What do you believe in? Evolution or creationism?

[city]

not really sir. i'm not forcing my beliefs. I merely used Chrisitianity as basis since most of us here are Christians, hence the 12 apostles & 1 billion Christians on the planet. so that they can relate.

even *city pointed out there are others religions that believe in a god/creator, which btw, reinforced my claim - the more people believe in a creator, the more it is true.

my point is why waste your life or risk your faith believing in something that is only a theory? it's not even a fact and science is all about facts.

but of course, I can be asked: why is creationism a fact? it's not, but that's the beauty of it. you dont have to prove it. it comes from within all of us. the notion of a creator is so acceptable to our human psyche -> it's almost like knowing that your very first served Starbucks ice blended coffee drink will taste and feel good.

This is where most of us come in error. "It's just a theory". Nobody even bothered to know what a scientific theory is and how a simple phenomenon became a theory and accepted by the whole scientific community.

A theory is formulated using the scientific method of discovering or proving a given phenomena to be truth or lie. The scientific method is yet the best way in finding the truth.

I'm not sure if some of us are aware of the scientific method. From the goings of the postings, it''s obviously not. Or we may have forgotten what we have studied in science or worst we were absent from the class where scientific theory and scientific methods were discussed and taught.

Let me leave how scientific methods are carried out to our posters to google it up.

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied.

Among the theories accepted by the scientific community and widely used are relativity, gravity, atomic, wavelight, etc...

In short, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory".


BTW, numbers still doesn't make claims to be true.

peace bros.

[city]

theory of human evolution, related to Darwin's theory of evolution

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...n/humevol.html

Thanks for sharing the site BB....i browsed it and did not find any sections mentioning we came from monkeys. Have you browsed it yourself? Keyword is ape-like..meaning having the same characteristics of an ape. Are you aware that monkeys are claimed to be our cousins? because 98 % of their DNA is similar to ours. But this does not conclude we came from them. Our genetic origins are the same but our evolution are different from monkeys. To put it in simple terms. Our evolutioary paths are different.

I hope this clears the notion and the church's campaign that we came from monkeys.

[BlueBimmer]

Monkeys are 100% different from Apes? the dictionary must be wrong then?

Ape Audio pronunciation of "ape" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p)
n.
1. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.
2. A monkey.
2. A mimic or imitator.
3. Informal. A clumsy or boorish person.

nowhere in my post did i say that it was a conclusion, it is a THEORY.

[theveed]

The crux of this discussion is that evolutionists want the creationists to reason along scientific lines, and this can become extremely difficult with a belief that includes parting seas and the dead coming back to life. On the other hand, the creationists often let their convictions get in the way of them validating the scientific method. I personally subscribe to the Christian perspective of creation, though i must admit that i would be hard-pressed to defend it, at the risk of being called illogical and superstitious. Such is the nature of faith.

As for the evolution theory, well, it still can't get to clarify the jump from non-life to life. Only complicated by the fact that while all the necessary materials and conditions can be recreated in the lab, and in fact be aided by human intelligence, the creation of life even in it's simplest form remains elusive. Ah well. Maybe in time.

Best post yet...

[Alpha_One]

Monkeys are 100% different from Apes? the dictionary must be wrong then?

Ape Audio pronunciation of "ape" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p)
n.
1. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.
2. A monkey.
2. A mimic or imitator.
3. Informal. A clumsy or boorish person.

nowhere in my post did i say that it was a conclusion, it is a THEORY.

Ummm sir, your argument is fallacious.

a). Nobody said that "monkeys are 100% not apes".
b.) You're diverting the focus of the discussion from "how humans are relates to apes" to "the dictionary meaning of ape"
c.) in case you haven't got the point yet, your argument has got nothing to do whatsoever with the discussion.

If I have to repeat what 123 other people in this thread (you know what I mean, wag maging Plato, Socrates or Archimedes), monkeys are NOT our ancestors. Third cousins would be a MUCH more accurate picture.

[Alpha_One]

totoo naman di'ba, we were all once believers of the faith, when adam & eve was taught in school. we easily grasped the idea that we have a creator. kumbaga it's innate among all of us. that's why I said madali in-accept ng sangkatauhan.

and then there's a saying the devil works in mysterious ways to keep us away from God. I believe this evolution theory is one of 'em masquerading as science.

why? bec. it's only a theory by some hotshot scientist. And look at how some people relinquished their faith by just reading it. not even a single science experiment to prove it. they cant even prove how a fish turned into a mammal or a monkey to a gorilla. It sounds convincing, I must agree but only if your faith is weak.

And if science asks us with the faith, what is your proof that there is a creator. My only answer, is 1 billion believe in it then it must true! Empirical or not, the end justifies it -> from 12 apostle believers to a billion Christians in a 2000-year period.

beat that.

"Beat that?" My pleasure.

http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/logic/fallacies.htm

6. Straw Man:

Attacking an oversimplified version of an opponent's actual position. Example: Those who support gun control are wrong; they believe that no one should has the right to defend themselves in any situation.

In your case: We believe in Darwinism. Therefore we "relinquish our faith" and we "are weak". FYI, I'm a Christian. Maybe not as hardcore as you are.

3. Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum):

Attempting to convince by appealing to the natural desire we all have to be included, or liked, or recognized. This type of fallacy breaks down into several sub-types.

Bandwagon: Of course God exists. Every real American believes that. Other related types: Appeal to Vanity; Appeal to Snobbery ("Of course you should cheat; all the cool people are doing it").

Note: In general, accepting a claim only because someone else believes it is a fallacy (not because you find them to be a credible source for instance . . .). So, we could say that another example of an ad populum is:

Appeal to Belief. Example: "90% of those surveyed think we should not convict Clinton, so you should too".

Closely related is the

Appeal to Common Practice. Example: "Hey, everyone speeds. So speeding isn't wrong".

Explains itself.

'Nuff said.

[CoDer]

coder....we did not came from monkeys...we never did.

Magbasa ka muna.

Excerpt from http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...n/humevol.html

Human evolution is the theory which states that humans developed from primates, or ape-like, ancestors.

O sige na hindi na monkey, primate na...

Hala ipilit nyo pa yang Theory of Evolution na para bang kumpleto ang ebedensya nyo.

[CoDer]

Thanks for sharing the site BB....i browsed it and did not find any sections mentioning we came from monkeys. Have you browsed it yourself? Keyword is ape-like..meaning having the same characteristics of an ape. Are you aware that monkeys are claimed to be our cousins? because 98 % of their DNA is similar to ours. But this does not conclude we came from them. Our genetic origins are the same but our evolution are different from monkeys. To put it in simple terms. Our evolutioary paths are different.

I hope this clears the notion and the church's campaign that we came from monkeys.

Oo primate na hindi na monkey. Ungoy pa rin! :praning: :bwahaha:

[Alpha_One]

Magbasa ka muna.

Excerpt from http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...n/humevol.html

Human evolution is the theory which states that humans developed from primates, or ape-like, ancestors.

O sige na hindi na monkey, primate na...

Hala ipilit nyo pa yang Theory of Evolution na para bang kumpleto ang ebedensya nyo.

"O sige na hindi na monkey, primate na..."

You're essentially saying that humans CAME FROM monkeys because both humans are "ape-like creatures" and are "primates".

That's like saying the Bugatti Veyron was made out of karitela because both move and have wheels, both are vehicles.

Based on your argument I can also conclude the reverse: monkeys came from humans. In fact I can conclude "humans came from monkeys" and "monkeys came from humans" at the same time.

Hell I don't even need to quote some philosophy site to prove your argument is invalid.

[city]

Magbasa ka muna.

Excerpt from http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...n/humevol.html

Human evolution is the theory which states that humans developed from primates, or ape-like, ancestors.

O sige na hindi na monkey, primate na...

Hala ipilit nyo pa yang Theory of Evolution na para bang kumpleto ang ebedensya nyo.

clerar signs of desperation..i understand