Evolution v. Science

[steen]

I agree, but that is based on my faith, not on science.

The difference between science and faith, simply put, is that science dictates that all its laws and theories are governed by observation and experiment.

Well, yes, per the Scientific Method, whose end products are Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws.

Evolution is a theory because is hasnt been positively proven by observation. However, it is a theory, which is more than can be said by creationism.

Evolution has been directly observed and documented in hundreds of thousands of experiments and studies. The Scientific Theory of Evolution merely is what ties all this together, as is the case with all other Scientific Theories. But that individual evolutionary events exist, that very much is proved.

 

[Engimo]

Evolution is a theory because is hasnt been positively proven by observation. However, it is a theory, which is more than can be said by creationism.

That's not how science works, buddy.

 

[danarhea]

Well, yes, per the Scientific Method, whose end products are Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws.

Evolution has been directly observed and documented in hundreds of thousands of experiments and studies. The Scientific Theory of Evolution merely is what ties all this together, as is the case with all other Scientific Theories. But that individual evolutionary events exist, that very much is proved.

I agree, but there is still room for discussion. While the data overwhelmingly supports evolution, it is still not law yet, and there is some room for disagreement. However, creationism is not a valid argument against evolution. In the highly unlikely event that evolution is ever disproven, it will not be creationism taking its place. Rather than dealing with facts, creationism is based upon a structure of "what ifs", which is not science at all, but a reasoning from primitive witch doctors, who if they had their way, would have us back in Salem Massacheussets in the 1500's. Back then, they had political clout with the ignorant, and that was all their argument was ever good for.

 

[Engimo]

I agree, but there is still room for discussion. While the data overwhelmingly supports evolution, it is still not law yet, and there is some room for disagreement. However, creationism is not a valid argument against evolution. In the highly unlikely event that evolution is ever disproven, it will not be creationism taking its place. Rather than dealing with facts, creationism is based upon a structure of "what ifs", which is not science at all, but a reasoning from primitive witch doctors, who if they had their way, would have us back in Salem Massacheussets in the 1500's. Back then, they had political clout with the ignorant, and that was all their argument was ever good for.

Evolution will never be a law simply because of what a scientific law is.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

 

[steen]

I agree, but there is still room for discussion. While the data overwhelmingly supports evolution, it is still not law yet,

And it never will be. We will never be able to present Evolution as a simple (or even complex), mathematical formula or universal static relationship.

and there is some room for disagreement.

What disagreement is there to the Scientific Theory of Evolution? You may have disagreement as to the Scientific Models underlying the Scientific Theory of Evolution, but I am not sure there is any data justifying a disagreement with the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

I am not sure, but I suspect we are mainly having an argument on scientific vocabulary here?

However, creationism is not a valid argument against evolution. In the highly unlikely event that evolution is ever disproven, it will not be creationism taking its place. Rather than dealing with facts, creationism is based upon a structure of "what ifs", which is not science at all, but a reasoning from primitive witch doctors, who if they had their way, would have us back in Salem Massacheussets in the 1500's. Back then, they had political clout with the ignorant, and that was all their argument was ever good for.

Agreed.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Steen wrote:

Quote:
However, creationism is not a valid argument against evolution. In the highly unlikely event that evolution is ever disproven, it will not be creationism taking its place. Rather than dealing with facts, creationism is based upon a structure of "what ifs", which is not science at all, but a reasoning from primitive witch doctors, who if they had their way, would have us back in Salem Massacheussets in the 1500's. Back then, they had political clout with the ignorant, and that was all their argument was ever good for.

Agreed.

You both just agreed to rewrite history! Salem, Mass. was not even established until 1626. Now that's not very scientific.:lol:

 

[Upstart]

I agree, but that is based on my faith, not on science.

The difference between science and faith, simply put, is that science dictates that all its laws and theories are governed by observation and experiment. Evolution is a theory because is hasnt been positively proven by observation. However, it is a theory, which is more than can be said by creationism.

Do this. Create a theory of creationism and support it with evidence. You cant. Doesnt mean that evolution is correct, but with evolution there is evidence. The evidence can be argued both ways as to what it means, but the evidence for discussion is there. It is not there with creationism. Creationism is based only on faith, and it is not science to say that something exists because you have faith that it does.

Of course, I didn't say that creation could be explained or proven or duplicated by science.
We are not stupid enough to try to pass of creation as a science. However, just because something cannot be proven by science doesn't mean it's not true. For instance, no one can scientificly prove that Pocahantas existed. We must believe in eye witness accounts that there was indeed a such a person.

But, there is scientific evidence in favor of creation. Once again, I do not say that creation can be proven scientificly. I will discuss the evidence for creation later. First, we must continue the discussion of evolution.

Evolution has been placed in the realm of science, whether it belongs there or not. Therefore, we will discuss it in terms of science. Another scientific proof against evolution is polystrata fossils. Whether or not it is an evolutionistic hypothosis, evolution relies on the theory that a layer of rock strata represents a certain amount of millions of years. The existance of polystrata fossils are proof against this.

Polystrata fossils are formed when a very large creature, such as a large dinosoar, whale, or tree, is fossilized. This fossil is so large that it extends throughout several strata, each representing millions of years. Thus, according to evolution, this creature could have lain for 20 million years waiting to be completely fossilized. We all know, however, that long before this would have taken place, the entire creature would have dissentigrated, bones and all.

 

[steen]

Of course, I didn't say that creation could be explained or proven or duplicated by science.
We are not stupid enough to try to pass of creation as a science. However, just because something cannot be proven by science doesn't mean it's not true.

But it certainly precludes it's inclusion in science class.

For instance, no one can scientificly prove that Pocahantas existed. We must believe in eye witness accounts that there was indeed a such a person.

And?

But, there is scientific evidence in favor of creation. Once again, I do not say that creation can be proven scientificly. I will discuss the evidence for creation later. First, we must continue the discussion of evolution.

Evolution has been placed in the realm of science, whether it belongs there or not.

The Scientific Theory of Evolution was developed through the application of the Scientific Method. That makes it science. Your off-hand remark indicates your desire to be dishonest about this.

Therefore, we will discuss it in terms of science. Another scientific proof against evolution is polystrata fossils. Whether or not it is an evolutionistic hypothosis, evolution relies on the theory that a layer of rock strata represents a certain amount of millions of years. The existance of polystrata fossils are proof against this.

Polystrata fossils are formed when a very large creature, such as a large dinosoar, whale, or tree, is fossilized. This fossil is so large that it extends throughout several strata, each representing millions of years. Thus, according to evolution, this creature could have lain for 20 million years waiting to be completely fossilized. We all know, however, that long before this would have taken place, the entire creature would have dissentigrated, bones and all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC335.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html

Perhaps you could come up with something new that hasn't been proven false long ago?

 

[Upstart]

In spite of what those web sites claim, these fossils offer a serious problem for evolutionists. The sites claim that it took a long period of time for the sediments to build up, yet any dead and decaying organism(especially one of such size, for it would quickly attract the attention of the life within several miles) would be quickly devoured by ocean scavengers such as sharks, fish, crabs, hagfish, shrimp, lobsters, various ocean worms, and such scavengers. Even the bones would be devoured by bacteria and small scavengers. This fossil catagory shows that the strata layers cannot possibly represent such immensly lengthy time periods.

 

[steen]

In spite of what those web sites claim, these fossils offer a serious problem for evolutionists. The sites claim that it took a long period of time for the sediments to build up, yet any dead and decaying organism(especially one of such size, for it would quickly attract the attention of the life within several miles) would be quickly devoured by ocean scavengers such as sharks, fish, crabs, hagfish, shrimp, lobsters, various ocean worms, and such scavengers. Even the bones would be devoured by bacteria and small scavengers. This fossil catagory shows that the strata layers cannot possibly represent such immensly lengthy time periods.

You didn't read the links provided, did you? Why are you making claims directly proven false in the links?

It was flat in the strata which merely have folded since, and was originally in an anoxic lake bottom where your mentioned critters won't make it. It is no more unusual than any other fossil and certainly did NOT cross strata layers.

Next time you want to repeat an outright falsehood, perhaps you could check in the evidence provided to be sure that your claim is not disproved first?

That would help your credibility a bit.

 

[Upstart]

You didn't read the links provided, did you? Why are you making claims directly proven false in the links?

It was flat in the strata which merely have folded since, and was originally in an anoxic lake bottom where your mentioned critters won't make it. It is no more unusual than any other fossil and certainly did NOT cross strata layers.

Next time you want to repeat an outright falsehood, perhaps you could check in the evidence provided to be sure that your claim is not disproved first?

That would help your credibility a bit.

If it did not cross layers, than it was not a polystrata fossil. They exist. Trees, whales, large dinosaurs are found as poly fossils. And no lake bottom can be so void of life that scavengers cannot survive. And what would a whale be doing in a lake anyway? Your logic simply does not make sense.

It is often clamed when a supposed ancestor is found alongside a decendent or polystrata fossils are uncovered, that the layers folded or were disturbed or a landslide occurred or the man in the moon mixed up the strata, but this is a lame attempted to explain away a piece of evidence that gives evolution trouble. The layers show no sign of disturbance.

 

[Upstart]

Here is another problem for evolution. Coelacanth, the fish that evolutionists claim as the link between fish and land creatures, has long be claimed by evolutionists to have evolved into amphibians. However, the coelacanth is still alive today. Also, it is a deap water fish, hardly likely to ever venture onto the surface. Its organs are completely fish-like; and the lobed fins which evolutionists claim it used as limbs, are not attached to the spinal column, thus the fins could not in the least be used as limbs.

 

[nkgupta80]

Here is another problem for evolution. Coelacanth, the fish that evolutionists claim as the link between fish and land creatures, has long be claimed by evolutionists to have evolved into amphibians. However, the coelacanth is still alive today. Also, it is a deap water fish, hardly likely to ever venture onto the surface. Its organs are completely fish-like; and the lobed fins which evolutionists claim it used as limbs, are not attached to the spinal column, thus the fins could not in the least be used as limbs.

evolutionary links don't have to go extinct. People get the idea of evolution mixed up. All evolution is, is the the change in allelles of a population over generations. hterefore, one population of horses can move into a different environment, and natural selection would force change in allelles. Then, over time, we get horses, and a new species of creatures.


as for your claim that science does not necessarily have ot be true, you are right. However, evidence always has to be taken into account. Science doesn't say that evolution is the truth. However, this thoery fits the evidence, the phenomena, and predictions, very very well, to the point where we can say that 99% of evolution is true.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Here are some reasons why evolution is not scientific.

1. The support of evolution lies in fossils, but according to evolution, they cannot form. Evolutionists claim that a level of rock strata took millions of years to form, but if that was true, the bodies of the creatures fossilized would have long decayed before they could be covered.

2. No transitionary forms have been found. This is especially disrupting of evolution when you realize that for every species you see now, there should be many more species that were the transitionary forms. None have be found.

Ok, for one, plenty of transitional fossils have been found. Simply google the term and you will find countless examples. For example, there are over a dozen known transitional forms of earlier man that are backed up with fossil evidence.

Secondly, different forms of rock take different amounts of time to form. For example, the type of bedrock that is dominant in my area is referred to as Bethany Falls Limestone. This particular type of limestone is completely formed from the decaying shells and skeletons of oceanic life forms that inhabited the shallow seas that once covered much of the Midwest. In some conditions, skeletal remains decay in less than 50 years, in other conditions; it can take thousands of years. Whether or not fossilization occurs is contingent on the conditions that a life form decays in and the time it takes to decay.

Finally, I don’t mean to be insulting, but you obviously don’t even have the most basic understanding of science to even know the nature of it. Science by its very nature is naturalistic. Since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural entity or force, science cannot consider a supernatural entity when testing a hypothesis or establishing a theory. Science by its very nature is neither for nor against the existance of God.

 

[iron butterfly]

I have always noted the fact that Darwin was adamant that evolution didn't happen on earth thus "the missing link ". Also the "perfect " evolution from monkey to man ,in the middle of the jungle a bit far-fetched because there is no evidence that monkeys had reached a economic state of having carpeted homes which I believe is a must in the evolution from monkey to man .People who don't have God have nothing but humble,peaceful people to pick on ,what a grand life that must be and their share it with their children ..WOOOT....WOOOT ..what fun ,silly people !!!!!!

I'm a very bad Christian and when the other cheek gets turned ,your going to have a headache for a week ,LOL.......Sometimes sin is just irresistible ..LOL

:roll:

 

[Captain America]

 

[steen]

If it did not cross layers, than it was not a polystrata fossil.

Correct.

They exist. Trees, whales, large dinosaurs are found as poly fossils.

Did you check the links I provided? They talk all about it.

And no lake bottom can be so void of life that scavengers cannot survive. And what would a whale be doing in a lake anyway?[/quote}inland seas like what covered most of the Midwest back then fit this just fine.

Your logic simply does not make sense.

Rather, you seem ignorant of the science. here is a hint. If the ONLY knowledge you have about this subject is what you found on a pro-lie creationist site, then you are going to get creamed. When you want to argue against the Science, you need to know what the science actually is first. Anything else is you coming across as an ignoramus wasting everybody's time.

It is often clamed when a supposed ancestor is found alongside a decendent or polystrata fossils are uncovered, that the layers folded or were disturbed or a landslide occurred or the man in the moon mixed up the strata, but this is a lame attempted to explain away a piece of evidence that gives evolution trouble. The layers show no sign of disturbance.

Could you provide evidence of these "often" events? I have yet to ever hear of a trilobite being found along a mammal, f.ex. Your claim is senseless.

 

[steen]

Here is another problem for evolution. Coelacanth, the fish that evolutionists claim as the link between fish and land creatures, has long be claimed by evolutionists to have evolved into amphibians. However, the coelacanth is still alive today.

Todays specimen are a different species. Please read up on this stuff before posting such ignorance.

Also, it is a deap water fish, hardly likely to ever venture onto the surface.

The current species is, yes. Just like raptors were unlikely to fly. Then sub-populations evolved. What a surprise, eh?:shock:

Its organs are completely fish-like; and the lobed fins which evolutionists claim it used as limbs, are not attached to the spinal column, thus the fins could not in the least be used as limbs.

Oh, your arms are attached to your spinal column? You must look VERY strange. :2razz: :lol: :rofl

 

[steen]

I have always noted the fact that Darwin was adamant that evolution didn't happen on earth thus "the missing link ".

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. Darwin claimed no such thing.

And again, what does Darwin's hypothesis of 150 years ago have to do with the current science? This insistence of talking about Darwin is like insisting that the space shuttle can't fly because the Wright Brothers didn't use rocket fuel or some similarly inane idea.

Also the "perfect " evolution from monkey to man ,in the middle of the jungle a bit far-fetched because there is no evidence that monkeys had reached a economic state of having carpeted homes which I believe is a must in the evolution from monkey to man .

Your belief, eh? You sure have some weird beliefs. They have nothing to do with the Science of the Scientific Theory of Evolution, however, and as such it is utterly irrelevant.

People who don't have God have nothing but humble,peaceful people to pick on ,what a grand life that must be and their share it with their children ..WOOOT....WOOOT ..what fun ,silly people !!!!!!

And what does THAT have to do with anything???

Oh, NOW I get it. You are one of those dishonest types who claim that if you accept the Scientific theory of Evolution, you must be against God and can not be a Christian. yes, a lot of creationists are spewing that lie, like you now do, bearing false witness.

I'm a very bad Christian and when the other cheek gets turned ,your going to have a headache for a week ,LOL.......Sometimes sin is just irresistible ..LOL

Well, mainly you seem ignorant of the subject you are trying to discuss.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Most people are not smart enough to understand this type of debate!

If I told you a Straight line was a Circle would you believe me or call
me a Nut case and dismiss everything else I say???
(I'll get back to this later)

1) Evolution is a "THEROY" only!
2) Science is incomplete!
3) "HUMAN" understanding is limited!

So from here we should all get off our high horses and just try to paint as
good a picture of "THE TRUTH" as we can!

Evolution:
Yes we all know and have seen proof that life
evolves. But Evolution can not explain how "SOMETHING"
is "CREATED" from "NOTHING"!

And before anyone starts regurgitating the Big
Bang stuff, you must realize that the Big Bang
is scientifically sound "EXCEPT" for the first
~3 milliseconds.
The "LAWS" of Physics/Science says that it is impossible to:
"Create Something from Nothing"

Or else we would have free energy, perpetual
motion engines etc...

It is here where God is the only
theory/explanation that makes sense.

Creation:
We are here! So something created us!
Nobody has any proof of what created us or how we got here!

"WHAT CAME FIRST THE CHICHEN OR THE EGG?" Only God Knows!

FYI
A Line is a Circle with a "Curvature = 0"
A Line is a Circle with a "Radius = Infinity"

 

[steen]

Most people are not smart enough to understand this type of debate!

And some posters, as we will see in a moment, are ranting against Science with no actual understanding of what the Science actually is.

If I told you a Straight line was a Circle would you believe me or call
me a Nut case and dismiss everything else I say???
(I'll get back to this later)

It wouldbe a matter of how the terms were defined.

1) Evolution is a "THEROY" only!

Huh? Evolution is the cummulative effects of genetic changes from generation to generation. The existence of this evolution very much is a fact. We have come up with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY for this, nam3ed the Scientific Theory of Evolution through the application of the Scientific Method. A Scientific Theory is an END PRODUCT of the Scientific Method. (Remember what I said above about people being ignorant? Here is an example in your claim).

2) Science is incomplete!
3) "HUMAN" understanding is limited!

And?

So from here we should all get off our high horses and just try to paint as
good a picture of "THE TRUTH" as we can!

Evolution:
Yes we all know and have seen proof that life
evolves. But Evolution can not explain how "SOMETHING"
is "CREATED" from "NOTHING"!

But then, neither does Evolution try to make any claim about this. You seem to be ranting against abiogenesis rather than Evolution. Again, a clear demonstration of how truly ignorant you are about these subjects.

And before anyone starts regurgitating the Big
Bang stuff, you must realize that the Big Bang
is scientifically sound "EXCEPT" for the first
~3 milliseconds.

Why would we talk about the "Big Bang"? That has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Are you really THAT ignorant of what you are talking about?

The "LAWS" of Physics/Science says that it is impossible to:
"Create Something from Nothing"

Or else we would have free energy, perpetual
motion engines etc...

Hmm, perhaps you have been a bit deficient in understanding your physics and chemistry?

It is here where God is the only
theory/explanation that makes sense.

How so? How do you know it is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is responsible for everything? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

You seem very willing to spew "just because I believe so" claims and portray them as factual.

Creation:
We are here! So something created us!
Nobody has any proof of what created us or how we got here!

And how is this relevant?

"WHAT CAME FIRST THE CHICHEN OR THE EGG?" Only God Knows!

Nonsense. The egg preceded the Chicken by hundreds of millions of years

FYI
A Line is a Circle with a "Curvature = 0"
A Line is a Circle with a "Radius = Infinity"

:roll:

 

[Indy]

So far upstart hasn't shown me any reason to not believe that the Scientific Theory of Evolution is less sound than the Scientific THEORY of Gravity.

1. s/he has claimed that fossils could not possibly exist because they take so long to form.... when they clearly do.

2. s/he has used polystrata (i believe that was the term used above) fossils as proof that large fossils could not be used as evidence of evolution. Reading the supplied SOURCES given by the opposing viewpoint we can all see that a completely rational and scientific reasoning behind this phenomina is that the before mentioned fossils are not actually polystrata fossils at all but fossils that have been caught in a layer of rock that has folded upon itself (much like a mountain) thus making it appear as multiple layers.

3. Genisis? How can you use the bible when trying to disprove a scientific theory? Science and religeion don't mix. In fact they don't even talk about the same thing. Religeon covers how one should govern ones life, science talks about the macro and microscopic forces that take part in the life itself.

4. Evolution can't possibly be real because science says that some higher power must have been the driving force behind the big bang. Do you not realize that that statment makes you look quite irrational. The big bang and Evolution are two completely different topics that don't overlap. If anything it makes the theory of evolution even stronger because it allows science to acknoledge the possibility of god and thus fits into the story of genisis (if indeed this is somhow relavent to the discussion at hand) by implying that the term day could mean millions of years and thus evolution does not contradict the bible. <--- Before anybody jumps on me for this one, I agree that I probably didn't explain this point very clearly but it is difficult to put into words what I was trying to say. If you want, throw this one out.

Upstart, I'm not trying to come down on you and you may have plenty of evidence to convice us, but please supply usable information and for the love of whatever god you believe in, site your sources. Remember, it is YOU who is attacking other's beliefs and point of views by starting this thread. They did not attack you. In my opinion, nothing in the theory of evolution could not fit into the bible. Many Religious leaders agree that much of the bible should not be taken litterally and is metaphorical, so why not Genesis?

On a side note, I find it funny that Jesus, nor any of the deciples, nor Moses, nor Abraham etc. ever mentions the story of genisis and the 7 day creation theory. Perhaps I am wrong but the last time I looked it didn't (if you have examples to the contrary please feel free to site them). I would just think that such an important topic as the creation of the world would be at least confirmed by Jesus. Plus, nobody even knows who wrote Genesis, why then could the ENTIRE book not be purely be symbolical? Many people believe Moses wrote it but it is NO way a fact and is largely still up for debate.

I would like to end my post by quoting one of our founding fathers Thomas Paine in his writings in Age of Reason:

"As to the account of the Creation, with which the Book of Genesis opens, it has all the appearance of being a tradition which the Israelites had among them before they came into Egypt; and after their departure from that country they put it at the head of their history, without telling (as it is most probable) that they did not know how they came by it. The manner in which the account opens shows it to be traditionary. It begins abruptly; it is nobody that speaks; it is nobody that hears; it is addressed to nobody; it has neither first, second, nor third person; it has every criterion of being a tradition; it has no voucher. Moses does not take it upon himself by introducing it with the formality that he uses on other occations, such as that of saying, "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying " Why it has been called the Mosaic account of the Creation, I am at a loss to concieve, Moses, I believe, was too good a judge of such subjects to put his name to that account. He had been educated amont the Egyptions, who were a people as well skilled in science, and particularly in astronomy, as any people of their day; and the silence and caution that Moses observes in not authenticating the account, is a good negative evidence that he neither told it nor believed it."

I know that that quote was off topic but I thought it would be interesting to hear some counterpoints on the issue. Just something to chew on I suppose. What do you all think?

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

And some posters, as we will see in a moment, are ranting against Science with no actual understanding of what the Science actually is.

First off I never said anything against science! You must have
created some alternate argument in your head. Sorry!
It's call the Theory of Evolution Right? I just repeated that FACT!
Where's the missing link?.... "IT'S MISSING"

Most people who have taken physics classes know that Newtonian
Physics was great, but as "Man Kind" got smarter Newtonian physics
was replaced with Einsteinian Physic! It's very humbling to see even
the "WORLDS" most brilliant minds are not always correct!

Huh? Evolution is the cummulative effects of genetic changes from generation to generation. The existence of this evolution very much is a fact. We have come up with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY for this, nam3ed the Scientific Theory of Evolution through the application of the Scientific Method. A Scientific Theory is an END PRODUCT of the Scientific Method. (Remember what I said above about people being ignorant? Here is an example in your claim).

I pointed out that it is obvious that Evolution does happen!
So you error in ASSuming that I don't believe that thing do
evolve. And you should not be so eager to call others ignorant.
That whole coal and kettle thing comes to mind.

But then, neither does Evolution try to make any claim about this. You seem to be ranting against abiogenesis rather than Evolution. Again, a clear demonstration of how truly ignorant you are about these subjects.

Why would we talk about the "Big Bang"? That has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Are you really THAT ignorant of what you are talking about?

Sorry. I thought it was a Evolution v.s. Creation thread.
I did a little assuming of my own. But AGIAN I stated that
evolution is obvious.

How so? How do you know it is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is responsible for everything? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

The theory/idea of God was around way before your Spaghetti
monster! Even before Europeans got Spaghetti from the Asians.

You seem very willing to spew "just because I believe so" claims and portray them as factual.

I don't think I said that I believe in anything on my post. You must
have assumed that too. I just pointed out that we are not as smart
as we would like to believe.

Nonsense. The egg preceded the Chicken by hundreds of millions of years

:roll:

Really? Where you there?
P.S. You do understand that I meant "the egg" that the Chicken
came from?

 

[MrFungus420]

Most people are not smart enough to understand this type of debate!

And some people seem to be rather full of themselves...

If I told you a Straight line was a Circle would you believe me or call
me a Nut case and dismiss everything else I say???
(I'll get back to this later)

That all depends. If the discussion was about math or geometry, I would be very disposed to doubt your claims.

If it were a non-sequitor, then I would probably correct you and get back to the topic.

1) Evolution is a "THEROY" only!

Showing that you don't know what a theory is.

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

A scientific theory is generally accepted as being true by the scientific community as a whole.

2) Science is incomplete!

But becoming less incomplete every day. Our understanding continues to improve through science, not religion.

3) "HUMAN" understanding is limited!

See above...

So from here we should all get off our high horses and just try to paint as good a picture of "THE TRUTH" as we can!

Ah, now we apparently have the final arbiter on truth. Please, enlighten us, oh Knowledgeable One...

Evolution:
Yes we all know and have seen proof that life evolves. But Evolution can not explain how "SOMETHING" is "CREATED" from "NOTHING"!

Well, evolution is not about the origin of life. It is about the changes in genetics that occur over time and generations.

And before anyone starts regurgitating the Big
Bang stuff, you must realize that the Big Bang is scientifically sound "EXCEPT" for the first ~3 milliseconds.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, either.

The "LAWS" of Physics/Science says that it is impossible to:
"Create Something from Nothing"

Not exactly true, check out vacuum fluctuation.

Or else we would have free energy, perpetual motion engines etc...

Not at all. Just because we can understand something doesn't mean that we can replicate it or harness it.

It is here where God is the only theory/explanation that makes sense.

Let me get this straight. You think that if we don't understand how something happened, then God is the only explanation?

Creation:
We are here! So something created us!

Unfounded assumption.

Nobody has any proof of what created us or how we got here!

There is no evidence to support the idea of a god having created everything. Virtually all of the evidence that we do have supports natural explanations

"WHAT CAME FIRST THE CHICHEN OR THE EGG?" Only God Knows!

The egg. Dinosaurs were laying eggs millions of years before there were chickens.

FYI
A Line is a Circle with a "Curvature = 0"
A Line is a Circle with a "Radius = Infinity"

No, a circle is a graph of the formula: x2 + y2 = r2 (sorry, those are squares, anyone know how to do superscript?)

Or, if you prefer:
"cir·cle
n.
1. A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center." (from: www.thefreedictionary.com)

Speaking of non-sequitors. A radius cannot be infinite. A radius is a line segment that joins the center point of the circle to any point on it's circumference. Since it is a line segment with a defined point on each end, it is, by definition, finite.

So, we have seen that you don't understand what a theory is, don't understand what the theory of evolution entails, don't seem to have a very good grasp of physics, have seriously flawed logic and a questionable knowledge of mathematics. Oh, that, and an apparent total lack of understanding of the proper use of punctuation and capitalization.

So, all of this boils down to your conclusion that because we don't understand exactly how the universe or life started, the only possible explanation is that God did it.

 

[FluffyNinja]

The egg. Dinosaurs were laying eggs millions of years before there were chickens.

Chickens ARE dinosaurs, aren't they? At least according to many accepted evolutionary theorists?