Evolution Theory

[tranceshakeel]

Originally Posted by Jostyrostelli

Okey, but who created God?

Fair point, but i find it easier to believe that there is no beginning of God than to believe that there is no beginning of matter.

Anyway, when one questions the start of something, they mean when in time was he/it created, right?

Well Scientists themselves say that time does not flow, its just like an irreversible reaction, but it might just be possible to go back in time, maybe it is really hard to go back but it might be possible, if you take the theory of relativity into account.

Well my point is that the concept of time might just have been created by God (I'm sorry but you must really hate this word now, but i dont hate the evolution theory) test the life, to see how they change with respect to it (Time). So there might be no beginning nor end, where God is !!

//M, seriously your comments really hurt me because you dont show the slightest of respect for others toughts, i dont think you know more than everyone, but make it look that way

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by Jostyrostelli

The main thing I wanna ask is: why can't there be evolution (life comes out of 'nowhere') when there can be creationism (a higher power makes something, with what? His hands? And as Swek said, who made the higher power?

But either way you look at it, you have to believe that something has always existed. You believe that matter of some kind has always existed. So where did that matter come from? Other matter? Where did the certain gasses come from? Other gasses? It's an endless loop as well. But matter can't create life and spontaneous generation has been proven worng. Therefore it is much more believeable for me to acknowledge that God has always existed and all other life came from God.

We're getting really deep, aren't we?

[Jostyrostelli]

@tranceshakeel: No I don't hate God or the word "God". And I won't, I try to look at each religion with the same respect.

I think we both have good points (also Jeffy's points), we really should get 2 scientists to join finalgear who did like 20 years studies on this. This discussion is not like any other discussion, because nobody knows what was first.

And Jeffy, as much as you think creatonism is easier to believe (that God has always existed) I believe it's much much easier to think science is involved here.

And yeah //M stop bashing people here with ignorant comments.

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by Jostyrostelli

And Jeffy, as much as you think creatonism is easier to believe (that God has always existed) I believe it's much much easier to think science is involved here.

I agree that science is involved too in a genral sense, but I can't beleive that life formed on it's own, or matter itself.

I also was taught evolution all my life and never really beleived in God until the last five years. This whole conversation strengthens my faith in God because I can't imagine something as complex and intricate as our world being formed without an intelligent God. just like I can't imagine my complex computer being made without an intelligent designer.

Even scientists who know a lot more than we do don't agree on this topic. For many evolutionists, the more they study life the more they see the holes in the evolution theory.

[Jostyrostelli]

Even scientists who know a lot more than we do don't agree on this topic. For many evolutionists, the more they study life the more they see the holes in the evolution theory.

But I think it's not because evolutiontheory can't excist, it's just we don't know all YET.

One time we will know 8)

[///M]

Were the hell did I make ignorant comments?

Before the coming of modern medicine, people believed spirits and demons were the cause of diseases. The church used to believe the earth is flat and that the earth was at the centre of the universe. People believed EVERYTHING could be linked back to a god. If we stopped explaining stuff we don't understand and say god is behind it, the world would be very different.

All I'm saying is people are saying evolution is too weak. Hey, atleast it's roots are in science, we can build on it as a theory and through that maybe even discover alternative explanations. Creationism on the other hand is due to the laziness and fear inherent in man when he can't explain something. It will never change and it's roots are fairytales and myths passed down through the ages.

[Jostyrostelli]

Originally Posted by ///M

Were the hell did I make ignorant comments?

Originally Posted by ///M

He sounds like every religious person I have ever met, close-minded and ignorant of everything around them.

[jayjaya29]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

The evolutionist can't explain where the original matter came from or how life could spring from nothing.

But you are wrong my friend, the Miller-Urey Experiment proved that with a few simple gases you can create the building blocks of life. Look it up, if you don't want to say so and I will go on a spiel about it.

Okay creationists, what about homologous and vestigial structures? For those who don't know what those are, basically, the bat's bones in its wing, and the bones of a human arm have many similar points. Same thing with dolphins, the bone structure of the side fins of dolphins look very much alike to the bone structure of a human arm. There are many other examples of structures and systems between not-very-related species. What do you have to say about that, did your "supernatural force" use the same structure for many purposes? Vestigial structures are an even better example, such as the dolphin-human example, the dolphin doesn't use those bones in its fin, yet they are still there. They serve no purpose so why are they there? Once again, if you want more in this area, ask and I shall serve.

As for us getting deep into this stuff (big bang theory, etc etc). Its a bad place to argue becuase as smart as the human is, we are most likely not capable of understanding what went on during that time, I think it is best to move the playing field to an area that we can understand such as what is on Earth now. I believe that the human brain cannot comprehend how long 1 million years is, yet alone 100,000 years. So to argue with time limits that into the billions of years is just a useless attempt.

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

The evolutionist can't explain where the original matter came from or how life could spring from nothing.

But you are wrong my friend, the Miller-Urey Experiment proved that with a few simple gases you can create the building blocks of life. Look it up, if you don't want to say so and I will go on a spiel about it.[/quote]

No I'm not wrong. Like I said this still doesn't explain where the orginal matter came from, such as the gases that you speak of. As for scientists "creating" anything to do with life in the lab, all this proves is that it takes intelligence to form life. Think about it. And to say that a few floating gasses randomly came together to form everything we see today is a big stretch.

Originally Posted by jayjaya29

Okay creationists, what about homologous and vestigial structures? For those who don't know what those are, basically, the bat's bones in its wing, and the bones of a human arm have many similar points. Same thing with dolphins, the bone structure of the side fins of dolphins look very much alike to the bone structure of a human arm. There are many other examples of structures and systems between not-very-related species. What do you have to say about that, did your "supernatural force" use the same structure for many purposes?

Yes, why not? If everything was made by the same designer then it only makes sense that there will be some similarities. It would be strange if there wasn't a great deal of this. That doesn't disprove creation. In fact, it supports it.

Originally Posted by jayjaya29

Vestigial structures are an even better example, such as the dolphin-human example, the dolphin doesn't use those bones in its fin, yet they are still there. They serve no purpose so why are they there? Once again, if you want more in this area, ask and I shall serve.

I don't see this as a big deal. So some animals have things that don't appear to be useful. I believe that God had an imagination too. And I do believe in micro-evolution: that animals adapt and so on, but not macro-evolution: that everything came from evolution. But if we are the most evolved creature on earth then we should live the longest (but we don't) and we should certainly be able to fly and run faster than anything else (but we can't). We would also have the best hearing (but we don't) etc.

And I could throw all sorts of things at you that would point out the many holes in evolution (I did a bit of this in the other topic, most of which no I said I wouldn't debate, so I really sone was able to answer) but I said I don't like to debate, so I should leave this topic alone

[///M]

Originally Posted by Jostyrostelli

I was refering to Leppy's attempt at satire.

Note that I didn't say all religious people, I'm just talking about people that I have encountered.

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by ///M

I was refering to Leppy's attempt at satire.

Note that I didn't say all religious people, I'm just talking about people that I have encountered.

Well then, it's an insult to every religious person on this forum

[///M]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

And I could throw all sorts of things at you that would point out the many holes in evolution (I did a bit of this in the other topic, most of which no I said I wouldn't debate, so I really sone was able to answer) but I said I don't like to debate, so I should leave this topic alone

And I could throw one thing that shatters the whole arguement for creation, were's your proof? Don't tell me religious writings, for all I know they're all man made.

Evolution has holes, but it's 'solid' at parts. It's being researched and worked on just like anything scientific. Creationism on the other hand is one big hole. There is absolutely nothing you can say to prove it to anyone with a spec of mental capacity. Just because one thing is false doesn't mean another thing is true. Science doesn't work that way. Evolution may be replaced by another theory of how life came to as science advances, creationism on the other hand doesn't even have anything to back it up as an explanation.

[Leppy]

Yeah should have explained my last post a bit more but hey, thats what you get for sleep deprivation.

It was refering to the film that sparked this thread. I was a bit peeved at the fact that they come over so patronising that anyone could even believe in evolution when basically their arguement could shown in 5 lines (regardless of the fact it was using different objects)

I don't regret posting it. Regardless of how unpopular it might make me.

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by ///M

And I could throw one thing that shatters the whole arguement for creation, were's your proof? Don't tell me religious writings, for all I know they're all man made.

Evolution has holes, but it's 'solid' at parts. It's being researched and worked on just like anything scientific. Creationism on the other hand is one big hole. There is absolutely nothing you can say to prove it to anyone with a spec of mental capacity. Just because one thing is false doesn't mean another thing is true. Science doesn't work that way. Evolution may be replaced by another theory of how life came to as science advances, creationism on the other hand doesn't even have anything to back it up as an explanation.

Dude, you call religious people close minded, but dare I say that you might want to look in a mirror and quit referring to anyone who is religious or beleives in creation as "ignorant" or lacking in "mental capacity". I personally don't think evolution is accurate, but I don't insult someone's intelligence just becasue they see things differently than I do. Being arrogant is not cool

I keep saying I'm not going to debate -- aren't I terrible?? -- but you asked a question, so I feel the need to respond.

Have you heard me quote religious writings on this forum? Not once have I done so. That isn't nessacary.

There is plenty of evidence for creation, some of which I have already mentioned. (I don't in any way claim to be an expert on this BTW) Please read carefully:

1.) The Law of Biogenesis: Living cells come from pre-existing living cells. Living cells have never been observed to come from lifeless molecules. Therefore, living cells must have originated supernaturally. At the same time, Evolution proposes that life originated by means of the natural properties of molecules (or life came from something non-living). Therefore, evolution contradicts a scientific law, a law that has been confirmed.

2.) The Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is not created by natural means. The universe exists as matter and energy. Therefore, the universe had to be created supernaturally. At the same time, Evolution proposes strictly natural explanations for the origin of everything. Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.

3.) Polonium Haloes: The presence of Polonium haloes in the earth’s bedrock is evidence for an instantaneous creation of the earth. Radioactive elements like Uranium form tiny circles or haloes around themselves when found in bedrock such as granite. The size of the halo is determined by the kind of element (e.g. Po or U) that forms it.

Dr. Gentry discovered evidence of primordial polonium in the earth's bedrock and this evidence requires that the polonium be present in hardened bedrock. But in order for this to occur, the earth's formation would require an instantaneous creation of rock, as opposed to a billion years worth of cooling from a molten state as proposed by evolutionists.

4.) The complexity of the universe points to a designer and creator. Even the smallest things are very intricate. There is no such thing as even a "simple" cell. The simpliest bacteria cells are complex beyond our imagination. Just one single cell extremely complex, not even remotely simple. Each cell contains many different systems which are needed and required to keep it alive and enable the cell to reproduce itself. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. There are complicated feedback mechanisms and controls in cells that make the most powerful computers and most complex life support systems look simplistic. And of course cells are just the "tip of the iceberg". Everything in our universe is complex.

5.) The complexity of the human body points to intelligent design. Here is something I just read "The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so."

“The human brain itself serves, in some sense, a proof of concept…. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power.”

The human eye: The eye is amzingly complex. Evolutionist, Robert Jastrow, “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better. How could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events?"

I agree with one old theologian who commented, ‘There cannot be a design without a designer.’”

[///M]

Again, each one of your points leads back to one thing, complexity. Just because a concept is too complex, it doesn't mean we can take short-cuts.

We can create cells from lifeless matter, correct? The Miller-Urey proved that you can create the biological matter necessary for life without any life existing before it. The Law of Biogenisis is in no way a solid foundation to base your beliefs on the origins of life. The whole basis of this 'law' is that abiogenisis is false, correct? Too bad, science doesn't work on the principles of argumentum ad ignorantium. Pretty much every 'theory' that supports creationism exists on this mind set.

I think the fact that lazy creationists have the balls to conjure up all these laws and theories to give them scientific credibility is extremely offensive to REAL scientists that spend their lives working towards proving abiogenisis.

Look, everything you just told me is summed up like this: such and such is complex, therefor it must have been created by an intelligent being. Science works like this: such and such is complex, let's discover why, how, when, where, and stop being lazy.

It's fine and dandy that the universe is complex, how does that prove that it was created by something?

[Leppy]

Originally Posted by ///M

Again, each one of your points leads back to one thing, complexity. Just because a concept is too complex, it doesn't mean we can take short-cuts.

We can create cells from lifeless matter, correct? The Miller-Urey proved that you can create the biological matter necessary for life without any life existing before it. The Law of Biogenisis is in no way a solid foundation to base your beliefs on the origins of life. The whole basis of this 'law' is that abiogenisis is false, correct? Too bad, science doesn't work on the principles of argumentum ad ignorantium. Pretty much every 'theory' that supports creationism exists on this mind set.

I think the fact that lazy creationists have the balls to conjure up all these laws and theories to give them scientific credibility is extremely offensive to REAL scientists that spend their lives working towards proving abiogenisis.

Look, everything you just told me is summed up like this: such and such is complex, therefor it must have been created by an intelligent being. Science works like this: such and such is complex, let's discover why, how, when, where, and stop being lazy.

It's fine and dandy that the universe is complex, how does that prove that it was created by something?

Thank you.

[Z Draci]

I'm a science major so my mind is trained to ask for supporting evidence before making conclusions.

Until I see rock hard facts that support creationism, I am going to refrain from believing it. 2000 years ago, it might have been a very feasible arguement. Science still can't explain the idea of an afterlife, so that's why we still look to religion for an answer.

On the other hand, there are thousands of scientific research and reports done that support the idea of evolution. At the very beginning, life was created by a bolt of lightening that joined together a combination of amino acids. We've come so far since Jesus Christ's time that we can now provide evidence for the creation of life. (I mean no offence to Christ and his followers.) We don't need myths and tales to provide us with explanations of natural phenomenons.

Remember how our ancestors explained thunder and lightening? How about famine and disease? Even the most religious of people turn to science to help solve their problems. I don't see why they can't believe the idea of evolution.

[cvrefugee]

Originally Posted by Z Draci

Until I see rock hard facts that support creationism, I am going to refrain from believing it.

Short of having God Himself tell you, there will never be evidence to support Creationism.

Creationism is based off faith. Evolution is based off faith. Why? Neither can be proven at the moment.

Science is ever-changing, so whatever new evidence comes to light may change or create new theories. Religion, on the other hand, has certain laws that are eternal (which will never change). Sometimes religion has been right when science was wrong. Take for example certain sects who held the belief that tobacco and alcohol were harmful to the body. In that time period science had no proof and scoffed at religion. But we know better today.

Also, don't let the beliefs of a handful of religions represent religion in it's entirety, especially those in the past. The Dark Ages was a terrible period that delayed the progress of science and thinking. Not all religions agree with the Catholic's tactics back then (or now for that matter).

[Leppy]

Originally Posted by cvg

Short of having God Himself tell you, there will never be evidence to support Creationism.

Creationism is based off faith. Evolution is based off faith. Why? Neither can be proven at the moment.

Science is ever-changing, so whatever new evidence comes to light may change or create new theories. Religion, on the other hand, has certain laws that are eternal (which will never change). Sometimes religion has been right when science was wrong. Take for example certain sects who held the belief that tobacco and alcohol were harmful to the body. In that time period science had no proof and scoffed at religion. But we know better today.

Also, don't let the beliefs of a handful of religions represent religion in it's entirety, especially those in the past. The Dark Ages was a terrible period that delayed the progress of science and thinking. Not all religions agree with the Catholic's tactics back then (or now for that matter).

I wouldn't need to be a scientist to know that hey, I breathe in smoke... cough up a lung... that can't be good for me.

Also with you saying that religions laws that are eternal and science's are forever changing because they are finding out more and more things.

Does this mean that science is becoming more and more right and religion hasn't discovered its first mistake. (women priests, homosexual priests, sex before marraige....)

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by ///M

Again, each one of your points leads back to one thing, complexity. Just because a concept is too complex, it doesn't mean we can take short-cuts.

Perhaps you missed this point, which has nothing to do with complexity:

2.) The Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is not created by natural means. The universe exists as matter and energy. Therefore, the universe had to be created supernaturally. At the same time, Evolution proposes strictly natural explanations for the origin of everything. Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.

That point alone is enough. And yes the Law of Biogenesis has been tested and confirmed extensively. Life only comes from life. So it makes sense that all life came form the living God. And complexity definetly leans in favor of creation. Nothing complex that we have made as humans formed on it's own. The brain is way better than any computer we have made, and it took a lot of skill and planning to make even the first computer. To say that the brain formed without a designer doesn't make sense.