Evolution: Fact Or Fiction

Whats your religion?

Atheist	39.4%	[ 1145 ]
Protestant	16.9%	[ 491 ]
Catholic	14.0%	[ 408 ]
Hindu	1.3%	[ 38 ]
Muslim	1.8%	[ 53 ]
Jew	2.3%	[ 67 ]
Buddhist	5.1%	[ 149 ]
Greek Orthodox	0.7%	[ 21 ]
Pagan	14.2%	[ 413 ]
Egyptian	4.2%	[ 122 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2907 ]

[Inu-papa]

Cpt. Joseph_Cilvaun

Yes. Links that lead to biased statements from scientists ( and please don't get to mad when I say that, I'm sure you've said that same thing against Christians ).

Yeah, we hate biased statements from scientists about science. You know what, when I ask where babies come from, can you believe I always get referred to ADULTS for answers?! What a biased load of crap! Just because adults have supposedly "have experience", does that somehow make their opinion more valid than a five year-old's? You know, when I ask five year-olds where babies come from, they say it's the stork.

I think that adults have some sort of secret anti-stork agenda, and are using their age and experience to cover up a wide conspiracy that only preschoolers can see through. Don't be fooled by all these claims by so-called "expert adults", we need to hear both sides of the controversy here.

[southerndrawl118]

Crazyjust4u

Evolution holds no stand in fact whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself admitted on his deathbed that he made up all of it in order to gain publicity and a mass wealth for scientific discoveries.

by fame and wealth do you mean a storm of controversy and politics? And besides, he never had a deathbed confession. All he said was that he belived in a god, but that has nothing to d with evolution

[gigacannon]

Maze1125

TeddyBearsark

Evolution is true to a degree, but humans didn't evolve from monkeys

Then why does all the evidence point towards the idea that we did evolve from an ape like creature?

For the love of God, humans are family hominidae. We are apes. We evolved from monkeys.

What the hell else did we evolve from? Cats? Horses?

[Grudgehammer]

Inu-papa

Cpt. Joseph_Cilvaun

Yes. Links that lead to biased statements from scientists ( and please don't get to mad when I say that, I'm sure you've said that same thing against Christians ).

Yeah, we hate biased statements from scientists about science. You know what, when I ask where babies come from, can you believe I always get referred to ADULTS for answers?! What a biased load of crap! Just because adults have supposedly "have experience", does that somehow make their opinion more valid than a five year-old's? You know, when I ask five year-olds where babies come from, they say it's the stork.

I think that adults have some sort of secret anti-stork agenda, and are using their age and experience to cover up a wide conspiracy that only preschoolers can see through. Don't be fooled by all these claims by so-called "expert adults", we need to hear both sides of the controversy here.

Are you saying that most scientists that believe in evolution are not going to be biased towards their beliefs in an article that they write or help write? And are you saying that everyone doesn't have some form of bias?

[southerndrawl118]

Cpt. Joseph_Cilvaun

Inu-papa

Cpt. Joseph_Cilvaun

Yes. Links that lead to biased statements from scientists ( and please don't get to mad when I say that, I'm sure you've said that same thing against Christians ).

Yeah, we hate biased statements from scientists about science. You know what, when I ask where babies come from, can you believe I always get referred to ADULTS for answers?! What a biased load of crap! Just because adults have supposedly "have experience", does that somehow make their opinion more valid than a five year-old's? You know, when I ask five year-olds where babies come from, they say it's the stork.

I think that adults have some sort of secret anti-stork agenda, and are using their age and experience to cover up a wide conspiracy that only preschoolers can see through. Don't be fooled by all these claims by so-called "expert adults", we need to hear both sides of the controversy here.

Are you saying that most scientists that believe in evolution are not going to be biased towards their beliefs in an article that they write or help write? And are you saying that everyone doesn't have some form of bias?

It isnt that scientists chose to "believ" in evolution. It is that all existing evidence points to evolution as the only logical way for all forms of life to exist. If there was another explainationthat offered more evidence and disproved evolution, then scientists would "believe" that. So yes, I guess scientists do have a bias towards the answer that is supported the best.

[Inu-papa]

Cpt. Joseph_Cilvaun

Inu-papa

Cpt. Joseph_Cilvaun

Yes. Links that lead to biased statements from scientists ( and please don't get to mad when I say that, I'm sure you've said that same thing against Christians ).

Yeah, we hate biased statements from scientists about science. You know what, when I ask where babies come from, can you believe I always get referred to ADULTS for answers?! What a biased load of crap! Just because adults have supposedly "have experience", does that somehow make their opinion more valid than a five year-old's? You know, when I ask five year-olds where babies come from, they say it's the stork.

I think that adults have some sort of secret anti-stork agenda, and are using their age and experience to cover up a wide conspiracy that only preschoolers can see through. Don't be fooled by all these claims by so-called "expert adults", we need to hear both sides of the controversy here.

Are you saying that most scientists that believe in evolution are not going to be biased towards their beliefs in an article that they write or help write? And are you saying that everyone doesn't have some form of bias?

I believe that sex makes babies, but that's just my own personal bias talking.

[Vryko Lakas]

Cpt. Joseph_Cilvaun

Are you saying that most scientists that believe in evolution are not going to be biased towards their beliefs in an article that they write or help write? And are you saying that everyone doesn't have some form of bias?

They are not "biased." What they are doing is explaining what the current explanation from science is, what it means, and how they know this. There is nothing particularly biased about it. The evidence speaks for itself, the facts speak for themselves, a "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Biologists, who look at all the evidence they can, invariably come to the same conclusion: evolution happens, it has happened for a long time, and it is responsible for all the current forms of life including humans. That's not bias.

What -IS- biased is insisting that the whole of science be interpretted THROUGH ONE RELIGION'S HOLY BOOK. THAT is bias. This bias is so deeply ingrained and so readily apparent that Creationist organizations have their members sign a Statement of Faith in which you are to agree that no evidence will ever contradict (the group's own interpretation of) the Bible. They are explicitly stating in this practice that they will NEVER let go of their bias when looking at the evidence.
No real science organization does this. Science is open to any and all, no religious belief is necessary. Scientists come from every single background and nearly every culture on the face of the planet, and because science DOESN'T bring the personal biases of its members along for the ride, nearly all scientists have been able to agree on the fact of Evolution. It is exactly because science itself IS NOT BIASED that scientists manage to get anywhere. The practice of science and its methodology, in fact, is designed to WEED OUT personal biases and remove biased ideology from research.
See the difference? Science = weed out biases. Creationism = formalized, institutionalized biases.

[Angra-Mainyu]

gigacannon

For the love of God, humans are family hominidae. We are apes. We evolved from monkeys.

"Monkey" is not a proper term in the way that primates form an order and that apes form a superfamily [Hominoidea]. It's correct to say we evolved from an ape ancestor but it is not correct to assert that we descended from "monkeys" [i.e. those in the parvorder Platyrrhini (New World monkey) or the superfamily Cercopithecidae (Old World monkey)].

[Oh, I don't mean to be pedantic but saying we came from monkeys only gives more for anti-Evo people to attack <_<]

[Ashley G Williams]

Inu-papa

Cpt. Joseph_Cilvaun

Inu-papa

Cpt. Joseph_Cilvaun

Yes. Links that lead to biased statements from scientists ( and please don't get to mad when I say that, I'm sure you've said that same thing against Christians ).

Yeah, we hate biased statements from scientists about science. You know what, when I ask where babies come from, can you believe I always get referred to ADULTS for answers?! What a biased load of crap! Just because adults have supposedly "have experience", does that somehow make their opinion more valid than a five year-old's? You know, when I ask five year-olds where babies come from, they say it's the stork.

I think that adults have some sort of secret anti-stork agenda, and are using their age and experience to cover up a wide conspiracy that only preschoolers can see through. Don't be fooled by all these claims by so-called "expert adults", we need to hear both sides of the controversy here.

Are you saying that most scientists that believe in evolution are not going to be biased towards their beliefs in an article that they write or help write? And are you saying that everyone doesn't have some form of bias?

I believe that sex makes babies, but that's just my own personal bias talking.

I'm afraid that it doesn't work like that. the making of a baby is to complicated a process to happen naturally. the p***s and v****a could not have aligned and swapped various juices without outside influences. that why i propose that the stork is actually the main proprietor of babies. besides my obvious logic some of my believers in the obvious truth have found some feathers near beds.

[Vryko Lakas]

Tommy_Oblivion

I'm afraid that it doesn't work like that. the making of a baby is to complicated a process to happen naturally. the p***s and v****a could not have aligned and swapped various juices without outside influences. that why i propose that the stork is actually the main proprietor of babies. besides my obvious logic some of my believers in the obvious truth have found some feathers near beds.

You stork theorists! All True Believers know that there's a CABBAGE PATCH from whence all infants are ensprouted!

[CuAnnan]

Intelligent Falling.... His Noodly Appendages... need I say more?

Can I get a "Ramen" from the congregation?

[chikushou]

gigacannon

Maze1125

TeddyBearsark

Evolution is true to a degree, but humans didn't evolve from monkeys

Then why does all the evidence point towards the idea that we did evolve from an ape like creature?

For the love of God, humans are family hominidae. We are apes. We evolved from monkeys.

What the hell else did we evolve from? Cats? Horses?

We didn't evolve from monkeys; we just came from a common ancestor. It's a bit different. sweatdrop

RAmen.

[Redem]

chikushou

gigacannon

For the love of God, humans are family hominidae. We are apes. We evolved from monkeys.

What the hell else did we evolve from? Cats? Horses?

We didn't evolve from monkeys; we just came from a common ancestor. It's a bit different. sweatdrop

RAmen.

In that our common ancestor was an ape. We did evolve from apes. We shared a common ancestor with modern apes.
Going further back we also evolved from a minkey.

[Qwerty-Shy-Strawberry]

i am not any of those, im a Christian serving the lord day by day


Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing i desire besides you. My flesh and my heart my fail but God is the strenth of my heart and my portion forever. --- psalm 73:25-26

[gigacannon]

Humans are apes and we had to evolve from monkeys or lemurs. Of course, there probably aren't any of the exact same species around today, but they most likely evolved from rats.

If an animal is 'ape-like' more so than it is like any other type of animal, it is likely to get classified as an ape. A monkey-like ancestor of humans is most likely a monkey. Why quibble about the semantics? Apes and monkeys are both primates; the main difference between the two groups is that apes universally have no tails, and apes are typically larger.

Anti-creationists have been saying "We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a ape-like ancestor" for so long that they haven't noticed that the taxonomy has changed.