I love how they say how dumb it is without showing what's wrong with it. I guess their ignorance shows that evolution is real... omg! we came from apeS????? hmm want a banana? No really, like Joe said can you name evidence that backs up evolution
The fact that you have come to this "conclusion" based on a clearly garbled and erroneous understanding of evolutionary biology, while all the scientists on the planet disagree with you shows how much your "conclusion" is worth. Nothing.
Garbage. "Science" never claimed anything of the sort. That was a purely religious belief in India and has zero to do with science. Where did you get this idiotic "argument" from?Science said earth laid on the back of 4 tortioses when the bible said it hung on nothing.
The difference, which you keep totally failing to grasp, is that real scientists started with the evidence and arrived at their conclusions about evolution from the evidence alone. Creationists start with their religious conclusion and then go and try to find scientific looking or scientific sounding things they can dress that conclusion up with. Anything that starts with a dogmatic conclusion is not science.So science was slow, creationism is science I am not a scientist on either field but from what I have heard and seen both sides are using alot of the same thing just explaining it differently using things from the world to help explain their conclusions.
In other words, you're starting with your conclusion as well and don't actually give a damn about the evidence or science at all.Creationism just makes more sense to me, for the most part because like I said when I started this topic, I KNOW God exists without a doubt in my mind, because not because solely on faith but also on what evidence He's has given me. That's good enough.
All of the Creationist arguments against evolution are carefully dissected and debunked in the Talk Origins Archive. Their "Must Read FAQs" section gives some good summaries of the basics, particularly their "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology".
Last edited by ThiudareiksGunthigg; January 29, 2008 at 09:19 PM.
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Gunthigg
"HISTORY VS THE DA VINCI CODE" - Facts vs Hype
"ARMARIUM MAGNUM" - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
Under the patronage of Wilpuri. Proud patron of Ringeck.
can you name evidence that backs up evolution? I am not the only one here... Joe is also asking questions so don't only refer to me. When Science becomes a man's god then basically nothing of the supernatural will make sense to you unless you can explain it. Creationism has been found to be genuine. And its true I have my own conclusion because of all the evidence I was presented with, I came to know that what I believe is true and all others false. Basically, evolution does not answer how did things come to be or anything its only a theory off speculations and a lifetime of observation that comes up with nothing but more maybes and no real definates. You don't see animals changing species or in the process of it. You may see related species and then come up with the conclusion omg this was once that and now turning into this... when all it is they only have similarites that go no further then physical apperance
oh god
looks like i'm going to have to start a new thread critiquing christianity next
However, The process of evolution is that the main traits of a organism will be pasted down to the next phase of evolution. To have the flagellum there without any parts would leave a totally useless tail. Why would something usless be passed down.
Also i do know of irreducible complexity which means that if a part is removed the system then its useless.
If the flagellum is useless to begin with then why would it be passed down the evolutionary chain?
Also i say we end the previous arguement. It may result in a endless chain of the same thing. We should resume later in pm's or something.
Go and read the information in the three links I gave at the end of my last post. Come back when you've done so.
Answered here, with links and references for further reading.
Last edited by ThiudareiksGunthigg; January 29, 2008 at 09:27 PM.
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Gunthigg
"HISTORY VS THE DA VINCI CODE" - Facts vs Hype
"ARMARIUM MAGNUM" - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
Under the patronage of Wilpuri. Proud patron of Ringeck.
Please at least try to read the evidence you requested. Your definition of irreducible complexity is correct, but there has been nothing ever observed that conclusively proves it. (If you can't be bothered to read it, here is some nice pictures.)
Last edited by Ummagumma; January 29, 2008 at 09:32 PM.
The only reason I mentioned that is that you restated false conclusions in the reply to my post:
I had given 2 separate sources that debunked the complexity issue. I just assumed you hadn't read them and were restating your misconceptions again. All those questions are addressed in the links on my post - which you quoted posting this. I just thought you weren't going to read it.
Some people don't seem to understand that evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity. I see nothing in the Bible that says God created the Earth in one 'blast' like it is now (or whatever Creationists believe).
The only qualm about evolution that I have is that human evolution seems to speed up rapidly nearing the Homo Sapien stage... But I am sure in time that there will be an explanation.
Under the patronage of John I Tzimisces
Yes, but Ummagumma has given you so much that you might start finding it hard to cope
Teutonic Joe's only argument was irreducible complexity, and that has been debunked.I am not the only one here... Joe is also asking questions so don't only refer to me.
Science is not a man's God, and something supernatural cannot effect the natural unless it has a natural aspect, and once something has a natural aspect, it becomes a scientific question. Also evolution has been explained and all the complexity of any species has been built up over time to become what it is today and been shown very logically and is becoming more and more obvious.When Science becomes a man's god then basically nothing of the supernatural will make sense to you unless you can explain it.
This is a rather bad statement in many aspects. Give me a completely scientific explanation by a scientist of Creationism and if it is completely sound, I will applaud you and most likely change my beliefs. You obviously haven't actually taken all the evidence you were presented with seriously unless it supported you view, and you can never "know" something, and as Socrates said, "A wise man is he who knows that he knows nothing."Creationism has been found to be genuine. And its true I have my own conclusion because of all the evidence I was presented with, I came to know that what I believe is true and all others false.
No, you're right, that is a completely different scientific theory.Basically, evolution does not answer how did things come to be
About the fact that it is only a theoryor anything its only a theory off speculations and a lifetime of observation that comes up with nothing but more maybes and no real definates.
Like in the video, electricity is only a theory as well:hmmm: . Like I have said before, there is no such thing as real definites (not definates), but upon weighing up on evidence evolution wins hands down.
If you knew anything about evolution you would never say that. Evolution happens over multiple generations and and you see only see a maximum of four or five generations throughout your life in conditions that are hardly hostile. But if you must see evolution in action you can witness single cell organism evolution where generations pass at about 30 a second.You don't see animals changing species or in the process of it.
You obviously look no further than physical appearance...You may see related species and then come up with the conclusion omg this was once that and now turning into this... when all it is they only have similarites that go no further then physical apperance
It is written that God made everything in six days. That is that everything was " as is " and if " as is " is correct then of course men are going to see into a past they think exists. It is then that they feel enabled to question God for no-one else takes the blame for the creation of all things.
ThiudareiksGunthigg makes mockery of these ancient works yet he himself as a historian builds his own reputation on ancient works, not by being present as a witness, but on learning from generations of historians who passed by before him and who is to say that what these men assumed was any better than what Scripture tells.
But then he will come back no doubt with science as his trump card but if as I believe " as is " means what it says his trump card means nothing. In the end as it always does, it comes down to, you believe God or you don't. He doesn't just as I once didn't so there we can meet in harmony. Where we part is that I have, myself a witness, experienced something that he hasn't that changed my view completely.
Since he has no science to prove I didn't he then turns to silly comments about fairytales and suchlike that makes an investigative historian look rather childish. Now that is neither science nor wise. Just so he uses the same old words towards the thread writer relying on his own learning that falls short of what others have experienced thinking that silly comment will change these.
Perhaps doing what Luke did might help. He investigated these things not by superior thought but by going in amongst the people to search out the truth. It was their experiences that convinced him enough that he should put it in writing. Oh, I know that will stir more argument especially concerning the birth of Christ since time and date bear a heavier weight than the experiences of those he does not know.
As Desra has fumblingly pointed out (without meaning to) it's "written" in Hindu scriptures that the world is held on the back of a turtle.
Does that mean that's true? What makes your "written" scriptures more reliable?
I use ancient works the way any historian uses them - in context. If you choose to interpret some at face value when no sensible person would, that's your problem and your problem only.ThiudareiksGunthigg makes mockery of these ancient works yet he himself as a historian builds his own reputation on ancient works, not by being present as a witness, but on learning from generations of historians who passed by before him and who is to say that what these men assumed was any better than what Scripture tells.
Eh? So science is fine when it means a microwave cooking your pizza or your plane taking off but it's not okay if it contradicts your simple-minded, dumb-headed, literal interpretation of some ancient books by people who thought the sun went around the earth? Please don't make us laugh.But then he will come back no doubt with science as his trump card but if as I believe " as is " means what it says his trump card means nothing.
In the end your posts always come down to this numb-headed attempt to get everyone to switch off their brains. Do us a favour and give it a rest.In the end as it always does, it comes down to, you believe God or you don't.
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Gunthigg
"HISTORY VS THE DA VINCI CODE" - Facts vs Hype
"ARMARIUM MAGNUM" - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
Under the patronage of Wilpuri. Proud patron of Ringeck.
When did this thread turn into an argument about evolution versus creationism?
I perform an epoche on {creation}, suspending all preconceptions, and I see that God created the Universe, created the human race with all of its failings, and offers the hope of redemption.
I perform an epoche on {evolution}, suspending all preconceptions, and I see that it adequately explains the diversity of life, and the connections between all living things.
The two phenomena are mutually self-supporting, and do not conflict with each other. I am now ready to get back to the OP's reasons for the thread ...
I think you're correct Oldgamer, but if you read the Bible literally, then you can't agree with the evolution theory.
Also, I'm in doubt about one point. You say that God "created" the human race. However, science says that mankind is just a product of evolution, nothing special about it, just a small chain in evolution.
How does the anthropocentrism of "God created man" match with that?
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
--- Mark 2:27
Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
--- Sam Harris
Roman i can cope with it and i do research what is given to me. I may be a Christian, but im not ignorant to others beliefs. I research and test what other religions believe. Do you read other works or do you hide in your little bubble with people who only think like you? Your pointless one-liners mean nothing. Also TG gave me evidence way before Umma did and i was reading it (evidence)when Umma posted. Essentailly Ummas evidence cam from the same wbsite TG posted so there was no real difference. Same evidence from the same website. So thanks for posting pointless insults.
Ok i researched the information concerning the mutations of the flagellum on the common bacteria.
Evolution is the passing down of mutations that spread throught the entire specie of animal. Now your info suggests that bacteria mutated in this very order in order to create the flagellum.
1) Has he even witnessed this happening within a lab or is this the writers assertion based on what he believes?
2) Bacteria has a insane birth rate that is balanced by a massive death rate. How can this mutation spread throughout the whole population if they die at an insane rate?
3) Also with the death rate in mind, think of how many years it would take for the process to succceed (if bacteria are able to defeat their death toll). Recently the based time of the worlds evolution is 2 billion years. there are trillions of bacteria in this world (with the same amount dying to balance it out)
Also irreducible complexity can fall under other various areas. An example would be the liver. If certain parts fail then you will die for the liver is very important. I dont believe it has been debunked.
Also to any other Christians who have posted. Its sort of a good idea to post things that are facts...I may believe the Bible and agree with your posts, but most people here dont. So its irrelevant to mention Biblical text here. Its important to post evidence of creationism from religious scientists instead of making a tract and posting it.
"Also, I'm in doubt about one point. You say that God "created" the human race. However, science says that mankind is just a product of evolution, nothing special about it, just a small chain in evolution.
How does the anthropocentrism of "God created man" match with that?"
Christians reject the idea that God would use evolution on one basis. If God is all powerful then why wouldnt he just create life right? Why use a evolutionary chain when you can just create everything all done?
God, by all means, could use evolution.
Its like asking the question "Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"
If you say yes, then God isnt omnipotent for he cant lift the rock
if you say no, then your saying God cant create everything
both limit God
This is a complex question that is answered by saying
Why would God create what he cant control?
The God using evolution question is the same
Why us evolution when you can just make everything all done?
Last edited by Teutonic Joe; January 30, 2008 at 02:48 PM.
No-one has "witnessed" this in the same way that no-one has "witnessed" many things in geology or any number of sciences. Science is not simply about "witnessing" things in a lab, it's also about drawing conclusions from other forms of evidence.
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. It doesn't "spread through the whole population". The bacteria that have the various beneficial mutations survive to pass it on in their genes and the ones who don't have them die out and so don't pass them on.2) Bacteria has a insane birth rate that is balanced by a massive death rate. How can this mutation spread throughout the whole population if they die at an insane rate?
"Defeat their death toll"? What?3) Also with the death rate in mind, think of how many years it would take for the process to succceed (if bacteria are able to defeat their death toll). Recently the based time of the worlds evolution is 2 billion years. there are trillions of bacteria in this world (with the same amount dying to balance it out)
Sorry, but you don't seem to grasp evolution at all. You can't critique something you don't understand in the first place.
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Gunthigg
"HISTORY VS THE DA VINCI CODE" - Facts vs Hype
"ARMARIUM MAGNUM" - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
Under the patronage of Wilpuri. Proud patron of Ringeck.
"Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. It doesn't "spread through the whole population". The bacteria that have the various beneficial mutations survive to pass it on in their genes and the ones who don't have them die out and so don't pass them on."
For a evolutionary trait to pass on it needs to spread throughout the population. How can something be spread throught a population if they die at a fast rate. The mutated bacteria would die along with its offspring a short amount of time
If I am wrong then please explain macro-evolution in your own way
Also i apoligize if i fail to make sense
i tend to mispell and runoff alot in my sentences for i type really fast to match my thought process so i screw myself up lol
EDIT:....wow this is going to be a major read since TG is taking awhile to post lol
Last edited by Teutonic Joe; January 30, 2008 at 03:46 PM.