Please talk to a psychiatrist, you seem to have very severe depression if you hate living on this planet. Not even being Sarcastic.
Back to the topic, the science of evolution is based on observation. We have made organisms evolve in a lab right before our eyes. Dog breeding works the same except with humans deciding which traits to keep instead of nature. We can observe our common ancestors by looking at the body compared to other primates. While the fossil record is not complete, what we have so far points to evolution.
I don't believe in spiderman because there are fans of his enemies, that is pretty much the logic you're going on for saying satanism proves it. Same with saying gods word proves it, says so right there in the comic that he is real!
I love the beauty of God's creation that I see all around me. I love the people that I am thankful to have relationships with. I love the people that speak with on these boards, even if they hate me and say I need a psychiatrist.
But I also see the misery of life and the hate (due to Satan's influence) that causes people to kill, steal and destroy. There is evil all around us. You must be marvelously blessed to have avoided the sufferings that are common to man? Seriously. We all deal with death, pain, sickness and so on. This is not how God intended for us to live. It is part of the fact we live in a fallen and not perfect world, one that eventually He will make right again.
Dog breeding produces dogs right? Has anyone bred a dog to become a cat? Until I can see changes from one kind into another kind I will not believe in evolution. There have been adaptations but these adaptations are not proof of evolution from one kind into another. We as humans have more in common with dogs than apes so looking at the physical bodies to make comparisons is not enough. You don't have to agree with me. You don't have to believe in God. That is the amazing thing about "free will." I am just trying to encourage a few people on here to think about the risks of not believing. If something is true then it doesn't matter if I believe it or you believe it or if any of us believes it. If God's word is true then we will all be accountable to it.
My point about "satanism" was just an interesting fact. There is no other religion that has an "anti-religion" formed to fight it. It was not proof by any means. I just figured it was an interesting thought that should at least cause us to pause and think for a minute.
You pretty much just admitted that evolution exists. Macro evolution (changing species) is nothing more than micro evolution (changing traits) over a long period of time, to the point that one is not able to breed with another, and you have a new species just like that. Think about domesticated dogs vs wolves and how different they are. Over time they will become more and more different, to the point that they are no longer able to mate (this would be if they were in the wild, doesn't really apply since pets aren't going to be subjected to survival of the fittest but irrelevant to the example). At this point you have a new species.
For the record I don't hate you, you really did sound depressed
We have not seen evidence of macro evolution (changes of a fish to a dog for example). The solution that evolutionary scientists give is just to throw "millions of years" into the equation so that they can rationalize that it took that long to happen. (still not long enough) If the changes that occur cause differences that make it so the species cannot mate isn't that an evolutionary problem in itself? Creationists completely agree with "micro evolution" because it is simply adaptations or changing of traits within a species. It is such a huge jump from changes within a species to changes outside of a species though, one that has no fossil record or evidence to support whatsoever.
You are completely wrong. The process of a new species being formed is (using the wolf example)
Due to something, wolves are separated into A and B and unable to reach eachother. Group B is in a different climate than group A
Both groups breed over a long period of time and evolution makes them adapt to their surroundings
Over a long enough period, the changes are so great that if group A and B met, their different features would make them unable to mate. This could be from different mating periods/rituals, physical changes, etc
The dog and wolf example wasn't the best as I forgot to throw isolation in there, but same basic idea.
This response provides an alternative view to the typically-proposed false dichotomy of Evolution vs. God:
I've always been fascinated by interpretations of data associated with evolution. Accordingly, I have two main points I'd like to add, one of which focuses on the data itself, and the other focuses on
a priori philosophical knowledge, i.e. knowledge that is evident independent of any evidence. An example of such knowledge is the law of identity, i.e. x = x. Because of this knowledge, we know right off the bat that we don't need to go searching for something that is not itself because we know
a priori that it's a logical impossibility.
1) In consideration of the overwhelming body of evidence collected in support of Modern Evolutionary Theory, I'd like to point out that there exists other, equally-plausible interpretations of the same data set that lead to different theoretical conclusions. For example, it is valid to conclude that the data suggest that the evolution of conscious states leads to evolved physical states; in contrast, modern evolutionary theory concludes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states.
These are what we call "mathematically uncertain" theories because it is uncertain which theory is 'more correct.' Mathematically uncertain theories are constantly overlooked as the vast majority of people -- even those with advanced educations -- lack the awareness that mathematically uncertain theories exist. To this end, we must either find new evidence to help distinguish between multiple equally-valid theories, or find flaws in either our methodology for interpreting and explaining the data. This brings me to my second point...
2) As mentioned previously,
a priori knowledge -- which is real and should not be outright discredited because it does not rely on empirical observation -- helps us to know certain things in advance so that we don't waste our time exploring ideas that are logically impossible. If it weren't for this sort of knowledge, it would be impossible to devise the scientific method in the first place. Right from the get go, science carries certain assumptions based upon
a priori knowledge. A fundamental example would be the knowledge that observation must be the basis for any and all empirical study; we did not need any empirical study or evidence to reach this conclusion.
Accordingly, we can look to see what types of
a priori knowledge might be useful in helping to guide our interpretation of the evolutionary data set. In my opinion, one of the most fundamental logical principles is the sameness-in-difference principle, which simply put is the idea that differences necessarily arise from similarities. Put in more complex terms, it means that any two relational entities A and B must share a common, relational medium. Therefore, it is impossible for any entity to be absolutely different from any other; to state that A and B are absolutely different is to reinforce their similarities by binding them together such that, at the very least, they share a common medium of absolute difference . If two things actually could be absolutely different from each other, then it would be impossible talk about them in the same sentence. Descartes, though obviously an intelligent fellow, overlooked this error when proposing his idea of Cartesian Dualism. He attempted to place an insurmountable barrier between physical and mental reality, thereby violating the sameness-in-difference principle of logic. Science abides by this split since it assumes a Positivistic Universe does not, will not, and can never be influenced by observation itself to any significant degree.
The implications of such a principle are vast as they speak to the core nature of all entities. Perhaps most notably, it points to a shared relationship between mental and physical reality. This is important because it allows room for talk about things such as Universal Consciousness (God?) and an inherently meaningful Universe.
I'd also point out that there is a case to be made for a Universe that relies more on the abstract rather than the physical. Observation by itself employs a metric (a standard of measurement) which allows us to distinguish between the things we want to study and examine through empiricism. Without this metric, it would be impossible to define *any*thing. Scientists talk about the Universe as if it could be described if all conscious agents were removed from it. Unfortunately, they forget that without any conscious agents it would be impossible to define the Universe and all entities contained therein. Accordingly, anybody who tries to tell you anything about what the Universe would or could be like if all conscious agents were removed is wasting their time; it's simply impossible to say *any*thing about such a Universe.
