Forums Register login What's New?
Should we reopen the book on Evolution?
Page 1 of 25
  1. Here goes:

    I think the assumption made by the majority of people in the Western World that evolution is a fact is not accurate. It seems to me there are plenty of problems with the theory of evolution that have not been fully addressed.

    Also the "man on the street" is not fully aware of some of the problems of evolutionary theory and therefore bases much of his understanding of life and reality in general on a falsehood. This results in many distortions in behavior or more accurately the "cause" of such behavior.

    A few examples of what I mean:

    -Survival of the fittest. This seems to lead to the belief that the "ends justify the means so to speak" and results in a lack of charity towards fellow human being less fortunate.
    (Handicapped, older, less productive people, etc.)

    Also, I find this idea extremely disturbing:

    Many times men that have been unfaithful hide behind the argument that there are evolutionary drives causing him to be unable to remain with one woman.

    Evolution also is the key to those who support the atheistic argument that there was no Original Sin and therefore no Fall from Grace requiring redemption. This has huge implications for mankind.

    And lastly, for the moment,.......It seems to me the most damning part of Evolution is it works against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How in the hell does interstellar dust organize itself to start "living" unless some outside agent acts upon it.

    Fire away!:popcorn:
  2. so no Darwinism, but creationism makes sense?
  3. LaSalleAve:

    Well, as far as I know there are only two competing theories on the market. Creationism at least has the advantages that life in Universe is a result of an already Living Being. We see this similar process all the time......Life is always a product of an already living thing. I don't think we ever have an example of life starting, by itself, from non living material.
  4. 1. you are changing the subject after the truther embarassment. probably a smart choice.

    2. neither creationists nor evolutionists argue that life is always a product of an already living thing. god is alive and nobody made him. he is juts as unprecedented as the life that came from the primordial ooze or whatever.

    regarding this question, there is a rational view, and one based on faith, which is not science, and cant really be argued against because people dont care about facts when they have faith.
  5. as much as it pains me to say this........ i concur.
  6. Based on what? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

    What are these "problems?"

    This is true about any topic, what is your point? The man-on-the-street often has little actual understanding of scientific issues. This does not invalidate the issues in any fashion.

    How compassionate of you. Very commendable. But, just how does this call evolution into question? Your assigning to it a personal belief that "the ends justify the means" and "contributes to lack of human charity" has no relevance to the evidence supporting natural selection.

    "Survival of the fittest" is a metaphor for the actual process of natural selection, the term Darwin preferred. It does not mean that only the fittest will prevail, it means that those who are fit enough to adapt to changing conditions will proper better than those species that do not..

    What in the world are you talking about? :huh:

    If you are going to challenge the science of evolution, please do so. If you are trying to make some philosophical argument, you've lost me.

    Now you are mixing the science of evolution with Hebrew mythology. I think we're about done here, if you are making a scientific argument.

    How so? That law says that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time. I thought that entropy is a measure of a system's tendency towards spontaneous change. Evolution is all about change.

    Two ways:

    1. Scientific processes

    2. Magic.

    Are you making the case for magic? I wait with bated breath.
  7. Wake me when we get to the part about the monkeys.
    1 person likes this.
  9. Not quite. Evolution is a scientific theory, which is not a wild guess. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

    Creationism is a hypothesis, which is a proposal intended to explain some concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory".

    Creationism has survived no scientific test that I am aware of.


    Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution.

  10. We cannot reproduce gravity either, that does not make gravity imaginary, theoretical though it may be.


    "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." -- Stephen Jay Gould ​
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 1 of 25