Argument against Evolution I hadn't read before...

[dmp]

From another forum...

...this persons theory was that if you look at all animals, insects, basically everything but humans, you'll find that they all have some means of protection from the elements, predators and what not. for example, claws, teeth, shells, coloring for hiding. the one thing that makes us different "from God's other creatures" is that we don't have any of these things. what was "given" to us was free will and the intellect to create those things which we did not have, weapons, shelter, etc. if we evolved from animals, how did we evolve out of these basic things into a self aware, highly intellectual animal. don't necessarily agree with that but its kind of interesting to think about

 

[rtwngAvngr]

First of all, we evolved from primates, who don't have claws and shells anyway. Secondly, intelligence became the overwhelming trait which favored our survival; the others didn't matter. Your new argument is unconvincing.

 

[dilloduck]

From another forum...

HEY--I have teeth! :teeth:

 

[dmp]

First of all, we evolved from primates, who don't have claws and shells anyway. Secondly, intelligence became the overwhelming trait which favored our survival; the others didn't matter. Your new argument is unconvincing.

Forrest...trees...Primates have protective coverings...they have physical defensive mechanisms...Humans only have intellect (debatable *cough*liberals*cough*)...by your statement, the intelligence came first. Why? How? If we 'had' those other things, we'd not need to 'magically' develop intelligence, etc. Evolution is based on organisms changing based on need for improvement.

It's not supposed to be a 'magic bullet' - it's just yet ANOTHER argument which would point the intellectually-honest against believing in Macro-evolution.

 

[DKSuddeth]

all evolutionary steps come in leaps. Humans still have hair, a leftover from our less evolved ancestors. Humans developed weapons out of wood, then stone, then metal. These are all signs of growing intelligence, or evolution. Evolutionary theory is partly built on our 'opposable thumbs' as well, we're able to do more with our hands because of it. There are a multitude of things that explain the theory of why we, as humans, have advanced further than other species.

 

[dilloduck]

Forrest...trees...Primates have protective coverings...they have physical defensive mechanisms...Humans only have intellect (debatable *cough*liberals*cough*)...by your statement, the intelligence came first. Why? How? If we 'had' those other things, we'd not need to 'magically' develop intelligence, etc. Evolution is based on organisms changing based on need for improvement.

It's not supposed to be a 'magic bullet' - it's just yet ANOTHER argument which would point the intellectually-honest against believing in Macro-evolution.

Maybe God shot an ape with a "magic bullet".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Forrest...trees...Primates have protective coverings...they have physical defensive mechanisms...Humans only have intellect (debatable *cough*liberals*cough*)...by your statement, the intelligence came first. Why? How? If we 'had' those other things, we'd not need to 'magically' develop intelligence, etc. Evolution is based on organisms changing based on need for improvement.

It's not supposed to be a 'magic bullet' - it's just yet ANOTHER argument which would point the intellectually-honest against believing in Macro-evolution.

No. No magic involved. The selection for intelligence started before we were on the scene. Primates aren't so strong and vicious, they too survived by their wits.

 

[Zhukov]

Actually humans do have an added fat layer that adheres to our muscle tissue and our epidermal tissue, unlike other primates who's skin can be pulled away from their body. The added layer of fat is kind of like a whale's blubber and is a form of insulation, i.e. protection from the elements.

 

[dmp]

Actually humans do have an added fat layer that adheres to our muscle tissue and our epidermal tissue, unlike other primates who's skin can be pulled away from their body. The added layer of fat is kind of like a whale's blubber and is a form of insulation, i.e. protection from the elements.

if that's all the protection we 'evolved with' - that's pretty sad; and uncharacteristic of true Macro Evolution.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

if that's all the protection we 'evolved with' - that's pretty sad; and uncharacteristic of true Macro Evolution.

It's just one example. What is "true Macro Evolution"? Is that like plain old evolution?

 

[Zhukov]

if that's all the protection we 'evolved with' - that's pretty sad; and uncharacteristic of true Macro Evolution.

Well obviously not. There's the skin itself, the pigmentation in your skin, the hairs on the skin, the hairs in your nose, the hairs in your throat, eyelids, fingernails, toenails, all other body hair, your sphincter, your teeth, your immune system, your ability to run away, climb a tree, swim away from shore, and most importantly and previously mentioned, your intellect. Evolution provided you with the means to skin other animals and wear their protection, to build a shelter, and to defend yourself with a rock, to build a spear, a bow, a gun.

 

[007]

I don't know about you people, but my ancestors were NOT fucking APES!

I WAS CREATED, IN THE IMAGE OF MY GOD, BY MY GOD. And until you can "PROVE" your "theory", the discussion of evolution is an excersize in futility.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Pale Rider,

Pride shouldn't stop someone from accepting the truth. Why is it so offensive to you that we evolved from apes?

And it seems to me that God was created in the image of man.

Why would God need skin, limbs, anything that is part of our physical body?

It seems all God would need that we have is some form of intellect which hardly accounts for 99% of our physiology.

 

[007]

You state we evolved as if you somehow could PROVE that.

I did not evolve. I was created. I and all my ancestors are now what we have always been. We were never anything else.

You accept that.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Listen neither of us can PROVE anything 100%. Good luck even trying to PROVE gravity 100%. It takes an infinite number of affirmatives to prove something. However there is evidence that one theory is more likely than another.

Most of that evidence points toward evolution as opposed to instant creation.

I could personally believe that God created the earth and then we evolved as he wanted us to.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Do creatures in the animal world evolve to adapt or die out?

These creatures that evolve either lay eggs or procreate through mating, right?

Do we, as humans, procreate through mating?

Do we, as humans, evolve to adapt?

Whats so hard to believe about the human race being the most adaptable, therefore the most evolved?

 

[007]

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to believe. I'm only stating the facts, and the fact is, evolution has NEVER been PROVED. Granted, there is no way to prove we were created either. That is only my belief, and it's easier for me to believe than evolution, along with many others.


http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

This didn't paste very well froms it's original format, but you'll get the idea.

POLL RELEASES
March 5, 2001

Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans
Some Americans appear uncertain as to meaning of terms, however

by Deborah Jordan Brooks

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Although most scientists subscribe to the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the origin of human beings, a recent Gallup poll shows that the American public is much more divided in its own beliefs. Americans choose "creationism" over "evolution" when asked which of these two terms best describes human origins, but slightly larger numbers of Americans choose one of two evolutionist explanations than choose a strict creationist explanation when given a choice between three specific views. At the same time, only about a third of the public say that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is well supported by evidence.

These different beliefs about the origins of the human race have long been important topics of public debate. The Kansas Board of Education’s recent reversal of its previous decision to omit references to many evolutionary concepts in its public school standards has focused more attention on the topic in recent weeks. While much of the debate centers on issues surrounding the separation of church and state in public school classrooms, the discussions are often premised largely on individuals’ personal beliefs about Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the biblical theory of creationism.

Americans More Likely to Identify Themselves as Creationists Than as Evolutionists
Gallup has asked Americans several times over the last 20 years to choose between three statements that describe the origin and development of the human race. Generally speaking, the plurality of Americans have come down on the side of a creationist approach to human origins, while slightly fewer have agreed with a statement that reflects an evolutionary process guided by God, and only a small number have agreed with an evolutionary process in which God had no part.

Most recently, in Gallup’s February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. A slightly larger percentage, almost half, chose one of the two evolution-oriented statements: 37% selected "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" and 12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup started asking it in 1982.




Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?



Humans developed, with God guiding
Humans developed, but God had no part in process

God created humans in present form

OTHER (vol.)/
No
opinion


%
%
%
%







2001 Feb 19-21
37
12
45
6







1999 Aug 24-26
40
9
47
4

1997 Nov 6-9
39
10
44
7

1993 Jun
35
11
47
7

1982
38
9
44
9







(vol.) Volunteered response


After asking Americans which of the three statements on the origin of humans they agreed with, Gallup asked, by name, which of the two theories they believe in more. Given this choice, more than half of Americans say they believe in or lean toward the "theory of creationism" while far fewer believe in or lean toward the "theory of evolution" (57% for creationism vs. 33% for evolution) and one out of 10 say they are unsure.

People who consider themselves to be political conservatives are much more likely than liberals to prefer the theory of creationism. Americans in the South and Midwest are more likely than people living in the East and West to believe in the creation theory. Perhaps most notably, those for whom religion is an important part of life (those who attend religious services every week) are far more likely to prefer the theory of creationism than are those who attend church less often (80% versus 47%, respectively).

The first question reviewed above explains the precepts of the creationist and evolutionary approaches without mentioning the labels, while the second gives respondents only the labels without explanation. The results indicate some differences in interpretation based on which question is used. More Americans agree with the word "creationism" than agree with "evolution," but a slightly larger number choose an evolutionary explanation rather than a creationist explanation when given specifics.

In order to better understand these issues, we examined the relationship between responses to these two questions, looking at how people who said they believed in or leaned toward one of the two theories answered the more specific question describing the three approaches to the origin and development of human beings.

Generally, there is a good deal of consistency between responses to the two questions. The majority (two out of three) of the people who said they believed more in "creationism" selected the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." But interestingly, more than one-quarter of "creationists" selected a statement that can be seen as compatible with the scientific findings of evolutionary scholars: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." Only 1% of "creationists" selected the evolutionary statement saying that "God had no part in the process." Thus, while almost no "creationists" believe that humans developed without God’s help, a not insignificant minority believes that human beings developed from lower forms of life, as evolutionary scientists suggest, but that God helped the process along.

People who choose "evolution" as their preferred theory are most comfortable with the idea that God guided an evolutionary process of human development. A majority -- 51% -- selected the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process," while 34% selected that statement with the condition that "God had no part in this process." Finally, just 10% chose the statement that God created human beings within just the last 10,000 years.

What do these findings tell us? First, only a very small minority of "evolutionists" choose a creationist explanation when confronted with the specifics of the theories. Thus, the vast majority of "evolutionists" are consistent and choose an evolutionary explanation, with or without God’s involvement.

On the other hand, over one-quarter of Americans who say they believe in the creationist perspective choose an evolutionary statement -- albeit the one that has God’s involvement. Thus, it appears that a substantial proportion of "creationists" cannot be distinguished from the majority of "evolutionists" in the way they think about the origins and development of humankind. While 57% of Americans claim to lean toward the label of "creationist," in actuality, only 41% of Americans are "creationists" who do not support an evolutionary way of thinking about human development. The difference suggests that there is either a very broad interpretation of the term "creationism" -- one that does not support the biblical account of the creation of the human race -- or that there is misunderstanding about what the label "creationism" means, among at least some of the creation-leaning public.


Total
"Evolutionists"
"Creationists"


%
%
%






Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process
37
51
28

Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process
12
34
1

God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so
45
10
67

OTHER (vol.)
1
1
2

Don’t know
4
3
2

Refused
1
1
0


Public Doubtful About Whether Evidence Supports Darwin’s Theory
Another question included in the recent poll asked directly about the evidence supporting Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Given a choice between three alternatives, only about one-third of Americans think that Charles Darwin’s theory is "well supported by evidence," while slightly more (39%) believe that it is not well supported, and that it is "just one of many theories" on this subject. A substantial percentage of Americans -- one in four -- felt they didn’t know enough to say.

Individuals with more education and people with higher incomes are more likely to think that evidence supports the theory of evolution. Younger people are also more likely than older people to think that evidence supports Darwin’s theory, perhaps reflecting the widespread teaching of evolution in the classroom in recent decades.

Again, however, not all Americans are consistent in their beliefs. Seventeen percent of those who say evolution is the best theory to explain human origins feel that evidence does not support the theory well in response to this specific question about Darwin’s theory, while 16% indicate they don’t know enough to say. Among people who prefer creationism, one out of five says the evidence supports Darwin’s theory, while 24% report they don’t know enough to say.

Only 34% of Americans consider themselves to be "very informed" about the theory of evolution, while a slightly greater percentage -- 40% -- consider themselves to be "very informed" about the theory of creation. Younger people, people with more education, and people with higher incomes are more likely to say they are very informed about both theories.

Survey Methods

The results reported here are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,016 adults, 18 years and older, conducted February 19-21, 2001. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus 3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

How informed would you say you are about the theory of evolution? Do you feel that you are very informed about the theory of evolution, somewhat informed, not too informed, or not informed at all?



Very
informed

Somewhat informed

Not too informed
Not informed at all

No
opinion








2001 Feb 19-21
34%
47
11
6
2


How informed would you say you are about the theory of creationism? Do you feel that you are very informed about the theory of creationism, somewhat informed, not too informed, or not informed at all?



Very
informed

Somewhat informed

Not too informed
Not informed at all

No
opinion








2001 Feb 19-21
40%
40
10
7
3


Would you say that you believe more in -- [ROTATED: the theory of evolution (or) the theory of creationism] to explain the theory of the origin of human beings, or are you unsure?

Do you lean more towards -- [ROTATED: the theory of evolution (or) the theory of creationism]?

Q.21/Q.22 COMBINED RESPONSES


Theory of evolution
Lean toward evolution
Lean toward creationism
Theory of creationism
No
opinion








2001 Feb 19-21
28%
5
9
48
10


Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is -- [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well supported by evidence], or don’t you know enough about it to say?


Supported
by evidence
Not supported
by evidence
Don’t know
enough to say
No
opinion







2001 Feb 19-21
35%
39
25
1

 

[Said1]

I don't know about you people, but my ancestors were NOT fucking APES!

I WAS CREATED, IN THE IMAGE OF MY GOD, BY MY GOD. And until you can "PROVE" your "theory", the discussion of evolution is an excersize in futility.

If according to you, the above can't be proven either, why are you so hostile?

 

[DKSuddeth]

If according to you, the above can't be proven either, why are you so hostile?

Thats the reaction I get from alot of people who refuse to entertain the notion that they possibly could have been from a lower life form. I think its an arrogance thing, understandable sort of, but still arrogance. my opinion anyway.

 

[dmp]

Thats the reaction I get from alot of people who refuse to entertain the notion that they possibly could have been from a lower life form. I think its an arrogance thing, understandable sort of, but still arrogance. my opinion anyway.

I refuse to acknowledge macro evolution for two reason:

#1 By perponderance of the evidence, we were created by devine design.

#2 Darwinian-Macro-evolution speaks against God and Creation as we have in the Bible. Not completely contrary...but against it.