| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/23/2005 5:32:17 PM | You people (dang I used to love it when my Dad said things like that), you people need to separate EVOLUTION from DARWINISM.
Evolution is the changing of a biologic life form due to stimuli from the outer environment. It is very selective, and tends to promote survival of those most able to adapt to new environments.
Darwinism, on the other hand, would have you believe we all came from the same single-celled micro-organism... you, me, Brad Pitt, bears, scorpions, wolverines, sea urchins, eagles, whatever...
I personally believe that evolution exists. I also believe you had to evolve FROM something. If you are going to tell me that a hundred million years of random collisions of semi-organic molecules created Michelle Pfieffer, I'm going to laugh in your face.
Adam and Eve were starting points. We all evolved FROM there. Changes in overall population height and age are proof of evolution. They just don't prove Darwinism.
Evolution in and of itself does not prove Darwinism. It only proves the D-word might be possible. A car travelling eastward from Oklahoma City does not prove it started in Los Angeles.
If true DARWINISM exists, then sharks (which have not changed in 300 plus million years) should also be using computers and inventing DVD players... or really, should HAVE done so nearly half a billion years ago... After all, apes were making a perfectly fine living until the Black Monolith appeared (umm, wrong forum for that, I guess), so why did they continue to evolve into us ? Why did they not stop at simply able to survive as did most of the rest of creation ? Why did most of the rest of creation basically stop evolving ? There are random mutations, sure, but there haven't been all that many cataclysmic changes in the past thousand years, or so... unless you count Miniature Pinschers, but that's a really ewwwwww story, so let's not go there....
Evolution proves change, but it is not enough to prove Darwinism or disprove Creationism. The bottom line is that the point of contention is at what point the story starts. Darwinists say it started with an amoeba. Creationists say it started somewhere down the road from there. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/23/2005 5:57:01 PM |
I personally believe that evolution exists. I also believe you had to evolve FROM something. If you are going to tell me that a hundred million years of random collisions of semi-organic molecules created Michelle Pfieffer, I'm going to laugh in your face.
Is it any more believable that there were talking snakes 6000 years ago? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/23/2005 6:13:58 PM | the easy answer is, of course, that since one seems to be able to type in 2005, merely talking would be an underachievement....
ancient history is full of animals and items that talked. the Aztecs, Peruvians, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, American Indians, such non-"Godly" people have legends about the rendered power of speech.. is a snake less likely than the Oracle of Thebes or a Kachina doll ?? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/23/2005 6:14:57 PM | | maybe there was maybe there wasn't.Do you know for sure? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/23/2005 6:53:59 PM | | And all those animals lost the power of speech? Must have been evolution, eh? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/23/2005 7:20:23 PM | you are assuming we are still worth communicating with.... maybe they play dumb so we don't bug them so much...
the snake got what he wanted.. no more need... the others are displeased with us... not too much of a reach. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 9:38:52 AM | | My cat always seems to want to talk to me. Was Mr. Ed really just fiction? Was Dr. Doolittle history? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 9:49:02 AM | | So now the personification of animals is proof of creation? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 10:07:12 AM | | I guess if you believe in the Bible you'll believe anything. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 11:33:29 AM | | That is a lame statement.It's like me saying that since you don't believe in the Bible you'll believe anything. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 4:45:11 PM | Evolution is a much better argument than creationism. At the very least, the theory of evolution consists of empirical standards via the scientific method. Creationism is all speculative based on nothing more than fables, tall tales and fabrications that undoubtedly spawned from that fictitious book known as the bible. There is no known empirical evidence to suggest creationism is credible amongst neither the scientific community nor anybody else that is half way educated about science. Therefore, to even try to argue in favor of creationism is pointless, moot and has no real value whatsoever. So why bother? People are going to believe anything they want if it makes them feel comfortable and it backs up their ideals, even if they are imaginary. No amount of evidence can persuade those that are so blinded by a dogma that is stagnant that science is dynamic producing great advancements for human understanding and our world throughout the ages. Examples would be medicine and technology that also employ the scientific method yielding empirical results that we continually build upon. However, these concepts are so foreign to the creationist, that to even attempt to “debate” with them is useless despite the empirical evidence and knowledge that science has provided. Let them believe what they want while the rest of the world advances. As long as they stay out of our way so the rest of humanity can work on improving the quality of life with scientific empirical measures finding cures for diseases for example, then they can live in their own fantasy worlds. Amen.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 5:06:26 PM | Hey Ibli,
find any of them sharks kicking back with a beer in their Barcolounger watching their Sony Grand Wega yet ?
didn't think so....
evolution only takes you so far.... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 5:11:46 PM | IsNacht,
evolution is a path of continuous natural change. that is all science has proved it to be. it is not a link between men and amoebas.
the beginning of the path is lost in time... science has yet to prove it goes back beyond the potential of a creation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 5:53:15 PM | | Well, since we have several people who think that there are talking snakes who simply decided to not to talk to us, I think it's fair to say they'd believe in anything. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 5:55:45 PM | | Why do you think that kicking back with a beer in a Barcolounger watching a Sony Grand Wega is the goal of evolution? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 6:00:55 PM | | Well I don't think there were talking snakes but I do think Satan played a key role in the garden of Eden.But as far as how we were created.Noone,not even scientists,have came up with a answer so how can anyone discount one for the other? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 6:10:00 PM | The God hypothesis isn't a scientific one. It makes no testable predictions. Therefore they'll never be any evidence to support it or prove it wrong. It's as believable as the theory that Cthulhu created the universe with a gigantic fart.
I don't know why you choose to believe the Bible is right about everything except the talking snake (or serpent if you prefer). | |
|
Nibe
|
Joined: 6/17/2005
Msg: 194 | |
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2005 7:31:29 PM | | The almighty Cthulhu! Chaosium still putting that out? Lovecraft was a scientific atheist and a damn good writer of fiction, much better than that 2300 year old hoax tome of the bible. More interesting. And yes, Cthulhu did create the universe with a giant fart, I remember last October we role played that exact scenario but we were using the d20 system... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/25/2005 12:24:23 PM | | My belief's are in line with the entire scientific community, emphasis on the word entire...however I will buy off that God created man "in his own image", provided "God" looks allot like Ringo Star in the movie "Caveman"....hehehe | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/25/2005 12:37:57 PM | and Jesus like George Harrison in "The Life of Brian"? Ha!  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/25/2005 3:11:40 PM | I would say kicking back in a barcalounger beats the heck out of eating license plates... do let us know if you're feeling evolutionary one night and wake up with an "Oregon 1979" in your teeth.. I hear they are quite collectable...
By the way, I'd love to see your "proof" on the evolution (actually Darwinism, see my other posts) thing... I'll be happy to give you five amoebas if you can turn them into Michelle Pfieffers....anything less would not qualify as proof... Making a Bill Gates from an amoeba would hardly qualify as much of an accomplishment.... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/25/2005 7:32:23 PM | | Before I could prove to you that evolution occurs I need to first define it, because I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't know (we can ignore Darwinism because they're not the same; Darwin knew nothing about genes so his theory is outdated). Evolution is the change in gene (or more precisely, allele) frequencies in a given population over time. Do you know any people with siblings? They are my proof that evolution occurs. You'll note that they each have different physical qualities determined by genes. Things like eye color, hair color, etc. The fact that some people have gene A where other people have gene B and still others have gene C shows that the frequencies of these genes varies over time. That is evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/25/2005 8:05:28 PM | So now let's look at what you call Darwinism. We can date fossils either with relative dates (basically the deeper you dig the further back in time you go, though there are exceptions) or with absolute dates (radiocarbon dating is the most famous but is really only good for about 50,000 years or so, other techniques are used for older dates). When look at human fossils we find them in the record for about 100,000 years. As we start going further back we find fossils that kind of look human but not quite. As we keep going further back they look less and less human. At about 1,000,000 years there's nothing like humans at all. We can keep on going further back and we eventually find that mammals and birds disappear. In their stead we find these funny looking reptiles. They're funny looking because they have bird-like or mammal-like features. Travelling on they disappear and we have regular looking reptiles. But then as we keep going those reptiles start to look kind of like amphibians. Eventually there are no amphibian-like reptiles to be found at all. Go back even further we find these amphibians are getting funny looking too. They're starting to look more and more like fish. Even earlier there are no fish-like amphibians. Then the fish just look like fish. Eventually even the fish and proto-fish disappear.
All of this needs an explanation. Right now there are two favorite theories (well one is just an untestable hypothesis):
1) While the fossil record will always be incomplete, it clearly demonstrates the evolution of new species from old. Man has a common ancestor with apes. All mammals are related. Mammals and birds evolved from reptiles. Reptiles evolved from amphibians. Amphibians evolved from fish. Etc. The fossil record is also supported by biogeography, genetics, and embryology. The dating of fossils can be accomplished with independent means. In some cases we can use a technique called isochron dating which auto-corrects from leaching and depositing of radioactive materials in samples. Speciation has also been directly observed in both nature and controlled labratory environments.
2) God continually causes extinctions and creates brand new species, manipulates the rates of radioactive decays and distorts the amount of radioactive materials in every sample we take, caused hypermutation rates in men so that Y-chromosome analyses would mislead scientists into believing man has existed for more than 6000 years, magically transported all species to their current locations, and gave plants and animals functionless body parts. He did all this in such a way as to make evolution look true. He did this to deceive people to test to see if they'd have the faith to believe a contradictory book rather than the evidence of their own senses and all notions of logic and reason. But don't worry, He's not the author of confusion. | |
|
Home
login 
