The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[nkgupta80]

Also where are the transitional fossils? Man started as a fish right? Well wheres the human fish heads? Yeah evolution is supported real well. You forget that is just a theory too.

currently accepted is punctual equilibrium where the populations under go rapid changes over the course of say 10,000s of years and then there is stability (due to the rapid effects of inbreeding etc.). Thus transitional fossils are harder to find. They have found them i.e horses etc. Fishes didn't turn into humans... they turned into amphibious which turned into reptiles then mammals etc. Secondly, yes there are parts of the evolution theory that are still being researched. Scientists don't deny its a 100% accurate. But bsaed on research its pretty damn close to being that.

Secondly, if it isn't accurate, you cant suddenly say oh... hmm if evolution doesn't work then it must be an intelligent designer. Do your research and see what theory would fit it. Luckily evolution is so accurate and so applicable that this isn't necessary.

 

[MrFungus420]

Again as I have said this before. You teach kids all religions and theories. This way they can decide for themselves which one is more applicable to them. Theres plenty o evidnce to back up creationism vice evolutionism. One, the population rate even if it was doubled every thousand yrs the population would be enormous that this earth would be crawling with peopel and animals. Where would we stick all the bodies or ashes? We would casue global warming by burning all the bodies tryung to consolodate room on this earth. :lol:

Also where are the transitional fossils? Man started as a fish right? Well wheres the human fish heads? Yeah evolution is supported real well. You forget that is just a theory too.

Well, seeing as we've been through this on another thread, I'm just going to use the same response to the same allegations.

The problem with your assertion is that the growth rate of humans is nowhere near constant. For long periods, it the poplutation has been very close to stable.

The world population reached 1 billion about 1800.
2 billion at about 1927
3 billion at about 1960
4 billion at about 1974
5 billion at about 1987
and 6 billion at about 1999

Backing up further, about 2000 years ago, the world population was estimated to be about 300,000. By the year 1000, it had only risen by about 10,000.

(sources: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/lectures/population/, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/numb-nf.html, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/jmorrow/malthus.html#anchor357061)

As for transitional fossils, there are literally hundreds of examples. For an article on transitional fossils, including definitions, a large number of examples, including chains of genera, references and documentation, and even pointing out notable gaps in the fossil record, please check out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.

Also, you claim that there is plenty of evidence to back up creationism. Can you give us any examples?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Correct, I believe in a higher power, a supreme being, but not a "supernatural" one.

In a tangiable sense? Please explain furthermore.

currently accepted is punctual equilibrium where the populations under go rapid changes over the course of say 10,000s of years and then there is stability (due to the rapid effects of inbreeding etc.). Thus transitional fossils are harder to find. They have found them i.e horses etc. Fishes didn't turn into humans... they turned into amphibious which turned into reptiles then mammals etc. Secondly, yes there are parts of the evolution theory that are still being researched. Scientists don't deny its a 100% accurate. But bsaed on research its pretty damn close to being that.

Secondly, if it isn't accurate, you cant suddenly say oh... hmm if evolution doesn't work then it must be an intelligent designer. Do your research and see what theory would fit it. Luckily evolution is so accurate and so applicable that this isn't necessary.

Well again the whole creationism isnt just promegated on factual evidence but on faith. Again its based on faith with support not on spelling it out for you. Evolution will never be a fact casue there are too many loopholes. More than aryan emporiums head. :lol:

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well, seeing as we've been through this on another thread, I'm just going to use the same response to the same allegations.

The problem with your assertion is that the growth rate of humans is nowhere near constant. For long periods, it the poplutation has been very close to stable.

The world population reached 1 billion about 1800.
2 billion at about 1927
3 billion at about 1960
4 billion at about 1974
5 billion at about 1987
and 6 billion at about 1999

Backing up further, about 2000 years ago, the world population was estimated to be about 300,000. By the year 1000, it had only risen by about 10,000.

(sources: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/lectures/population/, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/numb-nf.html, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/jmorrow/malthus.html#anchor357061)

As for transitional fossils, there are literally hundreds of examples. For an article on transitional fossils, including definitions, a large number of examples, including chains of genera, references and documentation, and even pointing out notable gaps in the fossil record, please check out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.

Also, you claim that there is plenty of evidence to back up creationism. Can you give us any examples?

Again you forget that population has its ups and downs but for a rough average and mathematical statistic its pretty close. If you extradite the losses of people through wars natural disasters and so forth then pop. will be much closer.

To transitional fossils theres no such thing. Back in the day scitenst tried to use on of a duck bill platipus which isnt a transfossil. And neither is any of your examples.

To back up creationism is just common sense. You dont need a copyright endednted on lanet earth by God to know it was created by someone of a higher power. I will simply just ask you this. Was there a creator and an architect in everything that you know to be very complex?

Becasue if there wasnt ever a creator/inventor/designer/architect then what you are litarally saying what happened is that a toronado whipped through the great plains and insodoing it constructed a metropolis far advanced than NYC. When this happened I will be a true beleiver of evolution. Or if some woman gives birth to a human/horse baby. But the fact is in the last 6000yrs of our human history we havent seen 1 that is a sign of evolution. And isnt it funny out of the millions of years that man was on this earth we only started documenting History only 6000yrs ago? Hmmm... kinda funny isnt it? Can anyone explain this to me with facts? And dont tell me 6000yrs ago we were decimated by a comet and then we evolved again out of a fish. Becasue if thats the case then in this time we are certain to see some evidence of transition occuring.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Again you forget that population has its ups and downs but for a rough average and mathematical statistic its pretty close. If you extradite the losses of people through wars natural disasters and so forth then pop. will be much closer.

To transitional fossils theres no such thing. Back in the day scitenst tried to use on of a duck bill platipus which isnt a transfossil. And neither is any of your examples.

To back up creationism is just common sense. You dont need a copyright endednted on lanet earth by God to know it was created by someone of a higher power. I will simply just ask you this. Was there a creator and an architect in everything that you know to be very complex?

Becasue if there wasnt ever a creator/inventor/designer/architect then what you are litarally saying what happened is that a toronado whipped through the great plains and insodoing it constructed a metropolis far advanced than NYC. When this happened I will be a true beleiver of evolution. Or if some woman gives birth to a human/horse baby. But the fact is in the last 6000yrs of our human history we havent seen 1 that is a sign of evolution. And isnt it funny out of the millions of years that man was on this earth we only started documenting History only 6000yrs ago? Hmmm... kinda funny isnt it? Can anyone explain this to me with facts? And dont tell me 6000yrs ago we were decimated by a comet and then we evolved again out of a fish. Becasue if thats the case then in this time we are certain to see some evidence of transition occuring.

Look, I am Christian, but I also believe in Evolution. I don’t think the Bible is a science book. Evolution is science. All, and I mean all, of life sciences are completely based in Evolution. That is why it is so important for students to be taught the theory of Evolution as the scientific explanation for the origin of life. Evolution only explains the scientific origin of life. It does not explain how matter and energy came into existence. That is why a Christian or anyone for that matter can believe in Evolution without compromising their religious beliefs. Unless one believes that the stories of creation in the Book of Genesis are literal accounts of the scientific origin of life, then there is no conflict. As a Christian, I see Evolution as the scientific explanation of how we came into being.

However, that is really beside the point. There is mountains and mountains of evidence in support of the theory of Evolution. There is plenty of transitional fossil records in support of the theory of Evolution. Is it complete? No. The reason for that is that only an extremely small percentage of deaths result in fossilization. There are mountains and mountains of genetic evidence in support of the theory of Evolution. If you want to have Intelligent Design to be considered a legitimate scientific theory, then do the research, do the studies and submit it for peer review. You have to remember though that science must operate within the natural laws so any supernatural being will be a cog in the wheel in getting it accepted as a scientific theory. You have to remember, like any scientific theory, evolution has questions unanswered as yet by science. However, if you want people to support an alternative theory, you have to explain using science how that theory better answers those questions. For example, if a flagellum is mathematically to complicated to have evolved, then from a scientific perspective, a creator of that flagellum is exponentially mathematically to complicated to exist. Science does not attempt to explain religious beliefs, and religious beliefs cannot explain science. There is not a single scientific society in America that does not fully embrace the theory of Evolution. Most scientists are not atheists.

Someone posted an article earlier that does a great job of explaining why Intelligent Design is not a legitimate scientific theory and has no business being taught in Biology.

Anyone with any interest in the subject should take a moment to read it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

If you will notice I said that Intelligent Design has no business being taught in Biology. It should however probably be taught in a philosophy class or any history class dealing with religious views.

 

[kal-el]

In a tangiable sense? Please explain furthermore.

Well, I don't believe in anything even remotely "supernatural". I simply believe in a higher power, if you will. As for creation, I definetly believe our creator had to be created from someone/something else to infinity, as nothing can be made up of nothing, if it did,it wouldn't exist. As per evolution, I am leaning towards theistic evolution, as I believe something had to "get the ball rolling" so to speak, and then, the slow, gradual, evoltionary process took over.

 

[MrFungus420]

Again you forget that population has its ups and downs but for a rough average and mathematical statistic its pretty close. If you extradite the losses of people through wars natural disasters and so forth then pop. will be much closer.

Seeing as I was giving numbers, and not calculations, what was I forgetting. As I stated, the increase in human population is nowhere near constant. From about 2000 years ago to about 1000 years ago, the population icreased from about 300,000 to about 310,000. That's an increase of only about 1/3 of 1% over a thousand year period. That's a virtually stable population level. Over the next 800 years the population managed to slightly more than triple. It then only took about 127 years for it to double, then about 47 for it to double again. It's estimated that it will have been about 54 years for the next doubling, giving us a population of about 8 billion is about 2028.

To transitional fossils theres no such thing. Back in the day scitenst tried to use on of a duck bill platipus which isnt a transfossil. And neither is any of your examples.

When was the platypus ever touted as a transitional fossil? As far as I know, there aren't any fossils of the platypus. But, even if you are correct, then it would be fairly obvious that you are actually pointing to one of the strengths of the scientific process, in that it is not now considered to be a transitional form, so a mistake would have been recognized, and corrected.

Now, what is your reasoning for dismissing all of the examples of transitional fossils given on the link I provided? Any factual reason, or just that they don't fit in with your beliefs?

To back up creationism is just common sense.

It only makes sense if you first think that there is a god.

You dont need a copyright endednted on lanet earth by God to know it was created by someone of a higher power.

True, you don't. All that you need is an unsubstantiated belief in a god, and a willingness to dismiss multiple branches of science.

I will simply just ask you this. Was there a creator and an architect in everything that you know to be very complex?

Not at all. And I can give you a very simple example. Snowflakes are made up of very complex geometric patterns.

Becasue if there wasnt ever a creator/inventor/designer/architect then what you are litarally saying what happened is that a toronado whipped through the great plains and insodoing it constructed a metropolis far advanced than NYC.

Nope, this would be you making a specious comparison. You are trying to equate an artificial construct to natural occurences.

When this happened I will be a true beleiver of evolution. Or if some woman gives birth to a human/horse baby.

So, it would take an entirely non-evolutionary event to convince you of evolution? If a woman were to give birth to a human/horse baby, that could actually be considered proof for creationism, because it would have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Such an event could only happen with some sort of outside influence.

But the fact is in the last 6000yrs of our human history we havent seen 1 that is a sign of evolution.

Would you accept a new organism as a sign that evolution happens? Helacyton gartleri

And isnt it funny out of the millions of years that man was on this earth we only started documenting History only 6000yrs ago? Hmmm... kinda funny isnt it? Can anyone explain this to me with facts?

Not at all funny, or unusual. First of all, Homo sapiens sapiens has been around about 130,000 years, not millions.

As obvious as writing is to us now, it is actually a major leap. This is evidenced by the fact that the Native American tribes didn't develop writing until after exposure to the Europeans.

And dont tell me 6000yrs ago we were decimated by a comet and then we evolved again out of a fish. Becasue if thats the case then in this time we are certain to see some evidence of transition occuring.

If we did evolve from fish in only 6000 years, I would accept some form of Intelligent Design without question.

 

[nkgupta80]

To back up creationism is just common sense.

Sorry I dunno how people can take u seriosuly after this statement....

And isnt it funny out of the millions of years that man was on this earth we only started documenting History only 6000yrs ago? Hmmm... kinda funny isnt it? Can anyone explain this to me with facts?

Its not like we became humans and were suddenly born with an innate knowledge of Egyptian Heiroglyphs or the Phoenician alphabet....writing took a long time to evolve into something coherent. It evolved as our ancestors learned farming techniques which enabled them to settle in one place rahter than roam around as hunter-gatherer societies.

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC
When this happened I will be a true beleiver of evolution. Or if some woman gives birth to a human/horse baby.

you really have no understanding of evolution. its not some instant thing... its a gradual process. You underestimate how long millions of years actually is. You should go through the posts and read about evolution and what it is.

But the fact is in the last 6000yrs of our human history we havent seen 1 that is a sign of evolution.

easily... evolution is seen easier in the simpler organisms (faster reproduction, less complex)... new strains of bacteria, fungi, etc. New strains of mice over only periods of 50 yeras in labs. New species of insects.

Frankly for larger organisms, 6000 years is not enough. Its like a speck in the evolutionary timeline. And furthermore, We've only started recording evolutionary data in the last 150 years.


Anyways evolution isn't about believing. Its just blatant when you see the tons of data and evidence collected and being collected by scientists.

 

[steen]

Again I think both should be taught in schools. Thats the only fair way to do it. Let the students decide.

But only one, the Scientific Theory of Evolution, is actually science. So they couldn't be taught in the same class, of course.

 

[steen]

Again as I have said this before. You teach kids all religions and theories.

Hmm, are you saying that we must teach religion along with Scientific Theories? That sure seems to be your claim. It appears to be an incredibly ignorant claim, but perhaps you can explain yourself so it doesn't seem idiotic?

This way they can decide for themselves which one is more applicable to them.

Ah, you mean like we can teach that the Earth rotate on its axis in a pattern around the sun, and the alternative religious belief that the sun actually moves accross the sky of a stationary Earth, and that its path can be stopped? Yes, then the students can decide for themselves. Oh, and then we can throw the Flat-Earth religion in there as well, to given them even more things to chose between. And we can talk about the back of the turtle, or how the Titans came to be during the process as well etc.

Yes, you can have your odd beliefs. I, myself, prefer that in science class, the kids are taught ACTUAL SCIENCE!

Theres plenty o evidnce to back up creationism vice evolutionism.

Hmm, so you say. So creationists have claimed for more than 100 years, always ending up instead exposing themselves as stupid, ignorant yahoos.

One, the population rate even if it was doubled every thousand yrs the population would be enormous that this earth would be crawling with peopel and animals. Where would we stick all the bodies or ashes? We would casue global warming by burning all the bodies tryung to consolodate room on this earth.

What an inanely stupid and irrelevant blabbering, completely irrelevant to the Scientific Theory of Evolution. As such, this is not evidence for creationism or against the Scientific Theory of Evolution, but rather is a demonstration of how silly your arguments are.

Also where are the transitional fossils?

All over the place:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Man started as a fish right?

"started" as a fish? What do you mean. The life forms that eventually evolved into H. sapiens did way back then, many million generations before, share ancestors with the fish. And these evolved from even earlier life forms. So it is unclear what you mean with "started as." On the surface, it seems like just ANOTHER ignorant creationist claim, something to the extend of fish evolving directly into hominids? Surely, you are not so ignorant as to claim that, are you?

Well wheres the human fish heads?

Oh, I was wrong.:doh You truly ARE that ignorant. Certainly, nothing in the Scientific Theory of Evolution predicts that anything like a human with a fish head ever should have existed anywhere. So not only does your claim have tha appearance of inane ignorance, it IS a demonstration of inane stupidity. Once again, creationists arguments are based on more astonishing ignorance and blabbering nonsense than any of us could ever have imagined.

Yeah evolution is supported real well.

Yes, it is. About 100,000 studies per year, and 150 years of studies confirming the process. yes, it is very well documented.

You forget that is just a theory too.

Well, knock me with a feather. It is not just the Scientific Theory of Evolution that you are clueless about. You have no clue at all about what SCIENCE itself is. You must be completely ignorant of the existence and methodology of the Scientific Method. This is worse than I thought. This is what people learn in GRADE SCHOOL. And you still spew that stupid nonsense of "only a theory"? Sheesh, this is simply to crazy.

 

[steen]

Well again the whole creationism isnt just promegated on factual evidence but on faith.

Ah, but you said there was EVIDENCE. Did you lie?

Again its based on faith with support not on spelling it out for you.

"faith with support" What claptrap nonsense is that? You claimed therew as evidence, now it turned out that you lied. Yes, now we are going to witness yet another creationist back-pedalling and misrepresenting, as we have seen so many hundreds do before. The same claptrap lies, the same outright dishonesty, the same "lying for Jesus" deceptions and misrepresentation. It is further evidence that ALL creationists are lying crooks.

Evolution will never be a fact casue there are too many loopholes.

Ah, another lying 'because I say so" espousing from deceptive creationist lies. Shame on you for lying so.

More than aryan emporiums head. :lol:

Can you explain why creationists always lie so much, why they are never honest and truthful?

It is a mystery what creationists feel they get out of so many lies. I would really like to understand the purpose of that stark dishonesty. Is it possible for you to explain it?

 

[steen]

To transitional fossils theres no such thing.

WHY ARE YOU LYING??
We provided links to evidence, yet you ignore that evidence. That is outright lying. You must be one of the creationists that are so incerdibly dishonest that you just can't stop yourself from lying?

Back in the day scitenst tried to use on of a duck bill platipus which isnt a transfossil.

Huh? What the %$@#%$# stupid nonsense lies is it you are spewing here?

And neither is any of your examples.

Ah, because you say so, right? I bet you didn't even look, being as dishonest as you are.

let me ask you this. Are you AT ALL able to post about this without lying? It sure doesn't look like it. It looks like you constantly and always are lying here.

To back up creationism is just common sense.

Really? Go against all evidence with lies, and then call the lies "common sense"? That is about the most stupid thing you have said so far.

You dont need a copyright endednted on lanet earth by God to know it was created by someone of a higher power.

And yet, there is no evidence, only your "because I say so" postulation and various unrelated, silly allegations. So no, there is no evidence for your lie.

I will simply just ask you this. Was there a creator and an architect in everything that you know to be very complex?

Nope, there wasn't. A snowflake is a complex crystal structure that was not designed, not generated by a creator. Gee, that was easy.

Becasue if there wasnt ever a creator/inventor/designer/architect then what you are litarally saying what happened is that a toronado whipped through the great plains and insodoing it constructed a metropolis far advanced than NYC.

Nobody are saying this or even hinting at it. You are again LYING.

Could you please stop all your LYING? It is very offensive to have somebody spewing so many lies as you do.

When this happened I will be a true beleiver of evolution. Or if some woman gives birth to a human/horse baby.

But then, if any of these things happen, that would be evidence AGAINST the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Why would you believe it from evidence against it? To me, that sounds incredibly STUPID!

But the fact is in the last 6000yrs of our human history we havent seen 1 that is a sign of evolution.

Huh? What are you blabbering about here?

And isnt it funny out of the millions of years that man was on this earth we only started documenting History only 6000yrs ago?

Well, that depends on what you mean with "man." Certainly, we have written records from before that time, so I am not sure that your basis for your claim is even true to begin with.

Hmmm... kinda funny isnt it? Can anyone explain this to me with facts?

Explain what to you? How your misrepresentations or lies could be true? they aren't to begin with, so it is not clear what you seek to have explained here.

And dont tell me 6000yrs ago we were decimated by a comet and then we evolved again out of a fish.

Well, we wouldn't tell you that because that didn't happen either. You seem incredibly ignorant of this subject.

Becasue if thats the case then in this time we are certain to see some evidence of transition occuring.

Well, we certainly see transitions, but not from fish to hominids in 6000 years, no.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well, I don't believe in anything even remotely "supernatural". I simply believe in a higher power, if you will. As for creation, I definetly believe our creator had to be created from someone/something else to infinity, as nothing can be made up of nothing, if it did,it wouldn't exist. As per evolution, I am leaning towards theistic evolution, as I believe something had to "get the ball rolling" so to speak, and then, the slow, gradual, evoltionary process took over.

Exactly. I beleive this too. However, I beleive in microevolution not macro. Of course thngs evolve and adjust and adapt to enviornment. But I just dont beleive these things that the earth is billions upon zillions fafillion years old is crap. And so it that man was a little tadpole then all the sudden evolved inot this thing with 2 liegs and 2 arms. So what happens in a million yrs humans havent changed one bit? Then are you going to tell me it takes a billion years? And after a billion yrs pass scientists are going to conjecture that it actually takes quadrillions of years. The thing is when is it ever going to stop. When the evolutionary theory started it was suggested that the earth is a million yrs old now its up to what like a 100zillion? Its rediculous guessing and crap. I beleive in evolution as far as the adptation of things.

As one suggested organisms adapt well yeah so do we as humans. Its called skin color and stuff like that its not macroevolution its just adaptation to your enviornment. In cats and dogs which age like 7times faster than we do havent shown signs of evolution in that they are emerging into monkeys or anything else. I havent seen any other known animal that is evolving into something else. Now insects, how do we know they werent around before? Mabe they were just discovered? No one knows for sure.

Again I have read the findings of so called transfossils and there arent such a thing. Its just a different extinct form of an ape. Mush like the sabre tooth tigers they are just a extinct breed of the tiger which arent transfossils either.

And yet, there is no evidence, only your "because I say so" postulation and various unrelated, silly allegations. So no, there is no evidence for your lie.

Your not calling me a liar but God. I just tell you what His word says. If you have a problem with what I say take it up with God. Its His words not mine.

Really? Go against all evidence with lies, and then call the lies "common sense"? That is about the most stupid thing you have said so far.

Well it is common sense that everything you see had a maker and a designer did it not? I wonder if the Goldne gate bridge just miraculously evolved from some mist in the fog and it conjurerd up a bridge out of nowhere. Much like all of our cities. They must have somehow miraculously appeared through evolution. Yeah your right evolution does make sense. Hey why do I need to go to work? Money will evolve some day in my hands to pay the bills:lol:

Or better yet let just stop all factories and industrialization for evolution will provide us with everything necassary to live and live well. Hey after a toronado leaves an area evolution will provide a new metropolis so we can live in. I mean evolution is so right and perfect that it knows when we will need things. :rofl

 

[nkgupta80]

Exactly. I beleive this too. However, I beleive in microevolution not macro. Of course thngs evolve and adjust and adapt to enviornment. But I just dont beleive these things that the earth is billions upon zillions fafillion years old is crap. And so it that man was a little tadpole then all the sudden evolved inot this thing with 2 liegs and 2 arms. So what happens in a million yrs humans havent changed one bit? Then are you going to tell me it takes a billion years? And after a billion yrs pass scientists are going to conjecture that it actually takes quadrillions of years. The thing is when is it ever going to stop. When the evolutionary theory started it was suggested that the earth is a million yrs old now its up to what like a 100zillion? Its rediculous guessing and crap. I beleive in evolution as far as the adptation of things.

of course humans changed in millions of years, hence the TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS of humanoids going from our ape like ancestor to the modern human. Radiodating tells us the earth is 4 billions years old. Tons of evidence tells us that the universe is older as well. nearly ten decades of radiodating has pretty much convinced scientists that the earth is as old. If they were wrong, our nuclear reactors wouldn't be working, we wouldnt have the atom bomb, and all the science we have today would be pretty much wrong... I doubt that since all applications of that science seem to be working fine, not blowing up on us.

Evolution itself is a theory that allows us to study bacteria and simple organisms, and apply that knowledge to medical research on humans. It is what had made senes of the genetic similarities between all organisms and the similarities in traits/adaptations. It allows us to make accurate conclusions on any further research in biology or medicine, helps give researchers a sense of direction of where to look, what to study. Why study a whale over a shark? Both live in water, but which one is more similar to us. Why study mice over lizards...both have four legs and live on land. Of course i'm generalizing the otherwise complex conclusions they must draw, but you see hwere evolution's applications are extrmely important.

Or better yet let just stop all factories and industrialization for evolution will provide us with everything necassary to live and live well. Hey after a toronado leaves an area evolution will provide a new metropolis so we can live in. I mean evolution is so right and perfect that it knows when we will need things.

Considering that humans are different from animals in that we have evolved a superior intellect, so superior that we can manipulate our environments far better than other animals. But ultimately, our changing of the environment is evolution/natural selectoin at work. Evolution isn't a force like gravity that changes things mysteriously. Its a term for how statistics and survival of the fittest causes one adaptation to dominate another, and thus cause change in a species. This model applies to businesses, social systems, human civilization, a lot of fields. Its a very versatile but powerful idea. Although it is a lot more debatable in these fields, in biology it has pretty much been proven as an ESSENTIAL THEORY FOR BINDING BIOLOGY and GENETICS together. Can't say much about creationism there with the talking snake and the apple tree and what not...

 

[steen]

Exactly. I beleive this too. However, I beleive in microevolution not macro. Of course thngs evolve and adjust and adapt to enviornment. But I just dont beleive these things that the earth is billions upon zillions fafillion years old is crap.

Hmm, it certainly is billions of years old.

Now, what does that have to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? Evolution is not about the age of the Earth, after all.

And so it that man was a little tadpole then all the sudden evolved inot this thing with 2 liegs and 2 arms.

Nope. The Scientific Theory of Evolution says no such thing. Is misrepresentation the only way you can make an argument?

So what happens in a million yrs humans havent changed one bit?

Yes, they have. Why do you claim they haven't?

Then are you going to tell me it takes a billion years?

Nope.

And after a billion yrs pass scientists are going to conjecture that it actually takes quadrillions of years.

Nope. Do you have ANYTHING that is not misrepresentation and falsehoods?

The thing is when is it ever going to stop. When the evolutionary theory started it was suggested that the earth is a million yrs old

Really? Please provide evidence for your claim. You didn't just make that up, did you?

And anyway, once again, I must ask you what the age of the Earth has to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution?

now its up to what like a 100zillion? Its rediculous guessing and crap.

Your claims are, anyway. There is NOTHING even remotely connected to science ion any of your claims. You are simply making up lies and misrepresenting them as relating to Evolution. Are you unable to base your argument on honest claims and facts?

I beleive in evolution as far as the adptation of things.

And what is the barrier, the limitations that prevents adaptation from resulting in new species? Could you please explain Ring-Species if adaptation can not lead to speciation?

Oh? You don't know what I am talking about? You don't evenh know WHAT the Scientific Theory of Evolution is, or what the actual evidence is? Hmm, isn't that dishonest?

As one suggested organisms adapt well yeah so do we as humans. Its called skin color and stuff like that its not macroevolution its just adaptation to your enviornment.

Huh? What are you talking about? On the surface, that was utter nonsense, so could you please clarify?

In cats and dogs which age like 7times faster than we do havent shown signs of evolution in that they are emerging into monkeys or anything else.

Nobody say that they should. What change in the environment would cause their evolutionary change into other existing species? If that happened, it would actually be evidence AGAINST the Scientific Theory of Evolution. So again, your remarks seem to be pure nonsense.

I havent seen any other known animal that is evolving into something else.

It is not our fault that you haven't read the evidence. Your ignorance is not our fault.

Now insects, how do we know they werent around before? Mabe they were just discovered? No one knows for sure.

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Again I have read the findings of so called transfossils and there arent such a thing. Its just a different extinct form of an ape. Mush like the sabre tooth tigers they are just a extinct breed of the tiger which arent transfossils either.

Huh? What babbling nonsense is this? If you had read the findings about transitional fossils, you would know that the silly stuff about apes is nonsense. This pretty much establishes you as a liar, as it shows you to NOT have read the data on transitional fossils. WHY do you need to be dishonest? Do you think it enhances your credibility to outright lie?

Your not calling me a liar but God.

Nope. YOU are the liar. Trying to blame this on God exposes you as a coward. God didn't say the above words; you did.

I just tell you what His word says. If you have a problem with what I say take it up with God. Its His words not mine.

The claims you make about the evidence for the Scientific Theory of Evolution are YOUR words, not God's. Stop being such a coward as to try to blame your lies on God. It is very blasphemous and offensive.

Well it is common sense that everything you see had a maker and a designer did it not?

Who made and designed a snow flake?

I wonder if the Goldne gate bridge just miraculously evolved from some mist in the fog and it conjurerd up a bridge out of nowhere. Much like all of our cities. They must have somehow miraculously appeared through evolution.

More stupid claptrap. They are not biological organisms, and as such have nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

Now, is everything you post going to be this stupid and ignorant? because then you sure aren't worth anybody's time. If you have no facts and only lies, then why should we bother with you?

Yeah your right evolution does make sense. Hey why do I need to go to work? Money will evolve some day in my hands to pay the bills:lol:

Well, I think this is a good place to stop. It is a good and splendid example of how STUPID and IGNORANT creationists are

 

[Caine]

Your not calling me a liar but God. I just tell you what His word says. If you have a problem with what I say take it up with God. Its His words not mine.

umm... okay.. who is this "God" person again?

Well it is common sense that everything you see had a maker and a designer did it not? I wonder if the Goldne gate bridge just miraculously evolved from some mist in the fog and it conjurerd up a bridge out of nowhere. Much like all of our cities. They must have somehow miraculously appeared through evolution. Yeah your right evolution does make sense. Hey why do I need to go to work? Money will evolve some day in my hands to pay the bills:lol:

Or better yet let just stop all factories and industrialization for evolution will provide us with everything necassary to live and live well. Hey after a toronado leaves an area evolution will provide a new metropolis so we can live in. I mean evolution is so right and perfect that it knows when we will need things. :rofl

Is this guy Serious? I can't believe that someone can be so ignorant as to have such a little understanding of science that they can't understand how Evolution could even work. SKILMATIC you've been told many times, but again.... THIS PROCESS ISN"T INSTANT! Humans haven't evolved in the past 6000 years because they have had nothing to adapt to. Maybe you can tell me some reason why our species needs to adapt for our own survival?
Oh! I got it! We'll develop extremely hardened skin to survive gunshot wounds!
Maybe you should go sit in during.. even a HIGH SCHOOL biology class.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Hmm, it certainly is billions of years old.

Now, what does that have to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? Evolution is not about the age of the Earth, after all.
Nope. The Scientific Theory of Evolution says no such thing. Is misrepresentation the only way you can make an argument?
Yes, they have. Why do you claim they haven't?
Nope.
Nope. Do you have ANYTHING that is not misrepresentation and falsehoods?
Really? Please provide evidence for your claim. You didn't just make that up, did you?

And anyway, once again, I must ask you what the age of the Earth has to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution?
Your claims are, anyway. There is NOTHING even remotely connected to science ion any of your claims. You are simply making up lies and misrepresenting them as relating to Evolution. Are you unable to base your argument on honest claims and facts?
And what is the barrier, the limitations that prevents adaptation from resulting in new species? Could you please explain Ring-Species if adaptation can not lead to speciation?

Oh? You don't know what I am talking about? You don't evenh know WHAT the Scientific Theory of Evolution is, or what the actual evidence is? Hmm, isn't that dishonest?
Huh? What are you talking about? On the surface, that was utter nonsense, so could you please clarify?
Nobody say that they should. What change in the environment would cause their evolutionary change into other existing species? If that happened, it would actually be evidence AGAINST the Scientific Theory of Evolution. So again, your remarks seem to be pure nonsense.
It is not our fault that you haven't read the evidence. Your ignorance is not our fault.

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Huh? What babbling nonsense is this? If you had read the findings about transitional fossils, you would know that the silly stuff about apes is nonsense. This pretty much establishes you as a liar, as it shows you to NOT have read the data on transitional fossils. WHY do you need to be dishonest? Do you think it enhances your credibility to outright lie?
Nope. YOU are the liar. Trying to blame this on God exposes you as a coward. God didn't say the above words; you did.
The claims you make about the evidence for the Scientific Theory of Evolution are YOUR words, not God's. Stop being such a coward as to try to blame your lies on God. It is very blasphemous and offensive.
Who made and designed a snow flake?
More stupid claptrap. They are not biological organisms, and as such have nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

Now, is everything you post going to be this stupid and ignorant? because then you sure aren't worth anybody's time. If you have no facts and only lies, then why should we bother with you?
Well, I think this is a good place to stop. It is a good and splendid example of how STUPID and IGNORANT creationists are

Well at least my posts have some factual evidentiary support while yours has nothing but rubbish. If I have posted misinterpretations then why dont you re interpret them correctly then if they are wrong? O well mabe its becasue you cant casue its all but theories. :lol: :rofl

How can you say facts when they arent? :roll:

In this post you just asked me how come I havent posted facts about evolution. Well in your nect line you claim the theory of evolution. Gee, how can I say facts about evolution when its a theory? Or mabe in your eyes conspiracy theories are what you base everything on? So i suppose you also beleive that 9/11 was an inside job too? Mr. Conspiracy theory man. I love you result to insults to try an spicin up your rhetoric. But you havent made one bit of leeway with anyone. While your beleifs are theories so are mine. But to each is his own. Both have evidentiary support.

 

[SKILMATIC]

of course humans changed in millions of years, hence the TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS of humanoids going from our ape like ancestor to the modern human. Radiodating tells us the earth is 4 billions years old. Tons of evidence tells us that the universe is older as well. nearly ten decades of radiodating has pretty much convinced scientists that the earth is as old. If they were wrong, our nuclear reactors wouldn't be working, we wouldnt have the atom bomb, and all the science we have today would be pretty much wrong... I doubt that since all applications of that science seem to be working fine, not blowing up on us.

Evolution itself is a theory that allows us to study bacteria and simple organisms, and apply that knowledge to medical research on humans. It is what had made senes of the genetic similarities between all organisms and the similarities in traits/adaptations. It allows us to make accurate conclusions on any further research in biology or medicine, helps give researchers a sense of direction of where to look, what to study. Why study a whale over a shark? Both live in water, but which one is more similar to us. Why study mice over lizards...both have four legs and live on land. Of course i'm generalizing the otherwise complex conclusions they must draw, but you see hwere evolution's applications are extrmely important.



Considering that humans are different from animals in that we have evolved a superior intellect, so superior that we can manipulate our environments far better than other animals. But ultimately, our changing of the environment is evolution/natural selectoin at work. Evolution isn't a force like gravity that changes things mysteriously. Its a term for how statistics and survival of the fittest causes one adaptation to dominate another, and thus cause change in a species. This model applies to businesses, social systems, human civilization, a lot of fields. Its a very versatile but powerful idea. Although it is a lot more debatable in these fields, in biology it has pretty much been proven as an ESSENTIAL THEORY FOR BINDING BIOLOGY and GENETICS together. Can't say much about creationism there with the talking snake and the apple tree and what not...

Those arent transfossils. Its a different breed of apes that are extinct. Do you even know what a transitional fossil is? Its somethig that shows a animal actually in transition. Which would directly explain the evolution process. But we have no such thing do we? I dont even see fish with legs do you? This is all peculiar to me. Now I do beleive evolution to a point in that survival of the fittest. Because we can see that evident today.

A scientific process in order to be beleiveable or even conceivable needs to be applicable to today. Like that of any other process such as nuclear fission and fussion which works in todays world. Now if Einstien proposed that this would work but it never did then no one would beleive him. It would remain very much a theory. For instance, the theory of creationism, is applicable today becasue people create/make/construct/architect things. Which this theory is very much applicable today. However, the thing that cant be explained is where did God get all this stuff to make this earth? And some dont beleive in a God so how do we even know tht a God even exists? All of these are very good questions and I cant fully answer them with 100% indellable proof but neither can you on the evolution theory. Yes you have lots of evidence that would help substantiate your claim but at the same time so do I. Now some you dont agree with in regards to me and some I dont agree with in regards to you.

In all through history scientist have drawn many hypothesis in several different fields. And in each hypothesis it shows convincing data. Now in these hypothesis and testing it is applicable today. But in evolution as it exclaims that man has evolved from many creatures to becoming this very sophisticated being is in direct flaw with the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states the very opposite. Which is a law not a theory. So you cant dispute that. You can basically take about anything in this world and in time its state of being and health will decrease. Even in time rock gets brittle and eventually crumbles. And in water if you put it in a cup and leave it outside what do you suppose will happen? Will it evolve into better more tasting drinking water or will it slowly evaporate and get dirty and yucky? When you buy a brand new car does it look better and drive better 10yrs later(without doing any work on it whatsoever)? So this right here disproves evolutions very foundations. Becasue evolution proclaims that everything gets better. Which is horribly wrong in every attribute.

 

[SKILMATIC]

umm... okay.. who is this "God" person again?




Is this guy Serious? I can't believe that someone can be so ignorant as to have such a little understanding of science that they can't understand how Evolution could even work. SKILMATIC you've been told many times, but again.... THIS PROCESS ISN"T INSTANT! Humans haven't evolved in the past 6000 years because they have had nothing to adapt to. Maybe you can tell me some reason why our species needs to adapt for our own survival?
Oh! I got it! We'll develop extremely hardened skin to survive gunshot wounds!
Maybe you should go sit in during.. even a HIGH SCHOOL biology class.

I have taken several biology classes. I have taken advanced physics classes and some health and chemistry classes. I am very aware of evolution and thats why I cant take this theory seriously. The more I learn of evolution the more I become a beleiver of creationsim. The more I learn about evolution the more I come to realize that its wrong. It basically disproves itself.

Heres a link which is very lengthy but since you guys are prominent scientists this shouldnt be a problem.

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.30.172813.212..html

Heres also another interesting article regarding these matters. Its neutral

http://sfgate.com/cgi-binarticle.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11//30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL

Heres another with some interesting info.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Now I know there are links disregarding creationism too.

so heres some of both sides of the sectrum on this link

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

 

[MrFungus420]

Exactly. I beleive this too. However, I beleive in microevolution not macro.

Why not? If you accept microevolution, then you accept that species undergo genetic change over time. Doesn't it then logically follow that after enough time, and enough genetic change, you will end up with new species?

Of course thngs evolve and adjust and adapt to enviornment. But I just dont beleive these things that the earth is billions upon zillions fafillion years old is crap.

The age is estimated at about 4.5 billion years.

And so it that man was a little tadpole then all the sudden evolved inot this thing with 2 liegs and 2 arms.

No, if this were to happen, it's another thing that would be indicitive of some form of intelligent design. Having something suddenly change like that is not a part of the evolutionary theory.

So what happens in a million yrs humans havent changed one bit?

Well, looking back about 1 million years ago, humans were at the stage of Homo erectus, and have since gone through the stages of Homo sapiens to Homo sapiens sapiens.

Then are you going to tell me it takes a billion years? And after a billion yrs pass scientists are going to conjecture that it actually takes quadrillions of years. The thing is when is it ever going to stop.

Now, this is a good example of pure conjecture.

When the evolutionary theory started it was suggested that the earth is a million yrs old now its up to what like a 100zillion?

Can you give us your source for how old they thought the Earth was in Darwin's time (I assume that's when you meant when you said "when the evolutionary theory started")?

Again, the Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billioin years old. How long is a "zillion"?

Its rediculous guessing and crap. I beleive in evolution as far as the adptation of things.

As one suggested organisms adapt well yeah so do we as humans.

Actually, as we became more adept at using tools, we've had to adapt less and less. We began adapting our environment to suit us.

Its called skin color and stuff like that its not macroevolution its just adaptation to your enviornment.

It's an adaptation on the genetic level. Like I already said, if you accept genetic change, why don't you accept that over time enough genetic changes can accumulate to cause speciation?

In cats and dogs which age like 7times faster than we do havent shown signs of evolution in that they are emerging into monkeys or anything else.

Cats and dogs (or other animals for that matter) don't age any faster than we do. Time passes for them at the same rate for them as for us. A five year old dog is just as old as a five year old person. The difference is in life expectancies. The dog is a mature being at that age, the person is still very much an immature being. Also, dogs and cats, as well as all other domestic animals are being bred by us. They are really no longer truly subject to evolution because of that.

I havent seen any other known animal that is evolving into something else.

So. Evolution occurs over a timescale longer than humans have been recording history.

Now insects, how do we know they werent around before? Mabe they were just discovered? No one knows for sure.

Well, because there are fossilized insects.

Again I have read the findings of so called transfossils and there arent such a thing. Its just a different extinct form of an ape. Mush like the sabre tooth tigers they are just a extinct breed of the tiger which arent transfossils either.

I'm wondering what resources you've read. The only ones that don't recognize the existence of transitional fossils are the creationist crowd.

Your not calling me a liar but God. I just tell you what His word says. If you have a problem with what I say take it up with God. Its His words not mine.

I have yet to see you post anything that is in God's words. Can you show me where God say that there are no transitional fossils? Can you show me where God says that at the time the Theory of Evolution started that people thought the world was 1 million years old?

Well it is common sense that everything you see had a maker and a designer did it not?

The anser is still no. I will again refer to snowflakes. They are composed of very complex geometric shapes, and they do it all by themselves.

I wonder if the Goldne gate bridge just miraculously evolved from some mist in the fog and it conjurerd up a bridge out of nowhere. Much like all of our cities. They must have somehow miraculously appeared through evolution. Yeah your right evolution does make sense. Hey why do I need to go to work? Money will evolve some day in my hands to pay the bills:lol:

Or better yet let just stop all factories and industrialization for evolution will provide us with everything necassary to live and live well. Hey after a toronado leaves an area evolution will provide a new metropolis so we can live in. I mean evolution is so right and perfect that it knows when we will need things. :rofl

Another entirely specious argument. Evolution is a result of the reaction of living things to their environment. There is no evolution of the inanimate.

You can make the exact same claims and just substitute "God" for "evolution", and it will make just as much sense. Actually, it would make far more sense. After all, God is supposedly omnipotent, evolution is limited to living things. So, supposedly, God could do everything that you just said.

 

[MrFungus420]

Well at least my posts have some factual evidentiary support while yours has nothing but rubbish. If I have posted misinterpretations then why dont you re interpret them correctly then if they are wrong? O well mabe its becasue you cant casue its all but theories. :lol: :rofl

What is it that you've posted that you believe is factual? Saying that you believe or don't believe something? Claiming that you're giving us the word of God? Comparing the evolution of living things to inanimate objects? How about the claim that there is evidence to back up creationism? And then saying that creationism isn't based on factual evidence but faith? Claiiming that something is "common sense"?

How can you say facts when they arent? :roll:

Pot, meet kettle...

In this post you just asked me how come I havent posted facts about evolution.

Now, that is an out and out lie. At no point in that post does Steen ask you for any facts about evolution. The only thing that you were directly asked for is evidence of your claim that people thought the Earth was 1 million years old when the Theory of Evolution started.

Well in your nect line you claim the theory of evolution. Gee, how can I say facts about evolution when its a theory?

Because there are facts that support evolution. That is why evolution is a theory, and why creationism isn't. In order for something to be a theory, it must have some evidence to back it up.

Or mabe in your eyes conspiracy theories are what you base everything on? So i suppose you also beleive that 9/11 was an inside job too? Mr. Conspiracy theory man. I love you result to insults to try an spicin up your rhetoric. But you havent made one bit of leeway with anyone. While your beleifs are theories so are mine. But to each is his own. Both have evidentiary support.

Again, what evidence is there for creationism? Pointing out possible problems with the Theory of Evolution is not evidence for creationism.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Why not? If you accept microevolution, then you accept that species undergo genetic change over time. Doesn't it then logically follow that after enough time, and enough genetic change, you will end up with new species?

Not necassarily, micr climate and macroclimate are 2 waaay different things.

The age is estimated at about 4.5 billion years.

Well its surmised that its between 4.4-5billion yrs old. I was being a little fessicious.

Again I will say this one more time. Not one of us can prove to one another 100% eitHer theory. I have my beleifs you have yours. This is beating a dead horse. In no way can you or I for that matter prove or disprove Gods existence much like that of creationism or evolutionism.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Mr. Fungus just read post 194 and the links therein. This is seriosuly going nowhere with anyone. Mabe after reading some link on both sides of the matter you will better understand. Again I have done the research on both sides of the spectrum and I came to the beleif that I have. IMO its common sense. But it may not be to you. Is that a better more fair statement?

 

[MrFungus420]

I have taken several biology classes. I have taken advanced physics classes and some health and chemistry classes. I am very aware of evolution and thats why I cant take this theory seriously. The more I learn of evolution the more I become a beleiver of creationsim. The more I learn about evolution the more I come to realize that its wrong. It basically disproves itself.

How does it disprove itself?

Heres a link which is very lengthy but since you guys are prominent scientists this shouldnt be a problem.

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.30.172813.212..html

404 not found.

Heres also another interesting article regarding these matters. Its neutral

http://sfgate.com/cgi-binarticle.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11//30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL

Forbidden.

Heres another with some interesting info.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Funny that you'd put this link up. It counters your claims. Including your claim that there are no transitional fossils.

Now I know there are links disregarding creationism too.

so heres some of both sides of the sectrum on this link

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

Ok, a link that supports you. Why am I not suprised that it is a creatioist site? The funny thing about this link is that you claim it gives both sides. It is a purely creationist site, starting from the premise that the Bible is factual, and working from there.

 

[MrFungus420]

Again I will say this one more time. Not one of us can prove to one another 100% eitHer theory. I have my beleifs you have yours. This is beating a dead horse. In no way can you or I for that matter prove or disprove Gods existence much like that of creationism or evolutionism.

Again, creationism isn't a theory. A theory requires there to be some evidence to support it. Pointing out possible flaws in evolution is something very different from providing evidence to support creationism.

Having the opinion that evolution is wrong doesn't constitute proof for creatioinism, either.

Dismissing reams of scientific data from multiple fields of study doesn't constitute proof for creationism.

Claiming that there is proof for creationism, then later saying that there isn't factual proof, but it relies on faith is hypocritical, and an admission that creationism doesn't qualify as a theory.

My beliefs are based on verifiable evidence. Yours are based on faith in your religion. You automatically dismiss anything that counters your faith. If it can't be verified, I don't believe in it.