If you go to the beach or the desert with exponentially increased about of sand, are the odds of a gain of sand turning into a piece wood greater? Using the evolutionary model we would say yes, but using what science has been able to verify in a controlled setting, we would say no.[/quote]
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Seriously, holy shit. I’m all for an open mind and alternate theories but your argument against evolution is that you’re able to create a whole army of straw men out of nothing but a paragraph? Hell, why don’t you just say evolution can’t be right because pixie dust doesn’t really make people fly.
If you go to the beach or the desert with exponentially increased about of sand, are the odds of a gain of sand turning into a piece wood greater? Using the evolutionary model we would say yes, but using what science has been able to verify in a controlled setting, we would say no.
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Seriously, holy shit. I’m all for an open mind and alternate theories but your argument against evolution is that you’re able to create a whole army of straw men out of nothing but a paragraph? Hell, why don’t you just say evolution can’t be right because pixie dust doesn’t really make people fly.[/quote]
A) Genetic Variation is present in all species. Abnormalities are not. Variation has a good chance of being positive. Really fat and hairy, and live in Alaska? Well built muscles and long distance ability, and you live in a society where hunting is done on the run? Your body absorbs soy better and you live in an area where soy is abundant?
You don’t think these things are evidence of variation?
[quote]PGJ wrote:
My point is that TOE is still a THEORY. There are some pieces of it that are scientifically testable and all that, but the big picture is that we don’t know for sure. It’s all in the presentation.
Aren’t natural selection and TOE different things. I have no problem with the idea that over time, the weak are eliminated. I have no problem believing that long ago there were many more types of animals running around. What I have a problem with is someone digs up a weird looking skull or a piece of a shin bone and declares it as “ancient man” and proof of evolution. I have also seen zero proof that the animals we have today used to be other, genetically different animals. Maybe they got bigger or smaller or hairier, but rats didn’t become humans (as has been suggested). I’m not buying the “common ancestor” theory. It’s all speculation and should be presented as such.[/quote]
Quantum mechanics is still a Theory also. No one is hire how it works. But I believe the theory has a damn good application when you see the desctructive power of the atom bomb.
“But its JUST A THEORY.”
True. But it has an assload of evidence to back it up. And unknown to you there are very few “laws” and facts in science. Most are just theories that explain alot of stuff. However they remain theories and cannot be called as fact because there are always exceptions to the rule whenever strange shit happens or conditions change.
Even combustion is a theory. But you see the useful application when you turn on your light (coal power plant) or drive your car.
Even electricity is still a theory. No one is quite sure how it works, but it does. Do you believe in electricity? Just because it looks a little shifty on paper does not mean that the theory has no support.
However you are just playing with semantics here. Saying that because Evolution is a theory and Creationism is a theory that they are the same thing. That they have the same value.
They do not.
There is far more evidence that supports the theory of evolution than the theory of creationism.
In fact there is little if anything that supports the theory of creatinism rather than the bible, the fact that people believe in it, and that the Church says: God made the planet, people, animals… it says so in the bible.
with evolution it is pretty cut and dry…you either believe in it; and don’t believe in a higher power or, you believe in a higher power and don’t believe we evolved…
i can’t help but to wonder why things in life have to be so either or and never a compilation of both…
as far as what i believe…i do believe we have evolved. there is so much evidence that supports the fact that we have evolved but at the same time i do believe in a higher power.
as was mentioned before i wonder why is it so two sided? why does believing in one mean that the other is not concievable?
[quote]krysi32 wrote:
with evolution it is pretty cut and dry…you either believe in it; and don’t believe in a higher power or, you believe in a higher power and don’t believe we evolved…
i can’t help but to wonder why things in life have to be so either or and never a compilation of both…
as far as what i believe…i do believe we have evolved. there is so much evidence that supports the fact that we have evolved but at the same time i do believe in a higher power.
as was mentioned before i wonder why is it so two sided? why does believing in one mean that the other is not concievable?[/quote]
The two are only mutually exclusive in the minds of simpletons. A scientist who doesn’t truly believe that there is something else beyond what we can currently see or understand is left with no questions to ask or answers to find. A theologian who believes that those who do nothing but seek to understand, to bend nature to better mankind are pitted against him is equally crippled, philosophically.
Reason in man is rather like God in the world. -St. Thomas Aquinas
[quote]krysi32 wrote:
with evolution it is pretty cut and dry…you either believe in it; and don’t believe in a higher power or, you believe in a higher power and don’t believe we evolved…
i can’t help but to wonder why things in life have to be so either or and never a compilation of both…[/quote]
The thing with science is that it doesn?t say that there is no higher power.
And the thing about evolution is that its just a method to explain how we formed into the beings that we are today.
That?s it.
It does not say there is god. It does not say there is not god.
It just disproves alot of the Myths in the bible. Like the ?biblical fact? that the earth was formed in a week.
Science is just a method of proving or disproving a hypothesis by the use of measurements of whatever you need to measure.
I believe that we (humans) and all other things were created by the one and only God.
Perhaps over the years our bodies have adapted, but I know that we did not start out as primordial soup.
[quote]krysi32 wrote:
as far as what i believe…i do believe we have evolved. there is so much evidence that supports the fact that we have evolved but at the same time i do believe in a higher power.
as was mentioned before i wonder why is it so two sided? why does believing in one mean that the other is not concievable?[/quote]
It is two sided because simpletons make it two sided. Those super religios self-proclaimed bible warriors who want to misinform and burn anyone at the stake who does not agree with the ?fact? that the universe revolves around the earth.
And then there are the close minded scientists that think that what they know is all that there is and everyone else is wrong.
Well the fact is that you cannot rule out whether there is or there is not a higher power. You just cannot measure that kind of thing.
You can believe in god and in evolution. You can believe that god instead of making the earth in 6 human days made it in 6 billion years (or however long he wanted), by evolution. Slowly creating life and eventually forming man.
Or you can believe in neither god nor evolution.
You can believe in the bible if you like. You can think that adam really did live to be 900 years old. And that there was a big flood and noah took two of every animal and fit them on an ark the size of a large bus made of wood. Where they lived for more than a year WITH SUPPLIES onboard to boot.
One thing you cannot believe is both in the literal definition of the bible and in evolution at the same time. Because they are polar opposites.
One is based on measurements, scientific application of theory, and good ?ol number crunching.
And the other is based on myth. Its a book written many years ago during the time when people commonly used halucinogens, and dehydration to ?talk? to god, and they eventually made a book about it.
And of course they included such things as how to oppress and keep slaves in line (word of god), how to keep your woman in line (also word of god) and how the lord favoures Jews and Moses because he is Jewish. (because the bible was written by jewish priests… the old testament).
It just disproves alot of the Myths in the bible. Like the ?biblical fact? that the earth was formed in a week.
[/quote]
How is this a myth? In the beginning, there was nothing. What is one day in the absence of everything? Since time and matter are entirely intertwined, the first day could have been .00001 seconds, or 1 trillion years, except they couldn’t, because those time measures are completely meaningless if there was nothing.
It just disproves alot of the Myths in the bible. Like the ?biblical fact? that the earth was formed in a week.
How is this a myth? In the beginning, there was nothing. What is one day in the absence of everything? Since time and matter are entirely intertwined, the first day could have been .00001 seconds, or 1 trillion years, except they couldn’t, because those time measures are completely meaningless if there was nothing.[/quote]
He means the literal translation.
Literally translating the bible in some areas, and ignoring others is a favorite past time of Christians everywhere.
If you can ignore the rules about kosher eating (which Jesus states twice must still be followed), and all the old testament bad stuff (Which again, Jesus states he does not denounce), than you can believe a “day” was longer than a day.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Since time and matter are entirely intertwined, the first day could have been .00001 seconds, or 1 trillion years, except they couldn’t, because those time measures are completely meaningless if there was nothing.[/quote]
I know. It could also have taken 3 billion years for god to have created life, then plants, then animals… then humans.
Literally translating the bible in some areas, and ignoring others is a favorite past time of Christians everywhere.
If you can ignore the rules about kosher eating (which Jesus states twice must still be followed), and all the old testament bad stuff (Which again, Jesus states he does not denounce), than you can believe a “day” was longer than a day.[/quote]
Even within Genesis itself, the original creation (Gen. 1) goes:
Day 1: Day and Night
Day 2: Heaven, the Earth, Sky
Day 3: Land and Sea and Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars
Day 5: Animals
Day 6: Humans to reign over everything
and in Gen. 2 God makes the animals anew for Adam to name (depending on the Bible version you’re reading).
If you asked anyone, “Which came first, plants or the Sun?” everyone would say “The Sun”. If you asked “If there were no sun would we have daylight?” everyone would say “No.” If you asked any devout Christian “Which came first animals or man?” they should rightly ask, “According to the KJV Gen. 1 or Gen. 2? Because the answer is different depending on the Bible version’s wording and chapter”.
But for some reason this book is ‘the source’ (despite the many different and unknown origins and editing, not to mention numerous other religions) when it comes to explaining speciation.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Day 1: Day and Night
Day 2: Heaven, the Earth, Sky
Day 3: Land and Sea and Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars
Day 5: Animals
Day 6: Humans to reign over everything
[/quote]
There! It says it. It took exactly 24Hr/day x 6days = 144 Hours to create the earth!
Science is wrong! The bible is right!
The universe revolves around the earth and the earth is flat. It says so in the bible.
[quote]superpimp wrote:
Well the argument people throw at me when I’m sitting reading my books are “if we evolved from monkies, why are monkies still around”, it’s a lack of understanding mixed with closed mindedness in people.[/quote]
Different environment. Monkeys are good tree life, humans, not so good. Each species adapts to its environment. Ug, I can’t really explain it, here is an artical about it(bell-shaped curve)
[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Day 1: Day and Night
Day 2: Heaven, the Earth, Sky
Day 3: Land and Sea and Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars
Day 5: Animals
Day 6: Humans to reign over everything
There! It says it. It took exactly 24Hr/day x 6days = 144 Hours to create the earth!
Science is wrong! The bible is right!
The universe revolves around the earth and the earth is flat. It says so in the bible.[/quote]
True, church threatened punishment to anybody to question these.
At high school level evolution may seem to be logical and well explained. But when you enter some university… top scientists are looking at it only as a hypothesis. None of them have ever explained how did life appear. I’m a medical student.
Our histology and anatomy teachers never link to evolution theory as to something reliable because it’s so easy to post a question that nobody will answer. On cellular level it’s not that obvious. Making any though cowboy statements about evolutionism is childish. If someone is 100% sure of something like that it does mean one can’t make proper conclusions and is not on time.
If you go to the beach or the desert with exponentially increased about of sand, are the odds of a gain of sand turning into a piece wood greater? Using the evolutionary model we would say yes, but using what science has been able to verify in a controlled setting, we would say no.
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Seriously, holy shit. I’m all for an open mind and alternate theories but your argument against evolution is that you’re able to create a whole army of straw men out of nothing but a paragraph? Hell, why don’t you just say evolution can’t be right because pixie dust doesn’t really make people fly.[/quote]
Wow, that was such a great contribution to this topic. Please tell us where you studied, the degrees you have, and what protocols you have been involved in?
Oh, that’s right, you’re just a high school kid who denigrates concepts and ideas he doesn’t understand.
Come back later when you are older and understand statistics.
If you go to the beach or the desert with exponentially increased about of sand, are the odds of a gain of sand turning into a piece wood greater? Using the evolutionary model we would say yes, but using what science has been able to verify in a controlled setting, we would say no.
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Seriously, holy shit. I’m all for an open mind and alternate theories but your argument against evolution is that you’re able to create a whole army of straw men out of nothing but a paragraph? Hell, why don’t you just say evolution can’t be right because pixie dust doesn’t really make people fly.
Wow, that was such a great contribution to this topic. Please tell us where you studied, the degrees you have, and what protocols you have been involved in?
Oh, that’s right, you’re just a high school kid who denigrates concepts and ideas he doesn’t understand.
Come back later when you are older and understand statistics.
[/quote]
Lorisco,
From what I can tell, your main objection to the theory of evolution is based around the premise that “speciation” cannot occur. This is a confusing objection to me; what is your definition of a species? From where do you believe new species arise?