Creation or Evolution ?

[Fletch XXX]

50 evolving beaks

http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_clas...101_beaks.html

[jollyperv]

"Adam & Eve" type creationists piss me off. That's the biggest god damn horseshit fairlytale. It's nothing but a myth to tell children so you don't have to put forth the effort in explaining how we really got here. Lazy fucks.

Science has repeatedly proven again & again that evolution is how we came to be. Don't believe it?? Well.....the human brain has a pretty hard fucking time comprehending large numbers, but with evolution you're talking about billions of years. An incomprehensible figure. Cells and organisms had ample time to mutate, randomly and out of necessity. That's the way it happened.

However...

I'm not completely close minded...It is feasible that a higher power placed the cells on what we now call earth. Feasible, not likely though.

[mijoon]

Quote:

"Never , in my wildest fluctuations , have I ever been an atheist"

Charles Darwin.

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by FATPad
I already asked him for proof of his creator aliens, several times.

To Donovan, a theory with no evidence proves itself, while a theory with a mountain of evidence and a few holes is totally lacking credibilty.

It's a jump to believe that humans evolved from apes, but it's not a jump to believe aliens landed and made us.

It would be funny if it wasn't so damn scary.

[MattO]

Good article:

Scientific American- 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[jollyperv]

Originally posted by MattO
Good article:

Scientific American- 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Nice

[On-top]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen


Bullshit.

The Earth is an open system. We receive energy from the Sun. The second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems.

[On-top]

Originally posted by MattO
Good article:

Scientific American- 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Bingo.

[Bladewire]

Creation or Evolution ?

We were created and we evolved

[Bladewire]

Basically it can be explained by physics.

Some say that our beginning was created by an end, but that's questionable. However there is no denying this basic law of physics:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

For existence to begin, a force had to cause the beginning.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by Squirtit
Creation or Evolution ?

We were created and we evolved

Created by whom?

[Bladewire]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen


Created by whom?

Created by what?

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by Squirtit


Created by what?

You are suggesting a naturalistic "creation" in which case I am inclined to agree.

[Bladewire]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen


You are suggesting a naturalistic "creation" in which case I am inclined to agree.

Is not everything in existance natural?

Natural occurances alter things in existance so things altered by other occurances are just as natural in that context.

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by MattO
Good article:

Scientific American- 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

2 sides to every story...
rebuttal

[Nas7782]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
The one thing that all those in this thread arguing against evolution have in common is a basic ignorance of the subject.

If you are going to argue against something it's a good idea to actually KNOW something about it in the first place.

Arguing from ignorance is as pointless as pissing in the wind.

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)

Joe you're probably a bio major eh? Your post on evolution is excellent. So was Amp.

Anyway, people are looking at evolution the wrong way. It's not a single pathway, like a straight line from chimip to man. It's more like a family tree with multiple branches. A human specie like the Neanderthal was outsted by our modern human ancestor (this is still debatable, but debatable using evidence).

A core to evolution is the theory of natural selection. It is a simple concept that if one specie or a few individual within a specie adapt better, than that specie or unique individual within that specie may survive to reproduce and the rest may simply go extinct.

The shortest span of evolution I have heard of was on the English peppered Moth (I think that was the specie, every bio. major knows this, so correct me if I'm wrong). Before the industrial revolution, in Great Britain this English moth was mainly white in coloration. However, during the industrial revolution, smog became a problem and white moths were easily spotted by predators such as birds and lizards.

A few mutated black moths that were easily spotted before now thrive in this environment since they were better camaflage. As a result, white moths were dying out while black moths due to a mutation survive to reproduce, thus creating a new species of moth with different genetic traits.

Humans have 23 pair of chromosomes. If we had one more pair, 24, we wouldn't be humans, we'll be gorillas. One extra pair of chromosome makes alot of difference.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


2 sides to every story...
rebuttal

Why would you go to a religious site for accurate information on a scientific topic such as evolution? It's like going to a site run by the KKK for information on racial integration.

Answers in Genesis? Hilarious.

NEXT!

[jollyperv]

Originally posted by Nas7782



Humans have 23 pair of chromosomes. If we had one more pair, 24, we wouldn't be humans, we'll be gorillas. One extra pair of chromosome makes alot of difference.

Actually, I think you'd just have down syndrome. Correct me if I'm wrong, but down syndrome is either the lack of 1 pair of chromosomes or 1 too many. I think it can go either way.

Or maybe it's the lack of a single chromosome, not a pair.

[brand0n]

i have to say creation... i think the world is way to complex and well thought out to be evolution and besides what did we evolve from... where did it all start???

[Nas7782]

Originally posted by jollyperv


Actually, I think you'd just have down syndrome. Correct me if I'm wrong, but down syndrome is either the lack of 1 pair of chromosomes or 1 too many. I think it can go either way.

Or maybe it's the lack of a single chromosome, not a pair.

This link should help:

http://home.att.net/~dorak/genetics/notes03.html

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by Nas7782
Joe you're probably a bio major eh? Your post on evolution is excellent. So was Amp.

Nah, I studied Film and Television Production at art college.

I became interested in evolution because I saw creationists constantly twisting the facts to try and promote their fundamentalist religious agenda. I saw them trying to push their bible based "creation science" into science classrooms under the guise of "equal time". I had to educate myself to rebut these fuckers.

I live in Australia and the results of macro-evolution are obvious here. Our geographical isolation has produced all kinds of weird and wonderful creatures - the kangaroo, koala, platypus etc.

In my experience those who deny evolution are either ignorant of the facts or have a religious agena to push - or both.

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen


Why would you go to a religious site for accurate information on a scientific topic such as evolution? It's like going to a site run by the KKK for information on racial integration.

Answers in Genesis? Hilarious.

NEXT!

Bite me. The "Scientific" journal was obviously biased. Big no-no in the scientific community. I just linked to something equally as biased.

Typical for you to not read something because you discern "religious" overtones. Even to state that any religious person is ignorant is to discredit a great deal of prominent scientist, both current and in the past.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


Bite me. The "Scientific" journal was obviously biased.

So you are telling me that Scientific American, one of the most prestigious and widely read mainstream scientific journals is unreliable and that a site run by fundamentalist Christians who believe the world is 6,000 years old have something important to offer on a scientific topic such as evolution?

You, and that Answers in Geneis website, are a joke.

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen


So you are telling me that Scientific American, one of the most prestigious and widely read mainstream scientific journals is unreliable and that a site run by fundamentalist Christians who believe the world is 6,000 years old have something important to offer on a scientific topic such as evolution?

You, and that Answers in Geneis website, are a joke.

Scientific American is a semi-popular journal which publishes attractively illustrated and fairly detailed, but not overly technical, articles, mostly on science. It is not a peer-reviewed journal like Nature or TJ, but many of its articles are very useful. Scientific American was founded by the artist and inventor Rufus Porter (1792?1884), who thought that science glorified the creator God. In the very first issue, his editorial stated:

?We shall advocate the pure Christian religion, without favouring any particular sect ??

Now the current editor since late 1994, one John Rennie (b. 1959), has also fervently promoted the anti-God evolution agenda. Like many anti-creationist propagandists, he often launches into attacks with a poor understanding, and he has only a bachelor?s degree in science, so is far less qualified than the leading creationist scientists at AiG and ICR.

Taken from the previously posted link by yours truly. If you would have taken your biased ass to the link and read, you would have learned something.

I may be a joke but your a bad joke.

[On-top]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


2 sides to every story...
rebuttal

Did you read that?

I'm not even going to go into it. He justifies half of what evolution is, he just calls it different things. Where does the bible talk about 'speciation'?

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by On-top


Did you read that?

I'm not even going to go into it. He justifies half of what evolution is, he just calls it different things. Where does the bible talk about 'speciation'?

Fuck if I know. I do not agree with most of the stuff in either article. I simply posted an obviously biased article to compensate the other.

[On-top]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


Scientific American is a semi-popular journal which publishes attractively illustrated and fairly detailed, but not overly technical, articles, mostly on science. It is not a peer-reviewed journal like Nature or TJ, but many of its articles are very useful. Scientific American was founded by the artist and inventor Rufus Porter (1792?1884), who thought that science glorified the creator God. In the very first issue, his editorial stated:

?We shall advocate the pure Christian religion, without favouring any particular sect ??

Now the current editor since late 1994, one John Rennie (b. 1959), has also fervently promoted the anti-God evolution agenda. Like many anti-creationist propagandists, he often launches into attacks with a poor understanding, and he has only a bachelor?s degree in science, so is far less qualified than the leading creationist scientists at AiG and ICR.

Taken from the previously posted link by yours truly. If you would have taken your biased ass to the link and read, you would have learned something.

I may be a joke but your a bad joke.

Both articles are obvioulsy biased. It's hard to title an article calling the opposition's argument 'nonsense' without being biased.

[On-top]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


Fuck if I know. I do not agree with most of the stuff in either article. I simply posted an obviously biased article to compensate the other.

LoL. Cool.

I agree with parts of it as well. I even agree with bits of some the reference articles. But they just seem to stop a little shy of going all the way in getting to the solution.

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by On-top


LoL. Cool.

I agree with parts of it as well. I even agree with bits of some the reference articles. But they just seem to stop a little shy of going all the way in getting to the solution.

True.

the problem that I have with the whole creation/evolution debate is somewhat akin to the democrat vs. republican debates in america: Facts and answers are put aside just to prove the other side wrong. It is not about finding the truth as much as it is making sure the other side looks stupid.

Creationists fear the evolutionists because if evolutionists are right, then there is no God. Evolutionists fear creationists because if the creationists are right, then there is a God. The whole debate usually boils down to name calling and credential finger pointing.

[sacX]

evolution: for people who like evidence.
creationism: for people who have taken a leap of faith.

if you've taken that leap of faith then good for you.. It'd be nice to be able to believe there is a greater power (I'm not being sarcastic, I've studied too much science and am probably too cynical for my own good )

[On-top]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


True.

the problem that I have with the whole creation/evolution debate is somewhat akin to the democrat vs. republican debates in america: Facts and answers are put aside just to prove the other side wrong. It is not about finding the truth as much as it is making sure the other side looks stupid.

Creationists fear the evolutionists because if evolutionists are right, then there is no God. Evolutionists fear creationists because if the creationists are right, then there is a God. The whole debate usually boils down to name calling and credential finger pointing.

Indeed.

[Amputate Your Head]

Creationists....

Matthew Alper: The God Part Of The Brain

Buy it. Read it. Absorb it. Then utter a single word in the creationist defense. "God" (and any other label you prefer to put on it) is a lie.

Your beliefs are your "beliefs". I prefer to deal in hard cold truth. You can believe in fairy tales if that's what helps you get through life. I was brought up in an environment that pushed "God" to the fullest, but as an adult, I made the decision years ago to accept the truth. Education will set you free.

[MattO]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


2 sides to every story...
rebuttal

From Crationists who have made their mind up and aren't open to the trunth. You'll never convince people who belive in church doctrine scientific facts.

[MattO]

Opps... truth

[drunkmonkey]

"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,?and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident?such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible.

"To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,?is to create questions more profound than are answered."?David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader's Digest, March 1970, p. 55

[Furious_Female]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,?and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident?such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible.

"To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,?is to create questions more profound than are answered."?David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader's Digest, March 1970, p. 55

Did anyone ever notice how angry and bitter a lot of evolutionists are? No one knows the absolute truth, so it's impossible to fully believe in anything, that isn't 100% provable, so it's really a matter of opinion. I personally believe in both. The universe and earth has evolved greatly over years and years, but I do believe there is some kind of higher force responsible for it's fine tuned planning. The human body is the most beautiful invention ever. Nothing has come close to even duplicating the human mind.

[MattO]

I don't get angry because someone is messing with my "beliefs", it's more that I get angry because people are so mis-educated.

Belief in Evolution isn't a faith, it's SCIENCE.

[TinTin]

Originally posted by Amputate Your Head
I made the decision years ago to accept the truth. Education will set you free.

Amp talking about the benefits of education.

The irony of it all is enough to make a person weep.

[MetaformX]

creation, no doubt. we are undoubtedly from monkeys

[Furious_Female]

Originally posted by MattO
I don't get angry because someone is messing with my "beliefs", it's more that I get angry because people are so mis-educated.

Believe in education isn't a faith, it's SCIENCE.

I meant angry and bitter at the world in general

Science is wonderful. I love it... but there's still many unknown things that are filled in with pure speculation. Science can't even agree with itself at times... there's much more to be discovered, to have any kind of definite verdict.

[sacX]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,?and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident?such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible.

"To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,?is to create questions more profound than are answered."?David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader's Digest, March 1970, p. 55

very nice quotes, but very little actual substance.

[sacX]

it's actually interesting to track the "evolution" of Christian thought on evolution.. As times has gone by there is less denial of biological evolution, and less literal interpretation of the Bible (as it becomes less credible to an educated society).

Just like the idea of Heaven and Hell.. a few decades back Hell was all fire and brimstone, you'd be damned to eternal agony if you commited a mortal sin and didn't reprent. etc.. Now in mainstream Christianity Hell is more "an apartness from God", kind of like the old interpretation of purgatory.

I went to a Catholic highschool and even a lot of the priests didn't believe in a literal God in the traditional sense.

[TinTin]

Originally posted by sacX
Now in mainstream Christianity Hell is more "an apartness from God", kind of like the old interpretation of purgatory.

Actually it is more in line with the original Jewish concept called "Sheol". Which is the way it should have always been.

Sheol was as far from God's presence as was possible. (your "apartness from god") Human "existence" there, after death, was mere shadow existence - normal relationships and communication, which for the Old Testament define humanity, are impossible.

She'ol is the commonest word for the "world" of the dead in Hebrew. It is often paralleled with "death" (mawet) and sometimes called the "pit" (shachat).

Sheol was twisted into the concept of hell.

[sacX]

yes you're right.

[Donny]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,?and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident?such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible.

Even though I do not believe the Bible either, that quote makes a good point.

[Anna_O]

It's a proven fact that we've evolved... I bet you don't believe in life on other planets than earth either.

[Donny]

Originally posted by Anna_O
It's a proven fact that we've evolved... I bet you don't believe in life on other planets than earth either.

Evolving only means that we've changed. I have no problem with that. We've definitely evolved.

But how did we get to this earth to begin with? That's all I want to know. I'm not asking about the entire universe or even the solar system... just life on earth.

I think we were created by superior life from other planets.

[Meta Ridley]

Originally posted by DonovanPhillips
Personally, I believe we were created. By what, I do not know. But I think evolution is PURE BULLSHIT.

If you believe in evolution, think of this:

* Put every part needed to create a car into a garage
* Walk away

Do you think those parts will EVER "evolve" to form a car, no matter how many BILLIONS of years they were given? Fuck no they won't! Humans are much more complex than cars, so why in the world would I believe that we "evolved"?

I think we're a science project of some more intelligent life form(s).

What do you think?

Is this the best analogy you can come up with? One that does not even make sense. Trying to compare a theory that is backed by hard evidence to a 'belief' that is backed by no evidence is ridiculous. (finding holes in evolution and trying to fill those holes with creationism is not evidence of creationism). Just because science does not have it all figured out yet does not mean that it won't all be figured out -they are well on the way.

I would like to hear what evidence led you to believe that we were created.

And BTW - we did not evolve from monkeys

[Meta Ridley]

Originally posted by DonovanPhillips



But how did we get to this earth to begin with? That's all I want to know. I'm not asking about the entire universe or even the solar system... just life on earth.

I think we were created by superior life from other planets.

There are so many books on this subject that you can read that will answer your questions - Im sure you will be staisfied - just go to the library or Amazon.com.

[spamofon]

Originally posted by DonovanPhillips
Personally, I believe we were created. By what, I do not know. But I think evolution is PURE BULLSHIT.

If you believe in evolution, think of this:

* Put every part needed to create a car into a garage
* Walk away

Do you think those parts will EVER "evolve" to form a car, no matter how many BILLIONS of years they were given? Fuck no they won't! Humans are much more complex than cars, so why in the world would I believe that we "evolved"?

I think we're a science project of some more intelligent life form(s).

What do you think?

are you fucking stupid?? how can mechanical part evolve

we are organic beaings, which evolve to the nature around us to survive


if someone does not believe in evolution in 21 century, then he is a pure moron and earth for him is still square and is centre of the world