Do You Believe In Evolution?

llDayo wrote:

Ridge, you're averaging 32 posts per day!! But, I think "accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the observable evidence" is the best way to describe it.

llDayo wrote:

I think "accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the observable evidence" is the best way to describe it.

Christian42 wrote:

<quoted text>
And this is the way it should be taught, IMHO. As the BEST explanation, not a PERFECT explanation.

Melton wrote:

In my opinion the fossile record alone disproves Darwinian evolution. There are many holes in it. These missing links would need to be present to affirm macro-evolution. The study of index fossils defeats any evidence for evolution. Here is a interesting link to a discussion about the fossile record.http://www.icr.org/arti cle/94/
Carbon dating is a flawed science when you try to date an object more than two thousand years old. There are more modern methods of dating that also show inconsistencies. Here is a good discussion on carbon dating ect.http://www.icr.org/article /117/
DNA code sequencing clearly demonstrate intelligent design. http://www.icr.org/article/3187/
I see a very complex and intricate universe. I see evidence of a creator in a single cell, atom and DNA strand.

Melton wrote:

<quoted text>In my opinion the fossile record alone disproves Darwinian evolution. There are many holes in it. These missing links would need to be present to affirm macro-evolution. The study of index fossils defeats any evidence for evolution. Here is a interesting link to a discussion about the fossile record.http://www.icr.org/arti cle/94/
Carbon dating is a flawed science when you try to date an object more than two thousand years old. There are more modern methods of dating that also show inconsistencies. Here is a good discussion on carbon dating ect.http://www.icr.org/article /117/
DNA code sequencing clearly demonstrate intelligent design. http://www.icr.org/article/3187/
I see a very complex and intricate universe. I see evidence of a creator in a single cell, atom and DNA strand.

Ridge wrote:

Believe? The word believe infers faith. I prefer to say that I understand evolution as a fact.

Algernon Sidney wrote:

<quoted text>But a fact that is insufficient to even come close to explaining the many complex organisms and parts of living organisms that have been created.

Algernon Sidney wrote:

<quoted text>But a fact that is insufficient to even come close to explaining the many complex organisms and parts of living organisms that have been created.

Ridge wrote:

Believe? The word believe infers faith. I prefer to say that I understand evolution as a fact. No faith is necessary as it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Very very few people without religious prejudice disagree.
There is much more proof for evolution than many other theories accepted and taught to students and in daily use by science and industry that are accepted and not challenged due to the fact that there is not a popular conflict with those blinded by their faith.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
But, it also means that you won't have an ABSOLUTE answer for "how we got here" -- something that some small-minded people have difficulty with.

us ourYF 22s wrote:

http://thinkevolution.net/what -is-evolution/#random
I can't substantiate my next claim but I am going to make it anyway. From the standpoint of fitness and being a sports nut all my life, their is something much more instrinsically better by pulling and pushing ones own weight, such as doing chin-ups and dips on parallel bars. The way the muscles interact in combination are much more attuned for growth and strength. When you observe primates doing the same , you see power and strength and their IS a big differnce between the two.
When a person works with freeweights(artiificial work-I call it)they can get strong but not the same way as if they were pushing and pulling their own weight.
A person can be quite strong and not have the power to do one chin up !!! A person might argue that this is because they didnt work a complete group and that would be true but on the other hand, doing the chin-up in and of itself solves that problem. Once its is overcome and practiced, power and strength abound. And a man/women in the gynastic field can look very ape-like in their actions and even more beautiful in their performance.
Thats JMO.

Starts With S wrote:

<quoted text>
But there is an ABSOLUTE answer. It just hasn't been proven outright. So say someone figures it out and (obviously) sticks to that answer. Is that person small-minded because they found that absolute answer? Funny how you can equate small-mindedness with true knowledge.

Starts With S wrote:

<quoted text>
But there is an ABSOLUTE answer. It just hasn't been proven outright. So say someone figures it out and (obviously) sticks to that answer. Is that person small-minded because they found that absolute answer? Funny how you can equate small-mindedness with true knowledge.