The Theory of evolution is a lie! We did not come from monkeys!
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Started: | 5/17/2008 | Category: | Science |
| Updated: | 6 months ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 329 times | Debate No: | 4074 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (14)
 Pro 1 debate per person please. I can't imagine how you can believe we came from monkeys. doesn't it just make more sense to just say we adapted? Just because we changed our environment doesn't mean we automativally can mutate ourselves and just "evolve." When people get mutetions, they suffer from various illnesses. Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none. We are made in the image of God, our heavenly father, so when genes in our body changes it goes from good to something bad. How can you explain how things so complex such as the eye can just have "evolved"? you can't. The fact is, evolution takes faith. How you can believe in something that is so absurd with no evidence is beyond me. Do you realize the probability of us getting here by "chance" is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes. Every time I talk to athiests, they can't back their claimes up. All they do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, because that's all they've got. When it all boils down, they have no evidence. So I challenge you, show me the FACTS, show me the Evidence, to justify this belief, because when it all boils down to, you really have none, don't you. Con Actually, I would only debate your first assertion, that your fellow humans with whom you do not feel you have a common understanding are in fact lying to you. As to your second assertion, I can reassure you, you do not come from monkeys. Even given your narrow understanding of your universe, channeled within a unilateral framework of time, it would be more accurate to say that you and monkeys come from the same grandmothers. And trust me, the monkeys are no more proud of having a common ancestor to you than are Africans or myself. But, as you have probably realized, we don't pick our kin. We are simply related. We are in the same bubble of the multiverse, our proximity is our kinship. This is true in any manner in which you may measure it, whether it be genetic or energetic. I won't burden you too greatly with things that you won't understand, but it is in fact a major project of my own to find a way to bridge between our bubble, and the bubble next door. I suspect there may be another God Almighty monodeity there, and I am very curious to know what happens when we touch. But let me visit your principal assertion, that the human scientists are lying to you. They are not lying, they are describing their formula for organizing the observable phenomena of the material human experience in a manner which is more comprehensible to the human mind. So it is truly irrelevant to try to frame the discussion in terms of truth or lie. If you look around you, you will see that everything is changing all of the time. You are different from your parents and your brothers and sisters. Dogs are different from wolves; and in fact you humans have isolated little eddies of energy, which you may describe as gene pools, to create breeds of domesticated dogs in as little as a hundred years. Even the earth itself is moving and changing constantly, the rocks around you are moving. Simply put, you are where you are in all of this. Some things are moving too fast for you to see, and some are moving too slowly. But if you believe that your perception is the definition absolute, then I must ask you: which one of us is God here, anyway? |
 |
|
Pro Con God_Almighty forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro everseeingeye forfeited this round.
Con God_Almighty forfeited this round. |
 |
Loading voting charts...
Show people this debate by sending them this public link:
The world was beleived to be MUCH smaller than, concentrated in the present "holy lands,"
As for science, well more scientist, researchers, and others have came up several more reasons to believe that the Caspian, Red, medditeranean, and black sea for instances could only have been created if the water levels in the area reached a point high enough to create them, a level so high that most of the lower lands would have been covered. most reaserchers in fact dont dispute that at all.
Much like science is always debated with theories countering other theories, man has constantly disputed which interpretation of miracle of creation is the most correct. This theory is proven just by the centuries of holy wars.
Several religions have roots in the same area, place in time, and passages are very similar. Leading most people that do not believe, to be curious as to WHAT in the world sparked this massive movement. Three major religions, follow the similar version of the old testimant, and they fight over the same piece of land?
As for cows, you just proved my point, that enviornment, social behavior, and prefrence and necessity, are the reason for lifes "evolving" or progressing. Not DNA at all. Some cows decided to go to the low lands, they larger, milk heavier, require less oxygen and less blood flow, there nutrients are converted into other aspects of the body such as muscle, because the low land cow must walk over long distances for water and grazing. Thus making a low land cow, heavier muscled, bigger uddered, larger bodied, less haired, and thinner blooded.
ENVIORNMENT and SOCIAL prefrence is what have evolved life on earth, proof that what the word of god says can be true, and that your theory that EVERYTHING came from bluish green goop is in fact the CRAZIEST sounding thing to the intellectual, scientific, believers of god, and his son Jesus Christ.
Some cattle have survived in the mountains, their lungs allow them to live at high altitude, they've got long warm fur and they have got brains good enough not to fall very often.
These cattle have evolved. They're called "Yaks".
What is silly about that?
You're quite right, approaching questions scientifically, means you don't believe things just because they're written in a book.
And we shouldn't! Books can be wrong. Books can lie.
Nature doesn't lie - it doesn't have an agenda.
The Bible claims the world came into being, when? 4004 BC?
It also claims that the world was flooded, and that the largest wooden ship ever built ran agound atop Mt Ararat.
We could have faith in one book written by what appear to be some eccentric fanatics.
But it seems they lied to us.
Everything we look at indicates the world is over 4 billion years old.
There were animals not mentioned in the bible which lived millions of years ago.
Dinosaurs have NEVER been found in the same sedimentary layer as humans, but always in the much older layers.
There is no evidence for a world-wide flood.
There is no evidence of the Ark on Mt Ararat.
How can we have faith in such a book?
For instance, look at the physical features of humans as it relates to their origin, or surroundings.
no evidence exist the mutations are the reason for evolution of any sort.
Something as simple as say a bovine that prefers to graze on a steep slope and slips, eventually killing herself, she does not reproduce, but a cow that prefers to eat in a gentle sloping meadow does not risk physical injury and succeeds in concieving offspring. The lush meadows provide excellent nutrients, and the lesser risk of injury promotes better nutrient conversion in the body and she is able to pass on natural anti bodies to things such as allergies, or pink eye, from her milk to her calf. Her calf is now in better health and is more likely to pass that on to her offspring.
Now take that x's several head of cattle, or every other species, and simple chain of events, or happenings have far more to do with "evolution" or progress,or everlasting impacts, life changing, altering,etc. than the idea of freak mutations. This is why for thousands of year religion has been able to dismiss even sillier sounding theories of science or evolution!
Religion is a faith,.. God intended man to have faith in him. The need to find evidence or artifacts in order to truly believe are the signs of low or no confidence in his power and grace, and that is in fact the greatest sin of all. Religion is single most influential force that no science can disprove. Faith is exactly what it means, to have faith, you cant have faith in something if you feel you have to prove it, you couldn't call it faith.
We've certainly made technological advances many orders of magnitude greater than any other species, but we are genetically, very little different from hunter-gatherers of 5,000 years ago.
However, you're quite right in thinking that it can influence future evolution.
"We" didn't start evolving just millions of years ago, but 3.5 billion years ago. Our ultimate ancestors gave rise to blue-green algae that was life on earth for most of that time.
Humans have never taken a break from evolution.
Did you know that it's believed that blue eyes first appeared just 10,000 years ago?
The reason we aren't 10ft tall is because it's better to be shorter.
I don't know how anyone can have faith in religion.
There are over 100 religions, all claiming different things.
Either all but one is wrong, or they're ALL wrong.
I rather suspect mankind is only just reaching the social maturity to cast off serious belief in these fairy stories.
(It doesn't mean you can't celebrate Xmas (the solstice) or Easter - I certainly do! ;-)
The only reason a species evolves is because of preference or necessity.
Humans developed the ability to FLY in less than 100 years. If an ape did that it would be noted they evolved.
It shows that humans are taller than their ancestory, and obviously the progress in terms of technological advancement in the past few centuries increases dramatically. Did humans take a break for the million years or so and stop advancing, or growing? If we started evolving millions of years ago, and take the last millenium as the measure of growth and progress,.. we should be 10 feet tall, and who knows are far advanced in tech. And yes the nutritional, health, social, aspects of that are in direct route of all my examples,.. and again, isnt, nutrition, health, and social patterns or lack of the very reason a species has to evolve?
Religion is a faith,.. God intended man to have faith in him. The need to find evidence or artifacts in order to truly believe are the signs of low or no confidence in his power and grace, and that is in fact the greatest sin of all. Religion is single most influential force that no science can disprove. Faith is exactly what it means, to have faith.
Given that all the apes of the world could be sat in a football stadium (with seats to spare), I really don't think this is the case.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Is decending from apes that bizzare when you consider the alternative of creation. Even a mildly discerning person can find trouble with the validiy of a story claiming man was created from clay, and a woman from his rib.
"If we evovled from apes, than why didnt the rest of ape population come with, why didnt they evolve as well??"
We didn't evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor.
"How did WE evolve so rapidly and develop so much influential power and intelligence, yet, monkeys have just been monkeys for centuries? One hundered years ago the human race didnt have space travel, t.v. computers, etc,. hundred years later we do,.. yet monkeys have not progressed one bit, nor has anyother animal."
This isn't an example of evolution, it's social progress thru our cognition, something monkeys can't match.