Are there any people here who don't believe in evolution?

Reduced surface area in Inuit people stands out to me, in addition to capillaries that stay open to prevent frostbite / not send frosty blood to the heart from cold extremities and fingers that work.

I agree with you but don't understand the point in arguing a topic so lopsided with regard to fact.

 

The Jesuits of course would have you embrace this theory. They are the "god gave you a brain -- use it" branch of the Church, hence the occasional excommunication of the entire said branch.

But yes, there are people here who feel differently, and I think, if you had search capabilities, you could have saved yourself this thread creation, but let's step back and see how it goes...

 

True middle-of-the-roader here. I'm not a Biblical fundamentalist but I likewise eschew the godless proclamations of the evolutionists. Surely some of the evolutionary principles are are inarguable, i.e. survival of the fittest, but the theory from a layman's easy chair seems full of holes.

The classic question: if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

How does evolutionary theory impact on genes? If you can't change the genes, how can you change the creature?

 

Personally I dont have a problem believing in both....I believe the bible word for word and I dont have a problem with evolution. However the man came from monkeys argument....not so much. But we hear about new drug resistant strains of diseases all the time, isnt that some form of evolution. I believe that God gave life the ability to adapt.

 

Welcome to the United States of America, where (last I checked) something like 50% of the population doesn't believe in evolution.

That's only a classic question because the morons who ask it don't pay attention to the answer. We didn't evolve from apes (or monkeys). We share a common ancestor with apes (and monkeys, although we split from them much further back in time).

 

You've gotten your side off to a great start by acting like an ass right out of the box. Do you write for Penn Jilette... or Teller?

Of course you do realize that the idiocy of your speculation. How is one supposed to know the answer to a question when one is asking the question?

Let's try again: explain how evolution takes but a few pathways rather than thousands of millions of pathways.... and what about the genes? What evolutionary "force" would change the gene composition of any particular animal make a "new" animal?

Now we can make this an ugly, impertinent discussion or you can get off your high horse and simply supply answers to the questions posed. Try to be nicer than Penn Jilette, please....

 

Your post if rife with contradiction.

Everyone here knows this to be utter garbage.

 

I'm not expert on this, so maybe I'm thinking about this wrong. But when you are referring to "pathways", you just mean macroevolution?

Why should we expect a particular species to splinter into thousands/millions of different ones in a few hundred million years? Its not such a common process.

 

Hot under the collar already?

 

We need some new topics in the D&D.

 

Depends

If
Evolution = Random Luck
no . . . i do not beleive that that we are the result of random luck

Rocket River

 

How do Eskimos and Australian Aboriginees have the same genes... if they were "created" by randomly different evolutionary forces perhaps at different windows of time? At their genetic core, aren't they the same althoughly wildly different physiologically?

 

No, just tired of folks still giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Is that what happened? Eskimos and Aboriginees are the same species, which means they have a common ancestor.

 

Then good, that makes you an evolutionist, because evolution/natural selection is the exact opposite of random luck.

 

I think you’re going to have to define what part of the theory of evolution you’re talking about, and what you mean by “believe”. There are parts of the theory of evolution that are well tested and proven to a high degree of certainty, and there are other parts that are untested theory, and pretty lose theory at that. Also, the term believe is going to get you into trouble on this subject. If you’re approaching this from a scientific perspective then you may want to talk about degree of certainty and the amount of evidence there is to support different aspects of the theory.

On Creationism, there are different kinds of creationism that fit the evidence to greater or lesser degrees. Also note that if we’re taking a scientific approach to this question then we can’t just talk about two groups of theories. It can’t be just a question of a choice between the two, in other words. Any plausible theory that fits the evidence must be considered.

 

Stop stepping in dog sh**

 

Which can be explained by creation. If not creation, how then did they roam so far? Timelines are going to be important here.

Question: would the Creation Theory strain credulity so if it weren't married to such a short history? In the video, the one guy cites 6,000 years.

 

You do know that on Happy Days Donny Most was the ultimate goofball? Oh yeah, he was just acting!

You better find another thread to pee on because I'm home with the kids on a snow day and have (evolutionary) time on my hands...