Evolution

[GST_Nemisis]

Ever hear of something called the Bible?

not really evidence, just because darwin wrote an origin of species doesnt mean its evidence either.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

The bible is a storybook with huge morals that used to answer the people's questions about life and the like.

The Origin of species is the "foundation" for a scientific theory while looking at different pieces of evidence.

 

[Elenai]

Dont forget to mention that the bible is also the book that chronicles the history, and origins of the Hebrews and chronicles some other ethnic groups in that area. All the way up to the Roman occupation.

 

[SuPa-]

I've barely read any of the stuff in this thread XD

So I'm just gonna say this

1. Life on Earth most likely came here from comets. This is supported by the fact that the earliest known bacteria are extremely resilient to heat and extreme conditions and could survive on a comet through space.
2. I believe in evolution. There are facts that support the theory of evolution. In my opinion, if religion never clashed with the theory, it would have been a fact by now. Also, there is little to no proof about intelligent design being true besides a book originally written thousands of years ago For all anyone knows, the bible could have been warped and tweaked to the likings of people. Jesus is no proof either. There have been many people who have made up gods (been "enlightened", "decended beings", saw god in a "vision", just randomly made it up to have more control and power). Egyptians, Indians, Greeks, etc. have done this

 

[Teh_Ephy]

if religion never clashed with the theory, it would have been a fact by now.

False, entirely. Currently evolution is a hypothesis. It would become a theory, as it is yet impossible to prove that biological creatures evolve in the grand sense of new species emerging from old. That statement is not to be taken lightly, as it cannot be proven that the earth orbits the sun; that is also a theory. The uncertainty is just minimized to the point where it is acknowledged to be truth.

Also, there is little to no proof about intelligent design being true besides a book originally written thousands of years ago For all anyone knows, the bible could have been warped and tweaked to the likings of people. Jesus is no proof either. There have been many people who have made up gods (been "enlightened", "decended beings", saw god in a "vision", just randomly made it up to have more control and power). Egyptians, Indians, Greeks, etc. have done this

Worst examples ever. Egyptians, Indians, Greeks, etc. created their Gods to explain why they existed, and how the world works. Large religions have only been very recently (starting when the Catholic Church controlled peoples' daily lives, instigated the crusades, etc.) been used for political power.

 

[Elenai]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The church was the only uniting force in Europe at the time...It was also the bank and other things. Thus by the very human nature of those in control at the time. They fell and did things that were against the core of Christian beliefs.

The Crusades were alot like WW1....it wasnt just one assasination, or one thing that caused it. Religion was just a spark that lit the powder keg of war. Differing beliefs, greed, a need for protection for pilgrims...ect.

But on the note of Evolution. Teh-Ephy is correct. Even without religion Evolution would still be only a theory, as it takes ALOT of evidence and tests to make something a scientific law.

Ironically without religion Evolution might not even be here today to be discussed...Because Evolution was made purely at the base level as an alternative to creation by design.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The church was the only uniting force in Europe at the time...It was also the bank and other things. Thus by the very human nature of those in control at the time. They fell and did things that were against the core of Christian beliefs.

Notice I said "the Catholic Church" and not "Christians zomg lolol!". I can tell the difference between corrupt politicians and their citizens. It is good of you to labour to maintain the distinction, though. Anything falsely representing something that is (or used to be) as prestigious as a large religion deserves to rot in hell.

The Crusades were alot like WW1....it wasnt just one assasination, or one thing that caused it. Religion was just a spark that lit the powder keg of war. Differing beliefs, greed, a need for protection for pilgrims...ect.

Religion was very much the spark... A corrupt pope called for the recalling of the holy land because the Ottoman Empire needed help defending their borders. "Dude, that guy's ruining my paint job" "LET'S COMMANDEER HIS HOUSE AND THE LAND ITS ON LOL"

But on the note of Evolution. Teh-Ephy is correct. Even without religion Evolution would still be only a theory, as it takes ALOT of evidence and tests to make something a scientific law.

It wouldn't be a scientific law, but it would definitely be acknowledged more. Also, please not that [HIGHLIGHT]it is technically only a theory that the earth orbits the sun.[/code]

Ironically without religion Evolution might not even be here today to be discussed...Because Evolution was made purely at the base level as an alternative to creation by design.

I don't believe Charles Darwin set out to undo the teachings of the bible, but it's rather hard to deny that generating friction with any church gets you publicity.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

Evolution was made purely at the base level as an alternative to creation by design.

yeh, legend has it darwin sat around in his room trying to think of a way to piss of christians for a laugh. he succeded.

i think what supa is trying to say is that if religion hadnt gotten in the way there would be no real counter argument to evolution, therfore while is itsnt fact, it would still be the only reasonable solution apart form "God did it", which is reasonable if you are a christian.

 

[Elenai]

By the church I was speaking also of "The Catholic Church".

Though most Catholics today I know are not corrupt and greedy...in the organized sense of the idea.

Pope John Paul II was epic.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

Though most Catholics today I know are not corrupt and greedy...in the organized sense of the idea.

today they are fine, but in the past they have been a bit shadey no doubt.

 

[Elenai]

That is true...True indeed. Thats one of the reasons why the Reformation occured.

 

[SuPa-]

False, entirely. Currently evolution is a hypothesis. It would become a theory, as it is yet impossible to prove that biological creatures evolve in the grand sense of new species emerging from old. That statement is not to be taken lightly, as it cannot be proven that the earth orbits the sun; that is also a theory. The uncertainty is just minimized to the point where it is acknowledged to be truth.

Worst examples ever. Egyptians, Indians, Greeks, etc. created their Gods to explain why they existed, and how the world works. Large religions have only been very recently (starting when the Catholic Church controlled peoples' daily lives, instigated the crusades, etc.) been used for political power.

Don't be so sure! Akhenaton, an Egyptian pharaoh, created the SunDisk god Aten and attempted to convert everyone in Egypt into worshipping Aten. Why? So he could have more control. He "mysteriously" died, though. Also, I listed several other examples. Teh_Ephy, I guess the Sun is carried across the sky by Apollo ;-P.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

By the church I was speaking also of "The Catholic Church".

Oh, lol... Damnit I'm misreading too much stuff. At any rate, I acknowledge that the Catholic church has made leaps and bounds towards the entity for good that they once were and should be. I was referring to the bottom, and probably completely ignored when you said "church". I was acknowledging that they were misrepresenting Christianity.

Wow... don't be so sure! Akhenaton, an Egyptian pharaoh, created the Sun-Disk god and attempted to convert everyone in Egypt into worshipping the Sun-Disk god. Why? So he could have more control. He "mysteriously" died, though.

Aten was a god of a different denomination of the same religion (or a lesser-acknowledged god... I can't really remember and don't feel like researching). He wanted to convert them from worshipping Amen (lol, sun-disk god) to Aten (lol, another sun-disk god). His successor, Tutankhaten (Tutankaton, however you want to spell it) changed his name to Tutankhamen in respect of the older (more common? No idea) religion. It wasn't a bid for power, it was a run at putting his religion on top of others. Potentially could have given him power, but it's really more like Shiite vs Sunni (although considerably less violent). Maybe like Greek vs Roman, except Amen and Aten were separate entities. Btw, both Akhenaten and Tutankhamen "mysteriously" died. Religion wasn't what people were using to usurp thrones in ancient Egypt... why risk angering the gods?

Also, I listed several other examples.

Jesus is no proof either. There have been many people who have made up gods (been "enlightened", "decended beings", saw god in a "vision", just randomly made it up to have more control and power). Egyptians, Indians, Greeks, etc. have done this

I remember seeing some documentary on like the history channel about how there were so many accounts of Jesus appearing after his death, and how likely it was that Jesus actually was resurrected (so many separate accounts of seeing Jesus of Nazareth after his execution, at which he was killed). Have you ever experienced hysteria? You'll feel like you were totally contacted by some sort of divine being, depending on what you were hysteric about. Yes, many have used religion for control, HELL NO, religions that are large did not start out as some strange bid for power. Corruptions of large religions emerge for those purposes, but not religions that become large.

Teh_Ephy, I guess the Sun is carried across the sky by Apollo ;-P.

The Greeks thought it was. They couldn't figure out how else it happened. It wasn't a bid for power.

 

[SuPa-]

Nefertiti also "mysteriously" died I think. Some people think Tut died by falling off a chariot or something of the sort. IDK

anyway, roaming off-topic XD

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Those had nothing to do with religion, though. Nor, for that matter, evolution >_>

Eh... evolution (for the most part) and religion aren't mutually exclusive. I will beat you with something blunt and metallic if you disagree

 

[SimonKurciski]

Ever hear of something called the Bible?

The Bible is not evidence. It offers no proof at all in support of intelligent design.

Also, to all the people who say the evolution is just a theory...gravity is just a theory too.

 

[Hakeem]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Maybe for most people, not all.

Also, please not that [HIGHLIGHT]it is technically only a theory that the earth orbits the sun.[/code]

It's a fact that the earth is a sphere, and that things orbit it.
Not sure if anyone cared to finally prove the earth orbits the sun, but if you send up a satellite with gyroscopes, then you can measure exactly where the satellite, and therefore the earth, moves.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Also, to all the people who say the evolution is just a theory...gravity is just a theory too.

Technically, evolution is a hypothesis right now. Not a theory yet.

It's a fact that the earth is a sphere, and that things orbit it.
Not sure if anyone cared to finally prove the earth orbits the sun, but if you send up a satellite with gyroscopes, then you can measure exactly where the satellite, and therefore the earth, moves.

But we wouldn't be able to measure the movement (or lack of) of the sun. Just so that you people are all clear on what I'm actually talking about, theories are seriously just a hair's breadth away from being fact... there's just the issue of formal proof. Like technically, there is no way to prove that the force we call "gravity" is actually what keeps us grounded to the earth. It (rhetorically speaking) could be magic gnomes. Or this guy . We have absolutely no way of directly proving that the force described by the word "gravity" actually exists... so its a theory.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

the thing about it is that it can be shown to possibly exist by maths but never shown to be proof by maths.

 

[Hakeem]

I'd call those magic gnomes gravity. Maybe the workings behind gravity are gnomes. But there sure is something keeping us down.

*suddenly starts floating*
Uh-oh.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

OH SHI—
The point is that we can't directly prove that the force implied by the term gravity is actually what is keeping us down. You can't go out and point at something and say "gravity." You can point at something and say "effect of gravity.".. but then again, are we misinterpreting the signs? It's a theory on the off chance that we are.

 

[PurplePoot]

I'd just like to say, I don't think anyone else did;

Elenai, you're saying that it's understandable for wolves to go to dogs and so on, because they're very similar, right?

Well, that's exactly what evolution is.

It's not like one day, a monkey turned into a human.

Over a long time, monkeys changed a little bit. Several different forms occurred. The "best" new form succeeded, and those slowly evolved into even more forms.

Overall, it may look like a huge leap, but when you look at it step by step it's exactly like broccoli-cauliflower ><

Also, Elenai, quoting a site that's made to promote Christian beliefs on things and is thus obviously biased will not get much respect.

They also seemed to omit the fact that there is more than one planet in this universe, which is why Evolution and life in that sense isn't that improbable after all.

 

[JarrardKO]

Correction, human didn't come from monkeys, we came from apes.

Apes and monkeys came from a common ancestor.

Ape != Monkey.

 

[SimonKurciski]

Look, can everyone just apply a bit of common sense and logic? Which of the below sounds more likely?

1A being called God created the Earth in six days, for no reason that we know of. He then used his powers to create all the animals on earth at the same time. Later, he decided to flood the Earth, and some guy and a few of friends built a boat that could hold millions of animals.

2 The earth was created from rock and dust drawn together by gravity. Water-laden comets bombarded the Earth and melted into oceans. After billions of years, a few very simple cells coalesced out of the chemically rich oceans. The strongest cells survived, and passed on thier genes, while the weaker ones were weeded out and died. Very slowly, more complex life-froms began to emerge, and evolution continued. After hundreds of millions of years, we get: Homo sapiens!

 

[PurplePoot]

More like billions of years afaik, but meh.

 

[Elenai]

Evolution.....the creation myth for the materialistic athiest. Just like all the other creation myths....no proof.

And even then you have made them in a biased way. You portray creation as the stuff of ignorance, and evolution as scientific and educated. Evolution is not this...Logical thing, you so see it as.

The fossil record: Against it,
Genetic improbability: makes it nigh impossible,
Carbon dating: Mathmatics discredits it,
Advanced knowledge of the universes inner workings: Against it.

And If the "Hypothosis of Evolution" is true....show me the evidence.

And while you are at it....Show me the very first form of life. Show me what it was. After all....should'nt there be MILLIONS of little tiny fossilized first forms of life cells? That have all the characteristics required to make such a drastic leap of generational mutation to become not only better cells...but to transform generation by generation from incomplete and undeveloped primitive bare bones capability into bi-cell'd tri-cell'd....then to become fish.....then to become a human. Show me how the Genetic code was able to mutate so much that a single primitive cell with "scraping the bottom of the barrel" capacities of life...could become the complex and nearly perfect DNA code of todays Homo-Sapien.

(I used the "no-proof of creation idea to apply to Evolution...which it does)

 

[PurplePoot]

Evolution.....the creation myth for the materialistic athiest. Just like all the other creation myths....no proof.

More evidence than that of Creationism. And it's not really "creation" in that sense, nor is it necessarily a myth. (It may very well be, but you're presenting it as if it 100% is which is BS)

And even then you have made them in a biased way. You portray creation as the stuff of ignorance, and evolution as scientific and educated. Evolution is not this...Logical thing, you so see it as.

Well, we have a reason for doing so, do we not? You're ranting on with circular arguments that make way less sense than ours, unable to provide any "proof" which you seem to be so desperate for yourself, and at least the sources on evolution tend to be far less biased - in fact, a lot of scientists are religious, don't forget.

The fossil record: Against it,

Mmm?

Genetic improbability: makes it nigh impossible,

Please read what we say...

Carbon dating: Mathmatics discredits it,

Mmm?

Advanced knowledge of the universes inner workings: Against it.

Mmm?

Mmm - I'd like to see your sources

And while you are at it....Show me the very first form of life. Show me what it was. After all....should'nt there be MILLIONS of little tiny fossilized first forms of life cells? That have all the characteristics required to make such a drastic leap of generational mutation to become not only better cells...but to transform generation by generation from incomplete and undeveloped primitive bare bones capability into bi-cell'd tri-cell'd....then to become fish.....then to become a human. Show me how the Genetic code was able to mutate so much that a single primitive cell with "scraping the bottom of the barrel" capacities of life...could become the complex and nearly perfect DNA code of todays Homo-Sapien.

Fossilized cells? No idea.

And showing you the very first form of life... species die out, (Dinosaurs for example) and a new, improved version of an old species would almost definitely wipe out the older one, through direct means or not.

You know, you're getting into dangerous waters.

You're just itching for a "Show me god", or a "Show me how god was able to be", or something of that sort.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

The fossil record: Against it,
Genetic improbability: makes it nigh impossible,
Carbon dating: Mathmatics discredits it,
Advanced knowledge of the universes inner workings: Against it.

have you just ignored everything in this thread that has been previously posted and basically anything that has ever been said to you about evolution ever?

Show me the very first form of life.Show me what it was.

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

there you go.

should'nt there be MILLIONS of little tiny fossilized first forms of life cells?

of course not, if you didnt realise basically no part of the earth that existed on the surface when it was young exists on the surface today, that is why even the oldest rocks that can be found on earth arent really that old, but many of the oldest rocks we do have contain fossilised remains of stromalites.

 

[Elenai]

EDIT: GST if the first form of life is that living specimen's species of algea cells....then why is it still alive today....and not evolved (extinct) like the rest of "evolved" organisms? And even still you would expect there to be many fossil remains of the first cells. But we dont see a strata or even a base of strata with only single cell organisms.

PurplePoot: My arguments make less sense may I point out that your arguments...make no more sense than what you claim mine do. You constantly quote over and over how evolution happened. You have not provided one spec of proof. (Except GST he at least has provided some bits to support his side)

Fossilized cells? No idea.

And showing you the very first form of life... species die out, (Dinosaurs for example) and a new, improved version of an old species would almost definitely wipe out the older one, through direct means or not

Species do die out, BUT fossils remain.

You're just itching for a "Show me god", or a "Show me how god was able to be", or something of that sort.

And I cannot show you God you have to find him yourself. But you can show me Evolution...if it is true. Because afterall, a natural process that should have all kinds of evidence should be a NO BRAINER! to prove. And yet it has'nt.

My scources:

-The Other Side of Evolution: By John Gary Williams.

-The fossil record itself: I have not seen one transitional set, that show a species going through all kinds of transitions, going up the geological strata, and going from primitive and incomplete to complete and advanced.

-The Geological strata (part of the Fossil record)- At the base of the precambrian/cambrian period strata shows not only simple forms of life...but complex and well defined life, like shellfish, and trilobyte like life that should not be there if evolution is true. Below the precambrian/cambrian strata....no life, were as it should be swarming with evidence of life.

http://www.carm.org/evolution.htm

-Carbon dating, it's formula: And my teacher, Who explained why Carbon dating is not reliable. (The fact that carbon decays in a non-linear rate, The fact that assumptions are applied to the variables to solve the formula inorder to calculate a date, that can only be measured up to a few thousand years

-And other scources I have to re-find.

 

[SimonKurciski]

Evolution.....the creation myth for the materialistic athiest. Just like all the other creation myths....no proof.

And even then you have made them in a biased way. You portray creation as the stuff of ignorance, and evolution as scientific and educated. Evolution is not this...Logical thing, you so see it as.

The fossil record: Against it,
Genetic improbability: makes it nigh impossible,
Carbon dating: Mathmatics discredits it,
Advanced knowledge of the universes inner workings: Against it.

And If the "Hypothosis of Evolution" is true....show me the evidence.

And while you are at it....Show me the very first form of life. Show me what it was. After all....should'nt there be MILLIONS of little tiny fossilized first forms of life cells? That have all the characteristics required to make such a drastic leap of generational mutation to become not only better cells...but to transform generation by generation from incomplete and undeveloped primitive bare bones capability into bi-cell'd tri-cell'd....then to become fish.....then to become a human. Show me how the Genetic code was able to mutate so much that a single primitive cell with "scraping the bottom of the barrel" capacities of life...could become the complex and nearly perfect DNA code of todays Homo-Sapien.

(I used the "no-proof of creation idea to apply to Evolution...which it does)

1 - There is no absolute proof....but there is a lot of evidnce.

2 - The fossil record is for evolution. We see early life forms, them modified versions of these life forms... ect. You must realize that the creation of a fossil is a very rare event....you cannot expect all creatures who die to make a fossil. Only about one out of 10,000 do. It is amazing, in fact, that the fossil record is as complete as it is.

3 - How do genetics make evolution nigh impossible?

4 - Show me evidence that carbon dating is innacurate.

5 - All you have tried to do is discredit evolution...you offer no support in favour of creationism. Give me some evidence that God created the world....and no, the Bible is not evidnce. It just contains warped folk stories, sometimes based on real events.

to make such a drastic leap

6 - It was not drastic in the least. It was very, very slow....also, again, only the hard, tough parts of animals fossilize...of course there are no fossils of algae. They have no bones, no shells, nothing.

7 - Prove that carbon does not linearly. And don't tell me that I have to prove that it does....the laws of physics state that a radioactive element will decay at a fixed rate.

 

[PurplePoot]

PurplePoot: My arguments make less sense may I point out that your arguments...make no more sense than what you claim mine do. You constantly quote over and over how evolution happened. You have not provided one spec of proof. (Except GST he at least has provided some bits to support his side)

Actually, a lot of what I've said has basically said "read before"

Why do our arguments make less sense?

We say

"In billions of planets, there is a very large chance a few will develop life."

You say

"Because god."

-Carbon dating, it's formula: And my teacher, Who explained why Carbon dating is not reliable. (The fact that carbon decays in a non-linear rate, The fact that assumptions are applied to the variables to solve the formula inorder to calculate a date, that can only be measured up to a few thousand years

And that disproves evolution why?

And I cannot show you God you have to find him yourself. But you can show me Evolution...if it is true. Because afterall, a natural process that should have all kinds of evidence should be a NO BRAINER! to prove. And yet it has'nt.

So we have to prove our side but you don't have to prove yours? ...

---

And for your sources, please stop quoting that christian-belief-promotion (obviously biased) website. I can't check your other sources, since I assume those're books, (which I don't have) but there is a think called unbiased information ><

---

This page looks pretty nice, haven't read it in detail but it appears to mention stuff like those fossils you're going on about, Elenai.

 

[Elenai]

2 - The fossil record is for evolution. We see early life forms, them modified versions of these life forms... ect. You must realize that the creation of a fossil is a very rare event....you cannot expect all creatures who die to make a fossil.. Only about one out of 10,000 do. It is amazing, in fact, that the fossil record is as complete as it is.

Is that why there are millions of fossils, and why the lowest strata of the fossil record shows complex forms of life along side single cell'd organisms?

3 - How do genetics make evolution nigh impossible?

First off, mutations that are beneficial are very rare, plus those mutations forming in the right genes are even rare'er. That combined with the hundreds of genes in a single chromosome of a single cell....it is just astronomically improbable that the genes of generations of cells would mutate so much that they would become a multi cell'd organism.

And Carbon dating is inaccurate here is a scource I found: http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/Pages/CarbonDatingBack.html

5 - All you have tried to do is discredit evolution...you offer no support in favour of creationism. Give me some evidence that God created the world....and no, the Bible is not evidnce. It just contains warped folk storied, sometimes based on real events.

This thread is about evolution. Is it true or not, Not about creationism. But first of all. The bible is not warped folk stories. It is a very accurate piece of literature that archeaologists often use. Not too mention it is a chronical of the entire history of the Jews up to Roman occupation. It is not warped. And even still, if we did not evolve or get here naturally...something else must have happened to get us here. And right now an intelligent designer is the only other option.

You will have to find God yourself. The proof of creationism is with God's word. Telling me not to use the bible is like me saying..."prove evolution without using the fossil record."

 

[PurplePoot]

First off, mutations that are beneficial are very rare, plus those mutations forming in the right genes are even rare'er. That combined with the hundreds of genes in a single chromosome of a single cell....it is just astronomically improbable that the genes of generations of cells would mutate so much that they would become a multi cell'd organism.

You're still not reading..

And Carbon dating is inaccurate here is a scource I found

Again, what does that have to do with proving creationism and/or disproving evolution?

---

You will have to find God yourself. The proof of creationism is with God's word. Telling me not to use the bible is like me saying..."prove evolution without using the fossil record."

If you use a text, you use the whole text, not selective parts of it so that it appears to not contradict itself.

Do you stone people to death who are: homosexuals, workers on sunday, and nonbelievers to your god?

(For example)

Also, the Fossil Record is a natural record, not a book written by some random guys to get control of Rome.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

if the first form of life is that living specimen's species of algea cells....then why is it still alive today ...and not evolved (extinct)

well as you said, cyanobacteria is algea cells (pretty much) and considering photosynthesis is one of the few energy sources available they have had the greatest chance of survival compared to other bacteria of its age. infact realistically they probably have the greatest chance of survival in any situation compared to any other organism in existance due to their simplicity, light, water and CO2 is all they need pretty much and they are more resistant to changes in our environment than most other organisms, especially if they are as spores. this is why they still exist and they have evolved, chances are all the original cyanobacteria are extinct but modern species exist. cyanobacteria are litterally bacteria that get their energy from photosynthesis and millions of different varieties exist and there are going to be trillions and trillions of induvidual bacterium, infact the global weight of cyanobacteria is probably near the global weight of every other organism in existance. if there is one organism that is never ever going to die it will be cyanobacteria, but it is constantly evolving and changing.

like the rest of "evolved" organisms?

actually many ancient bacteria still exist in modern forms, including those that get their energy from vents in the bottom of the ocean and those that live deep under the surace. both of these get their energy from chemicals which is thought to be the original energy source, compared to the much more efficient and successful photosynthesis.

And even still you would expect there to be many fossil remains of the first cells.

no you wouldnt...why would you "expect" this? considering you know full well what i mean when i say that the earths surface is young and that we know little about where these bacteria existed physically in relation to where the oldest rocks now exist we cant expect anything really. tbh i think we are lucky to have the few fossils of them that we do have and you cant really expect anything from such a long time ago.

But we dont see a strata or even a base of strata with only single cell organisms.

i dont understand what you mean by this....i tried googling "strata bacteria" and didnt find anything.



as much as it may pain you, the bible is not evidence...dont use "the bible says this" as evidence coz then i go "origin of species says that" as evidence. use things that physically show your theory, not things that tell stories about it.

 

[SimonKurciski]

Ok, you know what I just realized? I'm not convincing anybody. The essence of logical argument is to have an unbiased viewpoint, and to consider all arguments equally, which no one seems to be doing. *cough*Elenai*cough*

I'll keep trying.

Yes, beneficial mutations are rare, but this happened over BILLIONS OF YEARS. Beneficial muatations occured at a rate of about one per millenium.

You will have to find God yourself. The proof of creationism is with God's word. Telling me not to use the bible is like me saying..."prove evolution without using the fossil record."

Nope. Not true. The fossil record offers evidence...the Bible offers the words of some God who might not even exist.

Is that why there are millions of fossils, and why the lowest strata of the fossil record shows complex forms of life along side single cell'd organisms?

Show me your source.

Anyway, strata are often moved around by tectonic plate movement, earthquakes, ect......



How in the world are you so sure that God exists? Why does he not show himself? And if he is truly all-powerful, then why does he care about humans? If what you say is true, than God shouldn't give a sneeze about man. What makes man so special? There are surely all other life-forms in the universe.

 

[PurplePoot]

You accidentally wrapped some of your comments in quote tags, GST

 

[GST_Nemisis]

You accidentally wrapped some of your comments in quote tags, GST

fixed now

LOLOLTHEREISALIMITOFFOURWORDSMINIMUM?LOLOL

 

[Elenai]

Carbon dating discredits what I call the "clock of evolution" if the clock is inaccurate, then the time span they measure with the clock is also inaccurate. And since the clock only measures back to so many thousand years...the billions proposed are assumptions and stretching of the evidence to fit an idea.

GST: The cyanbacteria if it has evolved into the thousands of species of today...then why is it not gone. Is my question. I would think that all forms of it would have evolved by now. And if it is now constantly evolving then why do we not see it. And by the way I have not used the bible as evidence here as you can see. But other than you these other people have yet to provide one spec of evidence supporting evolution. Except for Poot's site, and it says the evidence against creationism is that spiral galaxies' arms have'nt broken....is that all? One thing? One, silly, thing?

Simon: It does not take a genius to see that there are millions of fossils in the archives of museums all around the world THAT is my scource.

And even if strata are moved they should stay relatively in place. See pic.

And I am sure God exists because I have seen what he has done in my life. And God gives a sneeze about us because he loves us. God is an artist, he cares about his masterpieces.

EDIT: PurplePoot...If I am not allowed to use sites that are "biased" towards support of Creationism....perhaps you should not use sites that are "biased" towards evolution.

EDIT2: I looked at the fossil record/transition parts of the site....Once again...they only show snap shots of similar creatures and call them transitions. They fail to show this.
C=Creature D=Creature 2
C1>C1.0001>C1.0002>C1.0004......C2>C2.0001.....C3>C3.0001....ect....C100>C100...All the way to D1.

What they show is...

C1 looks similar to the bones of D2. They must be related. There is no real transition or "Growing up".

 

[GST_Nemisis]

GST: The cyanbacteria if it has evolved into the thousands of species of today...then why is it not gone. I would think that all forms of it would have evolved by now.

dude, did you read what i posted? first of, it has evolved. cyanobacteria is a the largest collection of bacteria and i garantuee you that the cyanobacteria that existed back then has been wiped out but there are MILLIONS of types of cyanobacteria today which are totally different. there will always be cyanobacteria untill the world dies.

And if it is now constantly evolving then why do we not see it.

why? well perhaps if you studied a single sample of cyanobacteria for 1 million years you would see something but im fairly sure no one has done that.

now i think i have spent enough time defending evolution, and tbh im getting a bit annoyed of you reading what i write and ignoring and asking virtually the same questions.

here is a question for you:

regarding the old testament:

why do you believe the word of a book originally written by an unknown and uncredable author, in greek no less, then translated at least 5 times into various different and ancient languages, eventually reaching english in a form that is very different from its original text that could well just be fairy tales, for any other reason than because your parents are christian?

why do you believe something that has considerable inconsistancies and in parts makes no logical sense at all (noah in particular, i dont care how much you try to explain it, it makes no sense) for any other reason than because people tell you to?

why do you believe that christianity is right and that everyother religion is wrong, even though there is evidence for other religions which is just as credible as for christianity (which isnt very crediable at all imo) for any other reason than the fact that you were born in a part of the world that follows christianity?
_______________________________

there is no physical evidence of creationism, there is no evidence of floods, there is nothing to support this apart from the book itself, which in its own existance is questionable.

you may argue that evolution is wrong for whatever reason but for every problem you bring up has an logical answer...and FFS there ARE transition fossils for LOTS of creatures....

evolution does have evidence, accept it.

creationism has no evidence, prove me wrong.

 

[Elenai]

Well if Evolution is so cut and dry true, then why is it still only a hypothosis?

The flood has evidence. Besides the fact that just about every culture has a flood story.

The Flood - Physical Evidences
The Flood "myth" is not just some ancient allegory meant to teach us about God's judgment on sin. The Flood was a real historical event and earth's crust bears witness to this in many compelling ways. Consider the fossil record: billions of dead things buried in sedimentation ("laid-down-by-water rock") found all over the earth. Geologist Dr. John Morris explains, "Sedimentary rocks, by definition, are laid down as sediments by moving fluids, are made up of pieces of rock or other material which existed somewhere else, and were eroded or dissolved and redeposited in their present location." [1] Over 70% of the earth's surface rock is sedimentary rock (the rest of earth's surface rock is volcanic igneous and metamorphic rock). In these sedimentary rock layers, geologists find some very odd features. For example, fossilized trees buried at all angles, upside-down and right-side-up, often passing through multiple rock layers, obviously the result of a marine cataclysm. These "polystrate" fossils (poly, meaning more than one; strate, meaning rock layer) are a worldwide phenomenon.

Consider the ratios of dead things we find buried in this sedimentary rock: "95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.74%). 95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%). The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.)" [2]

Also consider the abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America. [3]

As for my belief in God and Christ. I came to him on my own. And the bible is supported by archealogical studies. Histories like the ones written by Josephus and other respected authors. Not to mention that the bible was not just haphazardly translated and morphed over time. It was CAREFULLY and dilegently copied and translated by professional scribes who did their job incredibly well. And not to mention that greek was not the old testament language. Hebrew was. And most Jews know Hebrew and English...so it would be quite easy for them to translate it and find any error. So far they have not found any.

And I can easily say that atheism isnt credible. I could easily say that saying God doesnt exist is like looking at your taxes and saying..."LALALA the Government isnt real."

And the bible is not inconsistent. Show me where it is inconsistent.

 

[PurplePoot]

Carbon dating discredits what I call the "clock of evolution" if the clock is inaccurate, then the time span they measure with the clock is also inaccurate. And since the clock only measures back to so many thousand years...the billions proposed are assumptions and stretching of the evidence to fit an idea.

So wait... we accidentally miscounted by 6 billion years since carbon dating is slightly inaccurate?

EDIT: PurplePoot...If I am not allowed to use sites that are "biased" towards support of Creationism....perhaps you should not use sites that are "biased" towards evolution.

I'm presenting evidence that is "biased" towards evolution because of the evidence it in itself presents.

You're presenting evidence that is "biased" towards creationism because they're christian fundamentalists, and seem to be using the same arguments which you are. (Assuming this because you stated it as a source) (Which seem to be widely discredited, whether you read them or not)

I would have no problem if you presented anti-evolutionary evidence that appears to not be overwhelmed by most non-fundamentalists.

EDIT2: I looked at the fossil record/transition parts of the site....Once again...they only show snap shots of similar creatures and call them transitions. They fail to show this.
C=Creature D=Creature 2
C1>C1.0001>C1.0002>C1.0004......C2>C2.0001.....C3> C3.0001....ect....C100>C100...All the way to D1.

What they show is...

C1 looks similar to the bones of D2. They must be related. There is no real transition or "Growing up".

I'd sure love to spend my life looking at a fish's gills grow a millimetre bigger in a museum display...

Just because they picture it as a 5-step process or so in museums, doesn't mean it was. They're just picking up largely noticeable changes over time.

Well if Evolution is so cut and dry true, then why is it still only a hypothosis?

Evidence does not make it 100% true

The Flood - Physical Evidences
The Flood "myth" is not just some ancient allegory meant to teach us about God's judgment on sin. The Flood was a real historical event and earth's crust bears witness to this in many compelling ways. Consider the fossil record: billions of dead things buried in sedimentation ("laid-down-by-water rock") found all over the earth. Geologist Dr. John Morris explains, "Sedimentary rocks, by definition, are laid down as sediments by moving fluids, are made up of pieces of rock or other material which existed somewhere else, and were eroded or dissolved and redeposited in their present location." [1] Over 70% of the earth's surface rock is sedimentary rock (the rest of earth's surface rock is volcanic igneous and metamorphic rock). In these sedimentary rock layers, geologists find some very odd features. For example, fossilized trees buried at all angles, upside-down and right-side-up, often passing through multiple rock layers, obviously the result of a marine cataclysm. These "polystrate" fossils (poly, meaning more than one; strate, meaning rock layer) are a worldwide phenomenon.

I've explained this one before, I think.

All the cultures that these stories sprung up from were from Europe. Now, one of the seas (I think it was the black sea) was not a sea at that point, but a depression in the land. People were living it and so on and so forth.

At some point, said sea flooded, (no idea how fast) eventually burying entire villages, though a good portion (probably most or all) of the occupants were able to reach safe land without a problem, and tell this story.

Then, the story got twisted more and more over time. It's like playing Telephone for thousands of years.

It's the leap between a valley filling up with water versus god drowning the earth that's unfeasible.

Also consider the abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America. [3]

You realize how mountains are formed, right?

(From two plates pushing up against each other, not sure about the specifics)

Meaning they weren't always mountains, (in the non-creationist beliefs anyhow) and thus were, at one point, under the sea floor collecting dead shellfish.

Consider the ratios of dead things we find buried in this sedimentary rock: "95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.74%). 95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%). The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.)

Somewhere between the point of there being more creatures in the sea for way longer and god creating the earth, (or evolution being disproved or whatever your point here is) you lost me.

 

[Elenai]

If all the cultures with a flood story were from Europe then why does China have one?

And yes I know basic geology. I know how mountains form.

That flood thing was to correct GST.

But the point is, I'm tired of being a one man army and I want to stop this silly argument, But I am too stubborn to stop. And we all know that in the end we will find out who was right and who was wrong.

HOI!!! I'm so weary...The same arguments on both sides, the same old cliched stuff spewing out from every thing......ALL for an argument that wont end until the end itself...

 

[PurplePoot]

And yes I know basic geology. I know how mountains form.

Then why did you bother with that comment, if you're admitting it was meaningless?

If all the cultures with a flood story were from Europe then why does China have one?

People travel. ><

And that flood story is AFAIK, I'm almost definitely sure that that was the case as for the actual flood, but as for the location Europe was much more of an I Think and less of an I Know, though I'm still pretty sure it was Europe.

 

[Elenai]

People do indeed travel....indeed they do.

And so does truth.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Wait.

You actually think the story about Noah's Ark is true?

If yes, this isn't faith, it's blind belief.

 

[PurplePoot]

Just because truth travels doesn't mean that everything that travels is truth.

It's like saying that since a bathroom has a toilet, a toilet has a bathroom.

 

[Hakeem]

Ok, lets start at the beginning:
We have looked at the universe and seen that it is expanding => Go back in time and it must have come from a point => That point exploded with a whole lot of energy => Gravity caused energy to clump together, however, the universe was expanding such that all the energy could not pull back to the point, it had to pull together at irregular places => These irregular pieces became protons, neutrons, and electrons => Gravity further pulled the matter into giant masses called stars => The immense pressure caused heat to start a process called nuclear fusion => Nuclear fusion caused elements heavier than hydrogen to form => When the stars ran out of hydrogen fuel, it started using helium, making all the elements up to iron => Depending on the mass of these stars, they either go supernova, making nebulae, or turn into white dwarves, making nebulae => Nebulae form solar systems, containing stars, and various other astronomical objects, including planets => Planets start life as balls of liquid mineral or gas => As mineral planets cools, the surface becomes solid => At this point volcanoes can form, spewing matter away from the planet => The solids eventually form into giant plates, which also cause volcanoes to from => On Earth, the volcanoes spewed hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon and argon (source) additionally, various other astronomical bodies gave Earth abundant organic matter => Oh, I don't need to spell it out, this does quite nicely.
Honestly, scientists don't say things that go against physics. Everything about evolution is plausible. And if you doubt the time scales, I suggest you look here. Radiocarbon dating has it's limits but scientists don't just say it works. They test to make sure it does.

 

[Elenai]

Plausible...And yet everything about it is improbable, and highly flawed.

The chances of Organic matter forming from random collisions of elements and all that requiring a perfect environment (which you say happened all through natural chance) for life to even begin to form is like: winning every lottery on earth 1000 times, after being hit by lightning underground 100 times, and being eaten by a shark in the middle of the sahara desert. And for that fledgling piece of organic material to have formed complex codes of DNA is just as improbable as the above. And not to mention that DNA is only the blueprints, They would have to form complex cell structures, also highly improbable, and not too mention that those cells would have to have insticts to survive. And insticts do not evolve. A water spider did not evolve the instict to make an underwater nest, and to gather oxygen in it's hairs to take into the nest to make it livable for it's children. It could not have evolved, because imperfect instincts evolving into perfect ones, would have DOOMED the organisms with imperfect instincts and they would not have passed on children to have evolved into the perfect instincts organisms of today.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

It's not highly flawed, else it would have been refused as a viable theory. Face it, even if odds are small (however small) then it will happen eventually, it's only a matter of time. Besides, it might have been extreme luck too, you can't know.

It makes a lot of sense, and frankly I trust scientists and researchists more than you, or anyone else in this thread.

Besides, I think most of these threads are turning into us trying arguing with you on the same arguments over and over again. Pretty pointless.

 

[Elenai]

The only reason it was accepted in the first place was because it was the only other option besides Creationism and atheistic scientists required something to explain their origins other than God.

And yes as I stated above. I am sick of being a one man army arguing over and over. Just as you all are most likley sick and tired of trying to convince me that you are right.