Originally Posted by Phizzy [Ectoprods]
Saying evolution is false implies DNA is too.
Still like to know why on this one. The majority of people that believe evolution, choose to believe it for the simple fact that if it's true then they can do whatever the hell they want. Believing in evolution is basically a means of saying, "don't know, don't care" we live and we die. Those are the people that choose not to believe in a god because they see what a craphole the world is atm, which it is.
Evolution makes no sense, it was all made up by one guy on the basis that monkey's and humans look a-like. Which they do, on the basis they have hands, feet etc. well done Darwin.
Saying that the bible is a story tale, then basing your entire beliefs on the ideas of a funny scientist seems so hypocritical.
Stephen Hawking believes in a god, and he's suppost to be one of, if not the best scientist on the earth. All science does, is prove and explain how things work in the creation, design and being of the world we live in.
Science doesn't hold all of the answers. Evolution still doesn't disprove a higher power either - how did the apes get there? etc. at some point in time, something was happened and it happened for reason, and here we are. Not by immense luck but on purpose.
Also a statement I liked to bring up in biology classes - no matter how many times you throw a hamster(s) of a building, it/they will not sprout wings and fly. Giraffes were made with long necks, they didn't decide to grow them because they had to reach the leaves higher on the trees! I mean WTF?! lol! Surely over the millions of years this would have supposedly took - the giraffe species would have died out via lack of food! People believe this stuff, and it makes me laugh
If you can actually prove to me that evolution is fact, then ok. But since that's not going to happen, all I have to rely on is logical reasoning and the things I see and do in my everyday life. Evolution was a nice try really, but more and more people are starting to see what crap it is and how none of it makes sense, no matter how you try and meddle some scientific words together.
oh, and whoops - lol:
Anyways I'm not having another dicussion on this crap, I've said my bit.
Originally Posted by SilverNova / Tim
Also a statement I liked to bring up in biology classes - no matter how many times you throw a hamster(s) of a building, it/they will not sprout wings and fly. Giraffes were made with long necks, they didn't decide to grow them because they had to reach the leaves higher on the trees! I mean WTF?! lol! Surely over the millions of years this would have supposedly took - the giraffe species would have died out via lack of food! People believe this stuff, and it makes me laugh
The idea is that if all creatures in the world were for some reason to fall from a great height, only the birds or very light creatures would survive. Then all new species would carry on from those that were left over. Only it would have to be a natural thing, not someone throwing them out of a window.
And if the world became flooded, the fish and animals best adapted to water would survive. No one is saying is you drown millions of dogs one will suddenly grow gills.
Still like to know why on this one. The majority of people that believe evolution, choose to believe it for the simple fact that if it's true then they can do whatever the hell they want. Believing in evolution is basically a means of saying, "don't know, don't care" we live and we die. Those are the people that choose not to believe in a god because they see what a craphole the world is atm, which it is.
You don't need to believe in god to be a decent person. I don't need the threat of supernatural post-mortem punishment to try and treat others with respect.
Evolution makes no sense, it was all made up by one guy on the basis that monkey's and humans look a-like. Which they do, on the basis they have hands, feet etc. well done Darwin.
Evolution is based on the theory of descent with modification. Two animals of the same species reproduce, passing along half of each their genes. Mistakes are possible in this process, so the offspring can result with mutant genes. These mutations may allow the offspring a greater chance to survive long enough to reproduce, passing along its genes, fit because it *did* survive. Those less fit to survive in that environment have a smaller chance of passing along their genes, so the population changes over time. If the mutations don't allow the individual to reproduce, the genes are not introduced into the population.
Saying that the bible is a story tale, then basing your entire beliefs on the ideas of a funny scientist seems so hypocritical.
Why is the bible the truth? Because God said so. How do you know god exists? Because the Bible says so. Circular reasoning, while evolution is based on empirical evidence, laboratory studies, fossil records, etc. And it's a gross understatement to imply that evolution as we understand it today is the work of a sole scientist.
Stephen Hawking believes in a god, and he's suppost to be one of, if not the best scientist on the earth. All science does, is prove and explain how things work in the creation, design and being of the world we live in.
Stephen Hawking is a deist. Deists believe that a supernatural force could have created the universe, the laws (physics) that it runs by, but *does not interfere in human affairs*.
Science doesn't hold all of the answers. Evolution still doesn't disprove a higher power either - how did the apes get there? etc. at some point in time, something was happened and it happened for reason, and here we are. Not by immense luck but on purpose.
And what good is gained by using religion as an explanation? I don't understand how it works, therefore...God. Case closed, let's never look at this again. Everything from the medicine that saves your life to the food you eat to the computer you're reading this on now was discovered, invented, or improved through scientific experiments looking to understand the cause and effect of the physical world.
Read Survival of the Sickest by Sharon Moalem for one of the easiest to understand books on the evolution of humans and diseases, including how the evolutionary pressure of the Black Plague has affected humans to this day. Hell of a lot better than I can do.
Also a statement I liked to bring up in biology classes - no matter how many times you throw a hamster(s) of a building, it/they will not sprout wings and fly. Giraffes were made with long necks, they didn't decide to grow them because they had to reach the leaves higher on the trees! I mean WTF?! lol! Surely over the millions of years this would have supposedly took - the giraffe species would have died out via lack of food! People believe this stuff, and it makes me laugh
No one is saying that a hamster will suddenly sprout wings. Evolutionary changes can only be made based on what is already possible based on the species' genes at the time. If for some reason all hamsters are chucked off a cliff after birth, then only the hamsters that can survive such a fall (say, slightly stronger bones or something) will survive to pass along their cliff-surviving genes.
A giraffe-ancestor may have been born with a slightly larger neck than the previous generation, which opened up a new food source. Before, it would have eaten *lower* food, closer to the ground, and had to *compete* with other species for it. The longer neck would give them a new food source, possibly with less competition, so the longer-necked giraffe-ancestors would be more likely to survive long enough to pass on its genes for long necks.
"Omg. Where did they get the idea to not use army guys? Are they taking drugs?" --Tim Schafer on originality in videogames
fact 1) no one can live for a million years, so no one can observe/ prove evolution
fact 2) no one has witnessed creation, so creation can't be proven
fact 3) Evolutionists believe that the fossil record proves evolution
fact 4) Christians believe the fossil were made in a sudden catastrophic event, known as the flood of Noah
fact 5) I am biased, and i believe in God.
In my opinion, the number 1 argument against evolution is irreducible complexity. Random mutation is only harmful and never creates a new species before it kills it. This follows the law of physics which states that the natural state of everything is disorder. Things break and don't fix themselves.
-
Deleted User
28th August, 2007 at 00:28:23 -
Well, to be honest, god was the answer to everything in the medieval period. Before that, with the greeks, was substance. We're not quite in the middle ages, which is why I don't understand why people stick so hard to religion.
And although everyone has the right to believe in what they will, I find that video to be extremely insulting. The guy compares a sealed, sterile environment, inside holding only peanut butter, with the world and all of its components and resources. Let alone the fact that there need pass millions of years before a visible lifeform develops, a sealed peanut butter vase is hardly the most suitable environment.
Originally Posted by Ricky Garces no one can live for a million years, so no one can observe/ prove evolution
Evolution has been observed in action on the microbial scale. An example: When you have a bacterial infection and take antibiotics, it kills off those bacteria that are vulnerable to the drug. Due to genetics and mutations (which occur much faster on a microbial scale, due to the much quicker rate of reproduction), some individual bacteria are more resistant to antibiotics than others. As the treatment continues, a greater percentage of the diminishing bacteria population is of the resistant mutants. That is why doctors tell patients to stay on an antibiotic regimen for a certain time. If the treatment stops early, then the regrowing colony will be predominantly antibiotic-resistant at a point where the body's own defenses would be not enough to quickly wipe out the bacteria.
The antibiotics applied an evolutionary pressure to the bacteria, killing out the non-resistant members. Bacteria can pass the gene for antibiotic resistance, gained through random mutation, to their offspring. Since the bacteria resistant to antibiotics are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce in the presence of antibiotics, the next generation of bacteria will have a greater number of antibiotic resistant bacteria. That's evolution.
In my opinion, the number 1 argument against evolution is irreducible complexity.
This argument says that there are aspects of life that could only have emerged fully-formed, an event so unlikely that a creator must have caused it. Disregarding the apparent oversight of how complex such a creator would be (logically resulting in infinitely recursive polytheism), scientists have demonstrated earlier forms of practically every example of irreducible complexity creationists have thrown at them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community
Random mutation is only harmful and never creates a new species before it kills it.
If a random mutation is that harmful, then the individual doesn't survive to reproduce, so the new genes don't filter into the population. No harm done to the species as a whole. Random mutations that don't kill the species, or don't affect the ability to procreate, stay in the gene pool. At a future time, those variations may prove to change an individual's fitness in that changed environment.
This follows the law of physics which states that the natural state of everything is disorder. Things break and don't fix themselves.
The second law of thermodynamics is entropy, that the universe tends toward disorder. That does not mean every single aspect tends to disorder. For instance, stars fuse hydrogen atoms together into heavier elements, and scientists have been able to synthesize amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) using nothing but primordial earth conditions and materials.
"Omg. Where did they get the idea to not use army guys? Are they taking drugs?" --Tim Schafer on originality in videogames
Advertisement
