Darwins Theory of Evolution is not Fact, it is merely Theory

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as) and been around for millions of years loonger than apes so why no dolphin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

greeneye59

They don't have access to fire.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] Good theory. Would support again.kussese

[QUOTE="greeneye59"]

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as) and been around for millions of years so why no Dophin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

xaos

Yeah but here we are. We evolved from an ape in such a short time yet creaures who have been here since the beginning are still the same. Some progress some don't.

[QUOTE="greeneye59"]

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as) and been around for millions of years so why no Dophin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

xaos

I think I've typed out 10 different responses to this post, and deleted them all. I don't know why.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as) and been around for millions of years so why no Dophin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

greeneye59

Yeah but here we are. We evolved from an ape in such a short time yet creaures who have been here since the beginning are still the same. Some progress some don't.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as) and been around for millions of years so why no Dophin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

greeneye59

Yeah but here we are. We evolved from an ape in such a short time yet creaures who have been here since the beginning are still the same. Some progress some don't.

I repeat. We have fire.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as) and been around for millions of years so why no Dophin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

LikeHaterade

I think I've typed out 10 different responses to this post, and deleted them all. I don't know why.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as) and been around for millions of years so why no Dophin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

greeneye59

Yeah but here we are. We evolved from an ape in such a short time yet creaures who have been here since the beginning are still the same. Some progress some don't.

I hope at least one of them involved the x-gene and/or the Celestials :Dxaos

Ha! That would certainly make things easier for me. :P

I don't know. I mean, we wouldn't have had any kind of discoveries or technological advancement had humans not developed sapience. You don't think that it's better than the alternative? Us as non-cognitive animals, acting on pure instinct. We wouldn't be capable of critical thinking, or able to appreciate anything. That would suck, but then again I guess I wouldn't be around to care. I talk too much. Maybe sapience wasn't such a good idea after all.

[QUOTE="greeneye59"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] Evolution is not a progression toward "higher" life forms; in the grand scheme, sapience hasn't even existed long enough to be proven to be an ultimately beneficial trait.xaos

Yeah but here we are. We evolved from an ape in such a short time yet creaures who have been here since the beginning are still the same. Some progress some don't.

So Darwin witnessed a creature evolve right? That's how he came up with the theory?

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as apes) and been around for millions of years loonger than apes so why no dolphin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

greeneye59

Because dolphin people are ****ing scary.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]

Yeah but here we are. We evolved from an ape in such a short time yet creaures who have been here since the beginning are still the same. Some progress some don't.

greeneye59

So Darwin witnessed a creature evolve right? That's how he came up with the theory?

[QUOTE="greeneye59"]

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as) and been around for millions of years loonger than apes so why no dolphin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

Guybrush_3

They don't have access to fire.

[QUOTE="greeneye59"]

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as apes) and been around for millions of years loonger than apes so why no dolphin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

entropyecho

Because dolphin people are ****ing scary.

Yeah I see why evolution rejected them now. :D

[QUOTE="xaos"]I hope at least one of them involved the x-gene and/or the Celestials :DLikeHaterade

Ha! That would certainly make things easier for me. :P

I don't know. I mean, we wouldn't have had any kind of discoveries or technological advancement had humans not developed sapience. You don't think that it's better than the alternative? Us as non-cognitive animals, acting on pure instinct. We wouldn't be capable of critical thinking, or able to appreciate anything. That would suck, but then again I guess I wouldn't be around to care. I talk too much. Maybe sapience wasn't such a good idea after all.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]

Yeah but here we are. We evolved from an ape in such a short time yet creaures who have been here since the beginning are still the same. Some progress some don't.

greeneye59

So Darwin witnessed a creature evolve right? That's how he came up with the theory?

[QUOTE="greeneye59"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] It's not progress, it's change, suitability to environment. New traits being introduced can result in new species, but unless there is direct competition that doesn't at all mean that progenitor species will be wiped out.kussese

So Darwin witnessed a creature evolve right? That's how he came up with the theory?

Awww. That's the big fact? They have similarities so they must come from the same creature? That's not very convincing.

[QUOTE="kussese"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]

So Darwin witnessed a creature evolve right? That's how he came up with the theory?

greeneye59

Awww. That's the big fact? They have similarities so they must come from the same creature? That's not very convincing.

Are you against Darwin or evolution?

[QUOTE="kussese"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]

So Darwin witnessed a creature evolve right? That's how he came up with the theory?

greeneye59

Awww. That's the big fact. They have similarities so they must come from the same creature. That's not very convincing.

[QUOTE="kussese"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]

So Darwin witnessed a creature evolve right? That's how he came up with the theory?

greeneye59

Awww. That's the big fact? They have similarities so they must come from the same creature? That's not very convincing.

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"]The main thing that I dont like about evolutin is supposedly how it all started... A BIG BANG? Really? That just doesnt make any sense.Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="greeneye59"]

[QUOTE="kussese"] Creatures don't evolve. Species do. Darwin saw trends in fossils, from which he concluded that species have a common ancestor. RationalAtheist

Awww. That's the big fact? They have similarities so they must come from the same creature? That's not very convincing.

Are you against Darwin or evolution?

Yeah I believe in intelligent design.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="-Big_Red-"]The main thing that I dont like about evolutin is supposedly how it all started... A BIG BANG? Really? That just doesnt make any sense.-Big_Red-

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="greeneye59"]

How come monkeys are the only creature to evolve to a higher life form? Dolphins and whales are pretty smart (just as smart as) and been around for millions of years loonger than apes so why no dolphin people or whale people or any other kind of people? Why just us?

markop2003

They don't have access to fire.

ok ok you got me. I guess they can use burning oil slicks to cook food.

ok ok you got me. I guess they can use burning oil slicks to cook food.

Guybrush_3

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="greeneye59"]

Awww. That's the big fact? They have similarities so they must come from the same creature? That's not very convincing.

greeneye59

Are you against Darwin or evolution?

Yeah I believe in intelligent design.

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is all inconsequential, both still cannot be proven/disproven regardless of what tools we have right now. The Bible as old as it is has yet to be proven/disproven the same goes for Darwin's Evolution.

Guybrush_3

Actually Darwin's idea that animals change over time due to natural selection has been proven repeatedly, and many things in the bible have in fact been disproven (like the earth being about 6000 years old)

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is all inconsequential, both still cannot be proven/disproven regardless of what tools we have right now. The Bible as old as it is has yet to be proven/disproven the same goes for Darwin's Evolution.

Ryan_Kitchen

Actually Darwin's idea that animals change over time due to natural selection has been proven repeatedly, and many things in the bible have in fact been disproven (like the earth being about 6000 years old)

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="VisigothSaxon"]

That is all inconsequential, both still cannot be proven/disproven regardless of what tools we have right now. The Bible as old as it is has yet to be proven/disproven the same goes for Darwin's Evolution.

Ryan_Kitchen

Actually Darwin's idea that animals change over time due to natural selection has been proven repeatedly, and many things in the bible have in fact been disproven (like the earth being about 6000 years old)

Various people have made a chronology of the bible, by taking the eras and epochs people lived in. The most famous one is by James Ussher (Bishop of Armargh in 1654. He deduced that the creation of Earth happened at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23 in 4004 BC. It was used in the newly printed King James versons of the bible and kept in them until recently. Others, including Isaac Newton, came up with similar dates. it was the beginning of the textual criticism movement.

Its still better than trying to explain biology using magic stories.

[QUOTE="Ryan_Kitchen"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Actually Darwin's idea that animals change over time due to natural selection has been proven repeatedly, and many things in the bible have in fact been disproven (like the earth being about 6000 years old)

kussese

There are too many gaps in the Bible to use this as a credible way to determine how old the Earth is. Then you have how the hebrew words were translated , "Yom" being one of them. What you mentioned is not a good way to determine how old the Bible says the Earth is in my opinion.

There are too many gaps in the Bible to use this as a credible way to determine how old the Earth is. Then you have how the hebrew words were translated , "Yom" being one of them. What you mentioned is not a good way to determine how old the Bible says the Earth is in my opinion.

There are too many gaps in the Bible to use this as a credible way to determine how old the Earth is. Then you have how the hebrew words were translated , "Yom" being one of them. What you mentioned is not a good way to determine how old the Bible says the Earth is in my opinion.

GTbiking4life

What gaps?

[QUOTE="Ryan_Kitchen"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Actually Darwin's idea that animals change over time due to natural selection has been proven repeatedly, and many things in the bible have in fact been disproven (like the earth being about 6000 years old)

RationalAtheist

Various people have made a chronology of the bible, by taking the eras and epochs people lived in. The most famous one is by James Ussher (Bishop of Armargh in 1654. He deduced that the creation of Earth happened at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23 in 4004 BC. It was used in the newly printed King James versons of the bible and kept in them until recently. Others, including Isaac Newton, came up with similar dates. it was the beginning of the textual criticism movement.

I believe they were not correct in determining how old the Earth is. Read my other post just above this one.There were things they missed or didn't fully understand.

[QUOTE="Ryan_Kitchen"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Actually Darwin's idea that animals change over time due to natural selection has been proven repeatedly, and many things in the bible have in fact been disproven (like the earth being about 6000 years old)

RationalAtheist

Various people have made a chronology of the bible, by taking the eras and epochs people lived in. The most famous one is by James Ussher (Bishop of Armargh in 1654. He deduced that the creation of Earth happened at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23 in 4004 BC. It was used in the newly printed King James versons of the bible and kept in them until recently. Others, including Isaac Newton, came up with similar dates. it was the beginning of the textual criticism movement.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Ryan_Kitchen"] I'm sick of seeing that reference. Where in the Bible does it say earth is 6000 years old?Ryan_Kitchen

Various people have made a chronology of the bible, by taking the eras and epochs people lived in. The most famous one is by James Ussher (Bishop of Armargh in 1654. He deduced that the creation of Earth happened at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23 in 4004 BC. It was used in the newly printed King James versons of the bible and kept in them until recently. Others, including Isaac Newton, came up with similar dates. it was the beginning of the textual criticism movement.

The translation the the word for day is quite unambiguous. Isn't God supposed to have created and defined them in Genesis? I'm not making any assumptions, since I disbelieve the bible. I think you make assumptions that there are gaps Ussher didn't consider or resolve or your distortions of what is written in it.

When understanding changes so that the bible is shown as incorrect, how far do you have to bend it's interpretation to fit the new evidence?

I believe they were not correct in determining how old the Earth is. Read my other post just above this one.There were things they missed or didn't fully understand.

GTbiking4life

Do you know what those things were, or are you guessing to justify a rational view of an old universe? And why did so many biblical scholars reach the same sort of 6000 year time-line?

It's a theory, but it's a really good one, and it makes sense.

This thread makes me fear for the future of the human race.

Seriously, why does it seem like people don't even try and understand what they're arguing against? This person clearly does not have a clue about what a theory means in scientific literature, and it looks like he doesn't even know what evolution states (the "ape and humans" argument is a very good indicator of someone who's trying to discuss evolution intelligently and failing very very badly). How can any person even think about arguing against a subject when they haven't learned enough about it to actually dissect it?

[QUOTE="GTbiking4life"]

I believe they were not correct in determining how old the Earth is. Read my other post just above this one.There were things they missed or didn't fully understand.

RationalAtheist

Do you know what those things were, or are you guessing to justify a rational view of an old universe? And why did so many biblical scholars reach the same sort of 6000 year time-line?

In my opinion when you want to determine how old the Earth is, you do not start some time after the Earth was created. You have to start in Genesis 1:1 – the beginning. Gaps start to take form beginning in Genesis before Adam was even mentioned. How long was it between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 for example? After Adam was created, how long was his deep sleep? These are just a couple examples of certain gaps starting in Genesis 1.

Another reason why I believe they are wrong is their interpretation of the Hebrew word "Yom", which has many different meanings. They are making the assumption that 'Day' was the correct translation. I prefer to keep more of an open mind. "Yom" could have meant period. Knowing this, it is easy to see why the Bible never mentions how old the Earth is. Perhaps using certain interpretations, but there are different interpretations. The scholars each had their own interpretations, which are different from mine, and many others as well.

Just because they are 'scholars' does not mean they are correct. I believe the scholars make an awful lot of assumptions when trying to figure out the age of the Earth using the Bible.

ok. that's good to know.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="GTbiking4life"]

I believe they were not correct in determining how old the Earth is. Read my other post just above this one.There were things they missed or didn't fully understand.

GTbiking4life

Do you know what those things were, or are you guessing to justify a rational view of an old universe? And why did so many biblical scholars reach the same sort of 6000 year time-line?

In my opinion when you want to determine how old the Earth is, you do not start some time after the Earth was created. You have to start in Genesis 1:1 – the beginning. Gaps start to take form beginning in Genesis before Adam was even mentioned. How long was it between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 for example? After Adam was created, how long was his deep sleep? These are just a couple examples of certain gaps starting in Genesis 1.

Another reason why I believe they are wrong is their interpretation of the Hebrew word "Yom", which has many different meanings. They are making the assumption that 'Day' was the correct translation. I prefer to keep more of an open mind. "Yom" could have meant period. Knowing this, it is easy to see why the Bible never mentions how old the Earth is. Perhaps using certain interpretations, but there are different interpretations. The scholars each had their own interpretations, which are different from mine, and many others as well.

Just because they are 'scholars' does not mean they are correct. I believe the scholars make an awful lot of assumptions when trying to figure out the age of the Earth using the Bible.

There are two separate accounts of creation in Genesis, so which one would you start from? Adam's sleep could not have been more than a life-time, could it? Why suppose that it did? I thought it was very clear (at least to some) what a day meant and how long it took Genesis 1:1 to become Genesis 1:2.

I totally agree that scholars a biased and only aim to serve their own particular religious conviction. Scholars are the only ones who are interested in analysing the bible with an interpretive method. If you apply any rationality or rigour to the bible, it does not make any sense at all.

I suggest that it is more rational to believe that everything up to and including the flood is metaphorical or allegorical, like many Christians do. But the problem with that is why stop at the flood?

:shock: :lol:

Look up what a scientific theory is please. Also go look up evolution.

This thread makes me fear for the future of the human race.

Seriously, why does it seem like people don't even try and understand what they're arguing against? This person clearly does not have a clue about what a theory means in scientific literature, and it looks like he doesn't even know what evolution states (the "ape and humans" argument is a very good indicator of someone who's trying to discuss evolution intelligently and failing very very badly). How can any person even think about arguing against a subject when they haven't learned enough about it to actually dissect it?

Barbariser

Sadly anti-intellectualism and anti-education attitudes have been popular for a while.

One thing I learned from scientist like Darwin, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and Capernicus is that they made discoveries that were so controversial that they challenged what people thought they knew. So VisigothSaxon, back during the debate of the Helio centric universe (Earth orbiting the sun) and the Geo centric universe (Sun orbiting the Earth) what side would you take? Because Giordano Bruno was killed because he had the idea that there were many worlds in the universe that had life on them, that our world was just one plant in an endless universe. Then Came Cepernicus and he started putting together his theory on the Earth orbiting the sun, but in fear of the Catholic church he had to hide his studies, and finally Galileo who confronted the church head on and was sentenced to life under house arrest. And they were all right. The First exo planet was discovered in 1995 and since then over 400 planets have been found. And then last month a planet was found that might support life as we know it. Imagine what the theory of evolution will be like in 4-500 years.

I'd also like to add that opinions are in fact opinions. So that's probably why they call theories uh theories, because they are theoretical and self-explanatory. There really is no need to discuss it.