "We will make man in Our image and likeness." He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful, and more graceful. Civilization has brought him out of his wild state, just as the wild fruits which are cultivated by a gardener became finer, sweeter, and acquire more freshness and delicacy.

The gardeners of the world of humanity are the Prophets of God.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 307)

Evolution is not really a problem for me. Believe it if you want or dont. I believe that God put us here, and regardless of how or why, here we are. If God saw it fit for us to evolve from something else, fine, it doesnt really take away from the fact that here I am. Not only am I here, I have the human intelligence to ponder these kinds of questions about life and God. And that alone is all that matters in the end.

Yes I know what you mean I think im starting to see the main problem believers have with evolution forgetting those who obviously discount it through a knee-jerk reaction without actually knowing what it is they are discounting and those who are just too narrow minded to entertain an idea outside of what there religion teaches. I see those that do understand it, only have a problem with the species barrier, the idea that one species can over time become something new entirely would you say this is a fair assessment?

Evolution doesn’t say a fish will become a dog only that over time the fish will change as to better suit its environment and given enough time that fish may or may not bare any resemblance to its ancestors and can be seen to be a new species both in appearance and genetically. It hasn’t become a cow or any other existing life form it is a fish that has adapted to its new environment. This adaptation is a lengthy process happening over millions of years so the change is a gradual one .so with regards to my selective breeding reference yes you are correct in saying it doesn’t turn a fish into a dog. Those traits alter the appearance and biology of the animal and if enough changes/traits are present and given enough time may result in something that no longer resembles its previous form and would be described as a new species

Interesting point Mr Irish... You appear to have some knowledge of Evolution and how it operates. But I feel you lack some key understanding of its mechanisms. Before I address what it is you are saying I will try to explain evolution to you.

First we have Mutation, this is a random effect which is 99.99% of the time harmful to an organism and offers no benefits. Very rarely does this mutation offer a benefit to the organism.

N.B Please, please, all those who think they have an idea of Evolution. Never think of a mutation in the comic book way of two eyes popping up where there were none before. Mutation is generally small changes.

Here we come to the next part, selection.

Now let me explain what I mean by benefit and harm... For a population to change, for a trait to be selected against, those individuals who display that trait MUST be removed form the population. They will be removed by either sexual selection (not breading and therefore not passing on their genes) or ultimately dieing (death before being able to breed will stop you from passing on your genes)

In the example you have chosen.



You need to ask yourself one question, are the selection pressures killing off all those with no body hair? Well... Eskimos actual wear cloths, and had they not they would all be dead and never had time to adapt to their environment. There is no selection pressures killing off hairless Eskimos; if there were then you would see a gradual increase in the number of hairy Eskimos. Therefore, Mr Irish, you need to get out a basic biology text book and re-read the section on evolution. Anyone who has an open mind and a small degree of intellect cannot refuse the logical argument presented there. I sorry if I have appear rude, but it is annoying when people misquote the theory of evolution; I certainly wouldn’t misquote the bible.



I am not an atheist, but neither am I a religious person. I believe the bible gave a very simple message, love and forgiveness. I do not think that people should attempt to take the bible literally with theories like evolution.

What was in your post is just noise.

Here are some blindingly obvious examples that you will ignore.

Chemical justifications

DNA is a series of chemicals which code for proteins, proteins which make up flesh, bone and blood. Variations in this code leads to variations in proteins which has the ultimate effect of changing the gross physiology of an organism (what they look like). We share a large amount of our DNA with our close relative’s mammals, to a lesser extent reptiles, then vertebrates, insects, plants and even bacteria. We share 96% of our DNA with Chimps! So, which animal are we most similar to? Which is proven to be our closest relative? Yes, that’s right monkeys.


Geological Justifications

Look at the fossil record, you can actually see the evolution taking place in the species between man and monkey. You've all seen the posters in museums, come on! Lets be serious!?

The message of Christ

I don't think anything i say will change your minds, let’s be honest. You think that if evolution is real then the bible is some how lessoned? I don't think Jesus died so that evolution can be discredited? ffs, the message in the bible isn't effected, is it? Evolution is irrefutable, but so to is the existence of Christ. He's message isn't altered by the validation of evolution.

3"The Kingdom (of Heaven) is inside you and it is outside you


77 "Split a piece of wood, and I am there

"Lift up the stone and there you will find me

The Gospel of Thomas

It's not to be found in literal translations of the bible.

I think we're coming to some kind of understanding, Big Cheese (who'd a thought ). As I've said, and continue to say, I'm not against evolution in any way, nor do I discount it as impossible, or even perhaps improbable. It's quite plausible and probable. We got here somehow, didn't we. Not everything God does is supernaturally out of this world crazy.

Regards, PA

As opposed to religious faith that is.

Evolution is quite simply change. Adapt and overcome. It is biological history, because the human bipedal species is young relative to all that existed before the advent of our kind, and as the fossil record provides evidence of evolution of other species , or progressive change from a prior form , that what is in evidence to support the hypothesis of evolution is in no conflict with that which creationists proclaim was initiated by god.

If god is creator of all things, then god would also supply the where with all, wherein all of "his" creation would to continue to exist by natural processes, as was imparted unto us in our own physiological, biological, organic being. That is why there is a fossil record for review today.

If one believes god made all things, and all things are of god then those things created that did die and are related in kind to that which exists today, is part of that natural organic god given process that makes it all possible. The Human fossil record provides evidence that our ancestors, bi-pedal hominids, did not begin as we are today.

So for one to believe Jehovah created the first humans, and that there exists fossil records of Cromagnon woman and man, etc... then there can be no conflict that there have stemmed through the eon's , what is in evidence today as us. Whether we revere the principles of theoretical science or bow to the faith of religion.

did i say that religion had any facts lovie?? i believe i said i believe....

And I believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but does that make it the truth?

I see your still around and kicking Charlie

Green Cheese Moon

Again, there is not one shred of evidence to support this. It may at best be
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.



Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order", again no evidence!



According to Evolutionists Eskimos evolved like the rest of us from primitive man and apparently at one time did not wear cloths and animals adapt to their inviroment by growing lots of hair. Ask any Polar Bear or Seal. So the poor Eskimo having a shortage of clothing stores would have to had evolved over night or became Popsicles.



It’s rather arrogant of you to assume I only hold a limited knowledge of the fundamentals of evolution. In fact I am well read on the subject because I to would like to know the scientific answer to the mystery of life itself. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. I neither support the scientific principle of Creation science or Evolution science and feel the answer has not been discovered yet.



It is not a matter of misquoting the theory of evolution or the bible. Again you are assuming where I am coming from. I am simply saying that there is an immense lack of evidence to support either theory at this time. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Mr Irish

wow, it's been a while since I’ve been on here, and it seems like nothing has changed lol
You have no idea what you're getting in to when you're talking about evolution on this board there are so many here that have misconceptions, or have been misled by propaganda, or just plain don't know squat about evolution....

This is entirely true, but no scientist that takes him self seriously would make this statement, there is no difference from macro and micro, macro just means it was separated longer, and had time to change species.... which means it can't reproduce with the older form....
A like about reported experiments where speciation has occurred...
New species have arisen in historical timesreferenced speciation events



While this is also true if you ask any anthropologist if they believe in evolution and if we evolved from a common ancestor, and if the current fissile record shows this, they will answer yes. The statement that I quoted paints the picture as unsure, and as there is not enough evidence to support the claim for anthropologists... the truth is there is an amazing amount of evidence, it seems as though this statement is trying to use a quote from scientists to disprove something much larger then this particular quote is meant for...
Rough as in almost... not rough as in no where near close... that's the beauty of science great minds can debate, and with a good and clear understanding of the subject it helps define the theory even more, not less because one of those minds doesn't agree with another, diversity, and debate further science, not prove it wrong....



so you would rather take someone else's word for it????
I would take an experiment over hearsay any day...
Who would you believe someone who says the wind blowing is god's will? Or those tiny molecules are moving from high pressure to low-pressure areas, which are created by convection????
It seems like you are discrediting everything science has done solely because some one told you they make mistakes.... well they are human... but way more accurate then what you believe...
The seal story is interesting, but like I said scientists are human, and there is a very good chance that the sample was contaminated. But as for how old things are, there have been estimates way before carbon dating of the age of certain things, and there are many different tests that can be run besides carbon dating, and they all have been used to prove each other.... one example doesn't completely debunk a theory... not when it's been proven hundreds of thousands of times else where....
Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.


Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:


The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).


Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).


Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).


Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).


The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).
link
This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals that live in the water. It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast.

The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time. Plants incorporate this "old" carbon in them as they grow. Animals eat the plants; seals eat the animals, and the "old" carbon from the bottom waters is passed through the food chain. As a result, the radiocarbon content reflects a mixture of old radiocarbon, which is thousands of years old, and contemporaneous radiocarbon from the atmosphere. The result is an apparent age that differs from the true age of the seal.
link


There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism
link



I’m not sure what you are suggesting... evolution is not some cognitive being... it is a process of mutations of genes which over a period of time either helps of harms... there is no one thing that guides or says what is to evolve... and just what is a higher order???
intelligence??? I don't see things in your perspective... in my view all living things are equal... we are no higher then anything else... and if someone thinks so... well what gives them the right to be higher????
When we're all dead and gone we're all the same....


You are talking about other theories besides evolution such as abiogenesis... and yes there is tons of evidence that supports it... I’m sure many scientists would be very displeased to hear that the big bang and evolution is now according to someone impossible.... but that would be off topic I think, and as far as humans and animals... well we are animals... there is no difference. We have the same basic body make up, the same basic DNA.... the same social tendencies... we are animals


Again there is a whole branch of science devoted to such matters and I’m sure many smart people who spend their lives studying these things would have to disagree...


We share 98% of our DNA with chimps....
You believe in DNA right?




There are no known serious problems with the theory of evolution. Claims that there are fall into two (overlapping) categories:


Some supposed problems are questions about details about the mechanisms of evolution. There are, and always will be, unanswered details in every field of science, and evolution is no exception. Creationists take controversies about details out of context to falsely imply controversy about evolution as a whole.


Some supposed problems are misunderstandings, ignorance, or fraudulent claims about what the science says.
link

well anyway this post is getting to be way to long sorry about that, i just wanted to clear some of the confusion up.....