Comments on: Evolution Fact or Fiction?

By: Brandon

Brandon — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:05:58 +0000

I agree with both of you. That’s why atheists must research science and not just turn over catch phrases like a broken record.

By: soccerfreak67890

soccerfreak67890 — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:52:20 +0000

I agree with the gist of what anonymous is saying. I’ve heard too many christians be like “well God was just always there” and then they demand that an evolutionist give a source for the single molecule that started the whole big bang idea. But I’ve seen it a lot on the other side too. An evolutionist will say “Oh well it doesn’t make sense that God was just always there, so he couldn’t have been and something HAD to create him” but then they don’t have a logical source for where matter came from. You have to remember that there’s just as many dense atheists as there are creationists…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:41:18 +0000

The main problem with the theories of creation and evolution is what was the predecessor. If you wanna go and say that man was created by god then OK fine , but who created that god? And if we want to assume that god was “just there” in the beginning , why not assume that a tiny single celled organism was “just there”.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:25:17 +0000

Evolution in nature is a fact. It’s a very observable process. I do admit, that not everything is 100% but on a smaller scale evolution is non debatable.

As far as “god”. When I say god I mean it in a fairly abstract manner. In that god is a being with supernatural powers controlling our fate and who created our universe.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:54:54 +0000

I should have added that people also don’t know what “god” means. When Westerners make any argument involving “god” – they make assumptions, but they never state those assumptions in advance. Which god? In the West, God is an individual in the sky with a long beard who watches your every move. In the East god is every move itself. A rather profound difference when making an argument involving what god may have done or not.

The people you hear arguing for “Intelligent Design” are not spiritual people – they are Religious people, and Religion is just politics with a different name.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:49:55 +0000

I accept the theory of evolution. However, your statement that “evolution is a fact” is simply wrong from a science perspective. It is a theory, and a scientific theory is far more involved than a fact. It involves numerous facts and observations and confirmations assembled together to form a best possible explanation for what is observed. People often are confused and think “theory” means “wild guess,” or “wild idea” or “hairbrained scheme.” Not at all, a theory in science is about the firmest of all scientific bases. A “fact” on the other hand is nothing but a small unit of information that has been confirmed. Theories are built FROM facts, and observations.

One of the main problems in this argument is that lay people do not understand what a theory actually means.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:49:21 +0000

I know the difference. It was a simple mistake. Learn to be polite.

By: Dazed

Dazed — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:32:41 +0000

“and where are ancestors came from”

are = our.

Learn the difference if you want to be taken seriously.

By: Jim Driskill

Jim Driskill — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:26:58 +0000

“I’d recommend that anyone criticizing evolution to take a deeper look into it and study its many facets. ” Perhaps it would be sufficient to reflect on the existence of chiwawas.
But simplifying the issues and arguments to the point of accommodating condescension as a response strategy is indicative of a closed mind: “Religious people like to debate evolution but I’m sorry folks (Christians, etc.)…” Thank you for setting us straight.
Allow me to quote again, with slight modification…
“I’d recommend that anyone criticizing… [Intelligent Design] to take a deeper look into it and study its many facets.” One of the basic discoveries is that (to my knowledge) none of the qualified proponents of ID disagree with the proposition that evolution is a verifiable process evident from the relevant evidence we observe in biology and other fields. The real critique is a tad deeper and appears to step on sacred toes. “Evolution is more than just some scientific theory…” So it seems.