|
|
|
|
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 2/21/2007 5:41:55 PM |
Charles Darwin said himself in "The Origin of Species"..."to say the the human eye with all of its various compenents working together to perform the task that it does...to say is a product of natural selection is absurdity in the highest degree"
Quoted so out of context as to constitute outright deceit (not you personally 71, but the person who started the misquote originally). Taken in context, one will notice that a very important word is written by Darwin: "except". It would be funny, though, if a scientist spent so much time putting an exhaustive paper together, only to say at the end, "Psych!! I've just been playin' with ya'll!"
In my mind, the biggest problem with evolution is that it actually requires some real, honest and open-minded research to even begin to understand it. Heck, I was taught it in school with a young impressionable mind, and I didn't buy it back then... | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 4/29/2007 12:46:26 PM | This is an interesting discussion. I personally believe nothing on blind faith. I find it interesting that even with in the realms of creation science, they acknowledge that it takes light to travel about a hundred light years to cross the diameter of our galaxy.
I’m not saying we were or weren’t created; anything is possible. However, I don’t see how “the heavens and the earth” were created in a mere six days; not even the “six thousand year day”. The numbers just don't add up.
I'm only factoring in the size of our galaxy and the distance it take light to travel
Not the rest of the universe or how long it took earth to develop life.
my 2 cents
Add to it....rip it apart....do as you will. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 4/30/2007 11:45:27 AM | Hmmmm.
How anyone can say that evolution does not occur is beyond me. The Vatican itself acknowledged that evolution is occuring, even as we speak. Evolution is described as change over time: to try and complicate it any further is a fool's errand.
Did all life on Earth arise as the result of evolution? Don't know, and further, that is irelevant. The formation of life and evolution are not, technically, the same process. Cell Theory and evolution are not the same process. What causes confusion is when evolution gets muddied up by scientists and theologians alike with all theis extra 'stuff' that is NOT evolution. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 4/30/2007 4:33:48 PM | Hey guys. Tooling around, and I found an old Creation/Evolution thread I hadn't commented on. 'Course, I couldn't let that slide, could I?
Unfortunately, the site no longer has anything archived from 2003, nor could I find anything pertaining to Darwin or his theory. I will therefore, should anyone be interested in discussing it, address the thread title and its implications, particularly with regard to the directions the thread has taken. To that end:
CREATION vs. DARWIN'S THEORY
Now, seeing as the radio program is "End Times" oriented, I'm going to assume that "Creation" as it's being debated refers to the fundamentalist, or at least evangelical, Christian definition. I'm further going to assume that, for the purpose of making a workable parallel and therefore contrast, we're discussing "Creationism" (the doctrine of the existence of the world as we know it, based on the literal interpretation of the biblical creation story).
"Darwin's Theory", as it is called, then, I'm going to take to refer not to the vast stores of biological knowledge and understanding that we have, nor to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis including catastrophism and the later realised observations of plate tectonics, cellular molecular chemistry, DNA, or population dynamics and the principles of heredity as outlined by that one monk fellow.
Creationism, like its purported antithesis makes assumptions, assertions, and predictions. Some of these are:
1) There is a single, powerful Creator that created Nature and all within it.
2) All forms of life were created within a short span of time, somewhere between six literal 24-hour days to 60,000 years. Note, a literal interpretation insists on six days, but I'm willing to be flexible.
3) All forms of life were created in more or less the same forms as we now see in nature and have not departed through time from their original "kinds".
4) The same Creator that simply zapped into existence all of what exists also provided the text whereby we get this information.
There are others, I'm sure, but someone else will have to share them, since I believe that, for the sake of the debate, I've covered the salient points.
Darwin's theory of Evolution through Descent with Modification by Natural Selection also makes assumptions, assertions and predictions, as follow:
1) All organisms reproduce others that, while similar, differ from their parents.
2) An offspring's traits which differ from those of its parents may be of sufficient scope to provide it a benefit or detriment, according to the vicissitudes of its environment.
3) A trait that provides a benefit to an organism's survival, if hereditary, will most likely be passed to its own offspring, thereby being perpetuated.
4) Successive accumulation of differing traits can, therefore, modify the descendants of an organism to a form apparently but not directly related, effectively giving humans cause to classify the descendants and the original as separate species.
Yeah, there's a lot more there, too, but it sums up what Darwin was getting at, I think.
At the risk of starting/pouring petrol on a fire, though, I'd like to know (as some others have made some reference to it) if anyone can enumerate the basic assumptions, assertions and predictions made by Creationism's modern incarnation, Intelligent Design. If so, please share. | |
|
| thank you thank you thank you
Posted: 6/26/2008 12:09:33 PM |
these people are driving me insane I think that reviving a thread that's been dead over a year in order to be driven insane by it might be a little bit insane too.  | |
|
| thank you thank you thank you
Posted: 6/26/2008 12:11:34 PM |
these people are driving me insane I think that reviving a thread that's been dead over a year in order to be driven insane by it might be a little bit insane too.
You beat me to it!  | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/26/2008 12:49:52 PM |
posted b y: passionteman
Seconldly, if we did evolve, then why have we stayed humans in a long time and not evolved into something else yet!!!!!!
What has happened to the school system in this country??!!Because genius, the earth has been stable for the past 100,000 years. Theres been no need to. Evolutionary changes occur due to environmental factors which the brain perceives and causes a genetic mutation. I'll talk down a bit and give you a simple example.
Lets say the for whatever reason something catostrophic occurs to the atmosphere and we only have half the amount of oxygen to breathe (Rush Limbaugh lets out a fart and discovers half the country of Mexico is hiding in there) Which causes a hole in the ozone layer and severe infra red and ultra violet rays start to come in and heat the shit out of the earth. And because of this we lose half our oxygen. So since our cells need oxygen to stay healthy, and our lungs need oxygen to fill all those tiny chambers, if we now have 50% less oxygen to breathe, the brain is going to begin recording this change the way the brain in your car monitors all the sensors.
If the O2 sensor in your car reads that the fuel mixture is to rich or too lean, it will send that info back to the brain and the brain will regulate the mixture itself. (only in some very expensive German cars)The human brain works the same way. It will begin reading this new information and, after realizing the human body (in it's present form) will never function under these new circumstances, will cause a genetic mutation to occur.
Now this is NOT going to happen in a weekend. It might ake a 1000 yeras or more before the first generation of genetic change is seen in humans. So since this is total hypothesis, what kind of new human might we be? Well less oxygen means less cells, less cells means less muscle tissue and smaller lungs. And since the earth has now heated up and we have all these cancer causing light rays to come in, our skin would have to thicken and turn leathery to protect against the rays.
So if all that happened and you could travel into the future to the year 2525 (providing man is still alive) we might look like that character from "The Lord of the Rings" What was his name Golom? That is a hypothetical example of how environmental changes would cause an evolutionary change in humans.
The brain is an amazing thing and we still dont know all about it. As a side note, It's funny how the bible makes numerous mention of a lot of organs in the human body except one...the brain. hmmm I wonder why that is? | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/26/2008 12:55:45 PM | *- Putting a shovelful of dirt back on this zombie thread  *Locked* -TheMadFiddler-* | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
