Do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in evolution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 48.8%
  • No

    Votes: 14 32.6%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 8 18.6%

  • Total voters
    43
Why cant we just accept that the universe has a creator it wouldnt make sense if we evolved from animals.Aask yourself where did the animal originally come from and so on. The answer will be in continous loop with no definite answer. The only answer with a closure is that God created everything

You can accept both. You can believe in god and evolution since evolution doesn't have anything to do with god or origin theory beyond the Earth. The problem is mainly with Abrahamic creationism; namely the story of Adam and Eve. There isn't any solid evidence for creationism outside of religious scripture while there is a mountain of empirical evidence for evolution. Abrahamic creationism cannot explain the complexities of our biology and the biology of animals like evolution can. Even if you don't believe in it, you can't deny its usefulness as a theoretical framework in medical research.
 

Basra

LOVE is a product of Doqoniimo mixed with lust
Let Them Eat Cake
VIP
@Basra

And then what happened?

Adam and Eve’s children engaged in an incestuous relationship and married one another to populate the world, then God found out that he made a big mistake and incest suddenly became morally reprehensible and he banned it and made it a sin punishable by hell. If he’s capable of creating everything and is all knowing, wasn’t it better if he created a group of people and foresaw the moral conundrum that incest would create and thus saved him not to make these mistakes? Or was the whole creationism theory and the success of God’s power based on trial and error?

creationism and evolution are both theories, one is written by theologians and concluded that god created everything and the other is not satisfied with this simplistic answer because of the lack of any observable evidence and the scientific discrepancies on the theory and sought their own answers. They have established the scientific basics for their theory and are searching for further evidences. Scientific discoveries in the past have improved to shed a viable understanding to their theory and the recent and future discoveries would further improve their arguments because it would have negative ramifications for religion. Then, would science obtain an objective and observable knowledge purely built on scientific results about how the world was created? From a subjective layman’s viewpoint, I highly doubt it, but the scientific jury disagrees with me and are out to prove me wrong because I lack their credentials to accurately predict it.



HA HA HA Aussie sometimes u r adoringly dumb walaahi. u crack me up.


Well, God knows best. Isn't that the idea???? Maybe your simpleton little human logic brain skull cannot comprehend why God decrees what God decrees. Sometimes u need to say to your logic mind-- Hey buddy, this is beyond your pay grade. :)
 

Basra

LOVE is a product of Doqoniimo mixed with lust
Let Them Eat Cake
VIP
I do believe that God created Adam and Eve. But I just wanted to discuss a topic that Islam is very much opposing on while the there is so much evidence on evolution being true.


Soooooooo u believe God created Adam and Ever yet u want to kinda believe Man also evolved from an ape?? Whim, huuno, take several seats down, gather your thoughts and come back again.
 

psyche

To each their own
Soooooooo u believe God created Adam and Ever yet u want to kinda believe Man also evolved from an ape?? Whim, huuno, take several seats down, gather your thoughts and come back again.

That's kinda of the point of this thread lol.

I wanted to hear all of your opinions and formulate an answer that I would be satisfied with.

But all this thread lead to was me becoming more confused about the topic as a whole.
 
The statement "it is general rule that Bacteria adapts because it has the ability" doesn't make sense - ability to what? Adapt? That's tautological, also you don't accept evolution remember. Bacteria can tolerate harsh conditions and has the ability to digest myriad of things that occur naturally, nylon isn't one of those things as the bacteria would not have the necessary enzymes to digest it because it's synthetic.

Secondly, when you say "... similar Bacteria type they will develop the same ability due to genetic code already present in their DNA" if you mean, all things being equal, e.g. given the same mutation, same conditions etc, then yes. Mutation plus natural selection will again result in in nylon-eating species. This how evolution works! You're weird.

There are many other similar experiments around. The following one was going on for over three decades now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

LTEE_Timeline_as_of_May_28%2C_2016.png


Does this guy make sense to anyone? :icon lol:

You're so incoherent that none of that makes sense. Evolution isn't about how non-living matter started to turned biological matter. The rest is pure gibberish as well. Please write clear arguments and objections if you want people to give you meaningful replies.


Are you rattled? Why bother with a long post if I didn't make sense? Of all people, you should know being dismissive is not equivalent to being rational. You might wanna change your tact. Debate instead of engaging ad hominem attacks. I don't have a religious agenda in science but you do, and it is the reason you are upset attacking the person instead of the message.

Asking for confirmation is another indicator of accepting defeat. These are free tips to look good in debates.

I will repeat what I said about Bacteria in short: It has the ability to adapt through smart regulation of their gene expression. That ability is innate and already existing within the Bacteria. You call that natural selection process which presents a whole host of issues. Your kind aims for non-scientific ends with scientific knowledge.
 

Basra

LOVE is a product of Doqoniimo mixed with lust
Let Them Eat Cake
VIP
Are you rattled? Why bother with a long post if I didn't make sense? Of all people, you should know being dismissive is not equivalent to being rational. You might wanna change your tact. Debate instead of engaging ad hominem attacks. I don't have a religious agenda in science but you do, and it is the reason you are upset attacking the person instead of the message.

Asking for confirmation is another indicator of accepting defeat. These are free tips to look good in debates.

I will repeat what I said about Bacteria in short: It has the ability to adapt through smart regulation of their gene expression. That ability is innate and already existing within the Bacteria. You call that natural selection process which presents a whole host of issues. Your kind aims for non-scientific ends with scientific knowledge.


What about me??? :) Am i good in debate?
 

Basra

LOVE is a product of Doqoniimo mixed with lust
Let Them Eat Cake
VIP
That's kinda of the point of this thread lol.

I wanted to hear all of your opinions and formulate an answer that I would be satisfied with.

But all this thread lead to was me becoming more confused about the topic as a whole.


Whim


Stay confused. Suits u well.
 
Last edited:
One would be forced to admit the inferiority of the 'African' if macro-evolution is true.

The experiment that was
started in the savage-lands and perfected in Europe. Sounds like prime Churchillian wank material.

It is also disingenuous to point to the demonstrable micro-evolution theory and use it to claim man evolved from a primate. Not even in the same ball-park.
 
One would be forced to admit the inferiority of the 'African' if macro-evolution is true.

The experiment that was
started in the savage-lands and perfected in Europe. Sounds like prime Churchillian wank material.

It is also disingenuous to point to the demonstrable micro-evolution theory and use it to claim man evolved from a primate. Not even in the same ball-park.


They are cool with the proposal of the African being still in development and barely human. The length to which dogmatic people go is amazing.
 
Here is 46 million years old fossilized mosquito still looking like a mosquito. This image is from the Smithsonian Museum.


upload_2019-4-16_10-0-1.png
 
One would be forced to admit the inferiority of the 'African' if macro-evolution is true.

The experiment that was
started in the savage-lands and perfected in Europe. Sounds like prime Churchillian wank material.

It is also disingenuous to point to the demonstrable micro-evolution theory and use it to claim man evolved from a primate. Not even in the same ball-park.
Who says Europeans are the perfected result of evolution? There are more genetic advantages to being African than to being European.
 
I will repeat what I said about Bacteria in short: It has the ability to adapt through smart regulation of their gene expression. That ability is innate and already existing within the Bacteria. You call that natural selection process which presents a whole host of issues.
You keep copying shit that you don't understand :icon lol:

117hev9.jpg

And then adding nonsense like "innate already within" :chrisfreshhah:

https://phys.org/news/2013-12-bacteria-quickly-external.html
 
One would be forced to admit the inferiority of the 'African' if macro-evolution is true.

The experiment that was
started in the savage-lands and perfected in Europe. Sounds like prime Churchillian wank material.

It is also disingenuous to point to the demonstrable micro-evolution theory and use it to claim man evolved from a primate. Not even in the same ball-park.
That claim would fall in line with Race-realist.

Do you think Africans stopped evolving when they split from the rest? Do you know that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than there's outside it?

Mixture and displacement have happened, again and again, so there are no fixed traits associated with spessific geographic location, even though isolation has created differences between groups of people, migration, and mixing have blurred or erased them.
 
You keep copying shit that you don't understand :icon lol:

117hev9.jpg

And then adding nonsense like "innate already within" :chrisfreshhah:

https://phys.org/news/2013-12-bacteria-quickly-external.html



This applies to you more aptly. You carry a message you religiously believe in but have no clue what it entails.

Angling for a comedy and make others of similar stock laugh is one way to avoid taking responsibility for your beliefs saxib.

My posts still stand. Get back when you have more thoughts on what I said.
 
One would be forced to admit the inferiority of the 'African' if macro-evolution is true.

The experiment that was
started in the savage-lands and perfected in Europe. Sounds like prime Churchillian wank material.

It is also disingenuous to point to the demonstrable micro-evolution theory and use it to claim man evolved from a primate. Not even in the same ball-park.
What makes you say that? Why does accepting evolution lead to that conclusion?
 
.
That claim would fall in line with Race-realist.

Do you think Africans stopped evolving when they split from the rest? Do you know that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than there's outside it?

Mixture and displacement have happened, again and again, so there are no fixed traits associated with spessific geographic location, even though isolation has created differences between groups of people, migration, and mixing have blurred or erased them.



Paleontology places Africa and the Africans to be the source origin of humans. So who split from whom according to evolutionary biology? It is now popular to claim Africans are our parents/ancestors.

Spend time reading material before you participate. Get the updates. It will make you look good.
 
That claim would fall in line with Race-realist.

Do you think Africans stopped evolving when they split from the rest? Do you know that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than there's outside it?

Mixture and displacement have happened, again and again, so there are no fixed traits associated with spessific geographic location, even though isolation has created differences between groups of people, migration, and mixing have blurred or erased them.

How about refuting the science priests who claim expertise, like the Nobel Prize winning James Watson?

You need to research the people who were championing this theory yaakhey. Read their work on the differences between the races. Their assertions still torment us to this day, and on a global scale at that.

You have been presented a paradigm with only a single natural conclusion: one of racial hierarchy subject to 'evolutionary' forces.

The monkey who left developed and hardened due to change in their environment, whereas the monkey who stayed behind is apathetic and stagnant [insert diagram of poor fellow from the Congo picture framed next to a chimp].

It is what it is.
 
How about refuting the science priests who claim expertise, like the Nobel Prize winning James Watson?

You need to research the people who were championing this theory yaakhey. Read their work on the differences between the races. Their assertions still torment us to this day, and on a global scale at that.

You have been presented a paradigm with only a single natural conclusion: one of racial hierarchy subject to 'evolutionary' forces.

The monkey who left developed and hardened due to change in their environment, whereas the monkey who stayed behind is apathetic and stagnant [insert diagram of poor fellow from the Congo picture framed next to a chimp].

It is what it is.


The whole dogma they perpetuate is about racial inequality cloaked as science. And these apes(pun intended) are happy to tow the line of their masters without a clue.
 

Trending

Top