The History of the Universe

[Master_Keralys]

Scientists keep debating the origin of the universe. They keep telling us that life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance. On the other hand, there are those who tell us that the universe was designed, and it doesn't necessarily matter who designed it; the point is that it was designed. So why is it that evolution, which is so flawed that its originator disavowed it at the end of his life, and many modern scientists accept only because it corresponds with their own worldview, is the only acceptable theory to teach in school?

[C'jais]

Evolution is a fact. Creationism (Intelligent design) isn't. You can't prove intelligent design in any way.

 

If you really don't believe in evolution, I'll have to send some new species of bacteria, evolved to be immune to most antibiotics, your way.

 

...And so it has begun anew. The immortal thread. It might perish for a while, but it shall always return again. Never is it truly dead.

[Taos]

I believe in evolution. It is a natural process and it makes the most sense IMO. With the design theory......I agree with you, it doesn't matter who made it, but.....

 

My question is how did this being, who was supposed to have created everything, come to be? I have never heard or seen a good answer to this question....

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Leemu Taos

My question is how did this being, who was supposed to have created everything, come to be? I have never heard or seen a good answer to this question....

 

Ummmmm...........one day God's mum and dad fell in love.......

[matt--]

I believe in Evolutionism with an inner core of Creationism. I can't accept an existance without beginning, there must have been something before it. (God in my belief system)

 

Evolution is a fact.

No it isn't, it's a well accepted scientific theory. Had it been a fact, it would be called Evolutionary Law.

[Reborn Outcast]

Oh no I've heard about these threads. Mace-Windu is right, evloution is not a fact just a well known accepted scientific theory. I belive in BOTH creationalism and evolution to an extent... God created all the birds and beasts on the earth, it says so in Genesis but it never proves that evolution didnt happen... so to a degree I believe in evolution but creationalism would definatly be where I stand right now.

[patchx]

Scientists keep debating the origin of the universe. They keep telling us that life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance.

 

no they dont

 

evolution doesn't rely on chance as common creationist propaganda would have you believe but on the enviromental conditions the organism evolving finds itself in

 

also evolution has nothing to do with big bang theory or the formation of the universe

 

it is possible to accept evolution and big bang theory and still believe in an intelligent designer behind it all

 

So why is it that evolution, which is so flawed that its originator disavowed it at the end of his life,

 

this is a myth, Darwin never recanted on his death bed, its a common yet completely erroneous fairy tale

 

and many modern scientists accept only because it corresponds with their own worldview, is the only acceptable theory to teach in school?

 

because it is a scientific theory capable of being disproven and based on reasonable deductions gathered from empirical evidence and open to critical analysis as opposed to creation science which is an attempt to gather evidence to support a preexisting traditional religous belief

 

evolution is a fact in that it is observable and obvious

 

there is also the Theory of Evolution

 

the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are two different things, the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain and predict the fact of evolution with science

 

-patch

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Scientists keep debating the origin of the universe. They keep telling us that life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance. On the other hand, there are those who tell us that the universe was designed, and it doesn't necessarily matter who designed it; the point is that it was designed. So why is it that evolution, which is so flawed that its originator disavowed it at the end of his life, and many modern scientists accept only because it corresponds with their own worldview, is the only acceptable theory to teach in school?

 

*cracks knuckles*

 

*ahem*

 

Firstly,Darwin did not say his theory was a lie. Infact,a preacher who was preaching at Downe(his place he lived where he died) who was christian said he said that. His daughter and mother both said that his last words were "I am not in the least afraid to die."

 

"Darwin was not an atheist. He described himself as an agnostic, and it is likely that he retained a belief in some kind of personal God, although not a diety who, like some master puppeteer, took a direct and continuously intervening role in the evolutionary process and in human affairs. Throughout his life Darwin maintained a sense of deep humility and a concern for his fellow man, fully aware of the limits of science. Darwin was deeply affected by the death of his older brother Erasmus ("Ras") in August 1881, and it is conjectured that his grief may have exacerbated the seriousness of his own poor health. In early 1882 he had several minor heart attacks. His condition worsened and on April 19, 1882, at 73 years of age, he died at Down House, after several hours of nausea, intense vomiting and retching, symptoms of a chronic illness that bedeviled him for the last 40 years of his life. At his bedside, and attending to his needs, were his wife Emma, his daughter Henrietta and his son Francis. A widespread rumor circulated -- facilitated by an evangelist by the name of Lady Hope who preached in Downe during the last years of Darwins life -- that on his deathbed Darwin renounced evolution and declared himself a Christian. This story, totally contradictory to the nature of the man himself, is a falsehood, denied by his daughter Henrietta and those who knew him best and who were actually at his bedside during his last weeks. Darwin's last words, spoken to his wife Emma, were in actuality, "I am not in the least afraid to die."

 

The link is http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html.

 

2. I've used the chance theory before. But after a while,it got too boggling. I knew that something had to created us all. Even if by mere chance. So I created my own personal god.

 

3. The reason why Evoultion is tought in schools,is because it's a theroy,you dont have to use it,and it has the most scientific proof of them all to credit it.(Can Christianity explain why there were Australiopithicus' and ect. to begin with? Or are all those fossils merely ways for him to test us?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Tyrion

*cracks knuckles*

 

*ahem*

 

Firstly,Darwin did not say his theory was a lie. Infact,a preacher who was preaching at Downe(his place he lived where he died) who was christian said he said that. His daughter and mother both said that his last words were "I am not in the least afraid to die."

 

"Darwin was not an atheist. He described himself as an agnostic, and it is likely that he retained a belief in some kind of personal God, although not a diety who, like some master puppeteer, took a direct and continuously intervening role in the evolutionary process and in human affairs. Throughout his life Darwin maintained a sense of deep humility and a concern for his fellow man, fully aware of the limits of science. Darwin was deeply affected by the death of his older brother Erasmus ("Ras") in August 1881, and it is conjectured that his grief may have exacerbated the seriousness of his own poor health. In early 1882 he had several minor heart attacks. His condition worsened and on April 19, 1882, at 73 years of age, he died at Down House, after several hours of nausea, intense vomiting and retching, symptoms of a chronic illness that bedeviled him for the last 40 years of his life. At his bedside, and attending to his needs, were his wife Emma, his daughter Henrietta and his son Francis. A widespread rumor circulated -- facilitated by an evangelist by the name of Lady Hope who preached in Downe during the last years of Darwins life -- that on his deathbed Darwin renounced evolution and declared himself a Christian. This story, totally contradictory to the nature of the man himself, is a falsehood, denied by his daughter Henrietta and those who knew him best and who were actually at his bedside during his last weeks. Darwin's last words, spoken to his wife Emma, were in actuality, "I am not in the least afraid to die."

 

The link is http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html.

 

2. I've used the chance theory before. But after a while,it got too boggling. I knew that something had to created us all. Even if by mere chance. So I created my own personal god.

 

3. The reason why Evoultion is tought in schools,is because it's a theroy,you dont have to use it,and it has the most scientific proof of them all to credit it.(Can Christianity explain why there were Australiopithicus' and ect. to begin with? Or are all those fossils merely ways for him to test us?

well said tyrion. i couldnt have said it any better. people need to stop listening to propoganda and check out stuff for themselves. why do people think somethings enemy is gonna teach about it truthfully (ie anti evolutionists teaching about evolution and what it says.) people need to use common sense.

[mercatfat]

Evolution is totally real. Another term for it is adaptation.

 

Scientists observing.. Goldfinches, I believe it was, watched the birds and how they changed from season to season to keep eating the nuts in area. Surviving birds' beaks changed from season to season and child to child as the composistion of the shell changed. I don't remember the exact details, but I remember that the beaks got more firm from the get-go in the offspring when the crop had a harder shell, and became sharper when the shell was more.. smooth, I think. I'd have to go look it up.

 

People that survive bubonic plague get a gene mutation that protects against AIDs, and if two people both have the mutation and reproduce, their Offspring will be immune. Immunity is a form of evolution. This circles back to bacteria, which evolve in a survival of the fittest manner.

 

The DNA in bacteria is what mutates and becomes more resistant. Why should only bacteria DNA evolve?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

I belive in BOTH creationalism and evolution to an extent... God created all the birds and beasts on the earth, it says so in Genesis but it never proves that evolution didnt happen...

 

That's because it'll be proof of the negative. It's nearly impossible to prove the non-existance of something. I can't prove there ísn't any god. I can, however, prove that evolution happens.

 

The difference between evolution as a fact, and evolution as a law is that the model of evolution is the one that goes back in time to explain that man and dinosaurs did not live side by side. The fact of evolution is that we can see with our own eyes that new species have evolved this very day. The model cannot be tested since we won't have a chance to go back in time and see if it holds true. The fact is indisputable, though. I dare you to prove otherwise.

 

What this debate always bogs down to is how it all started. Creationists generally accept that new species can evolve, but when we start to touch on their Genesis, they get all itchy. Sadly, they can never prove their theory. They're content with nitpicking evolution, even though it haven't been disproven so far. The conclusion always seems to be that God could have planted evidence against the Genesis to test our faith. He could have messed with test results and dating methods because he felt like it. That just doesn't work as an argument. The Genesis is just as much bullcrap as that Raelian theory which involve aliens seeding the earth with life. That's a slightly better theory, however, as we can disprove it once can see that life evolved from bacteria.

 

Meh.

[Master_Keralys]

While you are correct in pointing at that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, there is proof of a creator. There is a principle known as irreducible complexity. This means that all the parts in that system must be present for it to work. A perfect example is the eye. While the eye could theoretically be reduced to a light-sensitive "eyespot" of cells, it cannot be reduced further than that. The protein process which occurs for even a light-spot is incredibly correct, and if all the proteins are not correct and being selected in the correct order, then the eyespot doesn't work.

 

Even bacteria have irreducibly complex systems. As far as "newly evolved species" go, there are no such things. Some species of bactia have developed immunities to antibiotics, but this is in no way proof of evolution. This is adaptation, which is a result of natural selection. However, while microevolution is scientific fact, the opposite is true for macro-evolution(changing in species). Nowhere in the fossil record is there even one change from species to species. Furthermore, most of the so-called intermediary forms for humans are little more than jawbones or skull fragments. As well, it must be noted that even full skulls can be structured to appear the way hopeful archeologists want them to. A minor rearrangement of the bones gives you a normal human skull. The so-called proof of evolution, then, is not proof at all.

[-s/<itzo-]

Originally posted by Cjais

Evolution is a fact. Creationism (Intelligent design) isn't. You can't prove intelligent design in any way.

 

No, evolution is not a sure known fact thats why its called an "evolution theory".

 

 

and creationism is believing in faith.

 

 

so no one really no for sure which is the true answer to this question simply because no one lived in that era. but the evolution theory seem more logic than creationism.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

While you are correct in pointing at that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, there is proof of a creator. There is a principle known as irreducible complexity.

 

I asked for the proof of a creator, and you still have not given any. This is a vague attempt at undermining evolution, it is not proof of anything.

 

And no, you can always reduce the complexity in nature into more basic components. The eye consists of light sensitive cells. Cells are specialized - Whoa! News at ten. This isn't disproof of evolution, nor proof in any way whatsoever of creationism.

 

As far as "newly evolved species" go, there are no such things.

 

No such things? Tests have been run on genetically modified fruit flies which resulted in the modified ones being unable and unwilling to mate with normal ones. This is evolution. Do you have any idea how much time it takes for a single new species to emerge?

 

Consider dogs. Take the Chihuahua and the Grand Danois (big Dane ). One is the size of a rat, the other the size of a small horse. They're both dogs. Now, we're going to run some serious selective breeding on these two dog species. We pick the smallest Chihuahuas to breed with each other, and do the same to the GD's, except we pick the largest in this case. We'd continue to reduce the size of the Chihuahua to that of a rat, and we'd continue to enlargen the GD to that of a pony. It would take many, many decades for this selective breeding to reach these stages, but you cannot doubt that it could be done with persistance.

Now, take these two dogs, and place them in different environments. We'd place the Chihuahua in an underground environment, where it'd have to use it paws to dig through the earth, and we'd use the enlargened GD's as riding beasts for little children. The Grand Danois would need strong legs and some healthy paws for this, so we'd naturally pick the most suited for this role, breeding our way to tougher feet and stronger legs. Again, it can be done.

 

At this stage, clearly the two kinds of dogs are both unable and unwilling to reproduce with each other; if left on their own they'd only naturally pick dogs from their own race, since no other kind of dogs match them in size and shape anymore.

 

We now have two different species. They're no longer dogs after these centuries of selective breeding. We have a tiny mammal suited to borrow underground, and a big beast of burden suited to carry luggage and children. The DNA of these creatures have now changed so radically from a regular dog, and since they're both unable and unwilling to mate with normal dogs anymore, we can safely label them a new species. But where is the missing link? We now have rodent like tunnelers, powerful riding beasts... and regular dogs. They couldn't possibly be connected, could they? After all, there are no links between the regular dog and the little rodent-like creature. And none between the riding beast and regular dogs. Surely they must be 3 individual species.

 

Nowhere in the fossil record is there even one change from species to species.

 

The fossil record will always be incomplete. A certain creationist called Gish has given rise to Gish's law: "The gaps in the fossil record equals the amount of missing links."

 

No matter how many "missing" links we dig up, you'll always categorize them as an entirely new species which has no relation to others and proceed on your merry way. You want us to unearth some weird chimeric monster with equal traits from both parent and daughter species. This is impossible, yet the Archeopteryx comes close. But I guess this is a seperate species with no relation to neither dinosaurs nor birds, right?

 

Another good example might be whales. Hippos are very much alike whales in bone structure. Their feet strikingly resemble fins. This has led to the suspicion that whales were once whales stranded on shallow water and thus began to grow some crude feet for extra mobility. This has been proved when arheologists dug up a specimen resembling a temporary cross over between hippo and whale. But this is probably another species with no relation whatsoever to whales and hippos.

 

Humans. "Missing" links have been found, among them Erectus, Africanus and Afarensis. And no, their skulls are far too different from ours to be a simple bad reconstruction.

 

Now, the decaying speed of isotopes, the non-decaying speed of light, the many idiotic built-in flaws in humans, the layers in the earth, the tectonic movements, the observed changes in isolated species, the fossil record and DNA all point to there being no need for a creator, the earth being immensely old (this is not a proof against a creator, but many Christians insist on the earth being a measly 10k years old) and the model of evolution fact.

 

Skitzo: Evolution is a fact because it can be used to predict prehistoric data. If, for example, we found a human fossil embedded in the layers of the Jurassic period, evolution would be more or less in doubt. But since it has so far worked flawlessly, and is able to predict much more detailed findings, it is fact. It can also be used to predict future events, such as disease epidemics. Without evolution, we wouldn't have the knowledge of genes, cross-breeding and life itself.

 

Lastly, read this. All of it. I like this link, yes.

 

I'm going to give you Creationists a task to solve. Present to me empirical proof of the Earth being created as written in the Bible. And before you start, No, trying to inanely disprove the evolutionary model is not proof of the Biblical creation happening in any way.

Y'see, the way things work these days is to present empirical proof of your own theories, it is not trying to debunk the other dudes' theories.

 

If you don't believe in the Biblical creation of things, great. Score one for rational thought. But if you don't, please present whatever theory you might have in its place.

[Master_Keralys]

Consider dogs. Take the Chihuahua and the Grand Danois (big Dane ). One is the size of a rat, the other the size of a small horse. They're both dogs. Now, we're going to run some serious selective breeding on these two dog species. We pick the smallest Chihuahuas to breed with each other, and do the same to the GD's, except we pick the largest in this case. We'd continue to reduce the size of the Chihuahua to that of a rat, and we'd continue to enlargen the GD to that of a pony. It would take many, many decades for this selective breeding to reach these stages, but you cannot doubt that it could be done with persistance.

Now, take these two dogs, and place them in different environments. We'd place the Chihuahua in an underground environment, where it'd have to use it paws to dig through the earth, and we'd use the enlargened GD's as riding beasts for little children. The Grand Danois would need strong legs and some healthy paws for this, so we'd naturally pick the most suited for this role, breeding our way to tougher feet and stronger legs. Again, it can be done.

 

At this stage, clearly the two kinds of dogs are both unable and unwilling to reproduce with each other; if left on their own they'd only naturally pick dogs from their own race, since no other kind of dogs match them in size and shape anymore.

 

We now have two different species. They're no longer dogs after these centuries of selective breeding. We have a tiny mammal suited to borrow underground, and a big beast of burden suited to carry luggage and children. The DNA of these creatures have now changed so radically from a regular dog, and since they're both unable and unwilling to mate with normal dogs anymore, we can safely label them a new species. But where is the missing link? We now have rodent like tunnelers, powerful riding beasts... and regular dogs. They couldn't possibly be connected, could they? After all, there are no links between the regular dog and the little rodent-like creature. And none between the riding beast and regular dogs. Surely they must be 3 individual species.

 

You're missing the fact that this doesn't happen. There are limits to what breeding can do, eg the sugar beet. No matter how hard the breeders try, even with new genetic manipulation, they can't get past 17% sugar content. Why? There should be an infinite amount of changeability, right? But there simply isn't.

 

Next the moon is moving away at about 2 inches per year. If the moon were two million years old, then at that time, the moon would be causing tides to cover all land twice a day. And the generally accepted time of birth is 2 billion years old!

 

Space dust still exists. It wouldn't if the universe were 15 billion years old: it would all have been caught by various sources of gravity. Furthermore, the accumulation rate of dust on the moon is about 2.7 inches per million years. If the moon was 2 billion years old, it would have 2700 inches of dush on it - a fifth of a mile. If you recall, that's why they put the huge landing pads on the Apollo's because they thought it was so deep. In reality, it's only about .5 inches deep.

 

Next off, dating based on radioactive isotopes only works in an environment where the magnetic field is stable. Earth's isn't - it's deteriorating, so it doesn't work.

 

Irreducible complexity means that an individual cell with it's proteins is useful. Try reducing an eyespot to something useful in each cell - it doesn't happen. So it doesn't evolve: there's nothing useful about such cells unless the whole system is present, so the fish or whatever doesn't have any use for it. It's just extra baggage that has no help value for the organism, so any such mutation would be selected against!

 

Finally, the sheer complexity of the universe, combined with the Anthropic Principle (which I'll explain tomorrow if I have time) indicates that such a universe could not be byproducts of mere happenstance. Also, the whole thing with the Big Bang doesn't work. More on that tomorrow, too. I have to go, now.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

You're missing the fact that this doesn't happen. There are limits to what breeding can do, eg the sugar beet.

 

And what exactly is a "sugar beet"?

 

No matter how hard the breeders try, even with new genetic manipulation, they can't get past 17% sugar content. Why? There should be an infinite amount of changeability, right?

 

No. First of all, you cannot relate this in any way to the dog example. It has no relevance. We agree we can grow dogs bigger, right? And smaller as well (otherwise all the dog races just popped into existence which we have very recent records of them not doing). Where exactly is the defining line between what we can do with breeding and what we can't do? There isn't any line. While the bone structure may prevent us from selectively breed our way towards jellyfish, it does not not prevent us from gradually making dogs bigger, as evidenced in the dog races we have already done so to.

 

Second of all, this is not proof of anything. It means there's something science hasn't explained yet. Shocking, right?

 

Next the moon is moving away at about 2 inches per year.

 

Wrong. The moon's orbit around earth is fluctuating. You know why we get Ice ages? They happen due to fluctuations in orbits of the earth, the sun's radioactive shields and comets. Geologists can actually predict that we'll have another ice age our way due to geological research and knowledge of earth's immensely old history. But I guess you don't believe in ice ages anyway. Nevermind though, when we'll get another ice age, we'll all see who was least false.

 

Space dust still exists. It wouldn't if the universe were 15 billion years old.

 

This isn't proof of a creator. It's not disproof of evolution. It might vaguely be taken for proof of the earth being very young, but even this doesn't hold up to all the other real evidence pointing the other way. You can't date the earth with this technique.

 

I'll tell you what it is though. It's proof that God designed a universe in which he was required to do miracles every freakin' nanosecond for it to hold together. Take the second law of thermodynamics (which I'm sure you'll bring up eventually) - if it actually worked the way creationists like to describe it, God made a miracle every time a snowflake formed. It'd be extremely stupid for God to make a universe in which he was required to constantly maintain it.

 

Bottom line: You're God-gapping here: using God as an excuse to fill in the currently unexplained holes in science. But this dubious way of thinking will be on constant retreat from science. People once had no idea what fire was. People once had no idea what created a baby. People once had no idea that the earth was flat. People once had no idea what created the plagues. People now currently have no real answer on how life first appeared on earth. But it will never stay that way.

 

Next off, dating based on radioactive isotopes only works in an environment where the magnetic field is stable. Earth's isn't - it's deteriorating, so it doesn't work.

 

Yet it has worked fine so far. Isotope dating have actually predicted geological and archeological discoveries. And it has happened so many times to prove they're not merely being extremely lucky.

 

Irreducible complexity means that an individual cell with it's proteins is useful.

 

And you are to say that a cell in our eye isn't being useful? That it can't sustain itself? That it doesn't benefit from, and contribute to the communion of cells around the body?

 

There are things called single organisms and multiple celled organisms. You're confusing the two. Cells in many celled organisms are extremely specialized. Big news. They're so specialized that they wouldn't survive if taken out of the organism. Your understanding of even simple biology is astounding.

 

And yes, they can evolve. Changes happen gradually, and at a very slow pace.

 

While we're on the topic of specialized eye cells. Certain cave fish exist, who have non-functional eyes. That's right, they have eyes, yet they're blind. Why would a creator make them this way? Evolution can explain this weird phenomena though, they evolved from fish who no longer needed sight in dark caves. You can call this "adaptation" all you want, yet it's only proof of evolution.

 

Finally, the sheer complexity of the universe, combined with the Anthropic Principle (which I'll explain tomorrow if I have time) indicates that such a universe could not be byproducts of mere happenstance. Also, the whole thing with the Big Bang doesn't work. More on that tomorrow, too. I have to go, now.

 

Yes. You do that. And while you're at it, present some proof of your theory as well. Trying to disprove mine won't make you look any better in the end, unless you have substantial, empirical proof of your own as well.

 

Even if you should succeed in disproving evolution, that does not make you right at all. Suppose we found out the earth was really only 10k years old, and that every species had once been planted on earth by something else, it still would not need, explain or show God. Aliens are actually a more logical choice in explaining why this occured, and this makes even the Raelians more right that you.

[Tyrion]

Since I havent taken Astronomy yet..or even studied,I'll use the paragraphs I know...

 

 

Finally, the sheer complexity of the universe, combined with the Anthropic Principle (which I'll explain tomorrow if I have time) indicates that such a universe could not be byproducts of mere happenstance. Also, the whole thing with the Big Bang doesn't work. More on that tomorrow, too. I have to go, now.

 

The general theory of the big bang is that the universe collapses,going back to it's center point of gravity,eventually becoming super densed.Then it'll all explode,expanding until it collapses,ect.

[Rogue_Ace]

The general theory of the big bang is that the universe collapses,going back to it's center point of gravity,eventually becoming super densed.Then it'll all explode,expanding until it collapses,ect.

 

Can you tell me where it gets the energy to explode every time. If it collapses in on itself every time then does it not signify the loss energy. Where does it fill its preverbal gas tank.

 

And as for life evolving on earth over billions of years look at this. If the earth is as old as you say then it still wouldn't be able to support life until recently. Dont believe me then go to any website about the decay of the magnetic field that surronds earth. Even if the speed of deacy is slowing down (like the speed of light) the earth would not have been able to support life for more then 10,000 years (give or take a couple thousand).

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Rogue_Ace

And as for life evolving on earth over billions of years look at this. If the earth is as old as you say then it still wouldn't be able to support life until recently. Dont believe me then go to any website about the decay of the magnetic field that surronds earth. Even if the speed of deacy is slowing down (like the speed of light) the earth would not have been able to support life for more then 10,000 years (give or take a couple thousand).

 

Wrong. The magnetic field is fluctuating wildly. You lack the proper timescale to state this.

 

And again: Even if your post was true, it'd still not be proof of a creator. It'd still not be proof of God. And it would by NO means disprove evolution. What you're doing here is trying to argue the earth is younger than what every respectable scientist states.

 

The comment about the big bang is just God-gapping. It won't do.

[Rogue_Ace]

What you're doing here is trying to argue the earth is younger than what every respectable scientist states.

 

Thats because whenever a respectable scientist realises the fact that the current view of evolution is not compleatly valid and states it in a public manor, he suddenly becomes a God loving wacko and no one will listen to him/her anymore. BTW I dont presume to know everything and the second that you give me hard data then I will of course admit i'm wrong.

[griff38]

Well it's possible that Intelligence used evolution to create life, but it clearly has been shown random events with enough time can lead to enviroments capable of supporting basic single cell life.

 

Also, remember evolution makes no explanation of the Universes origins. That's the job of astronomy. Which backs up Geology, which backs up Archeology, which backs up Evolution. That's too many independent sciences to all be wrong.

 

Always remember anyone who claims to be 100% sure of anything does not know what they are talking about.

 

 

OH and where does it say the Earths magnet field can be harmful to lifeforms?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Rogue_Ace

Thats because whenever a respectable scientist realises the fact that the current view of evolution is not compleatly valid and states it in a public manor, he suddenly becomes a God loving wacko and no one will listen to him/her anymore.

 

Simply not true. Whenever such a person postulates something like that he does not have his facts right, and as such becomes pariah in the scientific world.

 

BTW I dont presume to know everything and the second that you give me hard data then I will of course admit i'm wrong.

 

I already gave you hard data. You have given me none so far.

 

The trick is, you still haven't presented a theory yourself backed up by empirical proof. Until you've done that, you cannot convince anyone, since the best you can do is shoot at the age of the earth and use this as some phantasmic proof of a creator.

[Pad]

i also believe in the EVOLUTION as its the best thing to describe how evrything works/will work. for example: a bacteria irresitant to a medicin can evolve to a new form thats actually resistant to the medicine.

 

and in my opinion creationism (god,...) are just the imagination of ppl when they are in trouble or havin difficult times. whenever there is war, plagues,... ppl go back to praying

[Master_Keralys]

Theory: an unproved assumption: CONJECTURE (source: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

 

A theory can not be proven. Anything that has been conclusively proven is considered a law. Cjais, no argument you've given has been any more convincing than the creationists' view.

 

I have said before and I say again, simply because one is religious and-or disagrees with you does not mean he is not able to have a rational argument.

Whenever such a person postulates something like that he does not have his facts right, and as such becomes pariah in the scientific world.

Here you say that anyone who says anything that doesn't line up with your train of thought is unilaterally wrong. Well, this isn't necessarily the case.

 

Furthermore, you have presented no empirical evidence yourself. Those blind fish you were talking about - their eyes aren't useless because they "evolved" to be specifically useless. The fact is, they have not had that trait selected against. It's not that blindness has been selected, but that it hasn't been not selected. Natural selection in no way proves evolution. An intelligent God would have provided ways for creatures to adapt; else, they would die as soon as there was a minor change in environment. So how is it that it disproves God again?

 

Padanime - I can tell you from experience that people stick with God besides when there's times of trouble. If you don't agree, go look up any of the great Christians. Also - in times of difficulty, people are more likely to blame God for their problems and leave HIm than to turn to Him.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Theory: an unproved assumption: CONJECTURE (source: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

 

That's not the scientific use of the word "Theory" (and scientists should know, since they coined the term):

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural order that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization of nature. When scientists talk about the theory of evolution - or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter - they are not expressing reservations about its truth. (source: Sciam.com)

 

I have said before and I say again, simply because one is religious and-or disagrees with you does not mean he is not able to have a rational argument.

 

It does. Stating the Genesis is factual truth is irrational. It defies the fossil record and other facts. Stating I can fly because it's written is irrational, everyone can see I can't fly.

 

Here you say that anyone who says anything that doesn't line up with your train of thought is unilaterally wrong. Well, this isn't necessarily the case.

 

My train of thought is less false than yours. This is not about disproving God as seem to think, that would be impossible. Disproving an invisible, supernatural being is incredibly hard. This is, however, about blasting your "Genesis" into the ground. Proving evolution does not NOT disprove God.

 

The Pope has already accepted the evolutionary model as fact. He, of all Christians accepted that the Bible is not correct in this instance. Why can't you?

 

Furthermore, these "scientists" who attack evolution, again, lack scientific, empirical evidence. At best they state that certain evolutionary problems are unsolved (which is correct).

 

Furthermore, you have presented no empirical evidence yourself. Those blind fish you were talking about - their eyes aren't useless because they "evolved" to be specifically useless. The fact is, they have not had that trait selected against. It's not that blindness has been selected, but that it hasn't been not selected. Natural selection in no way proves evolution. An intelligent God would have provided ways for creatures to adapt; else, they would die as soon as there was a minor change in environment. So how is it that it disproves God again?

 

What exactly are you trying to say? That adaptation is fact, but evolution isn't? What's the exact difference between the two?

 

Adaptation: An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.

 

Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

 

These are not my words. Just taken from an online dictionary. As you said, natural selection is a fact. That the genetic composition changes during successive genrations is a fact. It appears evolution as described in the English language is a fact.

 

Also - in times of difficulty, people are more likely to blame God for their problems and leave HIm than to turn to Him.

 

This is just flat out wrong again. History clearly shows that a population is more than likely to turn to their God during times of great difficulty. Look at the exodus in the Bible, the Plague and the two world wars. People turn to, or even invent (as shown in the Bible) God, during times of trouble.