What Made Man ? God, Evolution or Aliens...? (Or Add your own if you wish)

Evolution doesn't work like that. It's not that all of a sudden a fish had lungs. It is a slow process.

What caused that change? The same thing that causes all changes: necessity.

That's not what I mean. The necessity was for some monkeys to become smarter, so evolution slowly allowed them to use more of their brains.

but there's even more proof of God than evolution, suck it.

Quoted for absolute hilarity and falsehood.

See, there are these people called scientists and researchers. And what they do is spend all the time studying, and doing tests and why would anyone believe scientists? With their crazy theories and facts. They have this large pile of facts that grows larger every day, and then God has no pile at all. But I'm sorry, I guess this topic is Opposite Land, where by having no proof, you have proof.

Even still, the theory of evolution does not state that a God cannot exist.

Evolution is crap

Look at these scenarios
Momma fish gives birth to fishies, one of them has lungs, fishie dies for lack of air.
A dog growing wings

Test tubes my ass,  it is impossible for a human to create life without altering other life.

Many scientists have made multiple points in the direction of a creator.
Ever seen a sponge with a brain? Neither have I.

Perhaps it's just me, but it doesn't seem like your post makes any sense. It seems like you're trying to sound like you're making a point, when you really aren't. Evolution doesn't say that fish will grow lungs or a dog will grow wings.

As for your scientists remark:

The validity of evolution rests on what the evidence says, not on what people say. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and no valid arguments against it.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

On side note, if evolution was true, then there would certainly be a lot less species walking this earth.

Species can evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago.

Bah, you get the point. Enough for now I suppose, until one of you produces a valid argument.

Wouldn't the growth of body parts in a slow process be quite annoying?
A fish after some odd years starts to grow little feet, just stumps in the beginning, but, wouldn't annoying to have these little stumps, and after fifty generations they finally become something you can actually use? Honestly, who the hell would design that, and isn't it a little too soon to be showing that on all the discovery channel shows about fish and dinosaurs? We can't prove evolution, and of course, books are books, but why would someone like Darwin come along and develop Darwinism? Ultimately, what would trigger the process of a Monkey's brain getting smarter? For that matter, why would it? Monkeys never really have to adapt because they stay in (usually) in the same area,  of course they move around, most monkeys are territorial, so why would they all have to adapt? To take over others territories? Sounds a little fishy to me. (No pun intended)
If birds evolved from lizards, the wings that they would eventual grow would be a hassle to get around with.

Evolution doesn't work like that. It's not that all of a sudden a fish had lungs. It is a slow process.

What caused that change? The same thing that causes all changes: necessity.

That's not what I mean. The necessity was for some monkeys to become smarter, so evolution slowly allowed them to use more of their brains.

Ah, but if there was a need to change it would have effected the population as a whole.
I'll say it again, science is a religion. It's athiesm. Anything proved by science can be proved by other religions with just as much proof.

If you went into a scientists lab and started blabbing your theory's of God and aliens, you would be shot down almost instantly. Their is so much hard evidence and proof that there is such a thing as EVOLUTION. Everything evolves, even single celled organisms will evolve eventually.

Same as above.

Another idea I have, which is enough to get me locked up in an asylum. Who's to say that I'm not a sentient being, alone floating aethereally through some vacuum. I mean, we know individually who we are, what we feel, but never can we truly experience another. Therefore I suggest in the name of Conflict, that life is a simulated dream in the mind of ourselves, sentient being, alone. when we die we wake up in the empty, solemn place just to fall asleep and dream up another world, perhaps very different from the first.

Just a thought.


*brought to you by Vault, shit keeps me ravin'

You're getting a bit off topic.

Evolution doesn't prove how we are here, it's just a theory on how we got here.
I've got a mind twister for your scientist buddies, who created Evolution? The Big Bang? What triggered that? (Yes I believe I am repeating myself, but I can't remember if anyone actually did counter it)

I still believe in the big sneeze, however.

No one created evolution, genius. It is a natural part of life. There is absolutely  no proof of God or aliens. And those shows and people you see on TV who claim they have seen aliens or that God came to them, are doing it for publicity.

No one created evolution, genius. It is a natural part of life. There is absolutely  no proof of God or aliens. And those shows and people you see on TV who claim they have seen aliens or that God came to them, are doing it for publicity.

What created life? How did life come to be?

EDIT: Also, what the hell do aliens have to do with that, if someone saw them it doesn't mean they created life, it could just be another part of evolution, genius.

Wouldn't the growth of body parts in a slow process be quite annoying?
A fish after some odd years starts to grow little feet, just stumps in the beginning, but, wouldn't annoying to have these little stumps, and after fifty generations they finally become something you can actually use? Honestly, who the hell would design that, and isn't it a little too soon to be showing that on all the discovery channel shows about fish and dinosaurs? We can't prove evolution, and of course, books are books, but why would someone like Darwin come along and develop Darwinism? Ultimately, what would trigger the process of a Monkey's brain getting smarter? For that matter, why would it? Monkeys never really have to adapt because they stay in (usually) in the same area,  of course they move around, most monkeys are territorial, so why would they all have to adapt? To take over others territories? Sounds a little fishy to me. (No pun intended)
If birds evolved from lizards, the wings that they would eventual grow would be a hassle to get around with.

It sounds like you're confusing evolution with mutation. Evolution is about adapting to change. You're talking about going to the freak show to see the bearded lady, man with a tail, and the six-eyed baby.

Wouldn't the growth of body parts in a slow process be quite annoying?
A fish after some odd years starts to grow little feet, just stumps in the beginning, but, wouldn't annoying to have these little stumps, and after fifty generations they finally become something you can actually use? Honestly, who the hell would design that, and isn't it a little too soon to be showing that on all the discovery channel shows about fish and dinosaurs? We can't prove evolution, and of course, books are books, but why would someone like Darwin come along and develop Darwinism? Ultimately, what would trigger the process of a Monkey's brain getting smarter? For that matter, why would it? Monkeys never really have to adapt because they stay in (usually) in the same area,  of course they move around, most monkeys are territorial, so why would they all have to adapt? To take over others territories? Sounds a little fishy to me. (No pun intended)
If birds evolved from lizards, the wings that they would eventual grow would be a hassle to get around with.

It sounds like you're confusing evolution with mutation. Evolution is about adapting to change. You're talking about going to the freak show to see the bearded lady, man with a tail, and the six-eyed baby.

If evolution for most animals is growing body parts to adapt, and the body parts and are grown over generations, then some of the generations would have stumps, and it would be a hassle to get around, it would make swimming and walking slower, you'd have more parts for predators to get at, and it just seems pretty inconvenient.
Darwinism is an extremely stupid process of life.

LOL posted while I was posting again. Anyway, I see what you're getting at now.

Well, you don't have a stump where your tail used to be, do you? Kinda, I guess, but it doesn't really protrude as much to call it a stump. Same for what you're implying. But no, we would never really see animals "incomplete"

1.  Evolution does not predict incomplete creatures. In fact if we ever saw such a thing it would pretty much disprove evolution. In order to survive, all creatures must be sufficiently adapted to their environment; thus, they must be complete in some sense.

The basic false assumption here is twofold: first, that intermediates are necessarily incomplete, and second that once variation beyond the "type" is allowed, any and all variation is allowed (this latter is typological or essentialist thinking).

2. We see many creatures in transitional stages. These may be considered incomplete in that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar or related creatures:

 * Various gliding animals, such as the flying squirrel, which may be on their way to becoming more batlike
 * The euglena, which is halfway to plant
 * Aquatic snakes
 * Reptiles with a "third eye" that only gets infrared
 * Various fish that can live out of water for long periods, use their fins as legs, and breathe air
 * The various jaw bones of Probainognathus that were in the process of migrating toward the middle ear
 * Various Eocene whales, which had hooved forelimbs and hindlimbs.

Evolution doesn't prove how we are here, it's just a theory on how we got here.
I've got a mind twister for your scientist buddies, who created Evolution? The Big Bang? What triggered that? (Yes I believe I am repeating myself, but I can't remember if anyone actually did counter it)

I still believe in the big sneeze, however.

I'll just respond with this:

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

    * All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
    * Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
    * Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
    * Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
    * The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
    * Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
    * Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
    * Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
    * The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
    * Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
    * The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
    * When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
    * The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
    * Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
    * Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
    * Speciation has been observed.
    * The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.


Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

As for aliens, it would be silly to say they absolutely cannot exist. Whether they do or not is another story, but the possibility is rather high, all things considered.

Oh yeah, I forgot about your comment on what triggered evolution/Big Bang/universe:

The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.

By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.

This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

I see though that you people are not well informed on the theory of evolution (or creationism for that matter), so I'm going to step out of this debate now, since that's what I was looking for in the first place: a stronger debate. I may check back in after a while though.

Ah, but if there was a need to change it would have effected the population as a whole.
I'll say it again, science is a religion. It's athiesm. Anything proved by science can be proved by other religions with just as much proof.

This is a bit off topic, but there are so many things wrong with this that I had to say something.

Science is not a religion.
Atheism is not a religion either, it is by definition the lack of religion.
And things can not be proved by religion with the same amount of proof, because religions are faith based, and science is fact based. The main difference is that evolution is still a theory, while you don't hear devout Christians calling it the "Christ Theory".

Yeah, I know I said I was done. But I just want to clarify something else. You guys seem to not understand what a theory is. You're treating the theory of evolution as though it's not proven simply because it is a theory.

   1.  The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
          * Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
          * Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
          * Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
          * Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
      Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

   2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

   3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

   4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

   5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

A theory is not a fact. A theory is something made that follows fact, used to support it since there is no other known explanation. Therefore, a theory does imply uncertainty, but it does not imply definition.

True, but "in science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and general relativity."

As you said, it does not imply definition, but it's as close as we can get for now. I never said that all theories are facts, either.

Ok, but anyway, the point that I was trying to get to was that religious people don't consider creationism a theory. It is taken on faith alone that there is a great creator. I personally believe both. Its not really a god in the traditional sense, but something doesn't just come out of nothing.

I see. I apologize because I should have been a bit more broad in my two previous posts, but that doesn't matter now anyway. But I get your point, although there are many people who consider creationism a theory and scientific. Personally I do not believe in creationism at all, there is just no proof. I am open to the possibility of a god though, as I am agnostic, but the presence of some higher power is not ruled out by evolution. There can still be a god even though we have evolved from monkeys.

I am open to the possibility of a god simply because the origins of everything (which is opening up a whole new mess of things that I won't get into here) is unknown. It's incomprehensible how something can just be, so the idea of a higher being or something is possible.

I personally believe both. Its not really a god in the traditional sense, but something doesn't just come out of nothing.

I personally believe both. Its not really a god in the traditional sense, but something doesn't just come out of nothing.

Oh good, someone else made a lame leaving topic and then came back after 2 weeks?

Anyway, what people struggle with is the simple truth that humans aren't capable of sensing everything. In fact, our senses are limited to 5 types of input, so we are severely limited on what we can be aware of. My point in all of this is that just because we can't sense something, doesn't mean its not there. This goes for many things other than just "god".
Another thing is that evolution is all fine and good, but if we turn the clocks back far enough, eventually we get to a point where finding a previous ancestor is impossible. Also, pertaining to things other than life, such as planets, gases, minerals; these things are material. I don't know, as nobody does, if these things always existed in their most base form, and only after time came together into their current form, or if something had to originally create these materials. Like I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.

Evolution the inheiritance of traits over a period of time. Where the hell would a fish got lungs from? Or eyes, or anything? According to evolution, a single cell organism was slowly made by the mixture of chemicals. A cell needs every part of its body to live, if it "slowly happend" then a little would form then die without the componets. And when it was formed, where would it get scales/gills/eyes/etc. to become a fish?

So much points towards a creator, God.
God made everything, and if you don't except that, when Jesus comes back, you guys are going to hell.

Granted, nobody was there for creation or the other Bible stories, but people have found Noah's Ark and the true Mount Sinai. People have found copies of books of the Bible, and they are the same as today's.

So much points towards a creator, God.
God made everything, and if you don't except that, when Jesus comes back, you guys are going to hell.

Jesus and God are two different concepts. I believe in some kind of God, but don't believe that Jesus was his son. Thinking that I'm going to hell when I die doesn't make it so. Thinking that there even is a hell doesn't make that so.

Granted, nobody was there for creation or the other Bible stories, but people have found Noah's Ark and the true Mount Sinai. People have found copies of books of the Bible, and they are the same as today's.

They have not found these things. This is just what evangelists tell you to make you think humans know more than we really do.

Ah, but if there was a need to change it would have effected the population as a whole.
I'll say it again, science is a religion. It's athiesm. Anything proved by science can be proved by other religions with just as much proof.

This is a bit off topic, but there are so many things wrong with this that I had to say something.

Science is not a religion.
Atheism is not a religion either, it is by definition the lack of religion.
And things can not be proved by religion with the same amount of proof, because religions are faith based, and science is fact based. The main difference is that evolution is still a theory, while you don't hear devout Christians calling it the "Christ Theory".

Science is based on "facts". That's what they tell you. Religion has "facts" too.
Atheism is like the color white. It is a color, and yet is the absence of color.

Science is based on "facts". That's what they tell you. Religion has "facts" too.
Atheism is like the color white. It is a color, and yet is the absence of color.

White is not the absence of color, white is every color in the spectrum combined.

Maybe I should've been a little more clear:
Religion has facts just like historical fiction has facts.

Look it up in a dictionary. White is the absence of color. Black is all of the spectrum combined.

Estimate of your IQ = falling

It can be either, depending on if you're mixing light, paint or digital coloir values.

White light is all the colours combined, hence the existance of rainbows, filters and the cool effects you can make when you split light with prisms. In light, black is the absence of colour.

In CMYK printing, white is the absence of colour, and black is achieved through using all colours together.

This is like primary school stuff, come on :/

So much points towards a creator, God.
God made everything, and if you don't except that, when Jesus comes back, you guys are going to hell.

Jesus and God are two different concepts. I believe in some kind of God, but don't believe that Jesus was his son. Thinking that I'm going to hell when I die doesn't make it so. Thinking that there even is a hell doesn't make that so.

Granted, nobody was there for creation or the other Bible stories, but people have found Noah's Ark and the true Mount Sinai. People have found copies of books of the Bible, and they are the same as today's.

They have not found these things. This is just what evangelists tell you to make you think humans know more than we really do.

1). Then you must be Jewish or Muslim or something, they believe in one God, but no Jesus

2). I have seen videos and videos on how the Bible must be true