Theory of Evolution?

[Scott]

Creationism has no place in a serious discussion about the origin of species. There's a higher chance of life on Earth being started from bacteria on a meteorite than being created by a God.

Creationism has the same right in a serious discussion as anything else, who are you to dismiss it, in the same way i wouldnt just dismiss evolution

 

[Toronto_FC_RULES]

Thanks for the examples Toronto, will give me some reading for tonight. :wub:

You're welcome.

 

[Tharros]

Creationism has the same right in a serious discussion as anything else, who are you to dismiss it, in the same way i wouldnt just dismiss evolution

Because evolution has at least some scientific proof where creationism has none?

 

[Toronto_FC_RULES]

Because evolution has at least some scientific proof where creationism has none?

You clearly haven't seen the flagellum and cilia as proof of intelligent design (Creator) haven't you?

 

[Meemo]

It's scientifically proven, but go on, you believe in your God even though you have no evidence at all apart from a book, of fairytales if i may say, that was written hundreds of years ago.

Don't knock someone for believing in God. Everything can be explained by either knowledge or faith.

 

[Scott]

Because evolution has at least some scientific proof where creationism has none?

It is still wrong to simply dismiss a theory becuase you dont agree with it, or it goes against your belief, i beileve in creationism but i dont dismiss any other theory. Suppose i am open minded, whislt you are not.

 

[Stann]

Not one person has replied to my post here. I am interested to see people's thoughts on that theory.

http://www.fm-base.co.uk/forum/f23/theory-of-evolution-t49504/post733617.html

 

[Tharros]

You clearly haven't seen the flagellum and cilia as proof of intelligent design (Creator) haven't you?

Proof? You must be using 'proof' pretty loosely. :S

It is still wrong to simply dismiss a theory becuase you dont agree with it, or it goes against your belief, i beileve in creationism but i dont dismiss any other theory. Suppose i am open minded, whislt you are not.

It is not that I don't agree with it or am not open minded. It is that there is little or no evidence for it. Science and religion should not mix - regardless, Christians continue to insist that creationism is scientifically valid.

 

[Toronto_FC_RULES]

Proof? You must be using 'proof' pretty loosely. :S



It is not that I don't agree with it or am not open minded. It is that there is little or no evidence for it. Science and religion should not mix - regardless, Christians continue to insist that creationism is scientifically valid.

I used the wrong word. Evidence is better. The flagellum is really a complex design that evolutionists haven't cracked yet with evolutionary thought. It shows that the only way it could have existed is with a creator.

And who says science and religion can't mix? Many scientific discoveries were made by Christians. For example, Pasteur with Pasteurization and Mendel with Mendelian genetics. The Muslims also discovered many, including algebra and chemistry.

 

[Gooner Eagle]

I want to address an earlier point, from the start of the conversation. Apologies if the same explanation has already been given.

It was asked why we no longer see the middle three guys. The third guy was a neanderthal, and died out a long time ago; the fourth generation was the homosapien, which we are. The fourth generation evolved in to the fifth, mankind.

This is a neanderthal skull, next to a homosapien skull. You can see that it's much more ape-like than ours.

 

[Toronto_FC_RULES]

Here's another dilemma/theory I'm going to put across to you.

Take an ant. They are a civilization, they work in teams, help one another, no how to survive. Yet there brain capacity is way too small, to know of our existence or to fathom what we are. So my question is why could it not be that WE to another species, are the ant. Is it not possible for our brain capacity to be so small that we are being percieved in that way, and that there are beings out there "above" us somewhere, who are way too advanced for us to fathom.

Thoughts?

The problem is that if I placed my thoughts on this, it would sway away from the discussions of the truthfulness of evolutionary thought.

 

[alicwkd]

"if Human's evolved from Monkey's why is there no transition point?" Basically saying why is there nothing in between Human's and Monkey's, so all of a sudden we just became Human's without transition?

there lies the biggest misconception about the evolution theory. no on has ever said we 'evolved from monkeys.' we simply have a common ancestor.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]​

there it is again, that classic Darwin misquote. Everyone seems to conviniently forget what he goes on to say afterwards. this was simply his rhetorical setup, the full quote is:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural...

Natural Selection is not 100% fact, but there is absoulutely mountains and mountains of evidence to support it. the only reason anyone could possibly argue it is if they dont understand it. and it is often misunderstood, particularly by religious people. they often say "how could everything simply have evolved by blind chance", but thats just it, the theory of evolution is exactly the opposite of blind chance. to the educated person, natural selection makes absolute sense in explaining the origin of life

 

[Toronto_FC_RULES]

I just have one question now: where did the first being/organism come from?

 

[Scott]

It is not that I don't agree with it or am not open minded. It is that there is little or no evidence for it. Science and religion should not mix - regardless, Christians continue to insist that creationism is scientifically valid.

It is impossible now for them not to mix in a discussion like this, in the society we live in though. Whether, me, you or anyone else likes it, there are always going to be discussions regarding religion and science. We need to accept they are now both widely loved and will be widely defended.

 

[Tharros]

I used the wrong word. Evidence is better. The flagellum is really a complex design that evolutionists haven't cracked yet with evolutionary thought. It shows that the only way it could have existed is with a creator.

And who says science and religion can't mix? Many scientific discoveries were made by Christians. For example, Pasteur with Pasteurization and Mendel with Mendelian genetics. The Muslims also discovered many, including algebra and chemistry.

Hmm. I haven't heard about it... What I was alluding to in my other post was how could it prove an actual creator physically existed
The Theory of Evolution is exactly that, a theory - for now. There is much it does not expain such as this. So I will give you that one

You miss my point. Those are peoples of a certain religion who discovered something. Creationism is trying to expalin religion with science. Completely different.

And for the record, I was once a Christian.

 

[Toronto_FC_RULES]

And for the record, I was once a Christian.

Too bad you left. Pascal and C.S. Lewis did state that if an atheist were to die, he would have all to lose. He'd either have nothing or be sent to eternal fire in ****. Not that I'm judging anyone.

And Creationism can be explained with science. You should read Lee Strobel's A Case for Creation. It provides a lot of insight for Creationism.

 

[Gooner Eagle]

I just have one question now: where did the first being/organism come from?

If memory suffices me, life was supposed to occur when the Big Bang Theory happened. Through a mixture of substances, micro-organisms were then created on Earth, and from there were able to 'breed' and mutate/evolve.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

Too bad you left. Pascal and C.S. Lewis did state that if an atheist were to die, he would have all to lose. He'd either have nothing or be sent to eternal fire in ****. Not that I'm judging anyone.

And Creationism can be explained with science. You should read Lee Strobel's A Case for Creation. It provides a lot of insight for Creationism.

Surely from that reasoning you can see that what religion does - as well as giving hope - is to put fear in to people, and that creates control.

 

[Toronto_FC_RULES]

If memory suffices me, life was supposed to occur when the Big Bang Theory happened. Through a mixture of substances, micro-organisms were then created on Earth, and from there were able to 'breed' and mutate/evolve.

The problem with that was that some evolutionists didn't like the idea of a Big Bang because it potentially involved a creator.

Answer this question:
How did the Big Bang come to being?

 

[Gooner Eagle]

The problem with that was that some evolutionists didn't like the idea of a Big Bang because it potentially involved a creator.

Answer this question:
How did the Big Bang come to being?

I couldn't tell you myself, I haven't studied it that far in. I did during my school years, but the different theories have decided to go blank right now

 

[alicwkd]

I hope I won't go into another debate again with this, but here goes:

1. Mutations: if species were to truly evolve, they would need mutations to be positive. Mutations would need to be positive and helpful to the species if they are to thrive in their environments. Since there's none that are positive and all that are either neutral or negative, how can new species thrive from evolution?

2. C-Value Paradox: If species were to truly evolve, they would need increasing values of chromosomes in their organism. Humans have fewer chromosomes than certain species a lot less complicated than we are.

3. The finches example: That's an example of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, since those finches are still the same species but with different traits.

4. Mendel's Law of Limitation of Progeny states that a newborn's traits would be restricted to the traits their parents possessed. Darwin's macro-evolution needs no limitations for species to truly evolve.

There's four of them, but there's others.

1) thats absoulute rubbish, a mutation is simply a 'mistake', that doesnt mean it will always have a bad effect. heres an example. you are making a stu containing carrot and brocolli, but you accidently spill some cough syrup into it. of course this wasnt meant to happen but who is to say it wont make the stu a lot more tasty than if you hadnt knocked in the cough syrup. (not the best example but you get the idea.)

2) so what you are saying is the more chromosomes are in the DNA of the organism, the more complex it will be? absolute rhubarb