With all the evidence supporting Evolution, why is it still a controversial debate?

With all the evidence supporting Evolution, why is it still a controversial debate? Topic: Do it yourself dna research today
May 22, 2019 / By Juliana
Question: In my Biology class, we are currently studying Evolution, and the evidence seems extremely accurate....I have personally always believed in Evolution, so I was wondering, why still feel against it, despite all the evidence?
Best Answer

Best Answers: With all the evidence supporting Evolution, why is it still a controversial debate?

Glenda Glenda | 8 days ago
Show me this evidence. Every time a person tells me evolution is a fact and it is real i ask them to show me the evidence for this. You know what i normally get? Abused, called stupid and retarded. Told to get an education and told i know nothing about science. You got a deck of cards, show me all 52 cards, if not at least show me half of them. Don't sit there and show me 1 or 2 cards and expect me to believe because that's what evolution is. A deck of 2 cards, we are missing the other 50! Now if evolution was true, it would be very easy to show me this evidence you claim to have. I want to see the facts. Let me tell you right now that science goes against evolution. Evolution is not science, it is a very flawed theory with hundreds of gaps, missing links, frauds lies and hoaxes. Why does a person get abused and ridiculed when questioning evolution? Instead of telling me i need an education, why not educate me? If you can't show evolution to be correct using facts and evidence, that is your problem. The fossil record proves evolution to be wrong, there are millions of fossils that go against evolution and only a few dozen that fit in with evolution. How is this accepted as fact? We all know almost every living creature on earth needs all parts to be functioning at the same time to survive, so how did these creatures evolve over millions and millions of years? A single human cell is more complex then an entire developed city. Yet these cells formed by chance, and evolved into everything we see today? All by chance, time and natural selection. How is this logic? DNA? Why can't we dramatically change it? Why can't we interbreed different KINDS of animals? Why can't we breed with animals? God says he created all creatures as they are, he said he created us to be dominant over all creatures. The fossil record proves creatures have not changed, they stayed the same. Only slight variations occur, also the fossil record shows that we haven't changed, only slight variations occur. I pray that the evolutionist actually studies the theory for them self. I pray that they stop watching 2 minute you tube clips and actually research it just as many scientist's have done. They have gone into it with an open mind, come out the other side believing in a creator The fact that we can predict when a comet will pass proves there are laws in the universe. Where there are laws, there is a law giver. Like i said, instead of hating and abusing, teach us. You claim to have the knowledge. Peace and god bless
👍 144 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? With all the evidence supporting Evolution, why is it still a controversial debate? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Do it yourself dna research today

Glenda Originally Answered: Can you list some of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution?
150 years ago, we didn't know about bacteria. No clue. It wasn't understood until Louis Pasteur determined that germs caused disease. You are seeking information about evolution, something that scientists are doing as well. You have, however, asked this in the Religion & Spirituality section, where we are mostly humanities majors, not biologists or physicists. Would you come to R&S to find out what opus number was Mozart's 40th Symphony? I think not. You're asking us to play to our weakness. Quite frankly, you're being unfair. So let me suggest two things: 1. If you are serious about wanting to know the current evidence-based understanding on the origins of the universe and on evolutionary theory, there are excellent descriptions found at http://www.talkorigins.org . 2. Consider that you are proposing (not so subtly) that anything that is not explained is a place for God to be discovered. This is commonly referred to in ontology as "the god of the gaps" theory. It typically assigns God to any blank space that science has not yet reached useful conclusions. Remember what I said about disease? Before bacteria were discovered, it was assumed God was punishing the ill, or that they were demon possessed, or some other supernatural phenomenon caused sickness. This is the same god of the gaps. Science never assumes, and should never assume, anything is supernatural. The purpose of science is to discover through measured observation, testing, and repetition what natural causes lead to our natural world. If you impose a statement "God caused it," then this stops the search for knowledge, because God is ultimately unknowable. This is the reason that the "god of the gaps" theory is discounted among learned ontological academicians, and is ignored by science.

Dervla Dervla
Religion is a person's understanding of the world/universe and how it works. Science is a religion. Given this, then a science class may be viewed as the indoctrination of a religion or a particular world view into the minds of the students. Of course anyone who wanted to program or brainwash a particular view into someone would simply show them only the evidence that supports that view and neglect to discuss any evidence that contradicts it. Nevertheless, there is much evidence that contradicts the view that is currently accepted by the scientific community. In the world of science, finds that contradict or cannot be explained by the accepted view are known as anomalous finds and are not discussed, so that even a person who was well versed in the latest finds might not know about them. Just one such find was that of a modern human skull found under Table Mountain in strata that was dated millions of years older than the accepted existence of man's oldest "relatives." Other scientists who have documented anomalous finds have found their funding cut off and have been shunned by the scientific community. Evidence can also be spun to look like it supports evolution when in fact it contradicts it. A cave fish was recently discovered to be the same species as an ocean fish through DNA comparison. The genes were an exact match, yet the cave fish had no eyes and the skeletal structures were very different. This was spun off to supposedly support the theory of evolution, but in fact, because this shows that animals can have very different skeletal structures with no change in DNA, this actually demonstrates that the fossil record does NOT show evolution in progress, but only shows changes in the environment. If you choose to believe that Evolution is fact, then you lock yourself inside a box and you will not be able to think outside of it. The same is true of anyone who locks onto one belief or extreme. If you realize that the theory is only a notion, then you will be able to see the world from more perspectives. Intelligent Design by a Creator is not taught in Biology class alongside Evolution despite the fact it is accepted as a valid scientific theory. In fact there are many other theories to explain the diversity of life that are not taught. The reason is because the classroom, it has been decided, is not a place for discussion or debate, but a place to program the youth with a single accepted theory. Whether this is right or wrong is also debated, but not in the classroom. Accepted by whom? Who decided that this would be THE theory that everyone would learn as if it were fact? It was never put to a vote, and the reason so many people accept it as fact today is simply because it has been taught as fact in the schools for multiple generations. I have my own theories, and if you are interested, I can be emailed. My Answer was Too Long. To see what I clipped from this space, go here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i5z9... This goes to show that scientists are not above changing the data to match their preconceived notions or the generally accepted view in order to protect their religion. In the case of Piltdown Man there was admitted fraud. Every other case of allegedly finding a missing link is suspected of spin-doctoring, such as claiming that a pig's tooth is that of an early man simply because one wants to believe it.
👍 50 | 👎 -1

Cameron Cameron
As you can see, it's still "debated" in the US because modern scientific discoveries expose all religions as childish superstitions. There are many, many people who believe in one god or another who have come to realize that it is impossible to deny the nature of the world as seen thru science, because the only conclusion one can come to otherwise is that the supposed creator of the universe purposefully structured it to deceive everyone who studied it. The Creationists in these forums do for a fact believe that their god spread lies in the form of false evidence of fossils, DNA, radiocarbon dating, taxonaomy, Phylogeny, molecular biology, geology... essentially everything we discover about the world, in the eyes of Creationists, is a lie intentionally placed by their god to deceive human beings. Now, this is the gibberish that the rank and file are led to believe, but the orthodoxy of the leadership of the various churches can only claim to represent gods if their conclusions are correct, and they way they insist their conclusions are correct is to refer to the Christian Bible. Since the only claim they have to being right is the circular evidence of the Christian Bible (god is real because the Bible says so and I know the bible is right because god says so in the Bible) it is absolutely necessary to keep telling the lie of the truth of the Bible so that they can continue to reference the Bible for their claims to power and authority over the religious. If the Christian Bible is exposed as the collection of myths and fairy tales from illiterate bronze age sheep herders (which is has and is) then the church authorities claims to power are weakened, as people will question how any organisation can draw ultimate authority from a severely flawed collection of fables that gets even the most basic facts of the nature of the universe wrong. Hence the need to "fight" modernity on as many fronts as possible. Since the average person, religious or not, is terribly ignorant of science (and yet still knows more about the natural world than any Bible writer ever did) evolution and it's complex implications is an easy target because no person who is entirely ignorant of evolution can understand how important the fact of evolution is and therefore sees no harm in dismissing evolution and science because they beleieve they have no use for it. Rank and file everyday people who rail against evolution are the useful idiots in the quest for religious organisations to regain power and authority for religious ideas, a power and authority that has been seriously eroded as science tells us things about the natural world that we would be incapable of learning if our observations continued to be based on obsolete superstitions.
👍 43 | 👎 -10

Alyssia Alyssia
it is because young Earth creationism is a fraud and a conspiracy theory. People like Ken Ham, the Discovery Institute and maybe a hundred others have found a way to make money and political influence out of the religion of ignorant people while posing as "godly men". Because they wish to continue to make money and political influence, they continue to promote it. Since they have been doing this for fifty years in a more or less organized way, they have become skilled at deception. Their lies have been exposed many times, but are still repeated, since like traveling snake oil salesmen, their audience is always new and ignorant of the exposure. Their nonsense is refuted in detail on sites like "No Answers in Genesis", Buddika's "300 Creationist Lies" and "TalkOrigins". In print it has been refuted several times over the past few decades. That's the short answer and it's all you really need to know. EDIT The result of ignorance deceived by these people can be seen in the answers given by "Chris" and "One Man's Opinion".
👍 36 | 👎 -19

Vincent Vincent
SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE OVER RATED, I feel so sorry for the cold, sad people who do not have faith in anything. You need hide behind science and facts when you don't have true faith. We need to start basing all of our laws on the teachings of the Bible (like the Muslims do with their book). There would be no more be no more GAYS, TRANNYS, PEDOPHILES, MULTICULTURALISM, or the LIBERALS THAT SUPPORT THEM! Jesus HAS BEEN PROVED to be the answer to all of lifes problems, all other beliefs are wrong... FACT!!! ... and I don't need to prove it to anybody!!!
👍 29 | 👎 -28

Royal Royal
Because there is a whole lot of emotion supporting religious creation myths. For many people, emotion is a more powerful force for belief than evidence.
👍 22 | 👎 -37

Morgan Morgan
Charles Darwin failed miserably in his quest to validate his argument on Evolution. Evolution is a lie. God created the Heaven and Earth as the Holy Bible declares (Genesis 1:1). Don't put faith in theories. Have faith in God. Charles Darwin did not use good logic in his famous book, "The Origin of Species." W.R. Thompson, a Canadian entomologist(entomology-study of insects) of international repute, wrote in his introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origen, "Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others. Chapter 4 of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases; "may have been," "is supposed to," perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," 'it is probable," "will generally tend," "may" "will generally tend," 'If," 'if...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not. Of Darwin's speculative arguments Thompson wrote, "....Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory....The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation (change of one species to another) has been given." Source: Thompson, W.R., Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, E.P. Dutton and Co., New York. Have faith dear friends in God, not theories. Genesis 1:1 Isaiah 45:18 Colossians 1:16 Hebrews 11:1-6 Genesis 2:1-3 Exodus 20:8-11 Psalm 14:1 SDA
👍 15 | 👎 -46

Morgan Originally Answered: Controversial topics for a 11th grade debate?
Religion (+in schools?) Gender roles/women's rights Animal rights/testing Euthanasia Poverty Stem Cell Research Smoking laws Teenage pregnancies Censorship Global Warming Gay Rights Alcohol age limits Gun control laws Illegal Immigration Cloning Conservation Universal Health Care Marijuana Legalization Capital Punishment War in Iraq Racism Political Corruption Terrorism Hope one of those works for you.

If you have your own answer to the question do it yourself dna research today, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.