Quote by GEEThis has been discussed before,
but here is my opinion on it.
Quote by embershadowit's impossible
for Creationism to be completely true, because scientists have proven that the
world is more than ten thousand years old. So it just wouldn't
work.
Creationism means that life is created by a higher power. In the bible is
written that the creation of the earth took 6 days, a lot of people take this
litteraly while time is relative. What for one person is very fast, can for
another seem hours.
If you look at it like this, evolution and creationism comes closer together. If
you take into account that everything is relative, you can say that both can be
the same. This is already the case when the first part of life is initiated by a
higher power.
Well, if I were to say that it took me days to
build a boat, could one assume that it took years? HELL NO! I mean what I say.
The bible says six days so I'm gonna say it took six days. It means what it
says. The bible isn't full of metaphors.
Quote by GEEThis has
been discussed before, but here is my opinion on it.
Quote by embershadowit's impossible
for Creationism to be completely true, because scientists have proven that the
world is more than ten thousand years old. So it just wouldn't
work.
Creationism means that life is created by a higher power. In the bible is
written that the creation of the earth took 6 days, a lot of people take this
litteraly while time is relative. What for one person is very fast, can for
another seem hours.
If you look at it like this, evolution and creationism comes closer together. If
you take into account that everything is relative, you can say that both can be
the same. This is already the case when the first part of life is initiated by a
higher power.
Well, if I were to say that it took me days to
build a boat, could one assume that it took years? HELL NO! I mean what I say.
The bible says six days so I'm gonna say it took six days. It means what it
says. The bible isn't full of metaphors.
I agree, it reminds me of those Nostrodamus fans, 'interpreting' his writings on
events that have already occured, because his writings were
'metaphorical'.
I personally believe in evolution, and while I do not condemn creationism, I do
not believe that it is appropriate for it to be taught in science. The reason
being that, there is a signifigant lack of evidence, and many arguements cited
by proponents cannot be reproduced (ala' the scientific method). Believe what
you will, honestly... just keep it away from science classes.
Quote by drmechoy Hello, I could not
help weighing in on this one. I myself am a creationist, who could not care less
if evoloution were a fact or not, if for no better reason than it only makes the
miracle of Gods design that much more incredible. Imagine all the work he saves
himself by creating us with the ability to adapt to suit our environment
regardless of the extremes. That said, here are some holes I have found
regarding the theory of evoloutions basis in reality.
I am
an athiest, and I don't believe in Creationism. The list of things you have said
here all have serious flaws.
Quote by drmechoy1.The chances of life
spontaneously occurring in the universe are about the same as a tornado ripping
through a junkyard and assembling a 747 out of old tires and screen
doors.
The truth is, no one knows what the odds are of life
coming into being given the environmental conditions of early earth. We suspect
it to be a very rare event, but because we have nothing to compare it to, we
have no point of reference to make a guess about the rarity of life. The only
planet like ours we can accurately observe at this point is mars and,
ironically, it also shows signs that some life once existed on the surface.
Bottom line, we just don't know the odds of life forming and it is wrong to
arbitrarily decide how likely it is.
Quote by drmechoy2.If the Earth were
really as old as science says it is the very crust we walk on would have eroded
away 14 times.
Our planet is constantly reshaping itself.
Look up "plate tectonics" on Google.
Quote by drmechoy3.The very progenitor
of the THEORY of evoloution, Charles Darwin, himself, denied his own theory in
his book; the Origin of species....(read it sometime)...he says in the last
chapter; "...These writings are but the ramblings of a curious and
imaginative man..." You'll have to find the unabridged version as this was
edited out in the textbook release...(naturaly)
It does not
matter what Charles Darwin thinks. He is the first person to put the arguments
for evolution in a logical form and the creator of the theory of natural
selection. He had serious problems with his theory when he created it. For
instance, he did not know how traits were passed from parent to child. We have
since learned of DNA and filled the gaps in his theory. He lacked the knowledge
to prove his theory was true.
Quote by drmechoy4.If the moon were as
old as science claims, the amount of dust on its surface would be 7 feet
thick...So how come Niel Armstrong only sank 3/4 of 1
inch?)
I do not know. I would have to know the source of the
argument you provide and understand the scientific reasoning behind it, nether
of which I can do.
Quote by drmechoy5.Radio carbon dating
will determine the rubber your shoes are made of to be 3 billion years old...You
really should wash them more often.
Carbon dating can only be
used on organic material. It would, of course, give very weird results on
processed material or other objects.
Quote by drmechoy6.The very
evoloutionary chart is composed of admitted frauds and "scientificaly
manufactured" evidence. Peking man for example, was determined to be
composed of animal bones, shorlty before the construct dissappeared during WWI.
Piltdown man was built up from a jawbone later found to be that of an extinct
pig. And apparently at some point in history we evolved from Australopithicus 3
million years BEFORE it appeared on the planet.
6. There was
one evolution fraud, the Piltdown man. It was discovered through scientific
testing that the bones in the find came from different time periods and were not
old enough to be pre-human. The skull came from a 600 year old human; the jaw
came from an equally old ape. I say this to show that in contrast, the thousands
of other humanoid fossils have passed scientific testing and are considered
genuine. As for the second part, scintists disagree about the exact dates and
the exact path of human evolution. If you looked at several different
viewpoints, you could find controdictions but they are just different opinions,
not errors in the theory.
Quote by drmechoy7.If we evolved from
monkeys and apes...why do we still have monkeys and apes?
If
Americans came from England, why do we still have Englishmen?
Evoultion has a huge amount of evidence that can not be easily dismissed by the
well informed. If a disturbing theory like the theory of evolution could be
written off by one or two "facts" like this, it would have died long
ago. It has so much evidence to support it that I believe it is inevitable that
the church must one day accept it as they have accepted Galileo's heliocentric
(Sun-centered) model of the solar system.
so very true. thanks for backing it up....you must be a science bud!
i agree with you on the last part, you wanna deny evolution is not possible,
because it has evidence, whatever they believe in, God is simply that thing that
has happened and not happened.
Obviously if simple facts that they tested themselves upon their theories, the
theory is wrong and that is why they deny evolution because they tested on all
the wrong things.
from the way they do, it shows as well as they deny science as well, which means
they are hypocrites, considering they are also living in the modern era which
was built from science. so where is the logic or reasoning...?
I believe in Creationism! Well from an atheist point of view... Charles Darwin
admitted himself a major flaw in the theory of evolution was the evolution of
the eye. It seemed impossible even to him that such a complex and intricate
structure could have arised.. So yeah. I guess..
You guys mis the point I try to make completely. I am not telling creationism is
true, I am telling it is not impossible for it to be true, that you can also
look at it it from an other point of view.
And also, the story of the bible is creationism, but creationism does not have
to be the story of the bible.
I was beggining to wonder if anyone read this....
Well to counter your arguments.....
Plate tectonics only account for approximately 6 to 8 thousand years of drift.
If we did indeed evolve upon a pangeanic continent as science contends, then the
west coast of the US should have passed Europe several times by now....he shoots
he scores.
By your own admission Piltdown man was built up from unaccociated bones yet it
still appears on the current chart as a real entity...denial? or simply
arrogance?
If you look at shoe rubber it IS composed of organic matereial known as
petroleum...but that wasnt the point, I should have clarified. Carbon dating has
had difficulty accurately showing the age of ANY material it analyzes. In fact
it was recently tested on a sample from a LIVING abalone's shell. It determined
the abalone was some 4300 years old...the thing had been raised in the Monteret
bay aquarium.
The moon dust measurement was based on an assessment by NASA just prior to the
first moon landing. In fact the orriginal lander was built with an 8' long strut
extending from each landing gear in anticipation of this...they were removed
prior to launch when it was found they didnt fit in the rockets loading
bay.
As for whether or not Evoloution is fact or fiction, I already said I dont
really care. But I do care about being told the facts, and right now, the
pro-evoloution community seems more concerned with proving the non-existence of
God...(good luck)...than in generating any real facts.
A little carefull observation will tell you all you need to see. The Earth we
now live in is not the first one. For all I know it is one of several ages. The
earth is indeed very old, but what we see now is only about 6 to 8 thousand
years. The Bible, whether you accept it or not, is quite specific about the fall
of the nations BEFORE Adam and Eve's time. Where do you think all our myths and
legends came from people?
And while we're on the subject of the Bible...it might interest you to know that
it is not the only account of Noahs Ark...practicaly every ancient culture has a
story of its existence right down to where it came to rest...even the
Polinesians, the Aztecs, the Maori, the Aborigines, and many other cultures not
traditionaly associated with biblical events.
Discount Faith and belief in God and the Bible all you like, call it the realm
of the naieve if it gives you comfort. But you only feel the way you do because
satan fears what you may become if you ever realize your full potential. But I
suppose the right to choose includes the right to choose the losing
side.
Ok...if anyone knows the Krebbs cycle, there are tons of steps, i forgot how
many ATP's each step consumes but if i remember correctly the Krebbs cycle
consumes about 5000 ATPs and only produces 2...that seems a bit strange because
where would the original 5000 ATPs originate from.
And to answer about the changing skin color...it takes thousands of years for
that to actually take place. The reason skin color changes is, yes, from
exposure to sunlight. The people with lighter skin (Europeans) get less direct
sunlight than the people who have darker skin (Africans). The color of your skin
affects how much calcium you can absorb. If you have dark skin, then you can
absorb more calcium than if you have light skin, this is because sunlight breaks
down...i think it was vitamin D...I'll get back to you on that. But anyways,
vitamin D is what you need to absorb calcium for better skeletal structure.
Nowadays we have vitamin D enriched food so we no longer have to worry so much
about vitamin D deficiency. Ok, if you have lack of vitamin D then you cant
absorb as much calcium, which leads to a weak bone structure and, for women, a
weak birth canal. Therefore the women with the vitamin deficiency would die at
childbirth.
I was beggining to wonder if anyone read this....
Well to counter your arguments.....
Plate tectonics only account for approximately 6 to 8 thousand years of drift.
If we did indeed evolve upon a pangeanic continent as science contends, then the
west coast of the US should have passed Europe several times by now....he shoots
he scores.
I am not an expert in this area. It may be that
volcanoes are part of the answer. It may be that your source for the amount of
erosion has been exaggerated. I am not qualified to answer, but that doesn't
mean there isn't an answer.
Quote by drmechoyBy your own admission
Piltdown man was built up from unaccociated bones yet it still appears on the
current chart as a real entity...denial? or simply
arrogance?
Piltdown man was discovered in 1908. It was
exposed as a fraud in 1953. For a long time it was considered a real fossil,
until the scientific testing of fossils was improved and it was discovered to be
a fraud. Charts and books before 1954 will show it to be real. New books and
charts now explicitly list it as a hoax.
Quote by drmechoyIf you look at shoe
rubber it IS composed of organic matereial known as petroleum...but that wasnt
the point, I should have clarified. Carbon dating has had difficulty accurately
showing the age of ANY material it analyzes. In fact it was recently tested on a
sample from a LIVING abalone's shell. It determined the abalone was some 4300
years old...the thing had been raised in the Monteret bay
aquarium.
Carbon Dating is based on something called a
half-life. Half of the carbon-14 degrades every 5,730 years as indicated by its
half-life. By measuring the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and
comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the
age of the fossil. This is not a perfect dating system but it is good for
getting an approximate age of fossils under 50,000 years old. Other dating
methods are used for older fossils.
Quote by drmechoyThe moon dust
measurement was based on an assessment by NASA just prior to the first moon
landing. In fact the orriginal lander was built with an 8' long strut extending
from each landing gear in anticipation of this...they were removed prior to
launch when it was found they didnt fit in the rockets loading
bay.
So NASA guessed wrong. They had never been to the moon
and were making estimates. Just because there wasn't as much dust as expected
doesn't mean the age of the moon has changed.
Quote by drmechoyAs for whether or not
Evoloution is fact or fiction, I already said I dont really care. But I do care
about being told the facts, and right now, the pro-evoloution community seems
more concerned with proving the non-existence of God...(good luck)...than in
generating any real facts.
There are a fair number of
Christian scientists who think evolution is proven. They just don't believe in a
literal interpretation of Genisis. Here is a site giving some of the evidence
for evolution:
Quote by drmechoyA little carefull
observation will tell you all you need to see. The Earth we now live in is not
the first one. For all I know it is one of several ages. The earth is indeed
very old, but what we see now is only about 6 to 8 thousand years. The Bible,
whether you accept it or not, is quite specific about the fall of the nations
BEFORE Adam and Eve's time. Where do you think all our myths and legends came
from people?
And while we're on the subject of the Bible...it might interest you to know that
it is not the only account of Noahs Ark...practicaly every ancient culture has a
story of its existence right down to where it came to rest...even the
Polinesians, the Aztecs, the Maori, the Aborigines, and many other cultures not
traditionaly associated with biblical events.
This, of
course, contradicts a large number of scientific discoveries. There is no layer
of sediment that one would expect from a world wide flood. Did you ever think
that maybe the writers of the Bible knew of a similar myth and added the story
in with a few adjustments?
Quote by drmechoyDiscount Faith and
belief in God and the Bible all you like, call it the realm of the naieve if it
gives you comfort. But you only feel the way you do because satan fears what you
may become if you ever realize your full potential. But I suppose the right to
choose includes the right to choose the losing side.
I am
sorry you feel that way. It is your choice as it is mine. I choose to believe
the truth rather than believe a story that gives false hope. You choose God.
Both of us believe we are making the right decision.
Quote by ender85 I choose to believe the
truth rather than believe a story that gives false
hope.
The truth... how can you know that evolution like the Neo-Darwinism describes is
the truth?
Darwin stated "survival of the fittest" but did not knew about DNA, he
did not knew how the changes in DNA came to be.
Neo Darwinism says that changes in DNA come by pure chance.
Combine survival if the fittest and pure chance and I ask this:
The eye is a very complex organ, every part has a vital function. The eye is too
complex to be created in one turn by DNA changes. Therefore the eye must be
develloped in several stages, making the first eyes useless for the animal.
Survival of the fittest states that the animals best adapted to their
environment will have the most chance of survival and offspring.
But isnt an undevelloped eye a disadvantage for the animal. According to Darwin
the eye vanish again.
Quote by ender85
I choose to believe the truth rather than believe a story that gives false
hope.
The truth... how can you know that evolution like the Neo-Darwinism describes is
the truth?
Darwin stated "survival of the fittest" but did not knew about DNA, he
did not knew how the changes in DNA came to be.
Neo Darwinism says that changes in DNA come by pure chance.
Combine survival if the fittest and pure chance and I ask this:
The eye is a very complex organ, every part has a vital function. The eye is too
complex to be created in one turn by DNA changes. Therefore the eye must be
develloped in several stages, making the first eyes useless for the animal.
Survival of the fittest states that the animals best adapted to their
environment will have the most chance of survival and offspring.
But isnt an undevelloped eye a disadvantage for the animal. According to Darwin
the eye vanish again.
"When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point
to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed
through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have
created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so
forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision
possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for
his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come
up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive
pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to
form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary
history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints.
Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath
it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the
evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an
"intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other
omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a
botched design.
Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in
living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may
have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple
light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny
survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then
created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made
"vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening
gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole
camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.
Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells
and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front
of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue
containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the
human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in
existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex
light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex
eyes like ours could evolve. 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. "
Interesting discussion. My standpoint in this is that you can't prove if god
exists or not. From that point I can say that i believes in what can be proven,
have been proven and if nothing can be proven, the thing that is most
likely.
I believe in the evolutionism, I can't find anything that can speak against it
in any way. The only thing that have made me any less confident in this is the
speak of "believe in what I say or you go to hell". But that doesn't
prove anything.
Quote: Plate tectonics only
account for approximately 6 to 8 thousand years of drift. If we did indeed
evolve upon a pangeanic continent as science contends, then the west coast of
the US should have passed Europe several times by now....he shoots he
scores.
Inside the earth big powers are moving the plates. But as they move they hit
each other, causing earthquakes and other natural disasters. But the forces
aren't big enough to press one plate under another. They can break down the
edges though and push a litte part under, but that process is very slow.
The universe is complex. There must be someone who made it.
That is all.
Also, evolution and the beginning of the universe are two separate theories.
Evolution is a theory that states animals evolve into other animals. It does not
and can not explain how the universe began. That is a separate theory.
i think not someone who made it, but something, like a spark of fire, this spark
of fire is not sentient, but it makes it big, again by chance
so i have my theories that this is the correct thinking
all right, i think this has became a heated argument so i will take a step back
and say that god does exist, but i don't want to and dont have to beleive unless
i have to and absolutely need to
I am a Christian, but I believe in both of these theories. I would say that God
created this universe with the Big Bang. God also created life on Earth and
probably other planets. Then, evolution took over and brought us to where we are
today.
"In our search for the facts, we sometimes miss out on the truth"
Evolution has been proven to be a fact today because one can analyze and
demonstrate it working in real-time in nature... the entire debate is about the
origin of life.
However, does this actually disprove creationism? NO! Creationism is outside the
realm of science! Do science flaws prove creationism? again, NO!
"What we know today hinders us from nowing what we do not know yet"
Quote by drmechoy7.If we evolved from
monkeys and apes...why do we still have monkeys and apes?
The thing is, we didn't evolve from the monkeys or apes, we evolved parallel
with them. We all came from the same ancestor (who were NOT the monkeys we see
today), but as the monkeys "chose" one direction, we went another.
Imagine a family tree.
kori's idea seems logical, i guess it is true....
if you look at it from a viewpoint of what we veiw as neutral....
here is what you get, the monkeys took a different route, we are one kind and
they the other.
the first human monkeys may have chosen to stand for the first time on two feet
and so we walked, allowing us the sudden chance of understanding and using our
hands better. hence the humans came along.
however, it is the other extreme that monkeys didn't do that and remain what
they are. only few animals in history is recorded to take changes just as humans
chose to stand up for the first time.
the idea is that the same for whales, dolphins, birds, first amphibians,
snakes.
think of it this way:
whales are originally land animals, mammals who breath air and went to the sea
where they found better refuge perhaps due to their body size. a harmony of
existence where they feed on the most abundant lifeforms for food.
Dolphins were also mammals and then moved to sea, the only thing is that they
still take meat by the pieces for food.
then birds, who are perhaps the most unique since it is a part of the cold
blooded lizard and snake family, they flew to the skies perhaps on the edge of
scarce food source, in which they choose the path to fly and try to scavange
better places for food. or to hunt more efficiently much like how we decided to
stand so we could use our hands to pick fruits and harvest and hunt. it is
perhaps the closest to us.
then there is the early amphibians, fish that chose to come out of the family
tree and moved to land. and evolving into land animals that may be one of those
that are us.
the snakes, mostly scaly animals that are coldblooded lose their feet, compare
this to the lizards that still have their feet. then compare to why americans
were originally english then why does the english still exist today when there
are americans, because there is a different route taken
hey.... i thought that this thread is close already (and you create it again....
you remind me of a friend of mine... ha hah...)
anyway... i do believe in both of them. why not? god is exist. so i believe He
could create such things like that... maybe what God create was our great great
great father and mother (what did it call? homo sapiens...? nah... that's us...
anyaway... it doesn't matter). and then they're evoluted.
but i do believe in charles darwin theory. well... you can't answer a biology
test which asking "show the evolution of human!" by saying "oh..
no! god creates them. they don't evolution." something like that. or you
answer "Humans don't come out at a sudden! They evoluted!" and
blabbering about Darwin's theory at the religion subject. beat me... i won't
confuse if you get bad mark for it. anyway... i think we should believe both of
them and use the right theory at the right time. that's my answer ^^
niether theory makes sense without the other so I say they bolth are true.
Evolurion does'nt explain how we came to be and creationism does'nt explain how
we got where we are and logically they bolth fill in each other gaps so in
essence there bolth correct.
Here's what it boils down to. If you believe in Creationism, you have to
ultimately believe that there is a Supreme Being that created us, and that we
are ultimately accountable to him. That's a scary concept, isn't it? Being held
responsible for all your actions by an omnipotent entity?
On the other hand, if you believe in Evolution, then you believe that the thing
we call Life is ultimately the by-product of an chemical accident in a
primordial ooze some millenia ago. That there is nothing special about you or
me, that we are simply a combination of protiens that became sentient. There is
ultimately no accountability, no responsibility, and no ultimate force for
righteousness in the universe. In short, that our existences are ulitmately
meaningless, because we will all be dead and the universe will go cold one day.
Personally, I don't think we have all the facts for either theory, but I do
believe in God, and I believe that he made us to change. To grow. To become more
than we are now.
Well, if I were to say that it took me days to build a boat, could one assume that it took years? HELL NO! I mean what I say. The bible says six days so I'm gonna say it took six days. It means what it says. The bible isn't full of metaphors.
I agree, it reminds me of those Nostrodamus fans, 'interpreting' his writings on events that have already occured, because his writings were 'metaphorical'.
I personally believe in evolution, and while I do not condemn creationism, I do not believe that it is appropriate for it to be taught in science. The reason being that, there is a signifigant lack of evidence, and many arguements cited by proponents cannot be reproduced (ala' the scientific method). Believe what you will, honestly... just keep it away from science classes.
I am an athiest, and I don't believe in Creationism. The list of things you have said here all have serious flaws.
The truth is, no one knows what the odds are of life coming into being given the environmental conditions of early earth. We suspect it to be a very rare event, but because we have nothing to compare it to, we have no point of reference to make a guess about the rarity of life. The only planet like ours we can accurately observe at this point is mars and, ironically, it also shows signs that some life once existed on the surface. Bottom line, we just don't know the odds of life forming and it is wrong to arbitrarily decide how likely it is.
Our planet is constantly reshaping itself. Look up "plate tectonics" on Google.
It does not matter what Charles Darwin thinks. He is the first person to put the arguments for evolution in a logical form and the creator of the theory of natural selection. He had serious problems with his theory when he created it. For instance, he did not know how traits were passed from parent to child. We have since learned of DNA and filled the gaps in his theory. He lacked the knowledge to prove his theory was true.
I do not know. I would have to know the source of the argument you provide and understand the scientific reasoning behind it, nether of which I can do.
Carbon dating can only be used on organic material. It would, of course, give very weird results on processed material or other objects.
6. There was one evolution fraud, the Piltdown man. It was discovered through scientific testing that the bones in the find came from different time periods and were not old enough to be pre-human. The skull came from a 600 year old human; the jaw came from an equally old ape. I say this to show that in contrast, the thousands of other humanoid fossils have passed scientific testing and are considered genuine. As for the second part, scintists disagree about the exact dates and the exact path of human evolution. If you looked at several different viewpoints, you could find controdictions but they are just different opinions, not errors in the theory.
If Americans came from England, why do we still have Englishmen?
Evoultion has a huge amount of evidence that can not be easily dismissed by the well informed. If a disturbing theory like the theory of evolution could be written off by one or two "facts" like this, it would have died long ago. It has so much evidence to support it that I believe it is inevitable that the church must one day accept it as they have accepted Galileo's heliocentric (Sun-centered) model of the solar system.
so very true. thanks for backing it up....you must be a science bud!
i agree with you on the last part, you wanna deny evolution is not possible, because it has evidence, whatever they believe in, God is simply that thing that has happened and not happened.
Obviously if simple facts that they tested themselves upon their theories, the theory is wrong and that is why they deny evolution because they tested on all the wrong things.
from the way they do, it shows as well as they deny science as well, which means they are hypocrites, considering they are also living in the modern era which was built from science. so where is the logic or reasoning...?
I believe in Creationism! Well from an atheist point of view... Charles Darwin admitted himself a major flaw in the theory of evolution was the evolution of the eye. It seemed impossible even to him that such a complex and intricate structure could have arised.. So yeah. I guess..
But really, it's anyone's guess.
You guys mis the point I try to make completely. I am not telling creationism is true, I am telling it is not impossible for it to be true, that you can also look at it it from an other point of view.
And also, the story of the bible is creationism, but creationism does not have to be the story of the bible.
I was beggining to wonder if anyone read this....
Well to counter your arguments.....
Plate tectonics only account for approximately 6 to 8 thousand years of drift. If we did indeed evolve upon a pangeanic continent as science contends, then the west coast of the US should have passed Europe several times by now....he shoots he scores.
By your own admission Piltdown man was built up from unaccociated bones yet it still appears on the current chart as a real entity...denial? or simply arrogance?
If you look at shoe rubber it IS composed of organic matereial known as petroleum...but that wasnt the point, I should have clarified. Carbon dating has had difficulty accurately showing the age of ANY material it analyzes. In fact it was recently tested on a sample from a LIVING abalone's shell. It determined the abalone was some 4300 years old...the thing had been raised in the Monteret bay aquarium.
The moon dust measurement was based on an assessment by NASA just prior to the first moon landing. In fact the orriginal lander was built with an 8' long strut extending from each landing gear in anticipation of this...they were removed prior to launch when it was found they didnt fit in the rockets loading bay.
As for whether or not Evoloution is fact or fiction, I already said I dont really care. But I do care about being told the facts, and right now, the pro-evoloution community seems more concerned with proving the non-existence of God...(good luck)...than in generating any real facts.
A little carefull observation will tell you all you need to see. The Earth we now live in is not the first one. For all I know it is one of several ages. The earth is indeed very old, but what we see now is only about 6 to 8 thousand years. The Bible, whether you accept it or not, is quite specific about the fall of the nations BEFORE Adam and Eve's time. Where do you think all our myths and legends came from people?
And while we're on the subject of the Bible...it might interest you to know that it is not the only account of Noahs Ark...practicaly every ancient culture has a story of its existence right down to where it came to rest...even the Polinesians, the Aztecs, the Maori, the Aborigines, and many other cultures not traditionaly associated with biblical events.
Discount Faith and belief in God and the Bible all you like, call it the realm of the naieve if it gives you comfort. But you only feel the way you do because satan fears what you may become if you ever realize your full potential. But I suppose the right to choose includes the right to choose the losing side.
ah yes im back with some more 'evidence'...maybe.
Ok...if anyone knows the Krebbs cycle, there are tons of steps, i forgot how many ATP's each step consumes but if i remember correctly the Krebbs cycle consumes about 5000 ATPs and only produces 2...that seems a bit strange because where would the original 5000 ATPs originate from.
And to answer about the changing skin color...it takes thousands of years for that to actually take place. The reason skin color changes is, yes, from exposure to sunlight. The people with lighter skin (Europeans) get less direct sunlight than the people who have darker skin (Africans). The color of your skin affects how much calcium you can absorb. If you have dark skin, then you can absorb more calcium than if you have light skin, this is because sunlight breaks down...i think it was vitamin D...I'll get back to you on that. But anyways, vitamin D is what you need to absorb calcium for better skeletal structure. Nowadays we have vitamin D enriched food so we no longer have to worry so much about vitamin D deficiency. Ok, if you have lack of vitamin D then you cant absorb as much calcium, which leads to a weak bone structure and, for women, a weak birth canal. Therefore the women with the vitamin deficiency would die at childbirth.
i believe God created Evolution
I am not an expert in this area. It may be that volcanoes are part of the answer. It may be that your source for the amount of erosion has been exaggerated. I am not qualified to answer, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer.
Piltdown man was discovered in 1908. It was exposed as a fraud in 1953. For a long time it was considered a real fossil, until the scientific testing of fossils was improved and it was discovered to be a fraud. Charts and books before 1954 will show it to be real. New books and charts now explicitly list it as a hoax.
Carbon Dating is based on something called a half-life. Half of the carbon-14 degrades every 5,730 years as indicated by its half-life. By measuring the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of the fossil. This is not a perfect dating system but it is good for getting an approximate age of fossils under 50,000 years old. Other dating methods are used for older fossils.
So NASA guessed wrong. They had never been to the moon and were making estimates. Just because there wasn't as much dust as expected doesn't mean the age of the moon has changed.
There are a fair number of Christian scientists who think evolution is proven. They just don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genisis. Here is a site giving some of the evidence for evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
This, of course, contradicts a large number of scientific discoveries. There is no layer of sediment that one would expect from a world wide flood. Did you ever think that maybe the writers of the Bible knew of a similar myth and added the story in with a few adjustments?
I am sorry you feel that way. It is your choice as it is mine. I choose to believe the truth rather than believe a story that gives false hope. You choose God. Both of us believe we are making the right decision.
The truth... how can you know that evolution like the Neo-Darwinism describes is the truth?
Darwin stated "survival of the fittest" but did not knew about DNA, he did not knew how the changes in DNA came to be.
Neo Darwinism says that changes in DNA come by pure chance.
Combine survival if the fittest and pure chance and I ask this:
The eye is a very complex organ, every part has a vital function. The eye is too complex to be created in one turn by DNA changes. Therefore the eye must be develloped in several stages, making the first eyes useless for the animal.
Survival of the fittest states that the animals best adapted to their environment will have the most chance of survival and offspring.
But isnt an undevelloped eye a disadvantage for the animal. According to Darwin the eye vanish again.
This passage is taken from this source:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Evolution of the Eye:
"When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. 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. "
Interesting discussion. My standpoint in this is that you can't prove if god exists or not. From that point I can say that i believes in what can be proven, have been proven and if nothing can be proven, the thing that is most likely.
I believe in the evolutionism, I can't find anything that can speak against it in any way. The only thing that have made me any less confident in this is the speak of "believe in what I say or you go to hell". But that doesn't prove anything.
Inside the earth big powers are moving the plates. But as they move they hit each other, causing earthquakes and other natural disasters. But the forces aren't big enough to press one plate under another. They can break down the edges though and push a litte part under, but that process is very slow.
The proof for creationism is as follows:
The universe is complex. There must be someone who made it.
That is all.
Also, evolution and the beginning of the universe are two separate theories. Evolution is a theory that states animals evolve into other animals. It does not and can not explain how the universe began. That is a separate theory.
i think not someone who made it, but something, like a spark of fire, this spark of fire is not sentient, but it makes it big, again by chance
so i have my theories that this is the correct thinking
all right, i think this has became a heated argument so i will take a step back and say that god does exist, but i don't want to and dont have to beleive unless i have to and absolutely need to
I'm not even convinced that petroleum really comes from dead things, much less evolution.
I am a Christian, but I believe in both of these theories. I would say that God created this universe with the Big Bang. God also created life on Earth and probably other planets. Then, evolution took over and brought us to where we are today.
"In our search for the facts, we sometimes miss out on the truth"
Evolution has been proven to be a fact today because one can analyze and demonstrate it working in real-time in nature... the entire debate is about the origin of life.
However, does this actually disprove creationism? NO! Creationism is outside the realm of science! Do science flaws prove creationism? again, NO!
"What we know today hinders us from nowing what we do not know yet"
The thing is, we didn't evolve from the monkeys or apes, we evolved parallel with them. We all came from the same ancestor (who were NOT the monkeys we see today), but as the monkeys "chose" one direction, we went another. Imagine a family tree.
i believe in evolution, for some reason i just can't get the whole creationism thing
it's just my personal belief though.
kori's idea seems logical, i guess it is true....
if you look at it from a viewpoint of what we veiw as neutral....
here is what you get, the monkeys took a different route, we are one kind and they the other.
the first human monkeys may have chosen to stand for the first time on two feet and so we walked, allowing us the sudden chance of understanding and using our hands better. hence the humans came along.
however, it is the other extreme that monkeys didn't do that and remain what they are. only few animals in history is recorded to take changes just as humans chose to stand up for the first time.
the idea is that the same for whales, dolphins, birds, first amphibians, snakes.
think of it this way:
whales are originally land animals, mammals who breath air and went to the sea where they found better refuge perhaps due to their body size. a harmony of existence where they feed on the most abundant lifeforms for food.
Dolphins were also mammals and then moved to sea, the only thing is that they still take meat by the pieces for food.
then birds, who are perhaps the most unique since it is a part of the cold blooded lizard and snake family, they flew to the skies perhaps on the edge of scarce food source, in which they choose the path to fly and try to scavange better places for food. or to hunt more efficiently much like how we decided to stand so we could use our hands to pick fruits and harvest and hunt. it is perhaps the closest to us.
then there is the early amphibians, fish that chose to come out of the family tree and moved to land. and evolving into land animals that may be one of those that are us.
the snakes, mostly scaly animals that are coldblooded lose their feet, compare this to the lizards that still have their feet. then compare to why americans were originally english then why does the english still exist today when there are americans, because there is a different route taken
hey.... i thought that this thread is close already (and you create it again.... you remind me of a friend of mine... ha hah...)
anyway... i do believe in both of them. why not? god is exist. so i believe He could create such things like that... maybe what God create was our great great great father and mother (what did it call? homo sapiens...? nah... that's us... anyaway... it doesn't matter). and then they're evoluted.
but i do believe in charles darwin theory. well... you can't answer a biology test which asking "show the evolution of human!" by saying "oh.. no! god creates them. they don't evolution." something like that. or you answer "Humans don't come out at a sudden! They evoluted!" and blabbering about Darwin's theory at the religion subject. beat me... i won't confuse if you get bad mark for it. anyway... i think we should believe both of them and use the right theory at the right time. that's my answer ^^
niether theory makes sense without the other so I say they bolth are true. Evolurion does'nt explain how we came to be and creationism does'nt explain how we got where we are and logically they bolth fill in each other gaps so in essence there bolth correct.
Here's what it boils down to. If you believe in Creationism, you have to ultimately believe that there is a Supreme Being that created us, and that we are ultimately accountable to him. That's a scary concept, isn't it? Being held responsible for all your actions by an omnipotent entity?
On the other hand, if you believe in Evolution, then you believe that the thing we call Life is ultimately the by-product of an chemical accident in a primordial ooze some millenia ago. That there is nothing special about you or me, that we are simply a combination of protiens that became sentient. There is ultimately no accountability, no responsibility, and no ultimate force for righteousness in the universe. In short, that our existences are ulitmately meaningless, because we will all be dead and the universe will go cold one day.
Personally, I don't think we have all the facts for either theory, but I do believe in God, and I believe that he made us to change. To grow. To become more than we are now.