Creation Vs Evolution

[Xrtnfx]

So RW, I am just curious... What are your ideas on everything? You seem to want to dismiss evolution, what would you put in its place? Would you like to elaborate on creationism, since this thread is called "creation vs. evolution"?

 

[RickWhite]

So RW, I am just curious... What are your ideas on everything? You seem to want to dismiss evolution, what would you put in its place? Would you like to elaborate on creationism, since this thread is called "creation vs. evolution"?

My belief is that nobody knows.

I also believe that there is an area in which the science of the matter fades into the philosophical. For instance, the Torah gives the literal name of God - 4 letters that in Hebrew can not be pronounced. The point of this is to make sure that God can not be defined or understood in human terms. If we think of God as being infinite, he could have caused the big bang, evolution and everything we are capable of thinking or perceiving in the blink of an eye. Then again, what if all that is good in the world is God?

Obviously, this is another conversation. All I am suggesting that we are wrong when we think we have all the answers. Evolution could easily be part of a divine plan. Or, it could be that it all just came about as an accidental series of chemical reactions. If we were able to find a specific chemical accident that caused life and the formation of DNA we could be pretty sure, but until then there is no proof at all that there isn't a divine purpose for our existence and that evolution isn't merely another small piece of the puzzle.

 

[Padawanbater2]

My belief is that nobody knows.

No. Stop lying to the forum. Your belief is that there is a creator who designed evolution and the entire universe. You allude to that every time you post. You can't admit it because you know it's not science and you know you'll be criticized for it because of that. You think you do know, but in reality, you're just using the same old GOG argument - till we prove otherwise, it was God!...

Our belief is that nobody knows - the atheists.

You believe you do know.

I also believe that there is an area in which the science of the matter fades into the philosophical. For instance, the Torah gives the literal name of God - 4 letters that in Hebrew can not be pronounced. The point of this is to make sure that God can not be defined or understood in human terms. If we think of God as being infinite, he could have caused the big bang, evolution and everything we are capable of thinking or perceiving in the blink of an eye. Then again, what if all that is good in the world is God?

Sure sounds like science to me! Look at all the "assuming" you're doing...

Obviously, this is another conversation. All I am suggesting that we are wrong when we think we have all the answers. Evolution could easily be part of a divine plan. Or, it could be that it all just came about as an accidental series of chemical reactions. If we were able to find a specific chemical accident that caused life and the formation of DNA we could be pretty sure, but until then there is no proof at all that there isn't a divine purpose (love the double negative) for our existence and that evolution isn't merely another small piece of the puzzle.

And even more assuming...

"could of"

"might be"

"what if"

"could have"

Nothing is "accidental". Again illustrating you don't understand the science, even after multiple people have tried explaining it to you and directed you to sources that could explain it better than any of us ever could..

Smart people don't use double negatives because until you show me the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the universe and evolution then I'll just assume he did...

Go get a real education Rick, and stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

Oh and that little video of Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye is for the LAYMAN - you want complicated DNA mutation names, GO READ THE FUCKIN' BOOKS I LISTED 2 PAGES BACK. All the complicated shit your little brain can handle. But what's the point? You'll just revert back to your creationist mentality and not believe a word of the actual science, so it'd just be a waste of your time anyway... Just stick to the Bible, you'll love it!

 

[Xrtnfx]

My belief is that nobody knows.

I also believe that there is an area in which the science of the matter fades into the philosophical. For instance, the Torah gives the literal name of God - 4 letters that in Hebrew can not be pronounced. The point of this is to make sure that God can not be defined or understood in human terms. If we think of God as being infinite, he could have caused the big bang, evolution and everything we are capable of thinking or perceiving in the blink of an eye. Then again, what if all that is good in the world is God?

Obviously, this is another conversation. All I am suggesting that we are wrong when we think we have all the answers. Evolution could easily be part of a divine plan. Or, it could be that it all just came about as an accidental series of chemical reactions. If we were able to find a specific chemical accident that caused life and the formation of DNA we could be pretty sure, but until then there is no proof at all that there isn't a divine purpose for our existence and that evolution isn't merely another small piece of the puzzle.

Yeah I get what you are saying. A lot of things in this world are unknown for various reasons, and scientists do a lot of educated guess work in order to figure out those unknowns. I do remember hearing that certain parts of early life formation are somewhat shady, but I feel like we need to stick with what we know and go from there. I also have my beliefs in a god, where it would have granted creatures the ability to evolve, just as it would have granted the environment to change. But with that being said, whether or not a god had anything to do with evolution, it is still there and most parts are very observable and testable (example: finches), and I think it is the way to describe our existance. Other parts are just putting pieces together to try and make them fit as well as possible. Of course, who knows, maybe some alien bastards put us here as an experiment of their own and are so far advanced from us that they made the pieces fit themselves

 

[Xrtnfx]

Smart people don't use double negatives because until you show me the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the universe and evolution then I'll just assume he did...

To each their own, once people stop getting so sensitive about religious beliefs I think that we can all understand each other. Let god represent all that is and has ever been in the world, lets not simplify him to a certain being (example: spaghetti monster, white guy with beard). Instead lets look at it as the supernatural powers of the universe, all the beauty of science, all the processes, all of the certain ways things work themselves out that defy human intellect. That’s my god

I might not be the most convincing individual, but I think we can all take something from this but probably not haha

 

[Padawanbater2]

To each their own, once people stop getting so sensitive about religious beliefs I think that we can all understand each other. Let god represent all that is and has ever been in the world, lets not simplify him to a certain being (example: spaghetti monster, white guy with beard). Instead lets look at it as the supernatural powers of the universe, all the beauty of science, all the processes, all of the certain ways things work themselves out that defy human intellect. That’s my god

I might not be the most convincing individual, but I think we can all take something from this but probably not haha

I couldn't care less about how you interpret God.

That's not the issue.

The issue is the God that MOST PEOPLE have created and believe in today. It's dangerous, and detrimental to the rest of us. It causes problems that last centuries.

Your interpretation doesn't.

 

[mindphuk]

Oh and that little video of Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye is for the LAYMAN

Not to mention school age children.
Besides, Dawkins wasn't showing evidence for the evolution of the eye. He was simply countering a popular ID claim of irreducible complexity. Dawkins doesn't need to show that's exactly how it evolved, he just needs to show how it COULD have evolved.
BTW, Rick, you really need to learn more about what you are talking about before you make sweeping claims. The eye is PART of the brain. There is no need for parallel brain and eye development. There are many simple creatures that currently exist that have light sensing cells, look up eyespot apparatus.

 

[Xrtnfx]

I couldn't care less about how you interpret God.

That's not the issue.

The issue is the God that MOST PEOPLE have created and believe in today. It's dangerous, and detrimental to the rest of us. It causes problems that last centuries.

Your interpretation doesn't.

Unfortunaly most people "couldn't care less" about this interpretation. I was just trying to throw that out there to change the way some people think about it, maybe fix some of those problems. It wasn't really aimed towards you, or looking for your opinion, other than to show not all people have the same image of god and creation.

 

[Xrtnfx]

BTW, Rick, you really need to learn more about what you are talking about before you make sweeping claims. The eye is PART of the brain. There is no need for parallel brain and eye development. There are many simple creatures that currently exist that have light sensing cells, look up eyespot apparatus.

I agree that Rick is making some "sweeping claims", but I (think?) am starting to understand what he is getting at. He has a point that all the science behind evolution cannot be proven, but it is certainly the most appropriate way to explain things.

 

[mindphuk]

X, if you can tell me what scientific theories CAN be proven, then you win.
Rick is purporting to be science educated yet he continues to make basic mistakes and misrepresentations about science. He first claims that he wholeheartedly accepts evolution in 'lower' animals but singles out humans as somehow special. Now he is sounding like a full-fledged IDer, discounting even the most basic premises of evolutionary theory in all species. As a supposed scientist, he should understand how no theory is ever complete or can be proven. Proofs are for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with levels of confidence. The mountains of evidence supporting natural selection as the mechanism for evolution has one of the highest levels of confidence of any scientific theory to date. We know, for instance, that general relativity is incomplete. It's equations break down at the subatomic level. No one has made a claim evolution is a complete and perfect theory. If it were, there would be no reason to continue to work on the problems. Rick's posts continue to imply that just because we don't have the answers HE wants, then that makes his idea of a designer/creator somehow more probable. In fact, if evolution was falsified tomorrow, Rick would still need to show evidence for his claims, yet he admits there are none and so his beliefs are no more likely because of any failure of evolution.

 

[Xrtnfx]

X, if you can tell me what scientific theories CAN be proven, then you win.
Rick is purporting to be science educated yet he continues to make basic mistakes and misrepresentations about science. He first claims that he wholeheartedly accepts evolution in 'lower' animals but singles out humans as somehow special. Now he is sounding like a full-fledged IDer, discounting even the most basic premises of evolutionary theory in all species. As a supposed scientist, he should understand how no theory is ever complete or can be proven. Proofs are for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with levels of confidence. The mountains of evidence supporting natural selection as the mechanism for evolution has one of the highest levels of confidence of any scientific theory to date. We know, for instance, that general relativity is incomplete. It's equations break down at the subatomic level. No one has made a claim evolution is a complete and perfect theory. If it were, there would be no reason to continue to work on the problems. Rick's posts continue to imply that just because we don't have the answers HE wants, then that makes his idea of a designer/creator somehow more probable. In fact, if evolution was falsified tomorrow, Rick would still need to show evidence for his claims, yet he admits there are none and so his beliefs are no more likely because of any failure of evolution.

I know what is going on, I've been along for the ride . I'm just trying a different approach to try and solve this argument.

 

[Dolce Vita]

what do you think would happen if we all tried to figure out how to legalize weed? instead of trying to figure out which came first the chicken or the egg. i mean our collective mind power has got to be worth somethin right?

 

[Padawanbater2]

X, if you can tell me what scientific theories CAN be proven, then you win.
Rick is purporting to be science educated yet he continues to make basic mistakes and misrepresentations about science. He first claims that he wholeheartedly accepts evolution in 'lower' animals but singles out humans as somehow special. Now he is sounding like a full-fledged IDer, discounting even the most basic premises of evolutionary theory in all species. As a supposed scientist, he should understand how no theory is ever complete or can be proven. Proofs are for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with levels of confidence. The mountains of evidence supporting natural selection as the mechanism for evolution has one of the highest levels of confidence of any scientific theory to date. We know, for instance, that general relativity is incomplete. It's equations break down at the subatomic level. No one has made a claim evolution is a complete and perfect theory. If it were, there would be no reason to continue to work on the problems. Rick's posts continue to imply that just because we don't have the answers HE wants, then that makes his idea of a designer/creator somehow more probable. In fact, if evolution was falsified tomorrow, Rick would still need to show evidence for his claims, yet he admits there are none and so his beliefs are no more likely because of any failure of evolution.

Great post, that is exactly what is going on in this thread. +rep

 

[AlterdImage777]

The guy that discovered and mapped out DNA was on a show saying that in 600 Billion years there is NO POSSIBLE WAY we happened randomly because of how intricate and complex life is. They also mentioned that humans have a gene found that no other life form on the planet and they figure it is what makes our mind different then that of an animal. So basically they were scientifically proving evolution is unlikely and it is more likely that we were created by God, however in todays society that wants God to be a fairy tale more than anything else they decided that we must have come from another planet. They offered 2 theoreys, one was that we were an advanced civilization that realized our planet was doomed so we boarded ships and came here...but where are the ships and why did technology have to re-evolve from the stone ages? Their second theorey is that the aliens encoded their program of life into this "God gene" type thing that was sent to our planet to interact and reprogram bacteria or single-celled organisms here to evolve at a more rapid rate, preprogramed....the obvious answer is that they are finding that God has to exist....though they don't want to admit it...but from space???how low will u go...I choose Truth, I choose God!

 

[AlterdImage777]

Most scientists prove small things and when they get stumped , rather than chucking it as a bad theorey they figure some other branch of science can explain it and pass it along as truth, since none of you have personally proven anything, you accept it by faith too, I just find it easier to have faith in God before science but the two can coexist when science stays honest and agenda free...sucks when people with agendas are the ones writing your grant check....

 

[Padawanbater2]

The guy that discovered and mapped out DNA was on a show saying that in 600 Billion years there is NO POSSIBLE WAY we happened randomly because of how intricate and complex life is. They also mentioned that humans have a gene found that no other life form on the planet and they figure it is what makes our mind different then that of an animal. So basically they were scientifically proving evolution is unlikely and it is more likely that we were created by God, however in todays society that wants God to be a fairy tale more than anything else they decided that we must have come from another planet. They offered 2 theoreys, one was that we were an advanced civilization that realized our planet was doomed so we boarded ships and came here...but where are the ships and why did technology have to re-evolve from the stone ages? Their second theorey is that the aliens encoded their program of life into this "God gene" type thing that was sent to our planet to interact and reprogram bacteria or single-celled organisms here to evolve at a more rapid rate, preprogramed....the obvious answer is that they are finding that God has to exist....though they don't want to admit it...but from space???how low will u go...I choose Truth, I choose God!

Most scientists prove small things and when they get stumped , rather than chucking it as a bad theorey they figure some other branch of science can explain it and pass it along as truth, since none of you have personally proven anything, you accept it by faith too, I just find it easier to have faith in God before science but the two can coexist when science stays honest and agenda free...sucks when people with agendas are the ones writing your grant check....

Seriously, just... wow.

People like this VOTE and drive cars ladies and gentlemen!

 

[mindphuk]

The guy that discovered and mapped out DNA was on a show saying that in 600 Billion years there is NO POSSIBLE WAY we happened randomly because of how intricate and complex life is. They also mentioned that humans have a gene found that no other life form on the planet and they figure it is what makes our mind different then that of an animal. So basically they were scientifically proving evolution is unlikely and it is more likely that we were created by God, however in todays society that wants God to be a fairy tale more than anything else they decided that we must have come from another planet. They offered 2 theoreys, one was that we were an advanced civilization that realized our planet was doomed so we boarded ships and came here...but where are the ships and why did technology have to re-evolve from the stone ages? Their second theorey is that the aliens encoded their program of life into this "God gene" type thing that was sent to our planet to interact and reprogram bacteria or single-celled organisms here to evolve at a more rapid rate, preprogramed....the obvious answer is that they are finding that God has to exist....though they don't want to admit it...but from space???how low will u go...I choose Truth, I choose God!

Hey genius, ALL species have genes that aren't in other species, otherwise we would all be the same.
Quit getting your facts from the Scientology run History Channel and the Secrets of the Pyramid TV series.
Hail Xenu! I'm getting back in my DC-8 starship and returning to the Galactic Confederacy.

 

[RickWhite]

X, if you can tell me what scientific theories CAN be proven, then you win.
Rick is purporting to be science educated yet he continues to make basic mistakes and misrepresentations about science. He first claims that he wholeheartedly accepts evolution in 'lower' animals but singles out humans as somehow special. Now he is sounding like a full-fledged IDer, discounting even the most basic premises of evolutionary theory in all species. As a supposed scientist, he should understand how no theory is ever complete or can be proven. Proofs are for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with levels of confidence. The mountains of evidence supporting natural selection as the mechanism for evolution has one of the highest levels of confidence of any scientific theory to date. We know, for instance, that general relativity is incomplete. It's equations break down at the subatomic level. No one has made a claim evolution is a complete and perfect theory. If it were, there would be no reason to continue to work on the problems. Rick's posts continue to imply that just because we don't have the answers HE wants, then that makes his idea of a designer/creator somehow more probable. In fact, if evolution was falsified tomorrow, Rick would still need to show evidence for his claims, yet he admits there are none and so his beliefs are no more likely because of any failure of evolution.

You are the one making sweeping claims. I was HIGHLY SPECIFIC in my questions. They are ones that need to be answered, not ones that I want. And I might add, ones you fail to address in all of your posts. Still waiting to hear how random chemical reactions formed DNA that contains the instructions for complex organisms.


Stop posting your opinions as if they are fact. Evolution is widely accepted, but not nearly as factually supported as most scientific theories. There is no doubt as to how photosynthesis or the TCA cycle works or most things in physics or chemistry. These are proven scientific theories. And we have many theories regarding genetics that are hardly debatable. Where evolution becomes a problem is when the underlying genetic OBSERVATIONS are extrapolated and an unproven cause is assumed. The fact is, we have a bunch of observations that may or may not be related in the way we think they are. For all we know, a space virus could have deposited a plethora of seeds that were designed with adaptability sequences in their DNA. Maybe, this seed was a master code sequence for everything on the entire planet and what we are seeing is merely what has sprouted.

Either way, you are making the same argument. You after all, are arguing that life has an intrinsic ability to adapt to its environment and maybe it does. What you refuse to accept is that this intrinsic ability may not be strictly accidental. in other words, you are claiming that without a doubt, you are certain that this extraordinary ability of nature had to have been purely accidental.

Given that we both acknowledge that life has this amazing ability one way or anther, what proof do you have that it is all purely accidental?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You are the one making sweeping claims. I was HIGHLY SPECIFIC in my questions. They are ones that need to be answered, not ones that I want. And I might add, ones you fail to address in all of your posts. Still waiting to hear how random chemical reactions formed DNA that contains the instructions for complex organisms.


Stop posting your opinions as if they are fact. Evolution is widely accepted, but not nearly as factually supported as most scientific theories. There is no doubt as to how photosynthesis or the TCA cycle works or most things in physics or chemistry. These are proven scientific theories. And we have many theories regarding genetics that are hardly debatable. Where evolution becomes a problem is when the underlying genetic OBSERVATIONS are extrapolated and an unproven cause is assumed. The fact is, we have a bunch of observations that may or may not be related in the way we think they are. For all we know, a space virus could have deposited a plethora of seeds that were designed with adaptability sequences in their DNA. Maybe, this seed was a master code sequence for everything on the entire planet and what we are seeing is merely what has sprouted.

Either way, you are making the same argument. You after all, are arguing that life has an intrinsic ability to adapt to its environment and maybe it does. What you refuse to accept is that this intrinsic ability may not be strictly accidental. in other words, you are claiming that without a doubt, you are certain that this extraordinary ability of nature had to have been purely accidental.

Given that we both acknowledge that life has this amazing ability one way or anther, what proof do you have that it is all purely accidental?

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ACTUAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Here, this should get you started;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Then, go read some of these books;

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Greatest-Show-on-Earth/Richard-Dawkins/e/9781416594789/?itm=1&USRI=richard+dawkins

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Selfish-Gene/Richard-Dawkins/e/9780199291151/?itm=4&USRI=richard+dawkins

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Your-Inner-Fish/Neil-Shubin/e/9780307277459/?itm=1&USRI=niel+shubin

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Darwins-Universe/Richard-Milner/e/9780520243767/?itm=7

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Origin-of-Species/Charles-Darwin/e/9781593080778/?itm=6&USRI=on+the+origin+of+species

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/A-Short-History-of-Nearly-Everything/Bill-Bryson/e/9780767908184/?itm=1&USRI=a+short+history+of+nearly+everything

Then get back to us.

 

[Operation 420]

Sacred Geometry..look it up.