Thread: Evolution vs creationism
03-03-2005, 06:02 PM #1
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
03-03-2005, 06:11 PM #2
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.
03-03-2005, 06:13 PM #3Originally Posted by Lozgod
03-03-2005, 06:17 PM #4Originally Posted by johan
03-03-2005, 06:18 PM #5
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?
03-03-2005, 06:23 PM #6Originally Posted by Lozgod
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
03-03-2005, 06:27 PM #7Originally Posted by johan
03-03-2005, 06:28 PM #8Originally Posted by 1victor
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.
03-03-2005, 06:29 PM #9Originally Posted by Lozgod
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
03-03-2005, 06:38 PM #10Originally Posted by johan
03-03-2005, 06:42 PM #11Originally Posted by Lozgod
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.
03-03-2005, 08:42 PM #12
There is so many problems with macro evolution its almost not worth debating.
03-03-2005, 08:49 PM #13Originally Posted by johan
When you put the peices together, I believe the evidence clearly points to the Cross.
03-03-2005, 08:49 PM #14Originally Posted by johan
03-03-2005, 08:51 PM #15Originally Posted by Lozgod
Study the Irreducible complexity of the human systems.
03-03-2005, 08:51 PM #16Associate Member
Originally Posted by books555
- Join Date
- May 2004
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"
03-03-2005, 08:53 PM #17
I don't see the nessacity to tie creation or God for that matter with any organized religon.
03-03-2005, 08:53 PM #18Originally Posted by Lozgod
Because two things are alike, does in no way prove evolution. We should expect this if we came from the same creator.
03-03-2005, 08:56 PM #19Originally Posted by Lozgod
Why? What if he has revealed himself to mankind?
03-03-2005, 08:56 PM #20Originally Posted by Lozgod
03-03-2005, 09:01 PM #21Originally Posted by books555
03-03-2005, 09:23 PM #22
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.
03-03-2005, 09:29 PM #23Originally Posted by books555
This site can answer all your questions about Evolution versus Creationism. Although the site obviously takes a one-sided view.
03-03-2005, 09:34 PM #24
03-04-2005, 03:13 AM #25Originally Posted by books555
Originally Posted by books555
03-04-2005, 03:14 AM #26Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
03-04-2005, 07:32 AM #27Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
03-04-2005, 07:33 AM #28
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.
03-04-2005, 08:47 AM #29Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Your Mom's House
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.
03-04-2005, 09:12 AM #30
If you believe "From Goo to You" I feel sorry for you. It is not an accident, but from The Divine Creator.
03-04-2005, 11:52 AM #31
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.
“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.”
03-04-2005, 11:54 AM #32
Brett, Carlton E., “Stasis: Life in the Balance,” Geotimes, vol. 40 (March 1995), pp. 18-20.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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).”
03-04-2005, 11:57 AM #33
Eldredge, Niles, “Progress in Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 110 (June 5, 1986), pp. 54-57.
“Darwin, it has by now become commonplace to acknowledge, never really addressed the “origin of species” in his book of that title.”
“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.”
03-04-2005, 12:09 PM #34
Horgan, John, “In the Beginning,” Scientific American, vol. 264 (February 1991), pp. 117-125.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.’”
“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.”
“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.”
03-04-2005, 02:45 PM #35Originally Posted by books555
Does that make any sense
03-04-2005, 03:26 PM #36
Brett Carlton is attempting to explain the lack of evidence in the fossil record with that statement.
03-04-2005, 03:35 PM #37
He is trying very hard to hold onto the evolutionary theory.
03-04-2005, 03:37 PM #38Originally Posted by books555
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)
03-04-2005, 03:43 PM #39
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.
03-04-2005, 03:55 PM #40Originally Posted by RJstrong
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.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)