Sigh. I had no idea this topic had to be discussed again: so here it is on request. Some facts I've heard from a reliable source (namely my teacher in critical-thinking class) as well.
Now to redefine: the disproving of a theory is just simply a presence of evidence against it. Now that that's out of the way, a definition of both theories: Creation is of the handful of thousand years of humanity, 7 days of creation, and a magical spark of life from God. Evolution is merely everything evolving from coincidence, a choice mixture of ingredients of life, and the prefection of life through natural selection down the ages.
The proofs. Carbon dating linked to dinosaurs and prehistoric man, also a genetic linkage of earlier species. The argument: these are inaccurate, or have been deliberately masked to hide the truth. The counter-argument: to refute these proofs is to refute the everyday techniques we use today that utilize the very same principles. We can use carbon dating and gene comparisons to fight crime and further archaeology, in all ages.
Indeed, every idea that is linked to evolution has been proven time and again to work. Evolution depends on constant mutation, different and possibly better species to be created in the process. How might this happen? Imperfect gene replication. How that? Quantum irregularities guaranteeing randomality. And indeed: to refute that is to refute all of quantum physics that we have researched and use everyday in life. A vast history dating millions of years for evolution to work, and several prototypes of species for today's species to have evolved from. Evidence of volcanic activity from Earth's early days. An expanding universe from a likely Big Bang. More proof, and the number of proof expands everyday. It's not forcing the facts or merely forming conclusions from evidence: conclusions came from evidence yes but the further conclusions from those conclusions, as well as the evidence to all the conclusions are constantly expanding and proving themselves. It's like discovering gravity and then in extension Newton's laws...and these are both in every minute of our lives being proven. They may not be 100% true: there's always a chance a truth can be proven wrong, but in this case Truth would be merely an improvisation and refinement: Newton's laws can evolve into Einstein's relativity, but you can't get much from a dead-end Creation without completely changing alot of its definitions. Faith-based theories like Creation on the other hand has never and is not being proven because faith is its own and only proof, and that's not enough to teach it mandatorily outside religion class.
Next, and more revelating: the magical spark of life. Scientists have, in numerous experiments, duplicated the exact same conditions and got the exact same results as the numerous stages of early life in Earth's beginnings. We tracked down the likely stages of bacterial and amino acid development in early life and duplicated (thereby proving our hypothesises) each and every one of them, effectively destroying the whole 'magical' idea about it.
The more I read on it, the more I'm forced to take a stand. In fact, it appears the only thing Creation theory has for it is its own constantly changing definitions. Instead of saying 'God made man in his present form' it was changed in the light of scientific arguments to 'there has to be God in making the first signs of life' then 'there has to be God in making the ingredients for the first signs of life be there'. This is driving scientists mad because for every argument they make they face another faith-based counterargument that is becoming more and more a chore to disprove.
So, that's my stand. I'm interested to see what facts I've missed and what else this old debate has to surprise us. Evolution, in my opinion, is total bullspit.
And don't generalize and say that creation's definition has been changed to include God created the first sparks of life.
That's a division of Christianity that believes that. The majority believe that God created man in his present form.
There are Christians who disagree on this, but there are evolutionists that believe differently within the theory of evolution too.
Here are two quotes, both by evolutionists. They aren't word for word, but the meaning is there.
"We do not believe evolution because it is backed up by irrefutable scientific proof. We believe it only because the alternative is creation, and that is unthinkable."
"Neither creation nor evolution can be proved or disproved by science."
The truth is it happened thousands of years ago, or if you're an evolutionist, billions of years ago. We cannot know what happened back then, so neither group can know for sure that the other is wrong. Don't go claiming that there are many many experiments that refute creation conclusively. They are all done by evolutionists, and creationists don't agree with the results. You say they created life exactly as it was billions of years ago.
HOW COULD THEY KNOW???
They weren't there.
There are many many experiments, all done by creationists, that refute evolution conclusively. And hey, surprisingly, they aren't recognized by evolutionists.
Neither camp can claim that the other is wrong. Neither of us has the answers. The truth is it's a matter of faith. I'm not saying I believe evolution in any way; I'm just showing that neither of us can say the other is totally and completely wrong.
Now that I've said that, we can both say stuff to refute the other, while acknowledging that neither group is better scientifically.
How can evolution be true? The species would die out, in their mid-forms, before they were completely evolved. A fish evolving legs? How could it survive and reproduce countless times over millions of years to become a land animal? How could it gain the ability to breathe? It couldn't survive past the first week, let alone a million years.
And you're forgetting the second law of thermodynamics. A scientific law that has been around longer than evolution.
Everything in the universe tends toward a constant state of decay. Things get worse, not better. Evolution totally ignores this, and says that species got better and more efficient as time went along, somehow magically skirting around this law.
Also, in experiments today, whenever species have been cross-bred, the offspring have been sterile.
I eagerly await your people's response.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool Hey I remember you! This will be interesting.
Now, you're right when you say there is no absolute proof the theories are right, since they involve events that no-one remembers. In fact, that last bit was in that sentence I mentioned about the school system in America...I forgot to include that in.
Now, let us go back to the empirical definition of truth. As Einstein says: 'Truth is what stands the test of time'. I'm sure you'll agree then that thus nothing is truly truth. How then do we know a good enough truth to serve us? We look at the opposite: Something is always true until proven wrong. But all this is basic stuff.
Now, we apply this to our two theories. I don't know where your quotes come from, and neither do I care. These definitely do not represent the community. What matters is the challenges that have arisen to the theories. For all that I've remembered and shown, Creation failed. It's as simple as that. Carbon dating. Primordial life creation. A closeness of early life, and life even now. The discovery that the earth orbits the sun and vice versa. In facts biology uses everyday.
On the other hand Evolution has not only met every challenge, it uses and adds to Science many theories and developments that have also proved themselves. Like I said, to disprove evolution is to disprove all other supporting sciences. Quantum physics, forensics, even as far as Newton's laws. Many of the theories formed as a result of the conclusions in evolution and similar scientific theories were theorized before their proofs were found-and the proofs were then found; all fitting into a collective picture of science! Nothing like this is repeated in Creationism. Do give me examples if you so claim there are.
Now, about fish on land...they didn't grow legs immediately, nor lungs. There are definite middle stages-an example being today's dolphins or whales: mammals that live in the sea yet cannot get their air from the water. Lots of them did not work, of course. These died instantly. Examples of these abound as well. Cats look and live differently in different climates. Different-coloured variants of a same species live and thrive in different environments, though occasionally one of the opposite colour appears in one envionment-to instantly be disadvantaged. Further proof: man, the only non-natural species, has created an environment that allows (forgive the cliche) the weak to thrive when they should not. Sufferers of certain debilitating diseases, People in unfit fitness levels...the list goes on.
Now about chaos: I know of that as well. Which is interesting: you're raising a form of science to support a belief that should abolish many forms of science. I can't remember the term my teach gave about that, but I've certainly heard it before-
Wait-sorry, I can't continue right now. I gotta transfer to my hostel room now...I'll get back on this in an hour or so. See y'all!
*EDIT*
Ah, right, now where was I. Yeah...about thermodynamics. It can't be taken too literally, for it'd be the exact opposite of evolution meaning we'd be our most efficient and 'perfect' the early we were. That law of thermodynamics applies to a universal scale only, so though there is a net gain in chaos in the scales that applies to us this change is seldom apparent. Also, living things have always been denying atrophy. It is one of the most distinguishing points of life. Of course, we don't reverse chaos per se, merely create temporary states of order. And if we can do that, we can certainly change ourselves to be more efficient...but only to the scale of our surroundings. We create bigger brains for example, but expand more energy thinking with them. Now to suggest we obey the laws directly is ridiculous. Why are we constantly working to perfect ourselves, and why are those with more and better skills more successful? Society is merely a microcosm of evolution, and nearly everywhere it is apparent.
Hmmm. That's it for now...good argument. Over to you. The second law of theromodynamics still applies. On an overall scale, things always tend toward a greater state of atrophy, and evolution just does not fit with this picture. A tornado going through a junkyard can't create a boeing 747. A house left alone for years and years isn't going to stay perfectly clean.
Humans become worse. Living things become worse. They are born, sure, but they die. Everything dies.
And about the fish thing, I still stick to my guns. A fish, regardless, would still HAVE to evolve legs and/or lungs immediately if it expected to survive out of water.
The possibiliy of these micro changes happening in species to develop us is the same as hundreds of monkeys trying to type to be or not to be. This possibility is also the same as if a huge crust of sand was surrounding the Earth, extending to the sun, and once ever billion years a bird came and took away one grain of sand. Four such crusts would have to have been eroded before monkeys could expect to type to be or not to be.
Something is always true until prove wrong.
Incorrect. Science has always been to take observe, form a hypothesis, form a theory, and then try to prove that theory. Eventually this becomes fact.
Something is not true until it is proven wrong. It must be proven correct, otherwise the theorist does not have to work to prove his theory wrong.
Not that the originator of this theory thinking he is false would disable the whole theory, but Darwin, very late in life, printed a retraction of his theory that was never published.
Of course, neither you nor I can claim this to be completely correct nor completely false. I'm just putting this out here.
Creationism does not make many branches of science false. Evolutionists always do that to put scientists on their side. The only reason that evoultion is widely accepted and that it became such a phenomenon was that atheist scientists needed something to latch onto that could claim to be science and refute creation.
Neither creationism nor evolution are sciences. Sciences involve cold hard facts. Billions, or thousands of years ago do not involve these.
And if evolution is true, how come in strata in the earth's crust species are jumbled together that should be separate? Where is the geologic column?
Creationism does not ignore Newton's laws. Newtons' laws do not conflict with our beliefs.
You said thermodynamics can't be take too literally because it would mean the opposite of evolution. Well, that argument ain't gonna fly with someone who doesn't believe evolution in any way.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool Science was never my strong point, but I will say this:
It is just as absurd that someday something exploded and expanded than someday some all-powerful...thing made everything in 7 days and then disapeared, never to be seen again.
And remember that there is no such thing as the beginning or the end of time. I don't think you're argueing too well.
Going in reverse: I said argueing for the 2nd law was useless not because it contradicted evolution, but because it takes just as extreme a view as evolution but in the other direction. It's almost saying the same thing. You did not also answer my statement for it's uselessness: are we more organized in the past? The universe was so, but were we? It is true that in the end the universe will be more disorganized, but you did not look at the definition well enough. Chaos encompassed energy, not just matter. When we talk of chaos we do not just talk of decay. Your idea is that everything will fall to pieces. History has shown us otherwise. The only chaos truly apparent in human history is when we left things alone to fall apart, or expanded energy to maintain order, which is yes in the long run chaos. But in terms of matter arrangement and gene replication this is still order! It is unnatural yes, since we exert our will and force over everything we do, but that is precisely what living things are so special for.
A short interlude: Creationism does indeed fly in the face of science. To say that the earth is only several thousand years old defies archaeology and carbon dating, to say a few, which in turn defies chemistry. I can't remember how Newton's laws were said to be defied back in class, but I remember something about how astrophysics and thus physics are also defied, all purely based on faith. By supporting Creationism you might as well not take some of our advanced medicine or use a CD-ROM since they use 'untrue science', just to say a few examples.
Back to Order. I've heard that example before about that clock in the sand, and its a poor one. Genes work on a hierachy: one small change leads to a long chain reaction of changes, kinda like quantum physics. Therefore, a relatively big change in a species is possible. But; a very big change like a change in fins to legs is not. You fail to see my examples. If a dolphin and a whale having lungs is not enough, how about a mudskipper, with fins that serve as makeshift legs to escape its poorly-oxygenated water? These are intermediate stages, given millions of years to develop. Proof of genetic heritage: crayfish and crabs have specific parts and features that suit their environment, but they still have very similar basic structure. Radical climate-influenced changes in species are still being witnessed and even created in the lab today as I've heard, like the HIV. Similar animals living seemingly very far apart are found to have been separated by drastic movements in the earth's crust long ago...all this is proof, and I still haven't seen any of yours to keep this argument relevant. I don't understand what you're talking about of the strata species and such; I'll need more detail.
Scientists are not faith-based. You keep putting them into the same shoes as those who deal with faith. A mark of a true scientist is a person who has his faith, but is willing to test it and accept the outcome of a reliable test. They shape their faiths around their observations, not the other way round. And many have, especially the noted ones, accepted evolution. No notable scientist I know supports Creationism. Einstein felt that 'God doesn't play dice' yet still went on to support Quantum Physics. Darwin may have changed his thesis, but that was a very long time ago and times and science now has known more, and if the change is little-known, how then can we know that it truly existed?
Lastly Science itself. I maintain that everything is true till proven false, but yes in addition to what you say, I forgot to mention that everything has to be tested repeatedly too. Think about it: you must observe and form theories, but how can you test a theory right? For example people believed long ago that the earth was flat because people who ventured too far out didn't return. In a sense, they were right...thus this theory stayed for a very long time. Clearer proof: Newton's laws have been tested as right for one of the longest times. Yet in light of Einstein's relativism they have been shockingly declared false: they could not explain Mercury's orbit. Newton's laws weren't wrong per se: they were just a not-close-enough generalisation of the truth. But why do we still use them? Because for the most part this estimate of the truth is close enough, and no-one wants to use Einstein's complicated equations for relatively simple situations. Still, for all its closeness, in the end it is not true physics. 'Tested truths' still decay before a single untruth. The only truth, as Einstein says, is something that over eternity itself has never been tested false, and that is the only, though unachievable, definition of the Almighty Truth.
Thus, to further define: a theory that has been repeatedly tested but not found to be false, is thus true, not the other way round. Truth is a collective of all truths that is refined; all its falseness chipped away like stone from a sculpture, to reveal its core. This is the very first tenet of science, and why evolution has been constantly proven true and is rarely enough tested false. It is imperfect in that parts it can't prove I'll admit, but it is also undergoing refinement and can explain most things with what it already has. What is the alternative, as your scientist said? Creationism, which long ago lost most of its arguments. I'll have to ask you this: for all your knowledge on both theories I can't believe you don't know this tenet, so where exactly do you get your Evolution/Creation sources? I'll admit myself though that I'm not too clear too on the definition of Creation theory so I'd like to hear it in detail as well, and know which are the discarded facts from the old Bible teachings. Very good discussion - I'm just gonna step in for a moment here.
In regards to Darwin retracting his theories... I had to do a little report on Darwin last year, and what supposedly happened was this: Darwin was lying on his deathbed. Some gal named "Lady Hope" SUPPOSEDLY visited him during this time. According to Lady Hope, Darwin said to her, "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." Now, I'm not sure who Lady Hope was. According to Darwin's daughter, Henrietta, who was with Darwin at his deathbed, Lady Hope was never with Darwin during that time, nor was she with Darwin during any other illness he had. Obviously, one of these people is lying. Creationists would argue that Darwin's daughter is lying, but it does not matter. Even if Lady Hope's fable is true, Darwin simply said he wished he had not expressed his theory in the way he did. Anyone who's familiar with Darwin knows that he intended to present his theory in a much different way than he ended up doing. Hey, I love your boodocks saints avatar and signature, TINM. That is a very cool movie.
Back to the discussion.
I'm not gonna even try to convince you, because it's obvious you're so entrenched in your "science" that nothing short of a direct sign from God could dig you out, and you'd probably just end up calling it a hallucination.
You're never gonna convince me, so please stop trying. I hate it when arguments go around and around in circles; that's the problem with opening these sorts of threads, people just debate back and forth needlessly.
You say no notable scientists supports creation. Well, you're only saying that because they support creationism. That's your prerogrative. Is that spelled correctly?
All experiments done to refute creationism have been done by evolutionists. Now, obviously, not 100%, but justifiably close. I don't recognize those sources, so quoting them isn't gonna phase me.
I did not say scientists were faith based. I said evolutionists were. They are not one and the same. A scientist can be evolutionist. An evolutionist can be a scientist. A creationist can be a scientist. A scientist can be a creationist. What I'm saying is that the THEORY of evolution is faith-based. So is creation.
I love what mazman said.
Good one, mazman. Both theories are just as ridiculous as the other. When you think about it, evolutionists can't scientifically say where life came from, and neither can creationists.
There is no such thing as the beginning and end of time, also, I agree.
Both theories cannot scientifically prove their points, at least not conclusively.
You cite and cite and cite evolutionary sources to prove your point; good for you. Believe what you want. I certainly won't ever believe the same thing.
I cite creationists sources. And don't give the evolutionist blah-blahing about creationism ignoring all sciences if it ignores evolution. Just because evolutionists use a proven fact to prove something of theirs, that doesn't mean that we refuting evolutionists automatically refute facts that have "proven" it.
Good for you. Dolphins, mudskippers, and whales. Transitionary forms should be found in abundance in the fossil record, but the truth is that they aren't. Complete forms are more often found than not. Since we have millions of years to look through, we should have transitionary forms coming out our butts(which would hurt(believe me, I know)).
In any case, a certain organism trying to evolve into something else is simply not possible. It would die out, get eaten by predators, in mid-form. It can't evolve half a lung, then survive for a million years. It would die out, so quit trying to sound so scientific on that.
That would be like humans trying to develop gills by jumping into the water and living there. They would die right away, with no offspring, because they couldn't breathe. And don't tell me that with enough time they could evolve gills. Die die die they would.
(That was my Yoda impression)
I can tell I'm not gonna receive a lot of help on this thread.
I'm sorry if I'm not coming up with too much "proof" to convince you, but I know that as a creationist, science is not on my side. Neither is it with you.
Neither theory can ever be proven. The only reason evolutionism exists and is popular is that atheists and anti-Christian groups needed something to latch onto other than creation, with a "science" label on it.
We will only know when we die. If you die and reach nothingness, hey, you win. Not that you'd notice, but you'd win.
If we die and reach either heaven or hell, then I win. I don't claim to know the answers. I operate on faith alone, and believe hard facts. No instruments today can measure or duplicate what happened back then, because we weren't there. Evolution is not, nor will it ever be, a science. It is a theory, and so is creationism. You believe what you want, and I believe what I want.
There, that's my two cents.
Or was that a buck and a half?
In any case, I am off to drink some Mountain Dew and watch Elf.
Happy Holidays everybody.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool I am most suprised that Macleod is continuing to debate you, seeing as you debate in a most unfriendly way.
Evolution, in my opinion, is total bullspit.
In my memory, bullspit, I presume a reference to bullshit, means nonsense. Evolution is not nonsense. A definition of sense: sound practical judgment. Evolution is sound practical judgement, as it is a theory (indeed, it is not completely true, I'll grant you that) but it is based on practical evidence and remains to be largely unproved. Additionally, it has been proven on multiple occasions by multiple scientists in multiple experiments.
Also, we do not teach the creationist side here in Europe. Over here, we consider it completely nonsensical, along with most other theories presented in the Bible. You see, my evolutionist opinion is based on evidence. There is evidence to support Evolution.
Neither theory can ever be proven. The only reason evolutionism exists and is popular is that atheists and anti-Christian groups needed something to latch onto other than creation, with a "science" label on it.
This is not true. The evolutionary theory has been proven. Is it perfect? No. But it is based on a large amount of scientific evidence.
If we die and reach either heaven or hell, then I win. I don't claim to know the answers. I operate on faith alone, and believe hard facts. No instruments today can measure or duplicate what happened back then, because we weren't there. Evolution is not, nor will it ever be, a science. It is a theory, and so is creationism. You believe what you want, and I believe what I want.
By engaging in debate, you agree that you wish to debate. Saying that you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe is not the purpose of this forum. The purpose of this forum is to debate. Not to not debate.
I am fascinated by the Christian/Muslim community. They make about 3 billion people in the world, and each of the religions claims someone else is wrong. Your beliefs condemn 5 billion people to eternal agony and pain. How does that make you feel?
Mr U In response to your final question, HU, I do not feel bad about this at all. In my beliefs, they are condemning themselves. Sure, I feel bad for them, but they have condemned themselves. Don't say I am tempting flames here, I am just answering your question.
Good arguments, good for you, HU. I retract my claim that evolution is total bullspit.
There are many valid arguments within it.
Nevertheless, I will never believe it.
Good arguments everybody.
Clap, clap.
Debate is good. But really quite pointless, seeing as how we will never convince one another of the truth.
Evolution has been proven, but big coincidence, by evolutionists.
Creationism has been proven, but big coincidence, by creationists.
Both camps are biased, one of them has the truth, and we can never know before death which one has the truth.
And now, I shall continue Elf.
Happy Chrismahanaquanzaa everybody.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool I can't say I'm happy to note the patterns that form in my discussions. This is the part that has lots of prancing and exasperation.
Ok, so we're off on the wrong start on definitions. If you're talking about the vast majority who take evolution as a faith, well who am I to argue about that side of the issue. Everyone can take a faith. As far as the vaunted American slogan seems to go, that seems to be numero uno. But, when you want to put a solid answer down to a phenomenon, an answer dependable enough to back the discovery of other sciences, what is one supposed to believe-no, utilise-more? Science; evolution. And though I repeated it several times you seem to have missed my point: evolution doesn't just use science thrown together to make a theory. Creationism uses that as well, to often disastrous effects. Evolution adds to science. It brings up more theories and doubts, which on the field of testing yield expected results. Science is a whole; each part of it supports and depends on the other. Therefore you cannot look at evolution, a theory so deeply supported by science, as separate from it. Creationism does none of that-I still don't see evidence. Actually, I'm still waiting for a definition of Creationism so I know what to stick to. That part about you stating my perogative isn't clear too: creation and creationism?
Now I don't know about whether or not mostly evolutionists did experiments against Creationism, but I don't care. Like I've said, firstly truth is truth only until proven false. Who best to prove those than those who do not believe in the truth? Science articles in notable Science mags (I'm not versed in their names) go through the peer system: when someone comes up with a theory they look for that guy's sore enemies to destroy his theory and if they can't, his article goes up. On the other hand, theories in evolution have been tested against by Creationists too, and like I've said, stood up to the test.
I know I have no real pattern to my answers here, so forgive me. I just answer points as they come to mind.
Now about mazman. Was that his point? It seemed like he was talking about evolution and creationism all at the same time. Evolution cannot explain the beginning of life? I already said it did! UV rays at high temperature with a high carbon dioxide content...that was only the very first stage, but it was replicated. They charted life's growth from amino acid to simple uni- then multi-cell organisms, theorized their conditions and forms, then duplicated them. Nature itself duplicates them on a constant basis: evolution in the simplest form is happening as we speak in undersea volcanoes and hot springs. Time having no beginning or end? Is that so true? What defines time? Mass and movement. What if one day, or one time earlier; these did not exist? In the Big Bang it certainly didn't, but if I'm not wrong it's not classified under evolution.
And again you read evolution wrong. Of course we can't form gills by jumping into the sea...it takes millions of years and lots of time spent in the water too. And, humans are actually different, though not in so drastic ways. Humans born in the highlands have bigger lungs to better breathe the thinner air for example. You said about predators killing off mutants. That's the precise point of evolution, but it also works the other way round. It's known that if you breed lots of white sheep eventually you'll get a rare black one. Under certain conditions e.g. night predators, these black sheep actually have an advantage over the white sheep, and gain a higher chance of survival. These black sheep also carry in them the ability to make more black sheep, and while the white sheep slowly die off, the sheep genus carries on...black. A rough example, but a more relevant one about evolution. It's not about hideous creatures somehow defying nature to survive, but more of refinements. It's happening all around us...how can you explain the common flu, or AIDS, or even genetically-enhanced crops? I'll bring up all the proof I want, because that's what science, and in extension evolution, works on. Proof to form solid, dependable conclusions. What other alternative do you want?
Alright, so you say that as a creationist, science is not on your side. Well then...why teach it? What goes for creation theory? Religion? Why not leave that in religious class then? What's a theory, again? Something that is a possible explanation to certain things in the universe. What's a theory that's been proven wrong? Forgotten, or at least, ought to have. I'm not argueing about who's gonna win when we die, I'm arguing about what science is going to have to base on in order to progress, to better help us understand our lives and the world around us. Feeling that God put the world there isn't going to help.
Basically, mazman's and your arguments for and against are faith-based. Neither theory can win to you because you included faith into the issue. Science isn't with me? What were my posts there for? Saying 'it's impossible to imagine a creature growing gills' is far from the same as 'carbon dating tells us the world isn't a few thousand years old'. Basically many arguments never end precisely because of this. The arguments against evolution never end because they keep leaning towards the 'God could have kept everything hidden in his huge design and we'll never know till we meet him, no matter what proof we collect.' All well and good for the spiritual side, and maybe its true in a purely debatable way. I'll be the first to apologize to you if God indeed had a sense of humour. But as far as theories and practicality goes and we're still living in a physical world; make no mistake: Creationism lost out long ago.
*EDIT*
Ah, I didn't see HU's help back there-thanks much. Now both your posts there only reinforce what I'm trying to say: when we debate we leave our faiths out the door. I'm not one to change your faith: you can keep believing what you want and do not participate. But if you do, prepare to use only your left brain. I have my beliefs as well, and if I recall HU once believed the world rested on a turtle wandering the universe or something out of Discworld (lol), but that should not interfere in topics like these.
Remember: Scientists have their own faiths too, but whether or not their faiths take a backseat to proofs in their face separates them from us. Thus I'm not going to expand this argument between just people who believe in evolution or creationism. We're keeping this to provable, solid facts and events, and that's how a debate should go. Well, whoop-de-doo dah day for you.
Black sheep are not evolution. Not even close. Changes can happen within a species, but one species cannot become something totally different.
Creationism has not died out, it's still going strong. Like I said, there are two camps, evolution and creation, and neither one recognizes the "proof" of the other.
I admire your density, Macleod. Such blind faith. So innocent. At least I have the decency to recognize that neither of us holds science behinds us.
I said creationism is not backed up by science. But I also said evolution.
Again, pin a rose on your nose.
Flip you a dead fish.
Whoop-de-doo-day.
Day.
De-doo-da-day.
Day-de-day.
In any case, I will concede that evolution is the dominant view, but that doesn't make it true. It used to be the dominant view that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. that didn't make it true.
Again, whoop-de-doo-dah-day.
For you.
That's whoop.
de-doo
de-doo-doo.
There's obviously no chance of a debate here. I'm not sufficiently versed in science, evolution, or creation to properly defend creation. But don't blame the whole theory just 'cuz one college kid can't defend it. There are thousands of people who can't defend evolution correctly.
Unless I receive help, which I doubt will happen when everyone who holds the same views as me are so afraid to express them, I really don't give a friggin crap what you say.
Whoop-de-doo-dah-day for you.
Pin a rose on your nose.
Yay, everybody clap for MacLeod, who has masterfully defended the theory of evolution!
As long as he was talking to an evolutionist, mind you.
Oh, but wait!
::neoizcool scratches chin::
There's no point in that then, is there?
Hmm, let's think about this, Kids!
Big Whoop for you Mac.
Happy Chrismahanaquanzaa!
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool I am stepping in as a Moderator to say that I find this way of debating demeaning and that I will not allow it. This board is for people who want to debate, so please stop saying you do not wish to debate it. If you do not wish to debate, stop posting. Any more of these arguments in future posts and I will personally remove them from your posts.
Your whoop/rose/de-doo-do way of debating is unacceptable, and if you wish to continue this debate, I suggest you do it in a way that is more respectable to your opponent.
Mac, I thought I said I thought I was a brain in a bowl on a turtle wandering the universe, but I might be wrong :P.
Mr U Fine, HU, whatever you say. You da boss man.
I just hate it when you evolutionists get all high and mighty about your theory, acting like you're so much better than us creationists.
I find THAT demeaning.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool Another foreseen step in this debate, but I'll continue anyway for those still interested in the whole thing.
Anyway, it's true enough that there are many that do not know enough of evolutionism to defend it. There are however those that do, and though I do not rank myself as truly in their ranks since lots of the info that turned my mind was given, not found, I must insist that this overall amount of knowledge is what has defended evolution so long through the ages.
Now, about the Earth being flat. A very good example indeed: science is full of this, and in fact evolution cannot claim to be above it. Refinement of one big truth is what science is about: all discarded theories were in fact in their scope of things true. For sailors a flat earth is truth enough. For us earth-bound folks Newton is good enough. In present-day biology evolution is good enough. Perhaps one day evolution will be pushed aside just as the Earth being flat was. What my argument is though, is that evolution from a present point of view is true enough to base our science on. In fact, if evolution can be said to one day be like the old belief of earth being flat, then in comparison Creation is exactly like the now-discarded belief of earth being flat. Don't tell me you don't learn biology. My life science lessons immediately focus on the tenets of evolution.
I'm not going to diss the whole theory based on 'one college student'. I'm a college student myself. I'm dissing the theory based on the evidence I see, and am going to keep doing it till I see solid evidence otherwise, that I have not seen so far beyond gross generalizations and declarations.
Density? Innocence and faith, you say? You can't even recognise Science's primary definition of truth: how dare you define you know how unscientific we both are? I postulated the sides of my argument, raised the various challenges I can remember and then rebutted them, and shown how they overpoweringly favour one side over the other. Looking at how my class reacted to the discussion, I dare say not many believe in Creationism as well, or only do so because they were taught to do so to by religion to the exclusion of anything else, and many were willing to change their minds on discovery of the argument raised before them. What more could one need, scientifically and without faith-bias?
*EDIT*
I missed a few posts again.
I'm not here to demean or make anyone look bad. Thanks HU-and lmao on the turtle thing-but respecting a mod's responsibility's probably the last thing he wants to do right now.
So: I'm trying to argue a topic over a rationalized debate; a comparison of findings. If you don't have what you need to defend your view here, fine: either move along or dig up more concrete, describable evidence for your view. Otherwise I don't see why I have to bend over backwards making Creationism sound like a viable theory that we should thus (if I want to get your motive right) base science on. I'll prefer though to trust gene-based medicine more than prayers any day. No, you got my motive wrong. I never said we should base science on creation. Never should we do such a thing, nor evolution, though we are.
I'd take medicine and prayers, and wouldn't exclude one. Since you brought that up, there have been scientific studies done that show that sick people who have people praying for them do better than sick people with nobody praying for them.
Don't talk about me like I'm not here.
"Respecting a mod's responsibility is the last thing he wants to do right now."
I don't see why you opened this debate thread if you didn't expect an responses besides me. Obviously there are no other creationists around, so why, HU, is this thread still open????
As of now it is completely pointless, because, as you pointed out, there is no debate going on. So, unless someone else is going to start debating, what exactly is the point of this thread???? Just close it and be done.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool No point closing. OK I'll admit another point read wrong then...I'll also admit to ignoring you, but I thought it appropriate: I was talking to HU in that paragraph, so of course I'm referring to you in third person.
Now about the thread's purpose. I want it here so that ideas can be bounced around...I wasn't looking for a fight I could win with a trophy to bring home. More proponents of both theories can come up to share, and that would be lovely. Anyway, I'm also waiting for PsycikPsycho, who prompted the creation of this thread.
Also, one of the reasons why I brought this up was to separate creationism with science. Apart from religious class and history, I feel nothing else besides the arts or science should be taught in school-let churches and other such handle things like creation myths. However the school system in the U.S. putting up both as mandatory teaching under the impression that both were theories equally right to teach seemed meaningless to me. Like I said, all right and well as a belief, nothing more. Frankly I'll agree myself that so many seemingly perfectly-designed species controlled by a fragile collection of genes and cells all living in comparative harmony seems too arranged to be a coincidence, but for all practicality this belief has no place in everyday life for me.
And anyway about the sick people thing you'll be surprised about the true findings when serious experiments were conducted. Leaving out factors like being optimistic enough to take better care of yourself and such, it's found also that in the end the odds are even. A certain spring in Europe, one of many, was said to have Mary's blessings, and lots of folks flocked there for miracle cures. Not surprisingly, many found them....but when the odds were calculated (number of miracle cures next to visits) it was found that it was no different than-you may not believe it-your everyday, busy hospital. That's another thing tricky with tests: they have to be repeated, and many are hard to rid of unfair factors. Fine, HU, whatever you say. You da boss man.
I just hate it when you evolutionists get all high and mighty about your theory, acting like you're so much better than us creationists.
I find THAT demeaning.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool
Happy Chrismahanaquanzaa everybody.
In response to your final question, HU, I do not feel bad about this at all. In my beliefs, they are condemning themselves. Sure, I feel bad for them, but they have condemned themselves. Don't say I am tempting flames here, I am just answering your question.
*sniff* *sniff* I smell a hypocrite.
Maybe you aren't getting help from anybody because you totally degrade the other's point of view. It's like YOU'RE standing all high and mighty, spitting down on the other person.
You say you only look at hard facts. Why don't you open your eyes and see the world around you? Or did God create the internet for your enjoyment?
Evolution is based on science, believe it or not. It's based on a whole range of fields from Genetics, Biology, Chemistry, Entomology, all the fields that branch from Zoology, like Ornithology and Herpetology, a bit of Physics, Paleontology, and Archeology. That seems like science to me. I could be wrong, however, since you say evolution isn't a scientifc theory.
And why do you get into these debates if you know it's going to be fruitless? That's like having a banana in your hand as the only weapon, and you have to kill someone. I hardly believe you're going to kill that person, with that banana. So why do you do it, neoizcool? To needlessly discuss about things you said yourself you aren't well versed in?
I strongly suggest you play like a good boy. Well, it all depends on perspective. Take my perspective for example:
Why can't the two be intertwined? Stay with me here.
Why couldn't God have used evolution in order to create humans? He could have. I know that God does not just snap and something happens, he uses things or people to do his work. At least thats what I think. Anyway, when it says that Earth was created in 7 days, does not mean that it was seven 24 hour periods. It could have been the millions of years that carbon dating shows. Even the bible says that God's time is not our time. If you say that it was definetly 7 24 hour periods, then you're limiting God by time, and God is not limited by time. So, why couldn't God have used evolution to create animals and things?
Lost anyone? Good, you're still with me.
Now, I don't believe in the Big Bang Theroy, because I don't think that everything just happened by accident. But the evolution part scientifically makes some sense. So why couldn't God have used evolution? Think about that one :)
P.S.-play nice, we know who I'm talking to Now about mazman. Was that his point? It seemed like he was talking about evolution and creationism all at the same time. Evolution cannot explain the beginning of life? I already said it did! UV rays at high temperature with a high carbon dioxide content...that was only the very first stage, but it was replicated. They charted life's growth from amino acid to simple uni- then multi-cell organisms, theorized their conditions and forms, then duplicated them. Nature itself duplicates them on a constant basis: evolution in the simplest form is happening as we speak in undersea volcanoes and hot springs. Time having no beginning or end? Is that so true? What defines time? Mass and movement. What if one day, or one time earlier; these did not exist? In the Big Bang it certainly didn't, but if I'm not wrong it's not classified under evolution.
I'm no Christian by any means, but what I meant was that there is the same amount of CONCLUSIVE proof that God created the world than something exploded ages ago - none. (The UV and CO2 thing will only get you so far, a question could be "What was before that?" For instance...)
If there is no such thing as the beginning of time that means that there must have been something before the big bang then before that and before that etc. into infinity. So what put that thing there that exploded? It sounds ludicrous, but God is the most reasonable answer to be honest...
And yes there is no such thing as the beginning or end of time. Picture the scene:
"Hey everyone, time begins in 5 seconds!" or "Hey look, time ended 5 seconds ago!" Correct, ichi_ban. I considered your idea as well for a very long time, but then again this idea you're raising really is just a compromise of both, which doesn't really change anything. In the belief system yes it uses both and can create a good answer to it all but again on the scientific stand there is only room for one: to support one is to by their strict definitions not support the other. That's on what I was arguing on. If I'm also not wrong I argued once with a Christian who told me the fundamental difference why Creationists do not believe in evolution: the very fact that species change and have constantly been changing, and that man thus evolved from (to term very loosely, I know what you guys always quibble over) the apes. This cannot be factored into the reconciled theory.
Alright, as for conclusive prove on your part mazman...I know what you're saying. That is precisely what made the argument drag so long. At first Creationism said 'God created man' then we found out man stems from multi- then unicelled organisms, then to a volcanic, pre-living earth. Creatinistic definitions of the beginning of life then changed from their first to 'the spark beyond the materials was by God' then now to 'the fact that the materials being there belongs to God.' They are by no means unreasonable to imagine, but considering the nature of their original argument they aren't making things fair. Like all faith-based blanket arguments it ends in something that cannot be realistically proven: God. When then could one put a stop to where God comes into life? The Big Bang. As mazman says, its the only thing that seems to make sense: he was there before the Big Bang.
But was he? Just 'he seems most likely to' does not make a good scientific argument. Scientists have also theorized that time did not exist before the Big Bang: it had no definition. There was nothing before the Big Bang because 'Before' did not exist. Neither will 'After'. The universe, in both space and thus time, did not exist. Some very deep quantum physics stuff here, including if I'm not wrong time itself forming and decompressing with the Big Bang's unfolding. Also, the cause of the Big Bang has been linked to the theorical 'Zero Point Energy', basically an almost infinite amount of tappable 'background' energy from a clean vacuum, something I briefly touched on in the technology section but didn't have enough to go on. These are plausible theories that are just as likely to be true as God being there.
Just a reminder on something though: if I'm not wrong the Big Bang theory doesn't really factor into all these. As far as I remember of the definitions I heard Creationism was the '7 days' theory; evolution was only from the point where the earth was formed, on. So actually alot of our discussions bounced around were off-point, lol. :D Okay, NMN, I admit I do sometimes get out of hand when debating a topic I like. I apologize for anybody I have offended.
ichi ban, I understand what you're saying. Many Christians do believe this theistic evolutionist point of view.
Well, gotta go, got a paper to write.
Happy Chrismahanaquanzaa everybody.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool I agree with ichi_ban1 you sumed it up. God has a plan and created all things including evolution. You are right it is not a good idea to limit God with constants like time, altough I believe that God could create a world with life in just 188 hours if so inclined. and maybe God did we just cant tell. If you know any thing about postmodern physics then you would know that in theory it is possible for God to have both created the world and Man in seven days ( 24 hour days ) by using evolution as a means of creation. Time that normaly would be streched over millions of years could be compressed into seven days. it is symilar to Einstein's ex: of a rocket ship leaves earth for one year traviling at the speed of light and then returns to find that 100 years have passed on earth but the pilot only aged one year. the rocket man dipiction is a similar idea but but a little different.
Read the book "Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything" by F. David Peat. it has alot of good ideas.
p.s. I am a Physics Major in college and most of physics seems to make sense to have God as the source for exsistance. It is possible he used evolution. But you people say don't put limits on God. Exactly. He could have created the elephant just like that. Or man, for that matter. I believe he did. You people do not believe the same as me, but that is your business.
God did not need evolution to create life. He's god, all powerful.
Happy Chrismahanahquanzaa everyone!
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool *sniff* *sniff* I smell a hypocrite..
Really? I thought I caught a whiff of Ommari I made in my pants myself.
NMN is correct, tone it down, and play like the big boys neoizcool, and try to use the big boy voice. Thanks. It is possible he used evolution. But you people say don't put limits on God. Exactly. He could have created the elephant just like that. Or man, for that matter. I believe he did. You people do not believe the same as me, but that is your business.
God did not need evolution to create life. He's god, all powerful.
Happy Chrismahanahquanzaa everyone!
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool
That creates a paradoxical statement, along the lines of 'Can God make a rock so big that He Himself cannot lift?'
By limiting God, you challenge his supremeness, which is a big no-no. But by saying he can't do something is also challenging, and is another no-no. You misread my post NMN. I did not say he can't do something. I'm only saying he didn't need evolution. It is possible he used it. We can't know; we just believe.
I don't see the paradox.
It is possible that God used evolution.
It is possible that God made everything as you see it now.
I take my faith word for word from the Bible, that's why I believe in the creation story as it is written.
I'm not limiting God. I believe the Bible in its entirety, and believe that it does not contain a single falsehood. Therefore I believe in the creation story.
This is not a theology thread, and I think we'll all remember a thred not to long ago that got closed because the discussion got too heated. So please don't go into the Bible being true and all that.
I have my beliefs, you have yours.
The only thing God cannot do is sin. He is perfect, so everything he does is automatically perfect. If he does it, it can't be bad. And don't say he created man and man fell so God created sin. God created Satan. Satan created sin. Condeming God for Satan's creation of sin is the same as condeming the parent of Hitler for all the harm that he caused. The fact is it's the perpetrator who is at fault.
So there you have it. The only thing God is incapable of is sin, since he is all good. That is the only way in which God is limited. Yay, it's a no-no. In your opinion. All of you evolutionists keep on stating your views in a way that makes it seem like it's fact, that's what annoys me about this thread.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool The thread annoys you? Or the individual opinions that are put forth? I'm sure there are quite a few from both sides who are just as equally annoyed, so you're in good company.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin Loves You!
[Sung to the tune of My Favorite Things]
Trilobite, burrows, and Cephalopoda,
Corals and worms and lamellibranchiata,
Echinoderm skeletons made out of rings -
These are a few of my favorite things.
Asteroid impact and classification,
Isotope dating and bioturbation;
In the Triassic the birds got their wings -
These are a few of my favorite things.
When the clam bites, when the shells sink,
When I'm feeling sad,
I simply remember that most are extinct
And then I don't feel so bad.
Darwin, Lamarck and genetic mutation,
Gradual changes and quick punctuation;
DNA bases all bound up in strings -
These are a few of my favorite things.
Protista and Ediacara fauna,
Eukaryota, Pangaea, Gondwana;
Vema, a monoplacophoan, clings -
These are a few of my favorite things.
When the sharks bite, when the polyps sting,
When I'm feeling sad,
I simply remember that most are extinct
These are a few of my favorite things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, continue. Great stuff, UT.
I'll respond, shortly, on your evolution powered by God, Ichi_ban, since I can't find the strength (maybe I should start praying) to list all the scientific backing Evolution has received.
Let me just say that I have been working and refining a theory that, from a behavioristic aspect defines behaviour, and considers the black box, the reason for that behaviour, to be instincts generated by evolution.
Of course, it is possible that God exists and that he created Evolution, and that he powered it so we would eventually spring into existance. However, it is than also possible to take a deist point of view. What if God created the Big Bang and just let the Universe develop, knowing we (and our future children, and perhaps the next evolution of man) would come out in the future. The problem with God is that you can set his involvement just as high as you want, even to the fact where you can justify all behaviour.
"I didn't kill him. It was God acting through me."
Because Evolution makes sense, as I have proven before, and because it gives a reasonable and replicatable solution (which is science, after all) to how our species came to existance from Earth's sulfur-filled air. We don't need God to supply an explanation, and thus it can be theorized using occam's razor that God probably did not intervene.
We can only supply evidence. Conclusions are personal and not at all conclusive as we do not know and oversee everything. If to me the rising sun implies that I am a brain living in a small lovely-decorated china-cup on top of a turtle swimming through the infinite ocean that is the Universe, than that is my explanation. To you it may just symbolise another day.
Still, Creation vs Evolution is not about personal interpretation. It is about completely understanding both sides of the problem, about understanding all theories to refine one theory, as Macleod has, in my eyes stated on multiple occasions. Sorry if I got ya wrong, Mac :D.
Mr U Umm...I think you've got it about right, HU. 'Was a little convoluted, though. :D Science is one large understanding of the universe: all earlier theories that worked and all branches of it are merely parts of an expanding whole. If I recall, a philosopher named roughly Geothe or something also postulated that mankind will never attain total understanding of this expanding Truth, but will instead keep learning for as much as eternity allows him. How Star Trekky...how fun. :)
Now, this discussion has reached a point where I can safely say I really can't say much more (lol). My argument here was on the plausibility of the Creation/Evolution theories and yes, I regret not putting that word in bold long ago. What you; neoizcool, are arguing for the whole thread is about the Creation Belief and as far as I know together with beliefs in Buddha and the prophet Mohammed that puts it right into the 'not worth trying to debate because both sides are running against solid walls' category. Kinda like Spock and McCoy (ouch; another Star Trek reference!). I respect your views and see their validity; and you're definitely welcome to keep that faith, along with all other Creationists. However, the distinction that must be argued is that such beliefs be kept in Sunday school and out of the labs and mainstream school. As HU, mine and no doubt many other countries' school systems have shown, evolution is the primary theory discussed in class, and I vouch they stay that way. Mm-hmm.
Just because it's widely accepted doesn't mean it's correct. And I'm not saying that's what you're saying, I'm just throwing that out there.
I'm saying that neither evolution nor creation has a greater scientific justification.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool Well, it all depends on perspective. Take my perspective for example:
Why can't the two be intertwined? Stay with me here.
Why couldn't God have used evolution in order to create humans? He could have. I know that God does not just snap and something happens, he uses things or people to do his work. At least thats what I think. Anyway, when it says that Earth was created in 7 days, does not mean that it was seven 24 hour periods. It could have been the millions of years that carbon dating shows. Even the bible says that God's time is not our time. If you say that it was definetly 7 24 hour periods, then you're limiting God by time, and God is not limited by time. So, why couldn't God have used evolution to create animals and things?
Lost anyone? Good, you're still with me.
Now, I don't believe in the Big Bang Theroy, because I don't think that everything just happened by accident. But the evolution part scientifically makes some sense. So why couldn't God have used evolution? Think about that one :)
P.S.-play nice, we know who I'm talking to
That's what I thought. Especially with the time idea, that it might not techinically be the precise 24 hour 7 days.
Here's something I think. Iichi_ban touched on God working with evolution, and that was part of my theory.
My thought is that God created us, by the means of evolution. In a sense, I guess I believe God simply created us and then sat back and started watching. He gave us free will, and let us basically run ourselves. Now, all He does is watch.
God does create miracles on occasion, such as His son Jesus. I believe Jesus was real, more so beacause that stems from my faith and what I grew up on. I believe immaculate conception is possible, and is a miracle of God.
Unfortunatly, the only thing I have to base this on is the bible. However, at least some of the stories in the bible had to be true, because that's far too much to simply sprout from the minds of kings wishing to keep control over their subjects. Yes, people are gullible, but in most cases, seeing is believing. Obviously many people would have to of witnessed Jesus's life for so many people to believe in God and Jesus.
My conclusion is that, like ichi_ban suggested, perhaps God and evolution are working together. God now simply views human lives and creates miracles to help us along. I'ma gonna touch upon some things discussed earlier in the thread... I sorta fell behind in my reading, so forgive me.
I'm no Christian by any means, but what I meant was that there is the same amount of CONCLUSIVE proof that God created the world than something exploded ages ago - none. (The UV and CO2 thing will only get you so far, a question could be "What was before that?" For instance...)
If there is no such thing as the beginning of time that means that there must have been something before the big bang then before that and before that etc. into infinity. So what put that thing there that exploded? It sounds ludicrous, but God is the most reasonable answer to be honest...
So the question is, according to the big bang theory, the universe came from nothing... But something can't come from nothing... So therefore, someone or something had to spark it all, right?
Wrong. First of all, if there was nothing before the universe came along, how can there be a restriction on something coming into being? It's not as though "nothing" itself is changing into something, or the universe is causing itself. The only logical barriers to the universe suddenly exploding into life are the ones we place on it ourselves; if nothing truly existed, then that logic would not exist either.
And about the fish thing, I still stick to my guns. A fish, regardless, would still HAVE to evolve legs and/or lungs immediately if it expected to survive out of water.
The possibiliy of these micro changes happening in species to develop us is the same as hundreds of monkeys trying to type to be or not to be. This possibility is also the same as if a huge crust of sand was surrounding the Earth, extending to the sun, and once ever billion years a bird came and took away one grain of sand. Four such crusts would have to have been eroded before monkeys could expect to type to be or not to be.
I'm with Mac on this one... There's many examples of transitional species between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and early hominids and homo sapiens. If you really cared, I could dig out my textbook and cite specific examples, but it's entirely possible to go from a fish to a human, through billions of years and many baby steps. Thanks, TiNM.
Just to state something clearer: I'm all for the unified stance ichi_ban postulated that we all seem to like, but it has to be clear that this cannot be classified under the classical Creation theory. Creation theory isn't just 'God made the universe; you can put anything else as you see fit' if I'm not wrong, or I'd be all for Creation as well. It's stuff like 'the earth is several thousand years old' and 'man and animals were made precisely as we see them' that I don't hold to.
Very nice about the Big Bang too, TiNM. It's interesting to note how the idea of a God existing where everything logically shouldn't is easier for most to believe in than the idea that a quantum singularity gave birth to the universe. 'Deus', it would seem, is not just in 'Deus Ex Machina', it is 'Deus Ex Machina'. wow.. I'm sorry to have missed out on so much while I was gone.
Although it's easy to believe that God created everything via evolution over millions of years, yadda yadda yadda... I find it almost easier to believe that He did, in fact, create it in a short seven days. Why? Primarily because of faith, but also from what I've read in various journals and discussed in classes.
Don't get me wrong, here. I'm in favor of microevolution. To deny that would just be stupid, as there's been enough proof of that over time. But to believe that the Earth is billions of years old and came from nothing is (in my mind) rather difficult to grasp.
How would you explain the set of human and dinosaur footprints they found in Texas?
Why is the Earth still cooling? Studies have shown that the earth is still cooling from some major incident, but the rate at which it's cooling dates the planet back around six thousand years, no more.
Where's the transitional fossils?
Everyone will agree that the coelacanth (ancient fish recently found to still be living around the Indian Ocean) is ancient. Why has it not changed much at all since it "developed?" It is a fragile fish that can only live in very specific conditions (all that have been captured have died), so why hasn't it evolved into something better? And if it did, they why does the coelacanth as we know it still exist?
The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year, that would mean that several billion years ago it would have stood where the Earth stands now. How is this possible?
And, if the "big bang" came from one tiny dot of everything condensed, then exploded, why do we have planets rotating in different directions? Shouldn't they be all moving the same? Thank you so much, PP. It's nice to have someone who believes the same as me for a change.
I just hope I'm not giving you the "NIC" curse by saying thanks to you. :-)
Now we have a debate going.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool Everyone will agree that the coelacanth (ancient fish recently found to still be living around the Indian Ocean) is ancient. Why has it not changed much at all since it "developed?" It is a fragile fish that can only live in very specific conditions (all that have been captured have died), so why hasn't it evolved into something better? And if it did, they why does the coelacanth as we know it still exist?
Isolated ecosystems could be to blame, if it stays in the same enviorment over time then there is no need for it to evolve. This is not the only species to have changed very little. The Megalodon is an almost an exact replica of todays Great White shark, the only notable difference is size. The same goes for a lot of shell fish.
The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year, that would mean that several billion years ago it would have stood where the Earth stands now. How is this possible?
Scientists are not even completely sure that the moon was even a moon several billion years ago. The two most accepted theories are that it was captured by the earths gravity, or another planet smashed into the earth and the resulting debris created the moon. With either one though, the moon could have held a very steady orbit for quite some time but is slowly drifting away.
And, if the "big bang" came from one tiny dot of everything condensed, then exploded, why do we have planets rotating in different directions? Shouldn't they be all moving the same?
Because of Gravity, it doesnt just work one way like a clock. As smaller objects get sucked in by larger objects they continue moving in their same forward motions.
So the question is, according to the big bang theory, the universe came from nothing... But something can't come from nothing... So therefore, someone or something had to spark it all, right?
Just because our universe did not exist before the Big Bang does not mean that other universe's didnt either. One theory by Stephan Hawking is that a normal universe and an ati-universe (composed of anti-matter) collide at an infinitely small point, and the result of that cataclysmic explosion creates a brand new universe.
And about the fish thing, I still stick to my guns. A fish, regardless, would still HAVE to evolve legs and/or lungs immediately if it expected to survive out of water.
The possibiliy of these micro changes happening in species to develop us is the same as hundreds of monkeys trying to type to be or not to be. This possibility is also the same as if a huge crust of sand was surrounding the Earth, extending to the sun, and once ever billion years a bird came and took away one grain of sand. Four such crusts would have to have been eroded before monkeys could expect to type to be or not to be.
Evolution is not an "immediate" process, ergo the fact that it took billions of years for humans to evolve gives plenty of time for microchanges to add up to some pretty big changes.
Mm-hmm.
Just because it's widely accepted doesn't mean it's correct. And I'm not saying that's what you're saying, I'm just throwing that out there.
I'm saying that neither evolution nor creation has a greater scientific justification.
Where is there any scientific justification of Creation, that was not warped to suit the purpose ? Evolution on the other hand as NMN has stated is based on nearly a dozen different scientific fields of study.
Because Evolution makes sense, as I have proven before, and because it gives a reasonable and replicatable solution (which is science, after all) to how our species came to existance from Earth's sulfur-filled air. We don't need God to supply an explanation, and thus it can be theorized using occam's razor that God probably did not intervene.
On the contrary, occams razor gives more justification towards the fact that God did intervene. After all would it not be much easier to not go through the scientific explanation for evolution and the facts to back it, but just simply say "God did it".
I'm not gonna even try to convince you, because it's obvious you're so entrenched in your "science" that nothing short of a direct sign from God could dig you out, and you'd probably just end up calling it a hallucination.
I rather like this statement, and in a sense its partly true. Im a firm believer in facts. So im sorry but a book that was written a tad short of 2000 years ago, then "edited" by the Romans, then slightly edited some more by monks in their translation from latin, its just not considered facts anymore in my eyes. Furthermore the book of the bible cant be proof for a God that never existed in the first place. Did Jesus exist sure he did, and did some wonderful things for people. But do I believe he is the son of a non-extentant God, because its a fact no.
The point is (before I get too far off on aq theological discussion) is that creationilisim provides no hard facts, whereas science does. How would you explain the set of human and dinosaur footprints they found in Texas?
The human footprints supposedly discovered there are truly not what they appear to be, and the whole premise of the situation is pretty much considered false by most people now. The dinosaur prints are definitely real, but the human tracks are considered to be a combination of erosional features, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings.
And, if the "big bang" came from one tiny dot of everything condensed, then exploded, why do we have planets rotating in different directions? Shouldn't they be all moving the same?
Nope. The big bang wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion of space. Also, conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything is spinning the same way. It requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects. Other bodies in the early solar system could account for the compensating spin. There's nothing that bars the different roatiations of planets and solar systems.
Why is the Earth still cooling? Studies have shown that the earth is still cooling from some major incident, but the rate at which it's cooling dates the planet back around six thousand years, no more.
I don't know too much about the cooling... But I do know there's a substantial amount of evidence to prove that the earth is indeed nearly 4 billion years old... The variety of fossils, the thick layers of sedimentary rock on earth (which could only be built up over millions of years), and immensely deep eroded canyons (like the Grand canyon). Furthermore, by using radioactive dating, we find that the oldest rocks on earth date back to nearly 4.5-4.6 billion years ago.
Just because our universe did not exist before the Big Bang does not mean that other universe's didnt either. One theory by Stephan Hawking is that a normal universe and an ati-universe (composed of anti-matter) collide at an infinitely small point, and the result of that cataclysmic explosion creates a brand new universe.
Yup, there's quite a few theories of what existed before the Big Bang. I like several of them. I was just addressing the logic used in the case that there was indeed nothing before the big bang. Don't even get me started on the Bible's infailibility. That is a totally different subject.
Within the last ten years an evolutionist put a marker in some form of rock or something, I forget which, then came back a few weeks later, and found a massive amount of layering on top of the marker. He said that if he had not put the marker there and seen that that much development took place in that short a time, he would have thought it had taken thousands of years, not a few weeks.
The fact is, the layering that evolutionists claim had to take thousands of years actually took place in a much shorter amount of time. Scientific history supports the idea that there was a great flood many years ago, probably the flood of Noah. This would account for all the layers of sand and rock that piled up.
I never claimed evolution was an immediate process. The very fact that evolutionists say with time any change is possible is ridiculous, because the changes would need to happen immediately.
A fish coming out of water would have to develop instant capabilities of breathing to survive. If not, it would die, no offspring, and the tiny tiny traces of beginning of adapting to the world outside the water would die.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool As HU, mine and no doubt many other countries' school systems have shown, evolution is the primary theory discussed in class, and I vouch they stay that way.
Evolutionary studies are introduced at a much later stage here as opposed to religion. Religious brainwashing is conducted once the child turns 5, and unless stopped conitnues to do so well into highschool! It doesn't even fall into the realm of fact, fiction or theory as far as I'm concerned. More to me like a demented fairytale of man-made propaganda. pfftt. Good for you, UT. Your avatar fits you now. Don't tell me to respect others views and then totally slam my religion.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool nic, you're taking one event not several not even a few but one event and then you're using it to say all evolutionists are wrong ? Im simply amazed at how one feat classifies them all. Second of all this supposed evolutionist came back several weeks later to find a massive amount of layering. What kind of layering was this, what was the area of the added layering ? It could have been a simple 1 square mile covering for all I know, which can quite easily happen in a few weeks, or even less.
I never claimed evolution was an immediate process.
Yes, in a way you are either the changes of evolution happen immediately or evolution does not happen, is the jist of what you're saying. In which case you're completely missing how evolution works period. Evolution is a slow process that changes with the enviorment. Either a creature learns to adapt (evolve) fast enough or it dies. Luckily geology and climate are also slow processes. That whole fish climbing out of water means nothing. Firstly a fish would not need to come out of the water unless it had too, like a slow lacking supply of food. In which case over quite some time it would develop into an amphibious creature, there are a couple frog species that can breathe both under and above water. Which is a clear sign of an intermidiate zone in evolution from one gill breathing creature to an air breathing one (or vice versa). You simply saying evolution needs to be an immediate process does not make a lick of it true. Good for you, UT. Your avatar fits you now. Don't tell me to respect others views and then totally slam my religion.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool
I told you to use the big boy voice and play nice. Please don't be a fool and try to equate my views as being a flame. You won't win. And thank you on the avy positves. Outstanding that it should be deemed as hyporcritical. Guess Satan was a hyporcrite, and not true to his word.....Hang on! One small problem there. It's not Satan! Oh well, that blows that theory out of the water. So I won't even try to assume what your point is. I'll only take a guess that it resembles the "Ooga Boga hypoprctite man" and leave it at that.
*damn, dis my av...*
Ok, please continue all. Don't even get me started on the Bible's infailibility. That is a totally different subject.
Within the last ten years an evolutionist put a marker in some form of rock or something, I forget which, then came back a few weeks later, and found a massive amount of layering on top of the marker. He said that if he had not put the marker there and seen that that much development took place in that short a time, he would have thought it had taken thousands of years, not a few weeks.
The fact is, the layering that evolutionists claim had to take thousands of years actually took place in a much shorter amount of time. Scientific history supports the idea that there was a great flood many years ago, probably the flood of Noah. This would account for all the layers of sand and rock that piled up.
I never claimed evolution was an immediate process. The very fact that evolutionists say with time any change is possible is ridiculous, because the changes would need to happen immediately.
A fish coming out of water would have to develop instant capabilities of breathing to survive. If not, it would die, no offspring, and the tiny tiny traces of beginning of adapting to the world outside the water would die.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool
Not all rock layering happens as fast as that one guys marker. Sure it was a good experiment, but it was ONE rock in ONE place. Last time I check, the world was pretty damn big.
There is a thing called probability that you are not grasping. I think every state in the US has a Lottery, where everyone gives a dollar or more to see if they can win the Jackpot from all the other people putting in their money. It is said that one can be struck by lightning TWICE in their life before winning the lottery once. And getting hit by lightning is pretty damn improbable. But yet, it happens, and it is not uncommon. AND people win the Lotto every week or so. Those odds are astronomical, yet they can be overcome. Just like evolution. Highly improbable, but not impossible. Nothing is impossible, just improbable.
Evolution IS NOT immediate. With time, umm... you change! It's called growing. Does it happen immediately? No! And that's small in comparison to the changes that occured within species. Again, have you not heard of dolphins, whales? They live in the water, and by golly gee, they breathe air! And before you say, how would they know, well, it's called instinct, and many had to die before the right procedure was achieved. This is called natural selection. The strongest survive. Adaptation is key, and it is NOT instant. Humans have evolved from things called homonids, and one in particular was found in Kenya named Lucy. Don't tell me she isn't real, because I've seen her. So anyway, she looked like an "ape", but something was different, she had a pelvis. Human pelvis allows for us to be bipedal. Without a pelvis, you won't get to far walking on two legs. Then came a few other species, one most notably known for it's metaursals. Thumbs, opposable. Able to grab things. Hold things. Exactly like the ones you have today. Then there was another dude, called the Turkana Boy, or the "Strider" because he actually took long strides in walking, by the way his bone structure was set up. Then Homo Erectus gave us fire, but he's not in the direct line of ancestors. Most archeologists agree that the first Diaspora was made by Homo Erectus, but they died out when the second Diaspora was made, or they intermingled with the rest. Then there was Homo Habilis, and then about 500,000 years ago, the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were around the world, in small little tribes. The Neanderthals were not very adept, and died out during the last Ice Age. According to ARCHEOLOGY, a science, man has been evolving for over 6 million years, and even though it is hardly detectable now, we are still evolving. I'll give where I live for example and it also goes for other highly dense cities. Air pollution is a major problem, and most scientists agree it is a major cause for underdeveloped lungs in infants and toddlers. It seems to me however, that if a child continues to grow up in this type of environment, then has himself offspring, that child would be less susceptible to the pollutants, because our body has a way off righting itself or stregthrning itself. Like the saying goes, "Whatever doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger." Very interpretive statement, but I'm taking it at face value, like in relation to one's immune system, and not every bacterium in the world as a lethal contagion.
Personally, I look at what's in front of me, and I see with my eyes. The world isn't just gonna be there for me. You can't take it for granted, just because everything was put in place by a supreme being. I'm not saying that isn't impossible, because I said before nothing is impossible, but blind faith gets you nowhere in the world today. You can't rely solely on nonmaterial things. Grasp the tangibles, and use them. Evolution just has too many tangibles to go unnoticed and untaught. Creation is seen by a book, and not much physical evidence. I can't put all my marbles in that basket. And if takes me to hell in a handbasket, then I want frilly little doilies, and a nice fluffy pillow. Yeap. Kinda like a hairball that's just been spat out there. It's up for grabs on whoever wants to play with it next once it leaves the owner really......
Btw, kudos to you NMN. Couldn't have said it better mate. Beautiful posts. I was trying to find websites that helped debunk PP's commendable effort (only one we've seen), but got pulled away to class...the argument in these 3 hours was very enthusiastically done-nice!
Helio's quote: 'Where is there any scientific justification of Creation, that was not warped to suit the purpose?': I've found the word I was looking for: pseudoscience. You need look no further than the 'astronauts did not land on the moon' fiasco to find a good example. To be fair though, here's an interesting Creationist site to look into, for scientific reports done on the part of Creationism. I'm only beginning to read: it should prove interesting. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/topics.htm Interesting on the carbon dating bit...they managed to find its inherent flaws.
Another thing raised by Helios though-about God's ease over evolution for explaining everything. Indeed, linking everything to God is easier and seem to make sense, but the results we get from this gross generalizations would leave us still in the Dark Ages. In fact, without the relentless pursuit to 'naturalise' everything we observe and wonder about, we would still be wondering whether the unreachable moon was indeed made of green cheese. That's why many people-I wouldn't say just scientists-don't want to believe theories like Creationism: it does nothing for us except satisfy a curiousity the same way our parents told us about Santa Claus and the gifts we found every Christmas.
One more thing about the changes in genetic structure you don't want to believe in, neoizcool. Like I said, mutations occur in simple genetic variations. How can we test this statement? We look at viruses and bacteria-unicellular organisms that didn't jump much from genetic code straight into cellular makeup; no organs and groups of cells to worry about. As expected, the variations are immense: the main reason flu has survived so long is that it mutates too fast for the body to completely immunized itself.
Also another about evolution: just as species adapt to the changing environments by changing themselves, so do they lose parts of themselves as their need lessons. I can't remember clear examples, but I recall the appendix and the reduced size of certain parts of our brains in time to mark this change.
More proof about the theories. Life in the volcanic early times are marked by so-and-so characteristics put forth by scientists: look at places in today's times with such conditions: volcanoes and underwater hotspots. Exactly the sort of creatures we'd expect. Another irrefutable test playing out in nature as we speak: through global warming and the introduction of certain chemicals into the air, more than a few environments are drastically changing. Given a few decades or centuries, I'm sure the balance of animals will slant very significantly towards those that are better suited to survive in the new conditions. In fact, I'm hearing signs there are.
A good argument about probability by NMN. Some things seem impossible to have happened by its mere possibility alone, but it doesn't have to seem so. The Earth has life, after billions of years and billions upon billions of stars and planets. The Big Bang apparently chose some meaningless time to appear...but in the pre-Bang universe time did not exist, so an eternity or no time could have existed before it occured-probability completely breaks down.
Now as for that rock: deposition and erosion indeed occurs at drastically different levels in different places. One thing forgotten in the experiment though: how much of that collected dirt will still be there after not 10 weeks but 10 thousand years? Some will be eroded, others compressed into tougher, thinner stratas...I can't look back at my playground's sandpit to note the times I played in there as a kid.
Lastly, yes, evolution isn't perfect enough to be able to explain all of its fallacies. All theories are, since science is ever-refining. I ask you: is the alternative to the theory really any better at this then?
*EDIT*
Oh, you guys will like this one about carbon dating though: http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/carbondating.html Evolutionary studies are introduced at a much later stage here as opposed to religion. Religious brainwashing is conducted once the child turns 5, and unless stopped conitnues to do so well into highschool! It doesn't even fall into the realm of fact, fiction or theory as far as I'm concerned. More to me like a demented fairytale of man-made propaganda. pfftt.
Yes, UT, you told me to be a big boy and play nice. I tried that.
Then you said
"More to me like a demented fairy tale of man-made propaganda."
That insults my entire religious heritage, and many other people's too. You have no right to insult that, and I consider that a flame.
That was the hypocrisy I was talking about. You tell me to play nice, and then turn around and insult religion.
When I said you match your avatar, I meant that your avatar looks vicious, and that's what you were in your post. The hypocrisy was not referring to that, so I don't know where that Satan crap came from.
Oh, nice one, Macleod. Burn. You are the master of zings and snaps. PP's was the only good creation defense? Wow. I think I just found a knife in my heart and and died from the incredible zing you gave me.
Everyone tells me to be nice, and I am, but then people come out and insult me like this. And UT's too. I admit in the past I've been mean and flaming, but I've tried to tone it down and haven't out and out insulted someone like you and UT since the religion thread.
Your last question was, I believe, is the alternative any better? As in, the alternative to evolution? Creation? That's my whole point. It isn't. Neither has the scientific advantage. I already said it: I'm not that good at defending creation. PP is obviously better. I know several people who could run circles around you. I don't represent creation, so if people reading this are turning towards evolution....that's their problem.
Yes, I admit PP was ten times better than me at expressing her views. But you don't have to so rashly and insultingly point it out.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool Actually, you are the hypocrite. You claim that you feel that both theories are equal in their 'believability', but than you say that people who believe in evolution have a problem.
That is hypocrite. Also, if you accuse Mac of insulting you, I would love to see you point it out. Just because you feel insulted because of his opinion doesn't mean he insulted you. I am very much insulted by the various verses in the Bible that condemn me to hell. I don't bother you with it, now do I?
No one here is an expert at evolution. I know Mac not to be a professor in the field of biology, and unless I'm dearly mistaken, I don't think TINM, NMN or UT are either. With all due respect to all members here, none of us are experts on the field of evolution, and all of us are trying to make do with the knowledge we have.
Perhaps the fact that it is easier to defend evolution tells you more about the validity of that theory than about your competence to defend a, perhaps, flawed theory.
Mr U You big meanie HU. Of course that was a personal assult. ;)
Now, NIC, if you don't like peoples beliefs, that's fine by me and pretty much everyone else on here I'm sure, for one man's poison is another man's pleasure (as long as it's not breaking the law in most countries). However, when you target an individual and then slam them for their opinions, well that my lad just ain't cricket. Irrespective of you or anyone else not believing them to be vaild, for to them they are. Not to mention it won't be tolerated. If I or any of the staff observe another as not playing nice, then yeap I/we will let you know. I have no problems doing so and neither do they. So, in effect, next time someone states something you don't like, and they're not flaming you, then don't flame. Mac did not deserve that verbal backhander you just dealt him. Learn to chill and you and I will get along just fine.
Oh and I have to add PP that was a damn good post for the other team. I'm serious.
Just because I am an atheist, does not mean that I don't give credit where it's due. For I'll be one of the first. I don't however wish wash around how I feel about religion. I'm not aiming at anyone in general. I have a mother who's a christian minister and even she can't influence me lol. So in future NIC remember, it's not just peoples backgrounds/socio-demographics that matter. It's the person and the influences they have had in their lives that make them and not all is black and white in this case my friend..
Right, back on topic guys and sorry about the sidestep. Lol. Most grateful for the defense guys.
Now, I didn't realise you'd take my comment that seriously neoizcool because I haven't been taking your entire litany of curses so far too seriously myself. 'Hurray Mac you've won this' and 'Congratulations Mac you did it again that' were not something I'd pin a 'good argument' badge on. I also stated why I didn't like (not to say they weren't still thought-provoking) your arguments on the basis that they were not truly scientific: I did not see solid evidence being raised in the way PP admirably did. Now I know you're just a college student with a passion alone to guide your way, but so are I believe all of us here to some degree or other; equal. Even I'm beginning to try to look up web sources for solid info, though its still hard for me, the resident web-illiterate mod (ask around lol)
Also, though I did say PP's argument was the most solid, I didn't say yours was ignorable. It was just unscientific. A passionate effort is still a good effort, and discussions like these won't take off if no-one attempts to take part.
Now back to the context. You say your point was that Creation didn't make sense after all? That wasn't what I remembered. And besides, what's the whole point then-debunk everything?! That's the whole objective? I already said evolution itself was flawed though more logical...this whole thing's kinda left me hanging. And you have people who can run circles around me. By all means, I'm definitely not refuting that. I merely brought forward an idea and supported my claim with all I know...and so many others have done so as well, all beautifully. I'm not going to say 'Bring them on', but I'm not going to say 'I'm going to give way' as well. You insulted my religious heritage by claiming it's all demented fairy tales. Sorry if I took that the wrong way, but it seemed pretty clear to me. And I saw no serious justification for that comment.
I'm not saying you're complaining, Mac, but UT and HU complain whenever I deliver an insult of any kind, and when you insulted me I merely told you. You are obviously a very smart individual, and if it didn't cross your mind that that comment at the beginning of your post might offend me, then obviously you have selective intelligence.
HU, he insulted me at the beginning of his post. Read it.
I admit he is correct. Just because something is fact doesn't make it any less of an insult.
I'm not claiming anyone here is an expert in evolution. You just have more "facts" to back you up, because evolutionists, in my opinion, have been making up stuff for a long time.
HU, it is my opinion that evolutionists have a problem. That does not mean that I know they have a problem. Do you see the difference? Me saying that they have a problem does not render my earlier statement hypcritical. I can't go around saying, after every sentence, but neither of us can know for sure. I stated it quite a few times at the beginning, but people told me to stop, so I did.
Macleod: Sorry if you misunderstood earlier. My whole point from the beginning was that neither side has a scientific advantage. I just choose to believe creation. Is that clear now, so if i make a future reference, you won't ask me again?
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool UT: "More to me like" = In my opinion
This wasn't claimed to be fact. Please read more accurately, as your posts hurt my eyes.
By claiming in another thread that evolutionists/atheists/non-Christians were all ignorant, I'm sure you insulted the religious heritage, character, and education of more than just a few people, but no one bitched about that, all they did was present opposing viewpoints. Sorry about the red herring folks, but I felt like fish this morning. Alright, now that that's settled...
Firstly, the thought that I might have insulted did cross my mind. The thought also that you would not take it as an intended insult also did, but it appears wrong. I was wondering then if the same thoughts crossed through your mind in the train of sarcasm directed at me because it seems to me my apparent insult is nothing compared to them. If HU and UT insulted you, they did so defending not just themselves but me. I'd take that as a noble intention. I also did mean my statement: I stated clearly already the lack of scientific argument that was my opinion-that comment would only mean an iteration of that statement. To say it as an insult and with the sarcasm you did in light of my behavior towards you and vice versa this whole discussion is a little unjustified. Still, thanks for the intelligence compliment.
Also, my stand still is that (since you clearly put yours through) evolution did indeed and is in fact all about science while Creationism has little to do with it. As beliefs they are equal, as scientific explanations they are not: there cannot be a compromise on this. Creationism has challenged evolution but failed in too many of them compared to the other way round. I admit indeed that I feel very strongly the case is against Creationism, but neither am I calling it a demented fairy tale. Where I come from mediums and the Hungry Ghost Festival is commonplace, so I know and respect my fair share of belief and culture. Perhaps HU made you feel defensive in his feelings against religion; something I'm still not decided on, but I definitely did not insult. I argued against. Do not insult me with that accusation, because if you feel that my arguments insulted your thinking and thus you and your faith it would be like if I criticised your teacher's methods it would mean your school was pathetic.
And lastly: everyone has an opinion. How we voice them and fight for/retract them is what retains the mutual respect an openness all debates need. HU, it is my opinion that evolutionists have a problem. That does not mean that I know they have a problem. Do you see the difference? Me saying that they have a problem does not render my earlier statement hypcritical. I can't go around saying, after every sentence, but neither of us can know for sure. I stated it quite a few times at the beginning, but people told me to stop, so I did.
Whether it is your opinion or not is irrelevant. If I say that I think all people shut be put to death except for me. That's hypocrite, the fact that it's my opinion has nothing at all to do with it. Comprende? Excellent.
If you are going to use stereotypes, if you are going to use gross generalisations, do it in the appropriate manner. It was stated earlier that Christians can also be evolutionist. They do not have a problem, do they? They will, through Christ, go to heaven, and live there for the rest of eternity. You are being completely inconsequent.
Your discussion here has, in my opinion, nothing to do with either creationism or evolution, but rather with kicking against non-Christians. By all means continue, but know that I have issued my last warning concerning insults. I will edit your post if you insult Macleod or any other member again, and concidering NMN, TINM, UT and Macleod are all moderators/administrators. Although I know them to not be biased on such a matter, I advice you to respect them.
I, for one, have always shown respect, on whatever board I came, to the administration, even if I felt they did not deserve it, or if they did not agree with me. I advice you to do the same.
I have a mother who's a christian minister and even she can't influence me lol.
LOL. "You shall know them by their offspring" ;) :P.
I admit he is correct. Just because something is fact doesn't make it any less of an insult.
I'm not claiming anyone here is an expert in evolution. You just have more "facts" to back you up, because evolutionists, in my opinion, have been making up stuff for a long time.
Back to your post however, as I'm not through with you. Arguments that are made up, in a way that they have no real merit, should be able to shoot down easy. I know that if I'm debating people and they present a useless argument, I can easily win the debate. You win a debate by presenting strong arguments.
Now, because I don't agree with the rest of your sentence, I will also point you to the fact that the Vatican is the oldest institution in the world, and also one of (if not the) richest. They are way older than the evolution theory, and they have had a lot of time to come up with arguments why creation is the way to go. Darwin was one person, he wrote one book, and that one book is what we all base ourselves on, plus all of the research that has been done to support that theory.
Conclusive, I hope you will agree that I have completely disproven that part of your post.
You insulted my religious heritage by claiming it's all demented fairy tales. Sorry if I took that the wrong way, but it seemed pretty clear to me. And I saw no serious justification for that comment.
[color=pink]DPD proved your wrong here
I'm not saying you're complaining, Mac, but UT and HU complain whenever I deliver an insult of any kind, and when you insulted me I merely told you. You are obviously a very smart individual, and if it didn't cross your mind that that comment at the beginning of your post might offend me, then obviously you have selective intelligence.
I don't complain, I point out your disregard for the rules. That's my job.
HU, he insulted me at the beginning of his post. Read it.
I admit he is correct. Just because something is fact doesn't make it any less of an insult.
Right. If I say that Hitler was Christian, and that offends you, I'm not insulting you. You are feeling offended.
I'm not claiming anyone here is an expert in evolution. You just have more "facts" to back you up, because evolutionists, in my opinion, have been making up stuff for a long time.
Well, I disproved that, didn't I?
HU, it is my opinion that evolutionists have a problem. That does not mean that I know they have a problem. Do you see the difference? Me saying that they have a problem does not render my earlier statement hypcritical. I can't go around saying, after every sentence, but neither of us can know for sure. I stated it quite a few times at the beginning, but people told me to stop, so I did.
Perhaps you want to search for a dictionary for the meaning of hypocrite, though I explained it earlier in my post. Also, I pointed out 'the problem'
Macleod: Sorry if you misunderstood earlier. My whole point from the beginning was that neither side has a scientific advantage. I just choose to believe creation. Is that clear now, so if i make a future reference, you won't ask me again?
Evolution does have a scientific advantage. You are free to accept that advantage or not. Myself, I see reductionism as a way to unravel true science, without making observations. Much has been written about this, and this, by pure logic, supports evolution. However, you are still free to have your own opinion. And you can always string your own theory to the observations you make. However, your view is not scientific. Ours tries to be.
Mr U I can't say I agree with one iota of your post HU, and I can't say, Macleod, that I agree with anything in your post about evolution, but as it's been stated all too often in the past, opinion doesn't matter.
I did not insult Macleod or UT. I merely pointed out that they offended me. There were no insults in my post. I said that what they posted hurt me, and was offensive, at least to me. I said that UT was vicious. What I meant was that her post felt vicious to me.
To answer your question, HU, Christians who believe evolution have no problem eternally, but they do have a problem while they're on this Earth. TINM is a good example.
Understand, I am not claiming that it is fact that they have a problem. You said, "They don't have a problem, do they?" And so I answered.
Also, HU, my discussion does have everything to do with evolution and creation. But since you put that that is your opinion, ergo I assume you are not claiming it as a fact, I will drop that.
In closing, HU, I did not insult anyone. I merely pointed out that UT and Macleod offended me.
What is so wrong about that? Sure, I wrote some stuff in my posts, like my sarcasm with being stabbed with an insult from Mac. But that sarcasm was not an insult.
In my opinion(there's that word again), you are biased against me because I have, one, in the past, tended to be a little bit flammatory, and, b, believe the opposite of you.
It is pretty clear to me that UT and Mac insulted me. I cannot believe you do not see that in any way.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool This thread only serves as an refutation of ChalfantMT's viewpoint in the World Peace thread.
Free your mines.
-Boom
wait....whaaaaaaat? Sigh. This will be a short one.
No; opinions do matter. They are, however, not supposed to be forced. I voiced mine; left something for all to conclude on. You?
I am conscious of the possibility that perhaps the environment may indeed be intimidating for anyone taking your view and if I have anything to do with it though I have tried not, I do apologise. I however also give my word that like with you I retain no personal vendettas in my argument. My reputation in the forum will speak for itself: I will and have entertained counter-arguments.
Lastly: on insulting.
Well, whoop-de-doo dah day for you.
..........
I admire your density, Macleod. Such blind faith. So innocent. At least I have the decency to recognize that neither of us holds science behinds us.
I said creationism is not backed up by science. But I also said evolution.
Again, pin a rose on your nose.
Flip you a dead fish.
Whoop-de-doo-day.
Day.
De-doo-da-day.
Day-de-day.
........
Again, whoop-de-doo-dah-day.
For you.
That's whoop.
de-doo
de-doo-doo.
.............
Whoop-de-doo-dah-day for you.
Pin a rose on your nose.
Yay, everybody clap for MacLeod, who has masterfully defended the theory of evolution!
As long as he was talking to an evolutionist, mind you.
Oh, but wait!
::neoizcool scratches chin::
There's no point in that then, is there?
Hmm, let's think about this, Kids!
Big Whoop for you Mac.
Happy Chrismahanaquanzaa!
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool
You insulted the method of fair debate I am trying (and learning) to use, keep to, and encourage. Also repeatedly of others. Enough said. Okay, I sincerely apologize for the post you gave an example of, Macleod. It was totally uncalled for and you were just trying to refute my argument, which is the entire purpose of debate. I was having a really crappy day that day, and I know that's no excuse, so again I apologize. I'm sorry for that post and any other insults I have said in the past.
Now, please, can no one come in and say "I forgive you, NIC" or some condescending crap like that? Can we please just get on with the debate?
Okay, personal opinions do matter. I admit that.
Now, if it's okay, with you all, can you forgive me(but not necessarily post it)and let's move on. I was a bad boy to insult Macleod like that.
And I'm sorry when I got too offended by Macleod's and UT's earlier comments.
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool Just to give some administrator backup to this, I don't wanna see you crazy kids bickering anymore or bringing up this whacky who-insulted-who-finger-pointing-back-and-forth charade that caused me to forget about whatever the hell it was we were discussing in the first place... Dizzamn... Next person to bring it up again will personally be on my shit list. If anything more needs to be said, take it to PM.
Now, where were we? The discussion was going so well... Haven't seen so many posts in a thread not labelled "The son of the person below you game" in ages.
Carbon dating... Right. Many people will try to claim that it's inaccurate, but in all actuality, it's very reliable. Those against it will claim that the results are inconsistent, when in reality, there's a definite trend in the numbers retrieved from carbon dating. However, even if there is an error of 10 million years, think about it... If estimates say that the earth is 4.5 billion years, but there's a discrepency of 10 million years, that means that the number only changes to 4.49 billion. There's no real argument there.
Also another about evolution: just as species adapt to the changing environments by changing themselves, so do they lose parts of themselves as their need lessons. I can't remember clear examples, but I recall the appendix and the reduced size of certain parts of our brains in time to mark this change.
Aye, isn't it expected that the next evolution in mankind will see the removal of the pinky finger? I believe I read that somewhere. Prettty interesting stuff.
You just have more "facts" to back you up, because evolutionists, in my opinion, have been making up stuff for a long time.
I'm not trying to razzle anything up by bringing up this quote, but, man, to label these "facts" that backup evolution as being made up is to refute a LARGE amount of science... Again, the tone of my voice here is hard to convey through the internet, but that is a pretty bold statement to make... Can you honestly believe that? I can honestly believe that. There is some science backing up evolution, but not much.
You said that 10 millions years isn't much when considering in terms of billions. But there you're automatically assuming that the Earth is billions of years old; a pretty hefty assumption, I'd say.
And 10 millions years can be a lot when considering how you evolutionists say the, say, triassic, is separated, from, say the Jurassic.
And what about countless digs that show human bones right next to dinosaur bones?
Free Your Minds.
-neoizcool *Peers around, checking to see if all the dust's settled*
thanks a lot for the compliament, UT :) and for keeping a cool head with this discussion, Mac :)
As far as the appendix goes, it's shrinking due to the lack of use. If something isn't used, the body gets rid of it. That's a proven fact. My question, however, comes to ask how things evolved, such as (drum roll please, yes, here comes the overused example by creationists) the eye. How would such a thing come into being? It came from groups of cells, but how did those cells come from nonfunctional ones to suddenly ones of a complex grouping with one complicated purpose? And how is it that so many creatures have such similar eyes? Wouldn't they have changed more greatly over time? LOL. "You shall know them by their offspring" :P.
HA. Never thought of it like that before. Kind of gives a whole new meaning to it for me. I love it.
No worries PP, and thanks for the correction DPD. ;) Indeed, and thanks guys for coming back to topic.
Now about the eye...a very strong argument against evolution, and admittedly one of the things that give me pause. It's like why certain insects create poisonous chemicals in themselves, or how come bats have ultrasound. A plausible explanation would be that in the hierachy of gene-to-flesh changes, a small change would create a big one. I can imagine one gene difference creating a set of cells that were sensitive to light, then another making those sets of cells consolidating themselves in one area of the body, then in time another that gave the brain the ability to understand what those cells were absorbing...it's crazy I know, but then again the strange defects of birth we see occasionally that affect the eyes also give plausibility to the fragility of such genetic information. Or diabetes and cancer being hereditary and so on... On the eye: As Mac said, it's a sticky topic. However, to bring it up sort of lessens the likelihood of creationism than anything, because the human eye is really not the best design for an eye... We got all those blood vessels running across the retina which makes it easy to break them and impair our vision. So if God did create us in his image, his image is a bit blurred, lol.
From what I gather, eyes MAY have evolved like this... A small light-sensitive spot of skin may have given some ancestrial creature an advantage to survival, letting it evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, which made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the depression's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. Also, there's eyes of all these stages found on different living creatures, which further supports that eyes could have evolved. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago and, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
As for human bones being found next to dinosaur bones... I'm afraid that's just never happened. If such discoveries were made, it would no doubt be a major shock to the theory of evolution. I'd love to hear about such discoveries, though, as I've scoured the earth and have found nothing on what would be a MAJOR piece of evidence.
Also... I remember someone bringing up something earlier about Creationism being considered science... This isn't true, because scientists must accept that their theories can be disproved and replaced with other theories; Creationists cannot accept that a newer, better explanation may come about. Oh, crap. I wrote a bunch of stuff then accidentally pressed back. I pressed forward again but it wasn't there anymore.
I thought it was supposed to be there, that you guys had fixed that.
Anyways, the human eye.
It contains over ten million photoreceptor cells. How could randomness bring about these cells? And you put as an example the need to evade predators. To successfully survive, the prey would need to evolve eyes almost immediately, and not take 364,000 years. He'd have plenty of time if he was being chased by a really really really slow snail, though.
How could the prey survive? The need for eyes would have arisen once there were predators around. But once they were around, the eyes would need to come, or else they'd become extinct.
And as for humans being found next to dinosaur bones, I'm sorry, but there have been many many finds.
The paluxy river is famous for its humans and dinosaur tracks right next to each other. A human finger was also found there.
A perfect human print was found in the supposed cretaceous layer of the Earth, contemporary with the dinosaurs "110 million" years ago.
Want more |