Jump to content

Home

The History of the Universe


Master_Keralys
 Share

Do you believe evolution or intelligent design occured?  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe evolution or intelligent design occured?

    • Evolution
      26
    • Intelligent design
      19
    • Don't have a clue
      2


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by C'jais

I never said that. I said we have a common ancestor, which is what evolution teaches.

 

~I was refering to your answer, where you said

"'If man descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

We've already answered this dung, and I'm not going to repeat myself more than necessary."

 

 

Errrr...... just because a species is older than another, it's impossible for it to have survived to this day? Right.

 

 

Our ape ancestor. The ape ancestor's descendants. I can't see where I've used this word incorrectly.

I was refering to the last paragraph in this post on "If there are humans, why are there still monkeys" --

"Why are there still monkies...."

 

I thought this was obvious to pick up:

The so called "monkies" that we evolved from needed to evolve to survive to their surrondings. We can all agree that every monkey in the world does not exist in one exact location. Lets say the monkies from Africa needed to evolve so that they could use their hands for more purposes (using tools, throwing rocks, etc, etc). While this is going on, the monkies in the rainforest are having a swell ole time living in the trees, they have no need to evolve.

 

Basic Summary: You need evolution if you want your ancestors to survive. If one subject of a species evolves it does not mean that every subject of that specie will evolve as well.

 

 

Another switch of examples and beating the same drum. I've answered this before.

Not sure what you mean...

 

 

I'm sorry, this paragraph didn't make any sense to me at all. What are you trying to get across? That evolution happens?

I was trying to get across the fact that animals don't evolve because they want to, I was refuting a point made in the "monkeys" post (see above) where it said African monkeys "needed" to evolve to use their hands.

 

"Mice and humans are so very different, how could they possibly be related?"

 

Are you done with your God-gapping yet?

Well right here you're saying that we're all related, and I believe that's my point, that we're not, so the reason mice and men aren't alike is they aren't related...I'm saying that even the cell structure of plants is so different, how can they come from an animal decendant?

 

DNA analysis, field research, observation of mutation and species differentation, the fossil record and simple logic.

Well, I guess that's what the debate is all about, huh?I kinda wanted more specifics though.

 

Right. Of course I do. I haven't written half of all my posts in these debates to get this crap thrown at me.

 

But since you're directly asking for a thorough link, here's one: http://www.talkorigins.org (very neat site, Skin btw.)

 

The site appears down for me right now. Weirdness -C'jais

Well, don't worry, I wasn't "throwing crap" at you, I was being sarcastic, the fact is you usually have huge, long posts, and I was saying that it would be ok to have a site instead of a huge post.But don't worry, I wasn't attacking you and no offence was meant by this statement.

 

Since I wrote this "several times", it should be a small feat to just quote me on this. I'd like to see it in context, at any rate.

How about-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

The problem wasn't necessarily the fruit, but that God said "Don't eat it." At which point she got her husband to do the same thing. At which point all of nature became corrupted and flawed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Where does it say exactly this?

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Psydan

~I was refering to your answer, where you said

"'If man descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

We've already answered this dung, and I'm not going to repeat myself more than necessary."

 

Ok. And this means I was wrong - how?

 

I still can't see it.

 

Not sure what you mean...

 

It's the analogy as the "If man descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" - If some monkeys are more advanced than others, how come the less advanced ones aren't extinct?

 

See the pattern?

 

I was trying to get across the fact that animals don't evolve because they want to,

 

No. They evolve due to selection pressure.

 

 

I'm saying that even the cell structure of plants is so different, how can they come from an animal decendant?

 

Are single celled organisms plants or animals?

 

The cell structure is very similar, BTW.

 

Well, I guess that's what the debate is all about, huh?I kinda wanted more specifics though.

 

With dating methods, we've discovered that there once existed species of life before Man came into being. This alone should be enough to disprove creationism in the Biblical sense.

 

DNA tests have conveniently proven the predictions of connections between the species, as foreseen by even Darwin.

 

We've observed evolution happening.

 

More observations.

 

Well, don't worry, I wasn't "throwing crap" at you, I was being sarcastic, the fact is you usually have huge, long posts, and I was saying that it would be ok to have a site instead of a huge post.But don't worry, I wasn't attacking you and no offence was meant by this statement.

 

Then do me a favor and start reading the sites I give to you.

 

How about-

 

Let's just say you're probably right about the Bible here, as I don't care to dig this up one more time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

What's your point? In Genesis it says that God created plants and all animals before man.

 

But 3 billion years before man?

 

At any rate, dating methods show that there have been new species "born" and extinct over the millions of years. For all of these species to have existed at the same time defies logic and simple space, which means they must have gradually evolved into new, other species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by C'jais

But 3 billion years before man?

 

At any rate, dating methods show that there have been new species "born" and extinct over the millions of years. For all of these species to have existed at the same time defies logic and simple space, which means they must have gradually evolved into new, other species.

 

I thought there was a whole page on whether the days in Genesis were actually 24 hours or millions of years. :D

 

Edit: Can anyone see my img sig? Cause the website that is hosting it is down for repairs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We have an appendix due to evolution. If you ask any intelligent person, they'll tell you that it is used to digest vegetation. The kind like grass. Maybe cavemen had a little grass in their diet. So evolution, to me, is there. I understand it. I understand that Darwinism affects alll living things.

 

But why would it just do this?

 

Everything has a cause and effect. We don't eat heavy diets of vegetation anymore. Effect = appendix explodes due to no use. But what controls that? What causes the cause? What justifies the effect coming out the way it does? WHO built us so that we could adapt on our own? In short, I believe in Evolution, but the foundation of Creationism at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan

We have an appendix due to evolution. If you ask any intelligent person, they'll tell you that it is used to digest vegetation. The kind like grass. Maybe cavemen had a little grass in their diet.

 

Well... one of the first things they teach you at a survival school is that (generally) all grasses are edible. The appendix found in other mammals appears to aid in digestion of cellulose, found in plants. But in humans, the appendix doesn't seem involved in this process. In fact, cellulose is often difficult to digest (inspect your own waste prior to flushing after eating a leafy green salad... you'll see the cellulose remains ;) )

 

Scientists do believe, however, that the appendix has evolved to help the lymphatic system, which is part of the immune system.

 

There is much within humans that suggests evolution is at work, however. Look at the sickle cell anemia / malaria example, for instance. Sure, sickle cell is a disease that is hereditary with those of West African descent, but it also prevents those who carry the trait from obtaining malaria. Malaria is very common in West Africa. What happened was that those humans who had the sickle cell trait survived longer than those without. The trait was therefore passed on as the decendants of those who continued to get malaria slowly died off. Natural selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm going to cover a lot of Redwings with very few words here, so I might skip over some of the finer detail in the arguements that I'll try to refute.

 

But, on a basic level, this last page seems to consist of the question of 'how can things mutate'. Well, we can take the current war on Iraq as an example:

 

With 450k soldiers down there, some friendly fire is expected.

 

This, I am sure that we can agree, is not something that is in any way planned. Similiarily, with [insert horrendous number here] organisms, even the most simple DNA processing will come up with some unexpected occurences. A horrid percentage of these will end up as unsurvivable mutants. But a teeny, weeny percentage of those mutants will be able to survive. Just make the numbers high enough, and it will happen. From that point on, have your slice of cake.

 

But the numbers have to be ridiculously high, I hear you argue.

 

True. But remember that nature has all the time in the world (well, 3.5 billion years, at any rate), and that nature doesn't care a jiffy whether ten thousand billions of organisms die in the process.

 

BTW, Skin: I see that you have nicked my example...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

BTW, Skin: I see that you have nicked my example...

 

Are you really going to make me go back through all these posts in all these evolution threads to find it... or will you just tell me what the example was? :p

 

Can't be the malaria thing... I used that one way back in the "reasoned debate" thread in November. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy it has been a long time.

 

Ah hem... I hope you guys know that top evolutionist no longer believe that mutations is how evolution happen. I found this...

 

"Chicago Evolution Conference (1980). While the newspapers, popular magazines, and school textbooks emblazoned evolutionary theory as being essentially proven scientifically in so many ways, the evolutionary scientists were discouraged. They knew the truth. The Switzerland, Wistar, and Alpbach meetings had clearly shown them theirs was a losing cause. However, in yet another futile effort, in October 1980, 160 of the world’s leading evolutionary scientists met again, this time at the University of Chicago. In brief, it was a verbal explosion. Facts opposing evolution were presented, and angry retorts and insults were hurled in return. The following month, *Newsweek (November 3, 1980) reported that a large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism (of mutations working with natural selection) could no longer be regarded as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory (*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980; *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery, 1983, p. 55)."

 

And you want to fight with radio active rocks?

 

"Radioactive Halos Disprove Molten Earth Theory (1986). Robert V. Gentry carried on research into radiohalos in granite for years, but was discharged from Oak Ridge Research Laboratory in 1982 because he testified in defense of Arkansas State at the above-mentioned trial. He then put his years of research findings and professional articles into a book (Creation’s Tiny Mystery, 1986). In brief, billions upon billions of polonium 218 radiohalos are in granite, yet each halo was formed in less than 3 minutes. There is no way the halos could get in there after the granite was formed, yet the granite had to be solid when the halos formed. This means the granite was created solid in less than three minutes! Since granite is the basement rock under every continent, it would be impossible for the earth to once have been a molten mass as conjectured by the evolutionists. Interestingly enough, granite can be melted; but it will reform into rhyolite, never into granite. "

 

Source

http://www.evolution-facts.org/

 

 

I also saw somewhere a professer's reserch on half-lives which would suit this thread very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skin: You were right, as always... Me bad.

 

WhiteRaider: The people who wrote that website are total imbiciles. Evolution has nothing to do with the origen of life. Apart from this:

 

Just what is time? It is not some magical substance. Time is merely a lot of past moments just like the present moment.

 

This would be exactly enough to invalidate the site as rubbish. What they say is the same, old, tried-and-failed BS about the origin of life. The fault here is that they essentially say:

 

"Take time in infinitissimal steps. In each such step is the probability of a success infinitisimally small. Therefore it can be discounted, ie zero probability. Then put all those steps together. You still have zero probability, right?"

 

Wrong. Do you know anything about function analysis? Anyone with an even moderate skill in the field of Mathmatics will tell you that the above is bull****.

 

If the probability of a certain event occurring is only 1/1000 (one chance in a thousand), and we have sufficient time to repeat the attempts many times, the probability that it could happen would continue to remain only one in a thousand. This is because probabilities have no memory!

 

Hmmm... Somebody should go and inform the world's leading mathmaticians about this astonishing new discovery...

 

Let me explain this in a detail that the writers of that site could never even begin to comprehend:

 

If you roll 2d6 then the chance of getting a 6 is higher than if you roll 1d6, right? And if you roll a hundred thousand billion billion dice, then the chance of getting a single 6 gets pretty high. But the chance of getting a 6 on any single die remains the same: 1:6.

 

Correspondingly, the chance of life appearing over any given 1s period is infinitissimal. However, if you put all of these ifinitissimal chances together, you get a high probability. But the chance of life appearing over the course of 1s is still infinitissimal.

 

But *Wald goes further. He explains that if the event is attempted often enough,—the total probability of obtaining it would keep reducing! If it is tried a thousand times and does not even occur once, and then it is tried thousands of more times and never occurs,—then the chance of it occurring keeps reducing. If it is tried a million times—and still has not occurred,—then the possibility of it occurring has reduced to less than one chance in a million!

 

Ha, ha, ha. So if you roll 2d6 and get no sixes, then the chance of getting a 6 on the third d6 is only 1:36... LOL. Get used to doing your math right before you go public.

 

The point here is that time never works in favor of an event that cannot happen!

 

Hmmm. And they just stated that "This is because probabilities have no memory!" LOL. They should at least agree on which mathmatical rules that they use, because they are obviously not using the same as the rest of us.

 

"Life can be thought of as water kept at the right temperature in the right atmosphere in the right light for a long period of time."—*J.O. Bernal, quoted in *N.J. Bernal, You and the Universe (1958), p. 117.

 

But would the bastards have the common decency to quote him in context? Methinks not.

 

In short I don't know whether I should laugh my butt off over that page, or get a cracker to kill it. Probably both.

 

Oh, and WhiteRaider: Evolution is not losing adherents in the scientific community (pt 4).

 

"Radioactive Halos Disprove Molten Earth Theory (1986). Robert V. Gentry carried on research into radiohalos in granite for years, but was discharged from Oak Ridge Research Laboratory in 1982 because he testified in defense of Arkansas State at the above-mentioned trial. He then put his years of research findings and professional articles into a book (Creation’s Tiny Mystery, 1986). In brief, billions upon billions of polonium 218 radiohalos are in granite, yet each halo was formed in less than 3 minutes. There is no way the halos could get in there after the granite was formed, yet the granite had to be solid when the halos formed. This means the granite was created solid in less than three minutes! Since granite is the basement rock under every continent, it would be impossible for the earth to once have been a molten mass as conjectured by the evolutionists. Interestingly enough, granite can be melted; but it will reform into rhyolite, never into granite. "

 

Polonium being a product of other radioactive nuclei with longer half-lives, I'd say that there was a reason for his discharge...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

If you roll 2d6 then the chance of getting a 6 is higher than if you roll 1d6, right? And if you roll a hundred thousand billion billion dice, then the chance of getting a single 6 gets pretty high. But the chance of getting a 6 on any single die remains the same: 1:6.

 

Ha, ha, ha. So if you roll 2d6 and get no sixes, then the chance of getting a 6 on the third d6 is only 1:36... LOL.

 

Thanks for the laughs, Templar. :D

 

I'm quite amazed of the amount of BS that's floating around. I really wish that all these people finally came out and confessed: "Fooled you! I was only trolling! ...bygones."

 

But I doubt that'll ever happen. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay im a simple person so ill put it this way.... no one knows for sure how earth and humanity was created, no one really knows if theres a god, no one really knows if we had tails once... but everyone knows were here living... as no one knows if there is reincarnation, eternal darkness or heaven.... to live is to die, to die is to know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Crowy

okay im a simple person so ill put it this way.... no one knows for sure how earth and humanity was created, no one really knows if theres a god, no one really knows if we had tails once... but everyone knows were here living... as no one knows if there is reincarnation, eternal darkness or heaven....

So you're implying that the best course of action is to simply sit back and live in the present?

 

That it's pointless to draw conclusions about the creation of the earth, regardless of objective, completely neutral data?

 

I'll tell you something, if someone hadn't decided to do something about their curiousity and actually research whether we had tails once or not, you would not have the antibiotics available that you do today.

 

Don't take it the wrong way, you're actually very moderate (compared to certain others), and I find it sympathetic that you do not immediately start laying out the Bible's version of the truth as fact. Because it isn't. Never will be.

 

to live is to die, to die is to know...

 

"Perception is reality. Life as they say, is an illusion, and death is when you'll be waking up from your dream".

 

Not necessarily true, but gives someone something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, there is a very simple and important distinction between the evolution theory and the design theory.

 

The Evolution theory is not something that people created, it came from evidence that exists. In other words, the theory was created from the evidence at hand.

 

The Design theory is something that people created, it was created to explain something that people already believed.

 

So basically, the Creationists are looking for evidence for something they already believe to be FACT.

 

Scientists who believe in Evolution believe in it because the scientific evidence points to that explanation.

Creationists have a theory --> look for evidence

Evolutionists have evidence ---> look for theory

There's another fatal flaw inthe intelligent design argument...

1. The universe works like a watch

2. Only a mind could create a watch

3. The universe was created by a mind

 

...and that flaw is: the Universe does not work like clockwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Crowy

well yeah, no one really knows, but everyone has to wonder... life would be boring if we didnt think! (see what i mean by simple)

 

...of course, ignorance is bliss..

 

Think more, wonder and be scared of things you dont know or understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dekerd

Listen, there is a very simple and important distinction between the evolution theory and the design theory.

 

The Evolution theory is not something that people created, it came from evidence that exists. In other words, the theory was created from the evidence at hand.

 

The Design theory is something that people created, it was created to explain something that people already believed.

 

So basically, the Creationists are looking for evidence for something they already believe to be FACT.

 

Scientists who believe in Evolution believe in it because the scientific evidence points to that explanation.

Creationists have a theory --> look for evidence

Evolutionists have evidence ---> look for theory

There's another fatal flaw inthe intelligent design argument...

1. The universe works like a watch

2. Only a mind could create a watch

3. The universe was created by a mind

 

...and that flaw is: the Universe does not work like clockwork.

 

Another fatal flaw: the watch wasn't invented then.

 

Scientists really don't need to prove evolution created humans and everything, cause really what can you use it for? (other than use it against religious people)

 

The evolution theory is a MODEL, a model is used in science to predict stuff and cure stuff. That is what you need it for, and it works! knowing that diseases might become resistent to an antibiotic if used excessively, can save lifes! Accept that evolution happens now, that's what is important to realise. To hell with all that other stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pierre the Frog

Another fatal flaw: the watch wasn't invented then.

 

I don't follow...

 

Scientists really don't need to prove evolution created humans and everything, cause really what can you use it for? (other than use it against religious people)

 

The uses for Evolution studies are infinite. Science isn't about proving religion wrong, it's about FACT based on objective evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pierre the Frog

Scientists really don't need to prove evolution created humans and everything, cause really what can you use it for? (other than use it against religious people)

 

Use what for? Proving it?

 

I'm thinking that if you prove to people that it works, that it's true, that it has all the facts behind it, that it can produce life-saving medicine, I bet more people would jump the wagon and become scientists themselves.

 

Accept that evolution happens now, that's what is important to realise. To hell with all that other stuff!

 

What other stuff? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dekerd

So basically, the Creationists are looking for evidence for something they already believe to be FACT.

 

Yes. Keyword here is believe.

 

Scientists who believe in Evolution believe in it because the scientific evidence points to that explanation.

 

...Which makes believing in it redundant, but I see your point (:

 

Creationists have a theory --> look for evidence

Evolutionists have evidence ---> look for theory

 

There's another fatal flaw inthe intelligent design argument...

1. The universe works like a watch

2. Only a mind could create a watch

3. The universe was created by a mind

 

...and that flaw is: the Universe does not work like clockwork.

 

You could also just wipe that argument off the plate by saying that humans have a tendency to explain anything too complicated or immediately understood as the work of some higher being.

 

-"I don't know why there's change in winds and thunderstorms these days. Must be God."

 

-"I don't know what created humans or the universe. Must be God."

 

That way, you never need to search for any other explanation. The answer, of course, is right there already.

 

And by the way - welcome to these here forums!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by C'jais

Use what for? Proving it?

 

I'm thinking that if you prove to people that it works, that it's true, that it has all the facts behind it, that it can produce life-saving medicine, I bet more people would jump the wagon and become scientists themselves.

You're not proving it wasn't designed to happen (though I don't believe it was)

 

It is used in many ways in medicine according to my aunt (whose one of the head nurses of the second largest hospital in Denmark)

 

I'll get back to you on the specifics when I get back from Italy

 

Originally posted by C'jais

What other stuff? :p

 

Bashing religious people in a futile attempt to make them accept your world view

 

Originally posted by dekerd

The uses for Evolution studies are infinite. Science isn't about proving religion wrong, it's about FACT based on objective evidence.

 

My point excactly, but there's a huge differens between accepting something as a model and accepting something as the truth. What I'm saying is accept evolution is happening now. What happened billions of years ago really wont help all that much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pierre the Frog

You're not proving it wasn't designed to happen (though I don't believe it was)

 

You're not making any sense Pierre.

 

What was designed to happen? Evolution? Us proving it?

 

Bashing religious people in a futile attempt to make them accept your world view

 

1) I'm not bashing. ST takes care of that (:

 

2) It's not futile in any way. Think what you want, but at least I got that hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...