Jump to content

Welcome to Grasscity Forums - Register now for FREE
Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute.
Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Create an Account

Disprove evolution


  • Please log in to reply
 

#21
maxrule

maxrule

    keeper of the faith

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 6,224 posts

So if i make up a religion and it proves to be foney, does that make all religions fake? No it does not. Plus theres a name for attacking an arguer rather than the argument, some latin term i forget. But anyways that goes to prove that religious people have little to no understanding of evolution. For one man did not come from neaderthal nor monkey. You fail, sorry :confused:


What attack? :confused_2:

Evolutionists have little understanding of God or the Bible.

I agree, man did not come from Neanderthals or monkeys.

Similar Topics: Disprove evolution     x


#22
CREAM

CREAM

    plans to make

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,325 posts
Certainly, believers of evolution do not necessarily believe in god, however, that is not a requisite of believing in evolution. Sure it CAN be a key component of atheistic beliefs--but what about those that believe creation and evolution occurred together? How is evolution a religion in that instance?

Simply because you cannot prove something does not make it false. Just like how those that cannot prove there is no god, do not falsify the existence.

#23
Ebonicsman

Ebonicsman

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 282 posts
I’m smacking my forehead. Hard.
Evolution cannot be disproved. It’s a fact that it happens when you use your antibiotics...

Guess what happens when you don't completely flush your system with those antibiotics? Strain of virus 1 has been destroyed, but strain 2 that had a mutation allowing it to be naturally resistant to the antibiotic now takes over.

You still have the virus! That sucks.

Wouldn't be possible without evolution.

Maybe the whole theory of human evolution is not the argument whether we did evolve, its how. Maybe we started as birds or monkeys. We did evolve however. Everything living does evolve. Germs are a 2 month example of evolution.

Want to argue about what kind of evolution took place? Fine. Want to argue whether evolution exists? Get out of town.
  • amoril likes this

#24
Medicine Al

Medicine Al

    Entelechy to Anarchy

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 3,696 posts
Maxrule, I would try to speak less for the minds of scientists if I were making these preposterous claims you seem so addicted to.

Science, and peer review, exist to prove, disprove and re-prove, or if necessary re-think everything.

I'm not trusting one textbook max, I'm trusting the paleontologists, archeologists and biologists, and anthropologists of UC Berkeley. You may have heard of them. They are a widely respected institution on the west coast.

No bible college, but still...

We're not some bunch of Rush Limbaughs or something.:eek:

All that telling me what my opinion is, won't work either, I formed my opinions back in the stone age. (1970's):D
  • littlefoot likes this

#25
CREAM

CREAM

    plans to make

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,325 posts

Wouldn't be possible without evolution.

Maybe the whole theory of human evolution is not the argument whether we did evolve, its how. Maybe we started as birds or monkeys. We did evolve however. Everything living does evolve. Germs are a 2 month example of evolution.

Want to argue about what kind of evolution took place? Fine. Want to argue whether evolution exists? Get out of town.


I agree that simple things like adaptation, which can be proved anecdotally, validates the notion of evolution. But from my experience, most seem to not realize that evolution doesn't necessarily debunk and threaten their respective religion like they think.

Now, is this thread more about where humans started and came from? I do not understand what is so offensive about the idea that humans have evolved throughout our course. Evolution in various forms has been observed by humans--so that much isn't really up for debate.

#26
addictedtoweed

addictedtoweed

    resident communist

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 617 posts
i believe the latin term is ad hominem

#27
Buddy Dink

Buddy Dink

    Very Expensive

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,936 posts
How can anyone ignore the blatantly obvious evolution between just generations of humans? The life expectancy of individuals in a large portion of the world have risen in just decades. That is ridiculous! Just because we are using technology to obtain this longer life doesn't mean this longer life is not an evolutionary advantage. The internet has offered a ridiculously high speed ability to transfer information, almost instantaneously. Imagine in just like 5 years! We already have netbooks and PDAs and cell phones that have internet data service plans. Instant information anywhere! Most likely it will only keep getting smaller, cheaper, and faster. This is a huge advantage in an evolutionary sense.

Evolution is clearly happening as we speak. To debate that the simple laws of natural selection would affect life now, and somehow not have affected life in the past is ridiculous.

#28
amoril

amoril

    Cannavator of Cultibis

  • Bronze Member
  • 2,049 posts


#29
Guest_RAZORsharp_*

Guest_RAZORsharp_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Ok so there's a disprove god thread up in the spirituality forums, lets try and disprove the theory of evolution.

Standard scientific principles apply, have evidence to support your claims (evolution has plenty of evidence), scripture pre dating evolution does not count as evidence.

...and if you can't then evolution still stands on its mountains of evidence as being the most fitting model to describe the diversity of life on this planet.




If the smartest scientists in this day and age still cannot confirm 100% these questions, what makes you think a handful of stoners will solve it:confused::rolleyes::P



All you are going to do is piss off someone, for explaining their perspective on ONE of MANY theories that we came to be. By all means, talk, but dont get all ansty in the pantsy, its not classy :D


:smoke::smoke:

#30
KundaliniRising

KundaliniRising

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
You can't disprove evolution, because evolution actually exists. However, I find it extremely difficult to believe that we humans somehow got into some radioactive waste and super evolved millions of years ahead of every other living creature.

edit: I also fail to see how being hairless gives any advantage to survival, it doesn't, it reduces your chance of survival.

Edited by KundaliniRising, 02 December 2009 - 07:47 AM.


#31
dave999

dave999

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 609 posts

I mean it's just a theory that the earth is round (well, oblate spheroid shaped), yet it clearly is, that is the reality.
YouTube - Carl Sagan Cosmic Calendar



No, the earth is proven to be round, there are pictures for evidence.

#32
aero18

aero18

    Secularist

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 3,570 posts
Posted this before, but there are some posts in this discussion that seem to indicate a lack of understanding between what laws and theories actually are. Here it is:

"Laws describe. Theories explain. Never in the history of science has a theory become a law."

Theories are different than laws and cannot 'graduate' into laws. Being a law or being a theory does not make one more factual than the other. Both are observations that are excepted by the scientific community and are supported by a lot of evidence or studies.

There are no 'gaps' in the evolutionary theory. There is no evidence that goes against it and for the time being it explains every observation of the development of life that has been collected or observed.

Perhaps you are referring to 'gaps in the fossil evidence'? Again, there are no 'gaps' in the areas of knowledge where the theory of evolution is refuted. Sure, geological conditions have not favored the fossilization of all skeletal bodies that have ever existed on the Earth, so you can say there are 'gaps' as there are organisms that were never fossilized and thus remain unidentified and lost to time; however, evolution still is not refuted. It is supported by all branches of biological/chemical sciences, and further supported by periphery evidence provided by geological and astronomical studies.

Here is a further video that accurately describes what scientific laws and scientific theories are:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xhPgDuUlA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory[/ame]

And a nice quote from Richard Dawkins (who I am sure you all know about) about Kirk Cameron and his recent tirade in sending out creationist propaganda in universities:
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot."

To argue against the evolutionary theory is to argue from a position of gross ignorance of scientific discoveries and evidence. I don't even see why this 'debate' is even considered in the general population. There is almost no dissent in the branches of science (there are always those few delusional people on the fringe) because of the vast amount of evidence and logic behind it.

Edited by aero18, 02 December 2009 - 09:26 AM.

  • MelT and amoril like this

#33
G-MAN

G-MAN

    Casual Toker

  • Old School
  • 1,855 posts

No, the earth is proven to be round, there are pictures for evidence.


Pictures can be faked.

I guess the genetic code for humans and animals was faked too and all of the worlds scientists are just lying through their teeth, and i guess fossils don't exist either.

Oh and btw the earth was proved to be round before we took pictures of it from space, through the scientific method and observation. The only reason more people believe the earth is round is because it does not conflict with their faith, if it did there would be a lot more flat earthers.

Edited by G-MAN, 02 December 2009 - 04:46 PM.


#34
Rhythm of Life

Rhythm of Life

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 6,478 posts
I left some cottage cheese out and it grew some legs ... evolution is confirmed.

#35
G-MAN

G-MAN

    Casual Toker

  • Old School
  • 1,855 posts

Posted this before, but there are some posts in this discussion that seem to indicate a lack of understanding between what laws and theories actually are. Here it is:

"Laws describe. Theories explain. Never in the history of science has a theory become a law."

Theories are different than laws and cannot 'graduate' into laws. Being a law or being a theory does not make one more factual than the other. Both are observations that are excepted by the scientific community and are supported by a lot of evidence or studies.

There are no 'gaps' in the evolutionary theory. There is no evidence that goes against it and for the time being it explains every observation of the development of life that has been collected or observed.

Perhaps you are referring to 'gaps in the fossil evidence'? Again, there are no 'gaps' in the areas of knowledge where the theory of evolution is refuted. Sure, geological conditions have not favored the fossilization of all skeletal bodies that have ever existed on the Earth, so you can say there are 'gaps' as there are organisms that were never fossilized and thus remain unidentified and lost to time; however, evolution still is not refuted. It is supported by all branches of biological/chemical sciences, and further supported by periphery evidence provided by geological and astronomical studies.

Here is a further video that accurately describes what scientific laws and scientific theories are:

YouTube - Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory

And a nice quote from Richard Dawkins (who I am sure you all know about) about Kirk Cameron and his recent tirade in sending out creationist propaganda in universities:
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot."

To argue against the evolutionary theory is to argue from a position of gross ignorance of scientific discoveries and evidence. I don't even see why this 'debate' is even considered in the general population. There is almost no dissent in the branches of science (there are always those few delusional people on the fringe) because of the vast amount of evidence and logic behind it.


Yeah basically laws are simple concepts which have to be true and are usually summarised in a short equation, for example gravity. Theories are usually more broad in scope and describe far more complicated processes. Evolution is a fact though, as much as the earth being round or a table being a table.

#36
aero18

aero18

    Secularist

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 3,570 posts

Just like man made global warming, the proof of "man's decent from apes" has contained its fair share of fraud.

Posted Image

Piltdown Man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later.

The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down.



Posted Image

Nebraska Man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey. A body covered with hair and a primitive face was fabricated to show his closeness in appearance to an ape. Volumes have been written about his physical and mental capabilities.

Years later another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Posted Image


Java Man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Posted Image


Orce Man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey.

Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like.

(source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Posted Image


Neanderthal Man: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets.

Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow.

(source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, # 20)


It's nice how science is able to correct itself through its own scrutiny, isn't it?

All those examples point to how science is able to find fraudulent data and expose it. All except the Neanderthal man. I like how the creationists slide that in with the rest for it to gain some sort of acknowledgement.

I'll discuss the neanderthal soon though. I've got to head to class in 10 minutes.

#37
Zylark

Zylark

    Old School Stoner

  • Old School
  • 5,526 posts
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA&feature=player_embedded#]YouTube - Creationism with Ricky Gervais[/ame]

'nuff said...

:D

#38
dave999

dave999

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 609 posts

Pictures can be faked.

I guess the genetic code for humans and animals was faked too and all of the worlds scientists are just lying through their teeth, and i guess fossils don't exist either.

Oh and btw the earth was proved to be round before we took pictures of it from space, through the scientific method and observation. The only reason more people believe the earth is round is because it does not conflict with their faith, if it did there would be a lot more flat earthers.


I believe in the theory of evolution, any other theory seems stupid. I'm just playing devils advocate and putting across the other point. I also think that no matter however much you want to say something is fact, you cannot call it fact if it is a theory. Humes fork states that no value can be a fact, and that is true. Opinions can never be fact, and although theories can be proven eventually to be fact, evolution remains a theory. I believe that soon it will become true, but until then we have to argue with creationists.

#39
cubensiseye

cubensiseye

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 748 posts
if people actually understood what the word theory means to a scientist, they wouldn't qualify it with the word "just". :bolt:
  • MelT likes this

#40
CaliGrown.

CaliGrown.

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 624 posts

A hypothetical question. What evidence would be required to disprove the general theory of man's decent from apes or a more simple life form?

An unbiased record written by something other than another person. Something that can take us back to the basics.

DNA?
After all, you got yours from somewhere.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users