|
|
Post by Crystal on Aug 30, 2004 5:22:40 GMT -5
Hm, there's one gap in evolution that hasn't really been addressed yet...and one that would make a whole lot of difference, considering the religious nature of this thread. This would be: The Origin of Life Yes, so you can explain away variations by saying "That wouldn't be a problem. It's not harmful, so all these random mutations eventually add up, even though they have nothing to do with the organism's survival. It's just luck." Well, you need quite a bit more luck to get life from non-life than from a rat to a bat (even though there would be quite a bit of luck there in the first place, if it happened) "Well," you say, "The Miller-Urey Experiment proved that Amino Acids could be formed in the Earth's early atmosphere!" Unfortunately, this is one of the major misstatements (if not oughtright lies) made by evolutionary scientists. The Miller-Urey Experiment assumed that Methane (CH 4), Ammonia (NH 4), Hydrogen (H 2), and Water (H 2O) composed the Earth's early atmosphere, when it was really composed of less inert substances, such as Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) and Nitrogen (N 2), and contained Oxygen (O 2), which breaks down non-living substances readily. So there's a time limit to the life of any Amino Acids created. Even if there are Amino Acids created, any that could be used in living substances would have to be left-handed, and only about half of all Amino Acids are left-handed. This right here is a 50% reduction in materials! Then, of course, a rather large number of them would have to quite randomly come together in exactly the right order. Random luck would be hard pressed to put ten of these in order, since there are twenty different kinds, and only left-handed of any kind are used, there would be something like a .00000000000000002 chance, even with all the materials ready. And remember, life needs far more than ten amino acids. Besides, there's always the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I've found explained as: "All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system." Decay and disintegration seem to be quite far from the constant upward motion assumed by evolution, does it not? So, evolution is a theory contradicted by a law. Hm, which is more important in science? Whoa! Major information.... X.X I quite honestly didn't know any of this. I accept Creationism over Evolution simply because I considered both and decided that Creationism made more sense to me.  |
|
|
|
Post by monarchistknight on Aug 30, 2004 5:44:09 GMT -5
I'm a Christian and believe in Creation very strongly and am very happy to know others here do to.  I'll say this. NOTHING in science proves the Bible wrong. The death of the dinosaurs, the Grand Canyon, and other things could be explained through Noah's Flood in Genesis. Leviticus talks about blood being necessary for life. Job says that the earth is round. This was loooong before modern science accepted this. So now, why evolution is a pile of rotten gwermals. Accordnig to evolution, life began from a one-celled organism and over million of years 'evolved' into something different. But, other scientific discoveries like biogenesis contradict this. Living things must come from other living things. The cell apparently came from gasses thatcould have possibly turned into part of a part of a part of a cell. Science disagrees with itself. I'd say more if I knew more, but I'll research some more and if this post is still up I'll say something. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Aug 30, 2004 14:18:58 GMT -5
Know the Cell 'Theory'?
Want a reason it's still the cell 'theory'?
"All cells come from living cells."
And according to evolution, that is not true. According to evolution, a dead bunch of junk became animated, even though I still haven't heard that all the chemicals created could have been created in the same place at roughly hte same time under the same circumstances, as they would have had to to be able to join together!
My main problem with evolution is its very base - the very begginning of life, even EXISTENCE. Where did everything come from? Self-creation? Evolution requires to many impossibilities - life from the inanimate, and existence from nothing, caused by pretty much itself!
Creationism makes far, far more sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2004 14:20:24 GMT -5
What I find ridiculous is that everyone says evolution is wrong just because science can't explain the creation of life.
Evolution and the Origin of Life are COMPLETELY seperate!
Evolution is the theory that already-existing life, no matter where it came from, develops and transcends so that after a few million years, different species have developed from it.
The Origin of Life is the hypothesis that the first cells were created by atmospheric gases, methane from an underwater volcano, and possibly lightning.
Just because you can disprove the origin of life, doesn't mean you can disprove evolution.
And, by the way, there is lots of evidence for the theory of evolution. Natural selection has been proven to work, and it is a major part of evolution.
As for creation? The only proof you could ever have is if a god existed, and even then you would still have to provide evidence that that god created all life at once, which to me is ridiculous.
Let me ask a couple questions for you creationists:
If all animals were created at once, then why haven't they found any proof of humans living when the dinosaurs did? Why do all dinosaur fossils date back (using a proven method) to millions of years before the earliest human fossils?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2004 14:24:35 GMT -5
Know the Cell 'Theory'? Want a reason it's still the cell 'theory'? "All cells come from living cells." And according to evolution, that is not true. According to evolution, a dead bunch of junk became animated, even though I still haven't heard that all the chemicals created could have been created in the same place at roughly hte same time under the same circumstances, as they would have had to to be able to join together! My main problem with evolution is its very base - the very begginning of life, even EXISTENCE. Where did everything come from? Self-creation? Evolution requires to many impossibilities - life from the inanimate, and existence from nothing, caused by pretty much itself! Creationism makes far, far more sense to me. If you believe in that part of the cell theory, then obviously, you can't believe in creation, because Adam was made from dirt/dust, right? And don't turn around and say you don't believe in that part, because then your whole argument is bogus.#nosmileys |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 30, 2004 15:19:06 GMT -5
If you believe in that part of the cell theory, then obviously, you can't believe in creation, because Adam was made from dirt/dust, right? And don't turn around and say you don't believe in that part, because then your whole argument is bogus. You forget. God isn't bound by the laws of Physics. He put them in place, he can abuse 'em. Oh, by the way, to answer your dinosaur and man question, there's an answer. God created the earth as Dinosaur land. got things going. Satan has his rebellion, Earth gets badly destroyed, God recreates the Earth into a beautiful setting again. It's known as the gap theory, rgarding Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. the best translation (and note, I'm quoting from a faulty memory, so some words may be gone, but the meaning is still clear) 1:1 In the beginning, there was God 1:2 The Earth had become void and without form. People don't like to translate it like that because it doesn't work right, grammatically. Even in modern Hebrew. But the thing is, ancient hebrew had different grammar laws than today. Ancient language and all. So that would account for your fossil record there. |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 30, 2004 21:09:17 GMT -5
Go take a look at the fossils that they've created by their imagination and all the bones truly dug up for it. Little fragments here or there. I've not only seen pictures of them, but then seen them in a size-ratio of what they're to represent. By the way, there have been papers published and so forth. The claim itself is so stupid that it can be refuted no problem. I mean, seriously, what about the book Darwin's Black Box? And that's only the most common and popular one! Just because they may not be in some scientific journals does not mean the evidence is not out there. After all, publishing requires the editor to first accept the article. In the Scientific community today, Creationists are scoffed at. So you have to not just consider the authors, but those who may be doing the publishing. And yes, I quite honestly believe all of those scientists are wrong. The Earth was center of the universe. The Earth was Flat, too. This is but a theory that, in my honest opinion, has become the new "Earth is Flat" argument. Only there are for more people who believe it is "round" than back then, and this "round" fact was known long before. If you follow my analogy. This was a theory that was latched onto so much because people want to explain away God and in doing so, they explain way all Morals, most senses of Right & Wrong, and then Personal Responsibility, too. It's much easier on people that way. By the way, never, ever accuse me of having lied about the studying of I've done on a matter unless you mean it as an insult on purpose. I know what I'm talking about, and when I don't, I speak up. My honor and word is something I hold to a high standard and to see you say that was as an insult to me. I'm not saying you've lied about looking at fossils, I'm saying that the looking you've done can't be nearly as comprehensive as the looking professional paleontologists have done. If it came across otherwise, I apologize. (I seem to accidentally offend you a lot; with occasional exceptions in major flares of temper, which are afterwards regretted, I really and honestly don't intentionally try and insult people.) I can't claim to know much myself; it isn't meant as a slur to say that you probably don't know as much on the subject as others who have dedicated their lives to it. Darwin's Black Box isn't a scientific paper--it's a book for laypeople. It's a lot easier to write a book about your ideas for random people on the street that is convincing, than it is to write a paper about your ideas and evidence for them for other scientists that is convincing. Maybe there is bias against creationism in scientific circles, but I think that the average person (biologist or not) is relatively decent and moral--Biology As A Whole isn't going to supress that kind of information, because there are too many decent people who would prefer truth to be known. I agree with your "Earth is Flat" analogy, except it's the other way around--this new idea, evolution/heliocentrism, came about, was ridiculed, produced evidence, and threw out creationism/geocentrism. The bias was strongly against evolution, evolution produced evidence and creationism didn't, and evolution won out. It seems pretty convincing on its own that creationism had the upper hand and lost. From my understanding, it's pretty common to have only small bits of bone, etc. Archaeologists do the same, not only paleontologists. So do physicists, I'd guess--take measurements here and there and construct a general law out of them. Unless the conclusions are absolutely leaps of faith (and that would be pointed out by the scientists' peers when the results were published), I don't think it's automatically a point against them. Your morality and mine are different. To me, there's nothing immoral about evolution--it certainly doesn't harm anyone. To you, there seems to be. There are Christians--people who share your standards of morality and immorality--who accept evolution, however. I'm not sure that, even if you assume all non-Christians are evil, immoral people grasping at straws to live their filthy little lives, you can call evolution a way to do so. And, in any case, truth is truth whether it induces morality or immorality in humans. As a side note, I don't think my basic idea of morality is that different from a Christian's. Doesn't the New Testament have Jesus saying that the Golden Rule is the one supreme rule above all others? For you, an action is moral if it is respectful of others. For me, an action is immoral if it harms others. The two aren't mutually exclusive--yours seems to be "it's bad unless," while mine seems to be "it's okay unless." We just seem to be treating the neutral area differently--and, of course, disagreeing on whether or not certain things are harmful at all. Do you think this is an accurate summary? (I'd really like your, or any Christian's, input on this--if I'm way off, could you please explain why?) |
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Aug 30, 2004 21:47:23 GMT -5
If you believe in that part of the cell theory, then obviously, you can't believe in creation, because Adam was made from dirt/dust, right? And don't turn around and say you don't believe in that part, because then your whole argument is bogus. This argument is useless. All theories/laws assume that nothing else is interfering. For instance, gravity- according to the law of gravity, if an apple fell from a tree, it would fall to the ground. Would a person be breaking the law of gravity if he caught the apple? Of course not! Creationism would accept Cell Theory, that with nothing interfering, living cells only come from living cells. If a supernatural force interferes, it doesn't disprove the theory, because the theory assumes that nothing is interfering, just as the man catching the apple does not disprove gravity. About heliocentricism: it's taught in the Bible. Actually, there are a few things in the Bible that wouldn't have been known about the world. For example: Job 26:7- "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." How would people of that time know the world wasn't held up by anything? Isaiah 40:22 seems to be describing a round earth: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." And, regarding dinosaurs, what kind of animal does this sound like: Job 40:15-24 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares." Not saying it was supposed to be a dinosaur, but it definitely sounds like one... |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 30, 2004 21:57:33 GMT -5
First off, I didn't say evolution is immoral. I said it's just wrong. No, I said the idea of evolution is so widespread because of the fact that people don't want to admit there is a god. Sure, there's athiests who're very moral people...but for the good majority of people, they hate the idea of being told they cannot do things. Of being told the things they want to do in the way they want to do them, they can't because it goes contrary to God's law and then they'll have to answer for said actions later. I've seen many a quote about people who believe in evolution (including that of many biologists) saying that by all standards, evolution cannot be proved nor does it have any evidence. But they cannot allow themselves to believe there is a god/higher being. By the way, creation hasn't been dislodged because evolution has offered proof. It hasn't. None of the so-called proof that's been provided can be considered so under actual scientific standards. By bone fragments, I mean things the size of toothpicks that were to come from a skull that they're magically reconstructed what it would've looked like, from those two toothpick-size things found miles apart. That's not something I consider credible. As well, even in paleantology, take a look at mistakes made on it. Some of the water dinosaurs used to have their skull placed on what is now known as the tail, today, instead of their neck. But they've also found full skeletons to help out in there reconstruction. An abundance of bones, as well. But there's not been any missing links provided for evolution in the fossil record. Much less has a "full skeleton" been provided for what is claimed to be early man. Evolution offers less evidence that Creation does, and takes a whole lot more faith to believe in then Creation does. And yeah, there is a bias against creationism. I've heard of biology professors in college that would not pass a student in their class unless they could prove, by the end of the semester, that they believed in evolution. And they meant believed it wholy, not just giivng lip service. I've also seen research papers. One of the gentlemen in my church, works in the editing department actually, helped his wife (at the time girlfriend) write a paper in support of creationism that has scientific facts and so forth in it. I read the paper he wrote. He lent it to me! If two college students could do that, what can scientists do? Anyway, on with the rest of your post Jesus does not say the "Golden Rule" is above all others. He's referring to all the 10 commandments there. If you take a look at the first four, and compare to the greatest commandment, and then taking a look at the last six and comparing to the next greatest commandment. As well, your definition of the golden rule seems to be different than what it says. You said "it's fine unless it causes harm to someone". The golden rule is "Do unto others as your would have them do unto you.". That is a proactive statement, not a reactive statement unlike this same rule that can be found throughout different cultures. So you're always to be doing good to others. There's no "unless" involved with it. So as you see, we're supposed to obey God's law. God clearly said things were wrong. Even if it doesn't "harm others", in one's opinion, God has still decreed it to be wrong, which is why Christian's have a sense of morality as they do. and finally, I think what happens is you're kind of like I am and a bit more straight-forward and blunt than others. Which is easy to misinterpert. But I just always get defensive when my word is challenged. It's not something I appreciate from anyone. n.n |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Aug 30, 2004 23:26:27 GMT -5
First off, I didn't say evolution is immoral. I said it's just wrong. No, I said the idea of evolution is so widespread because of the fact that people don't want to admit there is a god. Sure, there's athiests who're very moral people...but for the good majority of people, they hate the idea of being told they cannot do things. Of being told the things they want to do in the way they want to do them, they can't because it goes contrary to God's law and then they'll have to answer for said actions later. What you're saying is that there're only two major theories - creationism and evolution - So if someone doesn't want to believe in a God there's only one theory they can choose? Erm, okay, call it Origin of Life if you want. But the two are really so intertwined that you can't really seperate them. Say 'evolution' - it leads to the Orgin of Life, and vice versa. *sits back and watches the masters play* |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 30, 2004 23:29:35 GMT -5
Crystal, whatcha mean by that? Anyway, no, there's others that believe in some form of design, but not God. But yeah, what it comes down to, evolution/origin of life there's the theory of creation, and theory of evolution. There's really only two area on it. O.o; I do know there's theistic evolutionists as well, but I think they're wrong about the origin of life, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 31, 2004 0:12:11 GMT -5
First off, I didn't say evolution is immoral. I said it's just wrong. No, I said the idea of evolution is so widespread because of the fact that people don't want to admit there is a god. Sure, there's athiests who're very moral people...but for the good majority of people, they hate the idea of being told they cannot do things. Of being told the things they want to do in the way they want to do them, they can't because it goes contrary to God's law and then they'll have to answer for said actions later. You seemed to be suggesting that only immoral people would believe in evolution, which is how I responded. *shrugs* My mistake. To me, the general acceptance of evolution as proven by biologists seems to indicate that evolution *has,* by scientific standards, been proven. I think you may be misinterpreting the statements--if you already don't believe in a god, creationism seems to be nonsense, no matter what the state of the other theories are. Or you could be right, and those scientists are not willing to face potential incorrectness on this matter, which is a bit un-scientific of them. Again, I reckon scientists know what they're doing when recreating fossils. They make mistakes, but they seem to eventually correct them--"Earth is Flat" to "Earth is Sphere" to "Earth is Imperfect Sphere." And also again, I don't know what missing links you mean. The transitional forms between man and ancestral primates, or what? I gave some examples that seem to be pretty accepted as in-between forms, and there's not much more I can do to convince you. A professor like that would be wrong, yes. Research papers aren't the same as scientific papers, though, from my understanding of a scientific paper. If a paper is primarily regurgitating facts for a teacher, like a research paper on the Renaissance would be, it's not the same as a paper prepared for other scientists, I think. I don't have much familiarity with the form and content of a scientific paper, but I'm under the impression that there is a significant difference. *shrugs* In Matthew 7:12, Jesus says the Commandments can be summed up as the Golden Rule. Since the Ten Commandments seem to be pretty much the major moral laws of the Old Testament, I'd assumed that meant that the Golden Rule is pretty much the major moral law of Christianity. Am I assuming something incorrectly? Sorry, I've miscommunicated. I meant *I* believe an action is okay unless it harms someone, and *YOU* believe that an action is good only if it is respectful of others (which is how others, and you, would presumably like to be treated--the Golden Rule). For you, actions are assumed not-good, but respectful and helpful ones are good. For me, actions are assumed fine, except the ones that harm others (which, to clarify, would include lying, vandalism, prejudice, and other nonphysical forms of harm as well). That last statement of yours seems to suggest my original statement was wrong, though. Do you think morality has nothing to do with the effects on others, only with appeasing God, and one of these divine rules happens to be helping others? (It's kind of fascinating to me how other people can come to such different conclusions than I do--is it that we have completely different fundamental mindsets, or is it that we just don't weigh certain arguments and evidences the same way?) |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Aug 31, 2004 5:36:01 GMT -5
Crystal, whatcha mean by that? Anyway, no, there's others that believe in some form of design, but not God. But yeah, what it comes down to, evolution/origin of life there's the theory of creation, and theory of evolution. There's really only two area on it. O.o; I do know there's theistic evolutionists as well, but I think they're wrong about the origin of life, as well. Sort of that there's only two major theories (Major, remember  I'm not that studied and learned in this ) i.e. creationism and evolution. So if someone does not believe in God, he or she will therefore only have one choice available to them. |
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Aug 31, 2004 8:39:11 GMT -5
Ubwah...this is an entirely different topic that deserves a different board.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 31, 2004 10:24:10 GMT -5
Ubwah...this is an entirely different topic that deserves a different board. Al, our debates always jump from topic to topic. It's useless changing threads, in my opinion |
|
I'll say this. NOTHING in science proves the Bible wrong. The death of the dinosaurs, the Grand Canyon, and other things could be explained through Noah's Flood in Genesis. Leviticus talks about blood being necessary for life. Job says that the earth is round. This was loooong before modern science accepted this.
I'm not that studied and learned in this 