Do You Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

Do You Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

  • Yes! Evolution is a scientific FACT!

    Votes: 14 45.2%
  • No! God created man in his form! We didn't need to evolve!

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • I'm torn on this issue.

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • I'm not smart enought for this poll.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • I don't really care enough to have an opinion.

    Votes: 5 16.1%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .

Users who are viewing this thread

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
If temperamental wants to perpetuate willful ignorance, that's her choice.
She could say the same thing about you. There is no need to insult her or anyone else that believes in a higher power. And speaking in such a manner is only going to make your opponent dig their heals in more instead of being open to discussion where you and her may actually learn something from one another.
 
  • 388
    Replies
  • 8K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

gillibean

Member
Messages
324
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
She could say the same thing about you. There is no need to insult her or anyone else that believes in a higher power. And speaking in such a manner is only going to make your opponent dig their heals in more instead of being open to discussion where you and her may actually learn something from one another.

I'm not insulting her at all. She is a very intelligent person.
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
I find it amusing that I am the only one that voted: I don't really care enough to have an opinion.

This whole subject only serves to distract from the real message of God (Devil is clever like that) It divides people and it shouldn't.

Knowing exactly how God created us, whether it was 6,000 years ago or 6 million years ago has nothing to do with our walk or our salvation.
 

gillibean

Member
Messages
324
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I find it amusing that I am the only one that voted: I don't really care enough to have an opinion.

This whole subject only serves to distract from the real message of God (Devil is clever like that) It divides people and it shouldn't.

Knowing exactly how God created us, whether it was 6,000 years ago or 6 million years ago has nothing to do with our walk or our salvation.

That much I totally agree with.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Why draw the distinction at ape or squirrel? We are were part of a primordial soup of goo

Care to define primordial soup for us lowly believers? :D

Well, the problem as I see it, is some devoted Christians read these stories and take everything literally, completely literal and true. That's why some people think the Earth is only 6 thousand years old. As a species if we were not open minded, we'd still think the Earth was flat.

Unless you were a Christian, because the Bible tells us the the Earth is round.... And floating in space.... In its oldest book..... Days before Chris Columbus. :nod: :D
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I find it amusing that I am the only one that voted: I don't really care enough to have an opinion.

This whole subject only serves to distract from the real message of God (Devil is clever like that) It divides people and it shouldn't.

Knowing exactly how God created us, whether it was 6,000 years ago or 6 million years ago has nothing to do with our walk or our salvation.

The devil is busy. :nod:
 

LiberalVichy

Member
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Evolution is the only rational explanation for the existence of life. Like Dawkins said, even if we believed a superhuman entity created the Universe, evolution is the only logical way that being could have come about.
I got tired of this debate when I was sixteen, though. Since I don't think the word 'god' makes any sense and all that exists is physical reality, debating whether nonsense nonsensically made us or whether it occured through physical reality is not much of a debate at all from my point of view and I'm certain to learn nothing but to be reminded of my own dislike for mystical thinking.
 

Carthage

Minor
Messages
933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Evolution is the only rational explanation for the existence of life. Like Dawkins said, even if we believed a superhuman entity created the Universe, evolution is the only logical way that being could have come about.
I got tired of this debate when I was sixteen, though. Since I don't think the word 'god' makes any sense and all that exists is physical reality, debating whether nonsense nonsensically made us or whether it occured through physical reality is not much of a debate at all from my point of view and I'm certain to learn nothing but to be reminded of my own dislike for mystical thinking.

worship.gif

You're awesome.
 

Godsloveapples

Between darkness and wonder
Messages
1,918
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.08z
Darwinists claim that by undergoing minor changes, living beings evolve from one species to another over millions of years. According to this claim which is refuted by scientific findings, fish transformed into amphibians, and reptiles transformed into birds. This so-called transformation process, asserted to last for millions of years, should have left countless evidence in the fossil record. In other words, during their intense researches for the last hundred years, researchers should have uncovered many grotesque living beings such as half-fish half-lizard, half-spider half fly or half-lizard half-bird. However, although almost every stratum on Earth has been dug, not even a single fossil has been found that Darwinists can use as an evidence for their so-called transition. On the other hand, there are innumerable fossils showing that spiders were always spiders, flies were always flies, fish were always fish, crocodiles were always crocodiles, rabbits were always rabbits and birds were always birds. Hundreds of millions of fossils clearly show that living beings have not undergone evolution, but were created. Hundreds of millions of fossils prove that living beings did not evolve, but were created.ATLAS OF CREATION - Harun Yahya
 

skyblue

KEEP THE FAITH
Messages
27,194
Reaction score
16
Tokenz
0.34z
so what your saying is....take the various macaw species of parrot in the amozon rain forest,many different colour variations but identical otherwise.......so these didn't evolve from a common ancestor?
 

MMMMatilde

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
161
Tokenz
122.72z
I believe that we were once tiny little specks of nothingness and grewed to tadpoles and all that shyt in between and were apes and vwolla, out came hoomans! :D
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Darwinists claim that by undergoing minor changes, living beings evolve from one species to another over millions of years. According to this claim which is refuted by scientific findings, fish transformed into amphibians, and reptiles transformed into birds. This so-called transformation process, asserted to last for millions of years, should have left countless evidence in the fossil record. In other words, during their intense researches for the last hundred years, researchers should have uncovered many grotesque living beings such as half-fish half-lizard, half-spider half fly or half-lizard half-bird. However, although almost every stratum on Earth has been dug, not even a single fossil has been found that Darwinists can use as an evidence for their so-called transition. On the other hand, there are innumerable fossils showing that spiders were always spiders, flies were always flies, fish were always fish, crocodiles were always crocodiles, rabbits were always rabbits and birds were always birds. Hundreds of millions of fossils clearly show that living beings have not undergone evolution, but were created. Hundreds of millions of fossils prove that living beings did not evolve, but were created.ATLAS OF CREATION - Harun Yahya

Butterflies were caterpillars. :p
 

Godsloveapples

Between darkness and wonder
Messages
1,918
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.08z
so what your saying is....take the various macaw species of parrot in the amozon rain forest,many different colour variations but identical otherwise.......so these didn't evolve from a common ancestor?
Unlike dogs and cats, birds do not have different "breeds". They are actually all different species. This means that a Scarlet Macaw is a totally different species than a Blue and Gold Macaw. So, yes, they didn't evolve from a common ancestor.
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Unlike dogs and cats, birds do not have different "breeds". They are actually all different species. This means that a Scarlet Macaw is a totally different species than a Blue and Gold Macaw. So, yes, they didn't evolve from a common ancestor.

What if they inter-breed? Or does for example a Scarlet Macaw only breed with a Scarlet Macaw, and a grey pigeon only breed with a grey pigeon? etc.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top