Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 155
  1. #1
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223

    Evolution vs creationism

    Lets bring this over here and leave bdtrs thread alone

    Even if evolution is proven to be a false theory it doesnt mean **** for religions. Cause the creator can be anything. From a bored alien scientisct(imagine what we could to do a unpopulated planet given a million years more to advance our technology) to a long dead god or whatever. It doesnt HAVE to mean the christian god waved a magic wand and designed life.

    But here I want people to pic apart evolution and prove its flaws.

    Like I said in the other thread. Just because we are missing a piece here and there doesnt give anyone justification to scream bull**** when there is NO theory that explains life in a better way. Micro evolution is proven atleast. So a part of the evolution theory is without a doubt true.

    If you are so sceptic about a theory that has only a few flaws then how on earth can you swallow the idea of a creator when there is NO evidence of that creator. Creationism has to me alot less backing the evolution.

    Remember I dont know **** about biology or evolution so let me hear the people that hade read about it pic eachother apart

  2. #2
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    The Universe is too perfect to be an accident. I believe there is a God, but I do not think it has a penis therefore isn't a He, and I think it has more stuff to deal with than if someone has sex with the same sex, or says the F word. Religon is just a fear based control device.

  3. #3
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    The Universe is too perfect to be an accident. I believe there is a God, but I do not think it has a penis therefore isn't a He, and I think it has more stuff to deal with than if someone has sex with the same sex, or says the F word. Religon is just a fear based control device.
    Yes but we are not talking about the universe in general now. Just life on planet earth so lets try and keep it on that level since we have had a million discussions on the creation of the universe Not a bash just gonna try and keep this on topic

  4. #4
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    Yes but we are not talking about the universe in general now. Just life on planet earth so lets try and keep it on that level since we have had a million discussions on the creation of the universe Not a bash just gonna try and keep this on topic
    It is all the same. This planet is part of the universe, but I can flow woth that. Look at the Ecosystems (the ones man hasn't obliterated for greed). They are perfect. They are perfect as if designed.

  5. #5
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    God is an alien..................that is a fact. Use the analogy of a child that is just learning to crawl, mostly unaware of it's surroundings. As a parent I have watched from a distance as my children learned to crawl. They were completely unaware that I was there the whole time. Does that mean that I did not exist?

  6. #6
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    It is all the same. This planet is part of the universe, but I can flow woth that. Look at the Ecosystems (the ones man hasn't obliterated for greed). They are perfect. They are perfect as if designed.
    My point is even if a god created the universe he doesnt nessecarily have to micromanage life on planet earth and even if no god created the universe then it doesnt rule out the probability that something indeed did mikromanage life on planet earth.

    So it doesnt matter if a god created the universe or not it has no significans to this topic if looking at it in the way I wrote above. Just for a moment imagine there is nothing besides the sun and the earth and life here. Forget the rest of the universe and how it came to be.

    I dont think the life we se is perfect. If a designer designed the human body why did he include the tail bone, the appendix. Obvious signs that we have evolved and that our race once had a tail. Why didnt he make our immune system stronger. Why does geneticly hereditary diseases exist

  7. #7
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    I dont think the life we se is perfect. If a designer designed the human body why did he include the tail bone, the appendix. Obvious signs that we have evolved and that our race once had a tail. Why didnt he make our immune system stronger. Why does geneticly hereditary diseases exist
    Well I believe in a mix. I believe in the Big Bang by a Creator (sorry), then evolution happens, but life didn't start via one sub atomic particle as Evolutionists suggest.

  8. #8
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    God is an alien..................that is a fact. Use the analogy of a child that is just learning to crawl, mostly unaware of it's surroundings. As a parent I have watched from a distance as my children learned to crawl. They were completely unaware that I was there the whole time. Does that mean that I did not exist?

    Relevance , that doesnt say anything about creationism and nothing about evolution either. Now Im sounding like a dick lol, I just want to keep this about evolution and creationism and nothing else. No philosphical arguments on the existanse of god. Nothing like that. There are millions of threads about that. I Just want hard facts and a scientific debate that tries to prove either side right or wrong.

  9. #9
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    Well I believe in a mix. I believe in the Big Bang by a Creator (sorry), then evolution happens, but life didn't start via one sub atomic particle as Evolutionists suggest.
    So do you belive evolution was planned or is it random mutations that has created all the lifeforms we se
    Because of evolution was "designed" then it isnt evolution. Evolution is founded on random mutations and there is no design behind that.

    I guess Im asking do you belive in evolution or not

  10. #10
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    So do you belive evolution was planned or is it random mutations that has created all the lifeforms we se
    Because of evolution was "designed" then it isnt evolution. Evolution is founded on random mutations and there is no design behind that.

    I guess Im asking do you belive in evolution or not
    Mild evolution happens. Generations of not using a tail and it goes away. However monkey in to man, no way. Otherwise it would be happening everyday.

  11. #11
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    Mild evolution happens. Generations of not using a tail and it goes away. However monkey in to man, no way. Otherwise it would be happening everyday.

    I guess it is happening everyday....When considering it takes millions of year and countless generations.

    Why is monkey to man so hard to belive. If I dont remeber wrong we have like 97% of our genes incomon with monkies. A slight 3% difference is all that it takes to turn a monkey into a human.

  12. #12
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    There is so many problems with macro evolution its almost not worth debating.

  13. #13
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    My point is even if a god created the universe he doesnt nessecarily have to micromanage life on planet earth and even if no god created the universe then it doesnt rule out the probability that something indeed did mikromanage life on planet earth.

    So it doesnt matter if a god created the universe or not it has no significans to this topic if looking at it in the way I wrote above. Just for a moment imagine there is nothing besides the sun and the earth and life here. Forget the rest of the universe and how it came to be.

    I dont think the life we se is perfect. If a designer designed the human body why did he include the tail bone, the appendix. Obvious signs that we have evolved and that our race once had a tail. Why didnt he make our immune system stronger. Why does geneticly hereditary diseases exist
    The Question is, where does the evidence point. Christianity, Atheism, Deism, Islam ect.
    When you put the peices together, I believe the evidence clearly points to the Cross.

  14. #14
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    I guess it is happening everyday....When considering it takes millions of year and countless generations.

    Why is monkey to man so hard to belive. If I dont remeber wrong we have like 97% of our genes incomon with monkies. A slight 3% difference is all that it takes to turn a monkey into a human.
    Then explain the mega-difference in intelligence between humans and monkeys.

  15. #15
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    Well I believe in a mix. I believe in the Big Bang by a Creator (sorry), then evolution happens, but life didn't start via one sub atomic particle as Evolutionists suggest.

    Study the Irreducible complexity of the human systems.

  16. #16
    redwizza is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    The Question is, where does the evidence point. Christianity, Atheism, Deism, Islam ect.
    When you put the peices together, I believe the evidence clearly points to the Cross.

    i cant believe you wrote that....now that i know where you stand....your reply to my other post is soooo useless just like that image of your "cross"

  17. #17
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    I don't see the nessacity to tie creation or God for that matter with any organized religon.

  18. #18
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    Then explain the mega-difference in intelligence between humans and monkeys.

    Because two things are alike, does in no way prove evolution. We should expect this if we came from the same creator.

  19. #19
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    I don't see the nessacity to tie creation or God for that matter with any organized religon.

    Why? What if he has revealed himself to mankind?

  20. #20
    Jantzen4k's Avatar
    Jantzen4k is offline Anabolic Nittany Lion
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    $ Make The World Go Round
    Posts
    3,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    I don't see the nessacity to tie creation or God for that matter with any organized religon.

    me either

  21. #21
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    Why? What if he has revealed himself to mankind?
    I personally believe God created life out of lonliness. Without life God is alone. Life gives God experience. There is no need to come reveal itsself.

  22. #22
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    True for other religions, not christianity. If God is all powerful then he needs nothing. In the trinity, you have unity in diversity. There was always perfect fellowship.

  23. #23
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    When you put the peices together, I believe the evidence clearly points to the Cross.
    Why dont you just say Jesus (PBUH)? Saying the cross is a form of idoltary, even though you dont mean it.

    This site can answer all your questions about Evolution versus Creationism. Although the site obviously takes a one-sided view.

    http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/index.php

  24. #24
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    And if you have time there is a very interesting flash presentation, divided into 7 chapters, each chapter is 5 minutes.

    http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/homepage.html

  25. #25
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    There is so many problems with macro evolution its almost not worth debating.
    Then let me hear them. You stating that means nothing without you backing it upp


    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    The Question is, where does the evidence point. Christianity, Atheism, Deism, Islam ect.
    When you put the peices together, I believe the evidence clearly points to the Cross.
    I specificly said I dont want to se that kind of discussion here. Plz refrain from it. First state your cause against evolution and then you can begin to explain why creationism makes more sense.

  26. #26
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    And if you have time there is a very interesting flash presentation, divided into 7 chapters, each chapter is 5 minutes.

    http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/homepage.html
    Il check on those 2 links later today, thanks bro

  27. #27
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    Why dont you just say Jesus (PBUH)? Saying the cross is a form of idoltary, even though you dont mean it.

    This site can answer all your questions about Evolution versus Creationism. Although the site obviously takes a one-sided view.

    http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/index.php
    Idolatry entails worshipping. Books wasnt worshipping the cross. He was using it as a descriptive word. Just as Jesus is. How is saying "cross" different than saying "Jesus". Is Jesus the aramaic name he called himself? so there is no difference. Would be the same as saying the son, instead of saying Jesus.

  28. #28
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    sorry for that post, just read further johan...I dont know much on evolution and marco evolution, so ill just be reading this...probably not postin.

  29. #29
    BUBBA74 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    1,941
    Here is another site to take a look at.

    I had to write an essay on panspermia and this was one of my references. I am not on the side of evolution or creation on this thread just providing information.


    http://www.panspermia.com/

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northwest US
    Posts
    622
    If you believe "From Goo to You" I feel sorry for you. It is not an accident, but from The Divine Creator.

  31. #31
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Alters, Brian J., and William F. McComas, “Punctuated Equilibrium: the Missing Link in Evolution Education,” American Biology Teacher, vol. 56 (September 1994), pp. 334-340.
    p. 337
    “Gould and Eldredge content that: ‘Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion from the start—it was never “seen” in the rocks; it expressed the culture and political bias of 19th century liberalism.’ By the same token, while many feel that punctuated equilibrium postulates how speciation occurs, its occurrence is not based on empirical evidence but on the apparent lack of evidence—gaps in the fossil record. Bodnar, Jones and Ellis suggested that one would not see intermediate forms in simple eukaryotes in the fossil record because there are no intermediate forms. A single mutation in a regulatory gene caused the change in one leap of evolutionary development.”

  32. #32
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Brett, Carlton E., “Stasis: Life in the Balance,” Geotimes, vol. 40 (March 1995), pp. 18-20.
    p. 18
    “Did life on Earth change steadily and gradually through time? The fossil record emphatically says ‘no.’ For millions of years, life goes along uneventfully; then suddenly, a series of natural disasters disrupts the status quo and disturbs and restructures vast segments of existing ecosystems.”
    p. 18
    “Episodes of rapid evolutionary change punctuate long intervals of stasis, during which little or no change takes place.
    “Eldredge and Gould also underscored the relative important of the two ways by which species change. Anagenesis refers to relatively gradual and perhaps continuous evolution within lineages, while speciation or cladogenesis involves the splitting of lineages into two species, typically as a result of geographic isolation. Most morphological change in evolution occurs during cladogenesis, according to Eldredge and Gould, and anagenesis is of relatively minor importance in evolution.”
    p. 18
    “Long-term directional change appears rare. Hence, the notion of stasis itself has evolved from one of absolute stability to a concept of dynamic stability in which morphospecies display minor, non-progressive fluctuations around an unchanging average state over time.”
    p. 20
    “Species tend to remain stable for intervals of several million years, implying very precise habitat tracking, or perhaps, ‘ecological locking,’ whereby incumbent species resist invasion and maintain nearly constant proportions, as suggested by Paul Morris (Paleontological Research Institute, Ithaca, N.Y.), and Linda Irany and Ken Schopf (Harvard University). Only when environmental perturbation is so severe or rapid that stable ecosystems are knocked out of equilibrium can new species and immigrants invade. Pulses of community reorganization may then take place until a new stable state is attained.
    “Coordinated stasis implies that relative stability is the norm throughout life history and that major morphological change and ecological restructuring occur rarely (less than 1 percent of geologic time).”

  33. #33
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Eldredge, Niles, “Progress in Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 110 (June 5, 1986), pp. 54-57.
    p. 55
    “Darwin, it has by now become commonplace to acknowledge, never really addressed the “origin of species” in his book of that title.”
    p. 55
    “Palaeontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur—though it is a startling fact that, of the half dozen reviews on the On the Origin of Species written by palaeontologists that I have seen, all take Darwin to task for failing to recognize that most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages.”

  34. #34
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Horgan, John, “In the Beginning,” Scientific American, vol. 264 (February 1991), pp. 117-125.
    p. 118
    “None of these approaches has gained enough support to qualify as a new paradigm. On the other hand, none has been ruled out. That bothers Miller who is known as both a rigorous experimentalist and a bit of a curmudgeon. Some theories, he asserts, do not merit serious attention. He calls the organic-matter-from-space concept ‘a loser,’ the vent hypothesis ‘garbage’ and the pyrite theory ‘paper chemistry.’ Such work, he grumbles, perpetuates the reputation of the origin-of-life field as being on the fringe of science and not worthy of serious pursuit.”
    p. 119
    “DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.”
    p. 119
    “But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones.”
    p. 125
    “About a decade ago Orgel and Crick managed to provoke the public and their colleagues by speculating that the seeds of life were sent to the earth in a spaceship by intelligent beings living on another planet. Orgel says the proposal, which is known as directed panspermia, was ‘sort of a joke.’”
    p. 125
    “Miller, who after almost four decades is still in hard pursuit of life’s biggest secret, agrees that the field needs a dramatic finding to constrain the rampant speculation.”
    p. 125
    “Does he ever entertain the possibility that genesis was a miracle not reproducible by mere humans? Not at all, Miller replies. ‘I think we just haven’t learned the right tricks yet,’ he says.”

  35. #35
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    Brett, Carlton E., “Stasis: Life in the Balance,” Geotimes, vol. 40 (March 1995), pp. 18-20.
    p. 18
    “Did life on Earth change steadily and gradually through time? The fossil record emphatically says ‘no.’ For millions of years, life goes along uneventfully; then suddenly, a series of natural disasters disrupts the status quo and disturbs and restructures vast segments of existing ecosystems.”
    Isnt that kind of what evolution says to, Why would a species change if the enviroment doesnt change. The mutations that occur then will most probably be useless and not have any impact. But when the enviorment changes the probability of a mutation beeing positive increases. Also its pretty obvious that when the enviorment changes rapidly then some species will become exticnt allowing others to multiply enormously. The simple fact that so many speciments of a spieces suddenly apear makes mutations in that spieces alot more likely. So they sudden evolv faster then before when they where less in number.

    Does that make any sense

  36. #36
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Brett Carlton is attempting to explain the lack of evidence in the fossil record with that statement.

  37. #37
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    He is trying very hard to hold onto the evolutionary theory.

  38. #38
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    He is trying very hard to hold onto the evolutionary theory.

    From what I can read and understand he is doing a good job sound perfectly plausible to me(doesnt mean **** though when I know nothing about biology or evolution)

  39. #39
    RJstrong's Avatar
    RJstrong is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I believe the main problem with the theory of evolution is the fact that we are still hanging on to the word theory... their is so much scientific backed research on evolution thru natural selection that i believe it to be a fact... i am not saying that science should stop - mission accomplished, but neither am i saying that people of faith should stop praying... their is obviously room for both... but with out getting into every detail and scientific discovery known man... you have to agree the scientific community can put up a great argument on evolution.

  40. #40
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by RJstrong
    I believe the main problem with the theory of evolution is the fact that we are still hanging on to the word theory... their is so much scientific backed research on evolution thru natural selection that i believe it to be a fact... i am not saying that science should stop - mission accomplished, but neither am i saying that people of faith should stop praying... their is obviously room for both... but with out getting into every detail and scientific discovery known man... you have to agree the scientific community can put up a great argument on evolution.

    The thing is a theory can never be proven right to 100%. All it takes is one error and the theory is incorrect(not a total waste but still just a theory that needs modification). Thats why einsteins works are still the special and general Theory of relativity and not the law of relativity.

    Like my professor explained to me:
    You can state a theory that all polar bears is white. But all it takes is for someone to find a polar bear with a different color for the theory to be crushed. Its not possible to claim to 100% that the theory is right. Then you would have to find EVERY polar bear in the world and prove they are white. Not a totaly impossible task but for a human it is as close to impossible as you can get. In other words there is always the slim chanse that someone will find something that disproves the theory and that makes scientists hang on to the world. The polar bear theory will still be valid 99.9999999999% of the times even if a black polar bear is found. But its not a law of nature.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •