A step away from philosophy for a moment. What facts do you have to support either view? No "I believes", no "I thinks", no "it would seems". My research cannot support evolution but it can support creation. Whadayagot?
-
I know the answer, really.29% Voted for by slimcrow, Carino, Weydon, Kazrith, irrelevantfears. (7 total)
Actually, I see christians and atheists yelling back and forth to each other... When the answer is clear.
Both sides are correct.
Something had to be created for something to evolve
P.S. Darwin became christian before he died.
-
Genetics folks:16% Voted for by Dwn, frndofyaweh, slder4crst, looking4realtruth.
In order for evolution to succeed. A species must cross over from one genetic strand to another. So far, all of these posts in this thread about species and birds evolving, is not evidence of evolution, but IS confusion about metamorphosis and mutation of genetic traits within the species. No cross-over between DNA, means No evolution.
-----
A cave dwelling fish can develop sonar and loose its eyes and eyesight. A fish however never becomes an aligator and no one can prove it or has succeeded in crossing any DNA in order to establish this.
-----
Actually, when looked at scientifically and logically, evolution is quite ludacrious. Mass extinctions of species is more likely. Carbon dating is flawed beyond a certain point in Carbonic decay and fluctuating atmosperes. There is actually more evidence of atmospheric changes throughout time, that would change the rate of carbonic decay, thus rendering Carbon Dating completely useless on relatively old objects.
-----
In otherwords, Dinosaurs are not millions of years old, but merely thousands old and facts have also shown, fossilization or petrification can occur in less than a century of time.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
*but IS confusion about metamorphosis and mutation of genetic traits within the species. No cross-over between DNA, means No evolution.* That IS evolution, as long as the mutations become predominate. *A cave dwelling fish can develop sonar and loose its eyes and eyesight. A fish however never becomes an aligator and no one can prove it or has succeeded in crossing any DNA in order to establish this.* We can't witness this because it takes too long. *In otherwords, Dinosaurs are not millions of years old, but merely thousands old and facts have also shown,* HAHAHA oh, sorry, I should have read that part before I started responding
-
Mutations:
Mutations become predominate? That is not evolution. You still have a fish with new physical features and the DNA is still that of a fish. Evolution relies specifically, on the fish becoming another species entirely and this cannot be done through mutation alone. ----- Evolution is not a logical theory. (that ought to get me some flak) -
According to dictionary.com: *3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.* Nothing about speciation. But this is a barebones definition. Let's ask Wiki: *In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.* CAN result. You're confused on what evolution means due to a predetermined fervor against it. Evolution it itself just means gradual change towards improvement. Darwin coined it to biological progression. His most famous citation is of finches in the Galapogos Islands, which are not fishes becoming another species entirely (amphibians).
-
It's all about presopositions
You either veiw the world through biblical "glasses" or evolutionary "glasses" to come up with your own conclusions about the earth. (There are other glasees of different religeons but ill stick to thease 2) Now if you use different glasees, you interpret the evidence different. You will each have different explanation for human "races", fossiles, pain and suffering, etc... But one you come up with your conclusions, observational science can weed out the conclusions that aren't scientifically accurate.
One of with is macroevolution. Creationists see macroevolution as "impossible", "improbable", and "scientifically inacurate", because we veiw the evidence differently. And Evolutionists see Macroevolution, chemical evolution, and stellar evolution as the basis for their entire exsistance...
But observational science disproves evolution.
For chemical evolution (were molecules can turn into life) You would need at least 100,000 base pairs to create a living cell according to scientists (really at least 500,000). But there is a problem. There are both right and left handed amino acids. They each can interchange from one to another, vice vera, and break down. All life on earth today has DNA made up of left handed amino acids. So in order to get a working DNA, you must have over 100,000 left handed amino aicds. The odds of all thease amino acids to come together without a single right handed amino acids to completely curl up the DNA is like flipping a coin 100,000 times.. Those odds are 1 to 10^30102 (30102 zeros) (Odds less than 1 to 10^50 power is scientifically impossible) Not only that, The DNA actually has to say something in order to work properly... Its like making random letters. The odds of a fully funtional story arising by chance is absolutely impossible. It's like having a goldfish bounch on a typewriter for years, and in the end, end up with a novel that people understand... It just isn't possible. Not only that, but there isn't a way for enough amino acids to come into exsistance. Not even the miller-urey expiriment would provide nearly enough amino acids and could only produce the simplest amino acids.
Not only that, you can use observational science to disprove evolution... Look at all mutations we see today. so far NONE of them are the type of mutations that would cause a fish to evolve into an alligator (Out of the trillions of fish in the sea, none of them have primitive forms of lungs, they are always fully functional, or caused when a fully working lung has become defected via a mutation)
Look at all mutations, they all disprove evolution. There has never been a recorded beneficial mutation that adds NEW information. Even mutations that add information like down syndrome certainly don't help the Human. There are a efw beneficial mutations that are caused by a LOST of genetic information. Like lactose tolerance when you are older. All children are born with lactoce tolerance, but there is a switch that causes you to stop producing the hormones to digest it when you grow older. Mutations can cause the switch to become DEFECTIVE, and we produce the enzymes our entire life. This is now the type of beneficial mutations that would cause molecules to evolve into men. Plus a lot of "beneficial" mutations are only beneficial to us, but harmful to the creature (like seedless fruit, and short legged lambs)
And the last are harmful mutations that give some organisms the inability to be effected by something. Like bacteria with overworking pumps, that pump out poisons very fast, but kills the organism by using up too much energy, Or a defect that causes the cell wall of a bacteria to not form, and causing it to grow slower. This mutation would make the bacteria resistant to penicillin, but it is harmful as a whole. Same with people who are resistant to HIV, The HIV virus needs to fit in 2 Keyholes in order to enter the Cell. If a mutations causes one of the keyholes to become deformed, the Virus can't enter, but other items that the cell probally needs isn't able to enter the cell as well.
Plus MOST mutations are simply harmful as a whole, and is slowly making all creation become more defective, not evolving into high species. Evolution is disproven, but if the lie is still taught in textbooks, then it shall still live...
-
-
Against evolution12% Voted for by mudgod, Dwn, slder4crst.
Nowhere does Darwin absolutely state or show facts that support his "Theory". Yet most scientists use his "theory" to support their findings. Use and disuse has been effectively refuted. There are no skeletons or fossils which show signs of a species in the process of evolving. I heard recently that all the fossils (not bones)that have been found could fit into the back of a pick up truck. A platypus is certainly odd looking but there is no evidence that a platypus was ever anything else. Where is the proof?
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Every species now or ever is in the process of evolving. 2 similar birds that have adapted to their unique climates are in the process of evolving. The human race is in the process. Northern Europeans and Russians needed to be robust, hardy, and hairy to survive. Native Americans needed the "red" skin and lack of facial hair. Blacks, Middle Easterns, Asians, etc. The mixing of races will create a mixed child. As technology makes any race equally likely to survive in most any climate, the "interbreeding" will bring about more and more mixed people--another product of evolution. Fossils are extremely rare. Yes, we find lots and lots and lots of them. Do you have any idea of the amount of living things there are on this world right now? Double that. Then double that. You are not even close to the amount of living things there were EVER. In that scope, we have a tiny handful of fossils. When things die they decompose, never to be seen in any traces again. In order to be fossilized, the deceased needs to rather quickly be covered in sedmiment or frozen. This is a rare condition, but it happens. On top of this, the fossilization is most likely to be successful on creatures that had hard, sturdy body parts. The likelihood of this happening isn't extremely high. In fact, I believe Darwin himself pointed this out. Maybe you should "read" Darwin's "theory" before you "criticize" it so much.
-
-
They are designed extremely similar. Yes, but it's jsut as much proof for an intellegent designer. In fact it points toward an intellegent designer. Look at it, designed simliar, but carries out 2 different functions. Like the yolk in the human embryo. Similar to bird yolks, yet carries out a different function. This is what you expect from an intellegent designer.
Plus those 14 secies of finches on the galapagos islands have no new genetics in them, just a variation of genetics that already exsisted.
-
-
you have stated reasons for not believing in darwin's theory, but havent stated anything at all about what supports creationism.
-
The irony is is that "belief" supports creationism.
-
How about supporting both?
-
Applehead, you are a genius.
-
Thank you TeChNo (I wish) and yes grant that is purely for my ego's sake.
-
The reason the fossil record will never show a smooth gradient of one species into another is because the fossil record consists of *gasp* fossils. You change an amino acid in a protein and it isn't going to show up in the fossil record. You change muscle tone, hair color, stomach size or any number of things and the fossil record will not show any of it because a bunch of calcified rocks in the shape of ancient bones will not reflect that. But, there are fossils out there similar enough to support the idea that one may have 'evolved' into another. Take the horse for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html When it comes down to it, the most convincing arguments come from genome analysis of contemporary species. Meaning you compare the genomes from various organisms and look for sequence similarities.
-
*"contemporary"* And have any of these contemporary species yet showed 'evidence' of change sexually?
-
you dont see evolution much in fossils because evolution is an all or nothing thing. a lot of evolved species die because their evolved parts dont work and kill them. another reason it is hard to tell evolved species from their parent species is because we can mistake them as a completely different species. one evidence of evolution is simular bone structures. look at the bones in your hands. now look at the bones in a whales fin. they are oddly simular. evidence of evolution is best found in species living right now. eg, 14 finches of the galapogoos islands.
-
Could you clarify what you mean by change sexually? I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you correctly What about domestication? "Domestication is a phenomenon whereby a wild biological organism is habituated to survive in the company of, or by the labour of, human beings. Domesticated animals, plants, and other organisms are those whose collective behaviour, life cycle, or *physiology* has been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions under careful human control for multiple generations." (stolen from wikipedia) Instead of natural selection, you have humans selecting for animals with desired traits. But domesticated animals are certainly different than their wild counterparts.
-
*"“Domestication is a phenomenon whereby a wild biological organism is habituated to survive in the company of, or by the labour of, human beings. Domesticated animals, plants, and other organisms are those whose collective behaviour, life cycle, or physiology has been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions under careful human control for multiple generations.”"* I heard a really awesome debater of intelligent design recently. Apparently he hasn't lost a debate. Now I don't neccessarily agree with his assumptions, but I do agree with his debasements. These animals have only changed form within their species. The finch argument recently lost credit as it was found that the finches actually change form (ever so slightly) within their own lifetime when exposed to a different environment. If the environment befits so, a finch will grow a longer hardened beak to his brother. Same thing happens if you expose the sole of your feet to rough ground for ages, and alternatively, if you expose it to soft ground; it will adapt accordingly. This is all physiological, not genetical. If I chop of my arm, have I evolved into a one armed race of humans? No, because my kids will stay the same. Only arguments pertaining to changes in the genes of an organism hold sway in evolution, and as such, genes have so far only been found to vary between a set species (dog breeds and such). They do not lead to a complete change in the sexual function of the animal, and when so, it is only detrimental to the certain species requirements (eg Down Syndrome).
-
i was going to write the same thing, but i think you made it sound more simple than if i were to write it. nice job!
-
I'm pretty sure that if you google domestication you can come up with examples of genetic alterations that occured during the process. Anyways, sexual separation has nothing to do with species wide genome comparisons, which is what I originally mentioned. I don't even think it's fair to use change in sexual function as a sole marker of speciation. Single celled organisms obviously cannot have sex yet many different species exist.
-
*"i was going to write the same thing, but i think you made it sound more simple than if i were to write it. nice job!"* Thanks man, I think more than just a handful of people have been influenced by his insights. Feel free to elaborate where necessary, I am only aware of the basic concept. *"Single celled organisms obviously cannot have sex yet many different species exist."* And this supports evolution how? I thought it would more likely indicate that variation does not occur in cells that 'clone' themselves. Oh well, what do I 'know'. The cells have been 'created' for the sole intent to represent their own species and nothing else, is this a fair assumption?
-
Nah, it doesn't support evolution. I was just trying to give an example to show that sexual function/compatibility/whatever is not the only way to define a species. If you want to get technical, many single celled organisms can uptake DNA from their surrounding environment and incorporate it into their chromosomal DNA through recombination. E.coli cells can form a sex pilus (tube) through which they can directly transfer DNA from one cell to another. Saccaromyces cerevisiae (bakers yeast) actually exists in two different mating types, and will merge to go through meiotic division. Technically, variation can occur but it depends on a lot of factors.
-
so when can we get back to talking about evolution?
since when is cutting off your arm evolution? Evolution does not happen to individuals (meaning, getting a thicker sole doesnt mean you are evolving (if your child was born with thick soles, that would be evolution). the fact that a finches beak can change doesnt mean that they never evolved. if they never did evolve, all fourteen finches would be born the same and then change took place, you would be right, and this wasn't evolution. but since the fourteen finches are born with different beaks, the fact of evolution stands. *** dog breeding doesnt change the genetic make-up of a dog. and what i mean by this is - the dog is still a dog. it has 4 legs, 2 eyes, a tail (relitively) and so on. *** what evolution is, is successful mutations. as i said before, if your body changes (your feet develop calluses) that is not evolution. if your baby is born with calluses that do not go away, that is evolution. if your dog was born with backward joints, that is a mutation. if these backward joints suddenly became more useful than the regular joints. this backwards joint becomes more and more common, and eventually takes over the species, which, inturn means that this mutation has caused evolution -
*"if they never did evolve, all fourteen finches would be born the same and then change took place, you would be right, and this wasn’t evolution. but since the fourteen finches are born with different beaks, the fact of evolution stands."* My task is of greater ease if people can actually attempt to examine their own inquiries. Their is no evidence to suggest that one of these finches can in fact change into the other finch, and even so, they are only restricted to being a finch (without further notification), and not becoming an ostrich. Ok, so a finch can vary. But if it can still have sex with its non-varied counterpart, then it still remains a finch. If it cannot, it is either a different species (and there is no strong evidence of yet that this happens between generations) or the specimen has deteriorated and cannot even reproduce with others of its own deteriotative 'collective'.
-
you know what? go look up species. as a small explanation, using binomial nomincature, species who do not belong to the same genus cannot mate and produce offspring. this is why dogs, wolves, coyotes can mate and breed. but since a cat is in the felis genus, and a dog is in the canis genus, these two cannot mate to produce offspring. this is why you can mate dogs and get different breeds. evolution is completely different from breeding. so if you want to learn and then debunk elovution, please people, actually study it first, and then state hypotheses to why you think it is wrong.
-
*"this is why you can mate dogs and get different breeds. evolution is completely different from breeding. so if you want to learn and then debunk elovution, please people, actually study it first, and then state hypotheses to why you think it is wrong."* Yeah, so the breeding argument is null, as well as the example of the finches. Can you provide any other evidential examples?
-
may i present: _Homo habilis, Homo rudolfenis, Homo egaster, Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo cepranensis, Homo georicus, Homo sapiens_. all in cronological order, all having simular bone structures that you can see slowly evolving from _Homo habilis_ to _Homo sapien_.
-
It is all assumption and highly speculative. Hardly definitive and certainly not undisputed. (Key words below: originally thought, much debate, not yet certain, traditionally, probable ancestor, researchers believe, known from one cranial bone, ad nauseum.) From: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. This is now known not to be the case. The species Homo rudolfensis was originally proposed in 1986 by V. P. Alexeev for the specimen to the left, KNM ER 1470. Originally thought to be a member of the species Homo habilis, much debate surrounded the fossil and its species assignment. It was thought that 2 million years ago there existed a single species in the genus Homo, and this species evolved in a linear fashion into modern humans. But the differences in this skull, when compared to other habilines, are too pronounced, leading to the formulation of the species Homo rudolfensis, contemporary with Homo habilis. It is not yet certain if H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later species in Homo, or if H. habilis was. By 1.9 million years ago, another lineage of the genus Homo emerged in Africa. This species was Homo ergaster. Traditionally, scientists have referred to this species as Homo erectus and linked this species name with a proliferation of populations across Africa, Europe, and Asia. Yet, since the first discoveries of Homo erectus, it had been noted that there were differences between the early populations of "Homo erectus" in Africa, and the later populations of Europe, Africa and Asia. Many researchers now separate the two into distinct species Homo ergaster for early African "Homo erectus", and Homo erectus for later populations mainly in Asia. Since modern humans share the same differences as H. ergaster with the Asian H. erectus, scientist consider H. ergaster as the probable ancestor of later Homo populations. From: http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=25 Conclusions (Homo Floresiensis) The arguments over the identification Flores Man have not finished with samples of bone sent for DNA testing. We look forward to seeing the results. We maintain that Flores Man was fully human, but suffering from some sort of genetic condition present in Indonesia. All of the differences with the size and shape of bones can be accounted for within human variation. This does not mean that Flores Man was unintelligent as Dr. Falk’s findings prove. However, it is with regret that evolutionists such as Dr. Falk and others seek to turn Flores Man or Woman into a separate human species, when this is not born out by the evidence. Henneberg’s assertion that all human fossils are part of one species is compelling. Once again evolutionists appear to show little respect for the diversity of human populations. Even small people are created in the image of God and are worthy of respect. From: http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA10/homo597.html Anthropologists will now have to redraw the family tree to include a branch for Homo antecessor. One implication of the discovery is that Homo sapiens evolved in a less linear fashion than previously believed. Until this discovery, scientists have argued that Homo sapiens in Europe evolved either from Homo erectus with input from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis OR that Europe was settled by an African species, H. heidelbergensis, a common ancestor of both Neandertals and H. sapiens. The Spanish researchers believe the Atapuerca fossils suggest that H. antecessor originated in Africa, where it spawned H. sapiens long before that species' migration to Europe; that H. antecessor itself migrated to Europe (possibly about 1 million years ago), and there gave rise to H. heidelbergensis, which in turn led to the doomed Neandertals. This would mean that H. antecessor, and not H. heidelbergensis, is the true common ancestor of Neandertals and modern humans. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis Homo rhodesiensis Rupert Murrill has studied the relations between Archanthropus skull of Petralona (Chalcidice, Greece) and Rhodesian Man. Most current experts believe Rhodesian Man to be within the group of Homo heidelbergensis though other designations such as Homo sapiens arcaicus and Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have also been proposed. According to Tim White, it is probable that Homo rhodesiensis was the ancestor of Homo sapiens idaltu (Herto Man), which would be itself at the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens. No direct linkage of the species can so far be determined. From: http://www.alysion.org/life/Homo.htm Homo cepranensis (extinct): 900,000, found in Italy; a proposed species known from only one cranial bone. Homo georgicus (extinct): Lived 1.8 mya, intermediate between habilis and erectus. First inhabitant of Europe, brain 600-800 cc, also a possible ancestor to H. erectus.
-
so, what is your point mudgod? that science, unlike religion, is open to speculation? that science is adaptive to new discoveries and religion is not? scientists are people who build hypotheses and are exited whether facts prove their hypotheses right or wrong. a theists are people who read a book and believe it is speaking absolute truth, and when a fact or theory comes into play that disrupts those truths, they prenounce those new facts and theories as lies.
-
-
If by religion you mean the bible (which is what my religion is based upon). Then I would answer that my religion tells me to prove all things. My religion also states that man, as we know him, was first created 6,000 years ago. Does this mean that some other form of hominids did not exist at some point? No. There is evidence that they did exist. Just as there is evidence of dinosaurs. But the beings that God created with the potential to become part of His spiritual family did not exist prior to 6,00 years ago. The bible traces that lineage from Adam to Jesus and from that point on we have reliable histories of what mankind has been doing. Using the biblical criteria "prove all things" to science would certainly change the face of science as we know it. The only theories that are perpetuated upon the bible are because people don't "believe" what it says. They won't prove it (and it is all provable). The existence of God makes people uncomfortable and so they seek alternatives and in so doing condemn themselves. For the bible states that man believes only what they think is right in their own eyes and God sees it as evil continually.
-
-
so you are techniquely saying that, even though you believe in creationism, evolution is possible. hmm, weird, same thing that i was saying. both can be true. what i am saying is that evolution isnt always easy to prove, but by using the theory of evolution(and understanding it, which not many do) you can see the evolution of species thoughout time and how mammals came to "rule" the planet over their reptilian predessesors.
-
I don't necessiraly believe in evolution. What I believe is that the creation in Genesis was actually a recreation. Evidenced by: (Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ) Also, when refering to the following verse: ( Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. ). the portion that reads "was without form, and void", in the original Hebrew reads "became without form, and void". From the next verse (1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. ), we see that God is not the author of confusion. I do not recall the verses that do point to satan as the creator of lies and confusion, but I'll find them if needed. I know that Rev 12:9 says he decieves that whole world. Now, at the recreation, God made the animals after their own kinds, and at least since then, there has been no evolution. Remember, satan is the god of the Earth. Has been for millions of years. His whole purpose is to confuse us and blind us to God's truths. I certainly think it entirely possible that satan could have planted "evidence" of evolution throughout the ages. Nothing concrete, nothing difinitive, just enough for man to get all twisted up in the evolutionary theory and as a result question the truths of God, the almighty creator of all that is. (Jam 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. ).
-
weydon,
That isn't macro evolution. that is microevolution. The genes to make red skin, survive in cold weather, be harier, darker skin, lighter skin are already in exsistance! But genes that would harm people in a certain envoirment would make them less healthy. And their gene will be less likely to be spread to their offspring. this would "crop" the genes so that the creatures become specialized. But this isn't macroevolution (fish to alligators and etc) but is variations using the same genes.
-
-
actually,...8% Voted for by frndofyaweh, Weydon.
Darwin was raised Unitarian and proclaimed belief in God up until 1851 and although Agnostic from that point, many who knew him say he still held a belief in a one God universe, even when publishing his book in 1859.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
i believe darwin withheld publishing his book for fear of what the church would do to him.
-
*"i believe darwin withheld publishing his book for fear of what the church would do to him."* He was also afraid he had disproved God.
-
true. in his time god was an absolute thing, almost everyone believed. and what would you do? people would want to kill you for trying to disprove the church.
-
He also didn't want to disrupt his own faith in God, and his belief that lost loved ones had ventured to heaven.
-
-
Skepticism reigns8% Voted for by TeChNoWC, Dwn.
But one must assume to create inferences based on evidence. Otherwise it is just evidence, without the inference. So, the evidence might be that there is two fossils in the ground, but the inferences are in fact what leads one to the eventual conclusion (and assumption) that such an occurence is evidence to convince oneself of a belief. But it is my personal opinion that people come to such assumptions fairly quickly and without any brainwork whatsoever.
People 'assume' that even the slightest of evidence is accountable for making 'knowledge' based assumptions (I 'know' it to be true) or even attempt it to waver the universal code of 'odds' ('it is probable' etc etc).
The problem of induction adresses examples of assumptions that people make yet seemingly cannot constitute as purely 'known'. The 5 minute earth hypothesis also, in all its simplicity, quickly crushes any notion people may have of 'knowing' the past via inference or even experience, such to the point that some religious sects have now embraced the idea as part of an actuality, and atheists are reduced to arguing the point by mocking the example given ( via 'Last Thursdayism').
But as far as I am concerned, the Young Earth Creationists have a point. However odd this point may seem (particularly to the realm of science), I regard theory over practicality in such philosophical issues, and thus, if one is to realise that God may simply have 'created' evidence (like Adam's belly button) for whatever means, then one must also realise that such evidence is only purported towards belief. So whatever evidence is given, the inferences made upon such evidence is whatever you want to be convinced of. I don't care how strong someone may posit there evidence to be, the inference is still, seemingly, detached from this.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
God and evolution
It has been nearly 150 years since Darwin’s published his book on evolution. Since than there has been thousands of supporting articles demonstrating natural selection and the origin of species. The overwhelming evidence for evolution is accepted by most religions whose leaders do not find it a problem. However, a minority of Christians continue to reject biological evolution even though there is minimal evidence against it. To believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago’ we would have to reject the following sciences: genetics, paleontology, astrophysics, cosmology, geology, biochemistry, immunology, archeology, ecology, and astronomy. This is a high price to pay for a literal interpretation of the Bible. There is nothing inconsistent with belief that the Bible is the world of God and evolution. We must remember that the Bible was written thousands of years ago when people had very little knowledge of science. God would have wanted to communicate the Bible at a level where the people could understand it. Explaining DNA, RNA, natural selection and population genetics in the book of Genesis would have been over everyone’s head thousands of years ago. I don’t think the Bible was intended to be a science textbook. Rather, it was written as a religious book that could be understood by the people of four thousand years ago -
You didn't even read my post. Great. You keep all your sciences and hold on tight. As far as I am concerned, a ten thousand tonne jellyfish with a pink shirt could have created the world, and is just as plausible as your 'scientific inferences'. I'm not rejecting evidence (yet neither am I acknowledging it as 'truth'). I am rejecting inferences. A fossil in the ground is carbon dated and informs us that the fossil is roughly 85 million years old. So what. I could assume God simply 'created' it with the decay rate set upon the initial creation time. Could you prove otherwise? Until then, both your inference and mine are equally possible. It 'proves' nothing.
-
how does this sound? god made the firs speck of life, and then "guided" it though the stages of evolution. so, with this "theory" both classes are right, are they not?
-
Kazrith
Sure. Not necessarily right, but both plausible. But it all comes down to whatever you want to believe. -
not necessarily right? isnt that subjective?
-
Let's do a thought experiment: Say for example, you drive to the mall. You park your car and have a good time buying toothpaste. Time to leave! Chances are you go back to the parking lot where you left your car to find it again. (even if you've forgotten where you've parked, you're likely to start searching for it in a lot before you call the police) Sure monkeys could've eaten it, or someone could've stolen it, or it could've exploded. But you need to have a starting point if you want to get your car back. The evidence suggests that the car will be in the parking lot (because you left it there earlier in the day) so you test your hypothesis by going to the parking lot first, rather than, say, looking for it in the Atlantic Ocean. Only when you find your car isn't where you left it (or you searched all the parking lots and couldn't find it) do you try a new tactic. Science works the same way. Good experiments have a starting point: a hypothesis and maybe some background information. You can't sit down and run an experiment to proove evolution. That would be stupid and impossible. You start with an observation/background information and a hypothesis that CAN be prooven or disprooven. For example: I have a tall plant and a short plant. If I fertilize the tall plant with pollen from the short plant I hypothesize that only short plants will grow. You grow them up and see that you have three tall plants and one short plant. You're hypothesis was incorrect, but now you know that crossing a tall and a short plant can lead to three tall plants for every short plant. These results can then be used as the background information for a new experiment. Everything adds up. Eventually you get to the point where complex inferences can be made from the results of hundreds of these simple experiments. A lot of times people assume that since they didn't personally see all of the tests that lead up to a conclusion that the conclusion was pulled out of a scientist's butt. The litterature is out there! And the beautiful thing about science is that you don't have to complacently agree with it! You think Dr So-and-so misinterpreted his data? Good! Do experiments and come up with your own conclusions! You think evolution is incorrect? Good! But saying that it is incorrect simply because there is no evidence to support it is borderline ignorant.
-
I can't believe an infinite God would do such a stupid thing as creating a universe in six days and then try to make it seem older!!! Moreover, I find it difficult to comprehend why anyone would be so stupid as to believe such nonsense!
-
*"I can’t believe an infinite God would do such a stupid thing as creating a universe in six days and then try to make it seem older!!! Moreover, I find it difficult to comprehend why anyone would be so stupid as to believe such nonsense!"* That's not the point. To try and wager as to what God's personality is like (even if He does represent a persona in any way, shape or form) is a hard task indeed, considering we are talking about a Supreme Being. If someone also found God-guided evolution so difficult to comprehend, would that also mean that this theory is corrupt? If I was to admit that my mental state is without such conceptualisation (or indeed even opposes it due to behaviourism) is this to say that it automatically represents an actualisation? Seemingly, no. As an irrealist you could argue so, but it appears you are not an irrealist. However, I may be mistaken, if you care to enlighten me. So, just because you find that it objects percieved meaning or even protocol behaviour for a Supreme Being (and if you do indeed have access to this protocol please tell me); such assumptions would not suggest that God's nature can be 'known'. If God was malevolent, for instance, then one could find sound reasoning in the deception of both your mental state (opposing the idea) and physical evidence presented to us, as well as the spur of incorrect inference and surmising. To make such bold claims about the nature of a transcendental God via your own limited capacity and reasoning, however strongly one may feel convinced and compelled to do so, would seem, by reasoning itself, 'irrational'.
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Kazrith
October 27, 2006
Edit | Reply
October 29, 2006
Edit | Reply
P.S. Darwin became christian before he died.
no, unfortunatly he dident, that was a rumer that was spread by his cousin. but i dont remember the details of the whole story. so you will have to look it up.March 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
Plus, something has to be created in order to evolve, witch is true, but creature can only microevolve (Natural select, or use different variations of the same genes already exsisting within their species)
March 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
April 1, 2007
Just my 2 cents
Kazrith
May 9, 2007
sigh
how is darwin's theory racist? and if it wasnt darwin's theory, how is the theory racist in the first place?the addition of new genes into a cell can be best seen in bacteria when one F+ bacterium connects with an F- bacterium through a structure called a Pilus (pl. pili). a copy of the plasmid is then moved through this tube and into the F- cell, making it F+. this plasmid then can be inserted into the cells neucleus at areas of simularities. thus, new genetic information is made and the bacterium is not the same as before. ---> evolution
June 4, 2007
wait a second!
That may be an addition of information, but if you were to use that, then every single child born would be "evolution", because there is an addition of information. But the poblem with this "proof" is that it equiers fully functional PREXSISTING DNA in the FIRST PLACE. So yes, cell #2 gets new information, but that information was already there in the first place. the question you must answer is how did cell #1 get moe genetic information than cell#2 if they both arose from the same cell millions of years ago. What you ould need are mutations, witch mutations usually destroy infomation (Like penicillin resistant cells), copy the same information (down syndrome), change information (progeria, witch causes children to age way to fast, and die around 13 by just one mutation), Changing information is usually always harmful, in fact, we have yet to find one that is TRUELLY beneficial. We find some that are beneficial under CERTAIN conditions. But if that mutation cell were to compete with others in normal conditions, it would die out.
But lets think about something. Just how does evolution "KNOW" that if it mutates here, it can continue mutating to make something else. See our DNA consists of 4 letters. And they make up a language witch writes out our entire makeup and instincts. Lets say we start at the first DNA. what would there be to READ the DNA. We could come up with DNA of a bacterium, and put it on a prehistoric earth, but because the only thing that makes DNA usefull is the cell witch READS the DNA. Same things with virus, but it's a lot simpler. But virus DNA can't to didly squat either unless it's in a parent cell. (the virus itself can only inject the DNA, it takes a cell and the cell's language to read the Virus's DNA and then make more virus from that)
SO let's use virus's for an example. You have a virus, and it reproduces by injecting it's DNA into a parent cell. The parent cell has a language that reads it's own DNA, but the DNA from the virus is also read by the cell. Then when the cell reads the new information, it makes more virus'. Now lets think about this. The virus alone can't do anything without a LANGUAGE. But the language can only come from inside the cell. But in order to get the blasted cell, you need DNA INSIDE a cell, to create a cell. So there is no way to start this hole process. (Coming up with the DNA itself is also extremely hard)
It's like this. You can have a male chicken, or a female chicken. Let's assume the Male chicken is the DNA, and the female chicken is the DNA reading parts of the cell. Now in order to get a male chicken, a female chicken must lay an egg with a fertilized male egg inside of it, but you NEED a male chicken in the first place to have a baby with the female. So what you need is a male chicken. And roosters don't just ocme out of nowere.
COntinuing on, lets say that you are not listening to me and we get a cell. How does a cell know what mutations it requires to become mroe complex?
THink about it, it has to mutate the information in JUST the right order, and ADD new informaiton (witch has yet to be witnessed in a la
Have you herd of irreducable complexity?
Take the mousetrap for instance. If ANY part of it is missing, it doesn't catch mice. And then it can't carry out it's function. Now what you nede for a mousetrap to work right is that you need all the parts to "mutate" in at the same time in the right place. In the cell, that owuld be hundreds of mutations in the right places to make up something. Cells just don't do that.
NOw lets take the eye. The lens is made of of cells that grow rapidly, then die. They interlock with eachother with "ridges". And they are made up of protein witch is opaque, but it's tightly compacted together and in a chemical solution to give it a transparent effect. This is a marvel of chemestry that "evolution" just "somehow" came up instantly. Then lets continue with the retna. It's upside down. This is PERFECT. Because the light sensitive parts are facing away from the light source, but torward the "blood lake" that gives a rich supply of oxygen. It is sensitive to a photon. Then you have an optic nerve. simple. Then you have a brain that KNOWS the information the optic nerve is sending it. Some people are "mentally blind" because their brain can't read the messages the eye is sending it.
I got to go to bed now =(
There is a lot more, but that was just the eye. One example.
Kazrith
June 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
but for most of your whole comment, i have one word: Random.
humans have something called DNA Polymerase, it proof reads the DNA and cuts out almost all mistakes (1/1,000,000,000 are not caught).
if you want to look at evolution, look at bacteria, there is no proof reader.
oh, interesting thing abou the eyes, if you look at the world upside down for a few weeks (using special glasses) your mind co-ordinates itself to seeing the world upside down, and it doesnt appear to be a difference after a while.
Weydon
June 10, 2007
Edit | Reply
Weydon
April 1, 2007
Edit | Reply
"sure it LOOKS like a nice theory, but I can't see it happen. Therefore, I'll believe this book that also doesn't allow tangible evidence for its claims."
frndofyaweh
April 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
Actually Darwin was Unitarian
...and he gave that up in 1852 I believe. He did however feel compelled to include Creationism in his 8 seperate biological theories.He also never claimed that his own theory of evolution was a sure thing, but a good guess only.
Athiest scientist needed comfort in their beliefs so they pushed the evolution theory and began to build around that. Big Mistake.
Just like a murder case; the detectives are so sure that the husband murdered the wife that they look no where else for a suspect and end up taking the husband to court. Although the husband may be innocent, he easily can end up convicted as well as being made to appear as a convincing murderer, to a jury of his peers. Even though he wasn't the one who did it, he ends up being put in prison.
Weydon
April 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
Scientists have nothing to lose by proving God's real. They're not going to fudge one of the most important aspects of biology just to explain away how we were created. They have nothing to GAIN from it. They would easily say "Yeah, I dunno" for how life came to be as it is now if evolution didn't make sense, just as they say "Yeah, I dunno" for how the universe itself came from nothing.
May 24, 2007
Edit | Reply
maddyblue
May 24, 2007
Edit | Reply
i was just gonna say...
you took the words right out of my mouth....May 25, 2007
Edit | Reply
i like your idea
i like the idea that both thoeies are true .it is just a matter of findign the middle ground
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free