»Creationism vs Evolution«
|
|||
 there are simple ways to show creationism for the horse shit that it is they say that the earth was created not much more than a few thousand years ago...yet carbon dating shows life way before then...hundreds of millions of years before then get a devout christian to explain dinosaurs without reverting to the "they were put here by god to test my faith" argument get them to explain the skelatal evidence that can chart the evolution of hundreds of species get them to show you undeniable evidence of something that jesus was assosiated with...they cant prove the church of the nativity was where jesus was born...they cant prove that the turin shroud was what he was buried in(although the opposite has shown that its nowhere near old enough) and get them to show you the holy grail... get them to show evidence of divine intervention the best argument i ever heard from a religious person about the 2nd coming of christ was this i asked him "so when can we expect him to come down to earth then" he replied..."he probably already has and was either murdered for saying that he was the son of god...or hes locked up in a loony bin somewhere" posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsCreationism vs Evolution |
|
|||
 Quote: they say that the earth was created not much more than a few thousand years ago...yet carbon dating shows life way before then Then the carbon dating might be wrong. As simple as that. Or do scientists have a witness, how old their samples are? Quote: get a devout christian to explain dinosaurs without reverting to the "they were put here by god to test my faith" argument I see no big problem. They were created by god. Quote: get them to explain the skelatal evidence that can chart the evolution of hundreds of species Why should god reinvent a working pattern? If skeletons work perfectly, then god would use the same kind for every species where it fits. Quote: and get them to show you the holy grail... They can't. So? There is a lot of speculation in science too. Quote: get them to show evidence of divine intervention If you start to argue like this, anomaly, then you will lose, because the will to believe blindly is much higher than to look. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 A lot of creationists are stupid. This I will not deny. Evolution is about 'adaptation' and this has been recognised by dog breeders for centuries. However, the creationists do have a few things on their side when it comes to macro evolution (evolution between species). Different species have different numbers of chromosones. The only example of another species being created that we can actively see is the creation of the mule. The mule is half horse, half donkey and is infertile - doesn't bode well as evidence? Perhaps. Another thing that creationists have trouble understanding (and from what I can see, some evolution supporters make this mistake too) is that man did not evolve from apes. Let's get the stress right here: Man did not evolve FROM apes. Apes are still around and are adapting just like we are. Unless a modern ape can get a time machine and go back to before man's first appearance then man did not evolve from apes as they are today. What evolution actually claims is that man and apes have developed from a common origin. Here the cross species concept makes a lot more sense because if we look at Lions, Cheetahs, Tigers, Leopards and Domestic Cats they are all different species yet they all obviously adapted from similar origins. To deny this seems ridiculous. Is there not a similar connection between humans and other mammals like apes? Well the problem in the end is proof. We can't actively WATCH an ape turn into a man because it is not modern apes which we evolved from, but the common ancestor to apes and humans thousands of years ago. Backing up any evidence from fossils is awkward too because carbon dating is infamously innaccurate. There are also an embarrassing number of gaps in the fossil records. I agree with Knn that evolution does not conflict with Christianity since evolution is a perfect system and shows the complexity of design. (Stephen Hawking has accepted that the chances of DNA cropping up without outside planning are extremely low - then he makes his multiverse theories to try and sneak away from the problem). However, creationists do not see evolution as another wonderful creation of God. They see it as a lie perpetuated to try to bring about the downfall of Christianity. A creationist sees the Genesis story as entirely literal. I see it as a poetic explanation of how God created the world. There are even patterns in the way it is written: Day One: Light Day Four: Creatures of Light (Planets) Day Two: Sea and Sky Day Five: Creatures of Sea and Sky Day Three: Land Day Six: Creatures of Land Anybody find this helpful? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Here the cross species concept makes a lot more sense because if we look at Lions, Cheetahs, Tigers, Leopards and Domestic Cats they are all different species yet they all obviously adapted from similar origins. To Actually ALL living animals are descendants of the animals on Noah's ark if you take the bible seriously. Except the sea animals. And maybe some other like insects or birds. But let me tell 1 thing regarding evolution. The basic idea of evolution is that all higher life forms came into being because of radioactivity (cosmic rays). Even more: 1 male animal has been altered by radioactivity AND IN THE SAME TIME (and in the same area) another animal of the same species (but female) has been altered in the same way and they find each other. I find this idea so ridiculous, that if I had to choose between god vs radioactivity I would choose god. Scientists know it themselves and they just wait until someone comes up with a better idea. Actually you don't need a god. All you need is to admit that life forms can change themselves: A small cat decides that it can better survive in the jungle as a big cat and voila, tigers come into being. But that is a total non-Christian belief and undermines the idea of a mighty god (since you don't need a god for new life forms to develop) posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: The basic idea of evolution is that all higher life forms came into being because of radioactivity (cosmic rays). WTF? Are you being sarcastic or something? 
posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
he is refering to the suns effect on the creation of basic amino acid chains...these went on to become the DNA for the first single cell organisms on earth the suns power also caused the development of chlorophyll and chloroplasts in these organisms so that they could use the suns energy for respiration(once oxygen was present) all these factor combined with the suns location in the solar system(not to near or to far from the sun) a suitable rotation of the earth so that no side is in light/heat or dark/cold for too long what i say is this...if god is the only reason life exists on earth then why is there not life on all planets regardless of temperature and radiation exposure and atmosphere etc etc etc was earth "chosen" to sustain life...don't be so up your own arse would be the reply to that in a more logical circumstance posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: WTF? Are you being sarcastic or something? Not at all. That is the scientific explanation of evolution. Cosmic rays hit the DNA and by CHANCE higher life forms develop. This is the only explanation scientists have. If the DNA gets harmed in a bad way, the species succumbs. If it gets harmed in a good way the species survives ("Survival of the fittest") posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've never heard about this before, I thought animal species evolved due to necessity. I'm pretty sure that's what Mr. Charles Darwin had in mind when he formulated his controversial theory. posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Charles Darwin had in mind when he formulated his controversial theory. Charles Darwin just watched a few animals and I doubt that many scientists have actually read his, uff, thick works. He had no clue about genes. Evolution nowadays = Evolution thru radioactivity posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Not at all. That is the scientific explanation of evolution. Cosmic rays hit the DNA and by CHANCE higher life forms develop this in fact only one source of mutation that can effect change of living creatures another is disease...forcing changes in immune systems as well as physical changes to avoid reinfection chemical mutagens(natural mutagens) for example the flamingo has devoloped skin on its legs that resist the extremely caustic waters of lake natron in tanzania so as to avoid all it predators predation also over time forces adaptaions in creatures...both in predator and prey food availability...hence in areas of scare food...animals have evolved to exploit different niches and in some cases different parts of the same food source Quote: Charles Darwin just watched a few animals and I doubt that many scientists have actually read his, uff  ...ok then...if you say so...the animals he observed while on the hms beagle that are important are the finches of the galapagos islands...where by only one species is similar to the mainland south american finch...and there are now 9(i think) different species seperated only by short distances which have evolved (proven through DNA profiling)from the single mainland species...the only room for theory was how they got to the islands in the first place and this is now generally accepted to have been a tropical storm or hurricane that carried them there(similar to the old raining frogs)
but i ask...whats the alternative to evolution?...a big thingy came down from somewhere that has never been seen or located...and placed to little people who spawned an entire race and lets go further than that adam and eve...had to sons cain and able they couldnt mate with each other for obvious reasons...the end oh wait...then god put someone else on earth...rrriiiggghhhttt then oh...and lets not forget the talking snakes...whatever happened to them?...must have flew off in there little magic apple ships to never never land...
posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: food availability...hence in areas of scare food...animals have evolved to exploit different niches and in some cases different parts of the same food source Yeah, but this doesn't make "a horse out of an elephant" so to speak. DNA mutations are the only real source for evolution. Whether radioactivity or chemicals or viruses. Anything else are minor adaptations, such as color or size. Quote: but i ask...whats the alternative to evolution?... I already wrote what the alternative is: Animals alter their DNA themselves (or do so with the help of viruses or so). Quote: cain and able. they couldnt mate with each other for obvious reasons...the end This is the way how family trees are told. Only the sons are listed. They had a lot of daughters, but they are not listed. And now you are using invalid arguments, because you argue that "God could not have created all life forms because there are some things in a book (the bible) that I don't understand". posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: godlessgeeks.com... Priceless! I like the last one Quote: ARGUMENT FROM MULTIPLICITY (III) (recursive internet edition)
(1) There exists a web page (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm) (2) That page has hundreds of purported proofs of the existence of God. (3) They can't all be wrong. (4) Therefore, God exists. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's precisely the kind of arguments used by believers to justify God's existance. posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
According to you, how did human beings come to exist? Evolution? Creation? Mutation? posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 22 May 2012, 07:52 php B.B. |