The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I wonder what people are going to believe 400 years from now.  Of course if we make it that far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNZA1ATxLiE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNZA1ATxLiE)

Maybe I'm not understanding you but are you insiunating man will evolve in 400 years?

I believe that the question of "believing " in evolution is not a yes or no question as most people I know in the Christian world believe in some sort of evolution and science backs that.  What science does not back is that man comes from a monkey as does other creatures supposedly come from micro organisms.  I mean ... we have dinosours from before man  yet we mysteriously have no "missing links" between supposed species? 

I can't help but think evolutionists are the same people blaming the government for carrying out 911 and covering up alien abductions in Roswell.

No.  I'm just wondering if today's trendy religions are going to be "mythology" 400 years from now.  It happened to the Greeks' faith.

I don't understand how when asked if you believe in evolution, you can respond yes and no.  I think it is just a yes and no answer regardless of the variation of evolution you believe or don't (huh?) believe in...

What the video states is pretty simple.  48% of Americans don't believe in evolution.  Whether they are religious or not the number is still that high.

I think you're  onto something...9-11, aliens, evolution...

What do you consider today's trendy religions?  Wicca?  Scientology? 

Science most assuredly backs man's evolution from the ape line.(Not a monkey, really big difference).Humans share 95% DNA with Bonobos, a species of ape. If that's not enough, the fossil record clearly illustrates the evolution of man, and many other hominid species as well.
As for Dinos.,birds are essentially dinosaurs, but a direct link will be kind of hard to find seeing as though the entire species was wiped out 65 mya.
All this, and I'm not a conspiray theorist, believein, accept, and love Jeseus and the Father.

Stinkfish is correct. Evolution is as close to a scientific law as a scientific theory gets. There is nothing at all immoral or apostate about the theory of evolution, as long as it remains cabined as that: a scientific theory.

Once it branches out into other realms and becomes a philosophy, or mythology, or justificatory interest, it often has the tendency to become very destructive (i.e. social darwinism, radicalism, etc).

See ... this is where I believe you are wrong.  There are no "in between"  species.
In fact, we should still propably have the remnants or something of communicating apes in the jungle somewhere.   Man has evolved no doubt but to say we have archeological evidence of a species that is in between the man and the ape is not even a small stretch ... it is huge.  If it is indeed fact then it should be easy to prove me wrong.  One fossil of a deformed ape is not any more proof than using my handicapped nephew to verify there is no intelligent people living today. There are obviously numerous to the contrary.  If it is fact we should have many examples of most, if not all of the creatures and that simply is not the case.   

The "missing link" between apes and man has never  been proven, true, but the genetic similarities between humans and and non-human primates strongly suggest that we came from a common ancestor.  That does not mean humans evolved from apes, it means that humans and apes branched off from a common predecessor, which has yet to be discovered.

Until that discovery, it's a perfect spot to insert "Divine Intervention".

The same goes with the "Big Bang" theory, which at first was shunned by the church and then adopted.  It's how God created the universe.

The Big Bang theory was shunned? I'm a bit shocked. I always understood that the theory was developed, in its infancy, by a churchman: Georges Lamaitre.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

I hate it when people say that "man comes from monkeys".  Evolution doesn't claim that man came from monkeys.

It claims that both man and monkeys came from similar ancestry.  A monkey didn't evolve into man, nor it is that the theory being presented.

Also, the concept of a missing link or "gaps" in the evolutionary record will always be there.  Evolution is a very, very, very gradual process.  So, every time you fill in a gap with a new discovery, you're presented with two new gaps.

I don't really think there is such a thing as an Evolutionist.  That's like being a round-Earthist.  The evidence supports this theory.  You don't have to dis-believe in God to ACCEPT evolution.  (Believe isn't even the right word.)  If you believe in God, it makes sense to think that He put the wheels in motion for evolution to occur.

One more thing, and this is probably going to be offensive to some of you, but whatever.

Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution is a total dolt, in my opinion.

I am okay with people having different opinions on lots of things, and in many ways, I can understand where the other side is coming from.  Even things like global warming, I can see both sides on.  But evolution is only a theory, because it can't scientifically be more than that.  It's like not believing in gravity.

I don't care that people are religious, but when people are religious to the point that it makes them ignore facts and evidence, I am dumbfounded.  There are aspects of evolution up for debate.  For example, there are humanoid species originally thought to be in line with humans/apes, but more recent discoveries lend to the theory that they were a separate track that lived alongside those species that evolved into humans, but were killed off by Neanderthal man, for example.  The specifc paths of evolution will be debated and re-organized, because we're learning new things and are presented with new evidence, but to believe that evolution hasn't occurred is downright thick-headed.

^^^

Once again Dave. BRAVO!  I've had many discussions/arguments about this.

Again ... like the first post.  I'm still not sure what you are saying as I haven't seen anyone in this thread denying  evolution.  I think that if you investigate into people who say they do not "believe" in evolution you will find that they do actually "believe" in a type of evolution ... just not to the point that God did not start the process. 

Almost every mention of the word evolution to a Christian iconjures up images of having someone throw in their face to prove that God does not exist.  The word evolution leaves a negative impression of a denial of God to many Christians so they would certainly say no when asked a yes or no question.  If the question was more specific the numbers would certainly be much higher.

Why would anyone assume that Evolution and existance of God are exclusive? I just don't get that.

^^^

Agree with Dave, except on one point.

The idea that evolution occurred "gradually" as it has commonly been used, has never set well with me. I have always favored the idea of punctuated equilibrium, frankly because their are large gaps and (seemingly) sudden rapid changes in morphology. I think the burgess shale, for example, explodes the idea that evolution continuously occurs gradually. 

Ignorance on both sides.  If you have not heard aguments that evolution proves that God does not exist then you have been sheltered.  That's what the whole evolutionism vs. creationism argument is about.  Aside from having to deny that evolution is part of God's plan, most creationists have no issues with some theory of evolution.

All the people who don't believe in evolution should check out this video

http://www.revver.com/video/99898/imagining-the-tenth-dimension/

...Then they will see how meaningless our lives really are and how there are so many other ideas/concepts (some of which we have yet to even conceive).

The people who say that evolved from monkeys - well, almost.  Apparently it's a longer process for them.

CF, I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that they don't believe in evolution yet.

But, I disagree with you, that those saying that don't believe in evolution actually do believe in evolution, but it's just the wording of the question.

I've also never heard anyone say (I'm sure people have, but I've never heard it in any of my studies) that evolution disproves God.  Nothing can disprove God.  His very nature is unchallengeable, as per the way he's described.  It is very, very difficult to prove something doesn't exist.  Since God is not evidence based, but faith based, He can never be disproven.

Creation and Evolution cannot co-exist, however belief in God and evolution can.  Those that believe that God created evolution are not creationists.  They are evolutionists.

Creation and evolution can both exist.  Life started somehow, and I believe God set the wheels in motion.  Others believe it was happenstance. 

This is certainly a mind-broadening clip. I do not see how it has any ramifications for meaninglessness or otherwise.

This is outright untrue.  What you're describing is evolution.  God creating evolution is EVOLUTION.  God creating man and monkey as separate creatures, as they now exist is CREATION.

Creationism -- as defined by dictionary.com.

1.   the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

------------

This reminds me of a debate I had with a friend who was clearly pro-choice, but thought he was pro-life.  He said that he would never elect to have an abortion, because he thought it was wrong.  However, he didn't care what other people did.  Being against having abortions in his life, he thought that made him pro-life.  He just didn't understand the difference.  I see this as similar.

If you're a creationist, you can't believe in evolution.  The very definition of one conflicts with the other.

By that definition, I am not a creationsist, but what does it matter anyway?  Everyone believes what they choose to believe.

Not so much life, but intelligent life.  Why are humans the only intelligent species?  There are species that have been evolving many times longer than homo-sapiens yet can't compare to our level of cognitive abilities or sentience.  Why is that?  Is God the difference?

Again ... I think it's semantics.  For instance.  I believe that man was created by God and has evolved into the man that he is today from a much different man he was when God created him.  I do not believe that he started out an Ape let alone an amoeba.  By that defintion I am a creationist yet I feel I believe in some sort of evolution for not only man, but of many species.  I feel that most Christians probably fall into this catagory.

By my own defintion I'd say the larger catagory of people are creationalists who believe in some sort of evolition but are not actually evolutionists.  And bassed on that assumtion .... it's no wonder there is a high number of "No's" to the question.

Well put.

But there are subcategories under creationism though Dave. You definition is only representative of one creationist theory.