Evolution vs. Creation

[OverlordMondo]

Ok, yeah, thanks guys. I fell asleep and missed 6 pages. Great stuff though, great stuff. One question to Gryph, The earth began as barren rock right? Where did life come from, knowing that?

[Jjangthekid]

Ok, yeah, thanks guys.  I fell asleep and missed 6 pages. Great stuff though, great stuff.  One question to Gryph, The earth began as barren rock right?  Where did life come from, knowing that?

can i answer that??.. earth was ahuge barren rock however it was covered with clouds.( dont know the scientific term) and it rained and rained...and after raining little protists and eukaryotes started to appear in the water..and thus evolution started from there.. is that right mr.gryph?

[OverlordMondo]

I'm preeeety sure that's wrong...but we need the biology expert on this one.

[Jjangthekid]

im pretty sure thats right. it may not be exact..but i think its somewhat close to that.

[Skythe]

 

God himself says Evolution.

[random guy]

I'm glad the banning on teaching evolution in schools was brought up - because yes it is important to respect other people's beliefs- but that cuts both ways; how much respect do you show if you refuse to teach these kids a legitimate viewpoint on the creation of the universe?

Yes, it would be wrong to say "This is evolution; this is what happened", but not even giving people a chanc to learn both viewpoints is even worse.

[Gryph]

One question to Gryph, The earth began as barren rock right?  Where did life come from, knowing that?

Now that is a tough question since it's hard to determine. I don't feel comfortable explaining it since I don't know too much about it but basically what is thought is that in the beginning some lighting struck the primordial soup which catalyzed amino acid (building blocks of life) production and then little by little things got put into place. But I found this site quite nice for that kind of information: http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#stanley

 

I'm going to read that site some more to know more about.

 

But this is where I could possibly believe that a supreme being had some part in. See, I'm a little flexible.

 

EDIT:

can i answer that??.. earth was ahuge barren rock however it was covered with clouds.( dont know the scientific term) and it rained and rained...and after raining little protists and eukaryotes started to appear in the water..and thus evolution started from there..  is that right mr.gryph?

 

Not technically right...but meh, it's good enough. I don't feel like converting anyone.

Edited September 11, 2004 by GryphonKlaw

[Skythe]

teach these kids a legitimate viewpoint on the creation of the universe?

 

THAT'S WHAT CHURCHES ARE FOR!!!!!

 

Pathetic. The "banning of evolution" was forced upon by church dwellers who felt that Evolution was wrong and that it disproved their beliefs alot stronger than they thought so they b!tch towards the dumbest higher up to ban it to feel safe that they can make their kids carry along their faggot gene.

Edited September 11, 2004 by Skythe

[OverlordMondo]

I'm glad the banning on teaching evolution in schools was brought up - because yes it is important to respect other people's beliefs- but that cuts both ways; how much respect do you show if you refuse to teach these kids a legitimate viewpoint on the creation of the universe?

Yes, it would be wrong to say "This is evolution; this is what happened", but not even giving people a chanc to learn both viewpoints is even worse.

That's why we were given this project, to learn more than one view. Banning it is lame, screw that.

[Dooz]

What do I belive in? Nothing, really. I really haven't seen any religion or school of thought that has made me want to join them. I belive in what I see, nothing more. (And if you bring up the argument that you can't see air, how do you belive in that, then you're stupid for two reasons: One being that you can feel air, two that you can see oxygen and any other gas' atoms using a neutron microscope (Technicly you're not seeing the atom itself, the the shadow rather)).

[STUFF]

Wow, I can't believe I totally missed out on this topic, for it is one I love to debate about. 

 

I will admit, I'm at work and was unable to read all the posts.  So I will just give my view. 

 

Creation has much better scientific proof to support it.  Scientific proof you ask?  Yup Scientific proof.  When you hear about the great flood it really makes a lot more sense than something happening millions of years ago.  Things like Petrified boots prove that petrification doesn't take thousands of years. 

 

Even carbon dating proves that the earth is not even 35 thousand years old because earth still hasn't reached equilibrium.  We see fosils of animals that were still flying.  Surely these didn't fly for thousands of years until slowly they got petrified.  And even if they had just laid in the sand for thousands of years, wouldn't some other animal come and eat it?

 

Evolution: 

 

There are 6 kinds of evolution. 

 

1- Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang

 

2- Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

 

3- Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.

 

4- Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.

 

5- Macroevolution Origin of major kinds.

 

6- Microevolution Variations within kinds.

 

There is proof to only one of these.  That would be number 6.  Microevolution.  Yes, we have seen Dogs give different dogs.  So that one can be proven.  The rest can not.  The rest are just beliefs.  A cat has never come out of a Dog, a monkey has never come out of a elephant.  A man has never ccome out of a Monkey. 

 

Yes, I know, Men and monkey look a lot alike, but there is no actual proof of a man coming out of a monkey.  Scientists will show you all these bones they've found to "prove" their theories but really it isn't proof.  We have plenty of people now that come out deformed, they have different bones.  And most of the time they make up most of the bones.  We all remember the Neanderthal man.  Made a full skeleton based on a tooth which later was proven to be a pigs tooth. 

 

No one has ever seen space be created.  They made up the big bang theory.  A theory where nothing blows up and makes up everything (yea, that's easier to believe than God).  However there were problems with that theory for not all the planets rotate the same way.  So they decided that a huge meteor hit this planet and that's why it rotetes differently.  Aha. sure. 

 

No one has ever seen life come out of something dead.  There is no proof of that.  IT has never happened.  But they believe it is what happened.  It rained for thousands of years on rocks and these microscopic beigns showed up.  yea. 

 

So, on the contrary to what I read in the begining pages of this debate, it actually seems like Creation has better proof than Evolution.  All those fossils prove a great flood much more than evolution. 

 

This brings me to my last point.  Evolution is nothing but a religion.  As you can see, it is all based on beliefs and not on facts.  And it was a religion to make people feel ok about slavery. 

 

This is why Darwin decided to renew Evolution, because it was needed at his time.  People needed to feel that they were greater than their slaves.  So he wrote is famous book "The Origin of Species".  Where he would let people know that some of use are more evolved than others.  Therefore some of us are Better than others.  Therefore it is ok to have slaves because they are under the owner, they are less evolved. 

 

Did you know they used to keep Australian Natives in Zoos because they were though of as being less evolved creatures instead of humans? 

 

Evolution was also the reason why Hitler did what he did.  He believed all the people he killed were less than him.  So it was ok. 

 

But, again, evolution is nothing but at religious belief, and if you think you have actual scientific proof of evolution, then please by all means go  here and you will win $250,000 dollars.  Yea, Dr. Hovind has been offering this money since 1990 and no one has been able to give him the scientific proof yet.  So one of you might get lucky.

Oh man, I just had to print that out and bring it to my professor, we shared a good laugh over it.

 

Anyway, here goes.

 

You do realize that carbon dating is not used to determine the age of the Earth? Probably not. The best way to calculate the Earth's age is using the Pb/Pb isochron age, which is derived from samples from the Earth and meteorites. Also dating the rest of the solar system is used in approximating how old the Earth is. Using those techniques some rocks have been dated all the way back to 3.9 BYA and some minerals on it go back to 4.1 BYA. And fossils didn't just lay in the sand, as time passes sediment lays on top of it and covers it. Just go outside and dig deep enough and you'll see the layers.

 

That's 6 kinds of evolution is alright since it's basically true. Since I am a biology person and not a geologist, physicist, or chemist, I won't worry about the first 4 since I haven't read enough of those. However there is evidence for micro and macro evolution.

 

Nothing can really be proved 100%. However, we can be quite certain about many natural things because of research and study, which is the case in evolution.

 

First of all...how the flock will cat come out of a dog? Why would a monkey come out of an elephant? Man come out of monkeys? HOW MANY TIMES DOES IT HAVE TO BE STATED THAT EVOLUTION DOESN'T SAY THAT MAN CAME FROM MONKEYS!!?! We share a common ancestor and evolved separately. Humans came after a progression of other lesser primates and we are still progressing. You don't seem to know the basics of biology so don't try to argue what you can't explain. Here is proof of evolution:

 

*All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritablility, catalysis, and metabolism.

* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.

* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

* The fossils appear in a chronological order showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years, and inconsistent with sudden creation.

* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.

* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestors but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, whales and many snakes develop hind limbs as embryos which are reabsorbed before birth.

* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. This consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.

* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.

* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70%, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.

* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.

* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.

* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.

* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.

* Speciation has been observed.

* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

 

And about the planets not rotating the same way...

1. The Big Bang was not an explosion; it was an inflation. Space itself expanded.

2. The Big Bang material was not originally rotating. (How could it be? What would it rotate relative to?)

3. Conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything spin the same way. It requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects. Retrograde planets are not a violation of angular momentum because other bodies in the early solar system could account for the compensating spin.

4. If the Big Bang were an explosion, we would expect different spins. When something explodes, pieces fly out spinning in all directions.

5. The Solar System formed long after the Big Bang; it got its angular momentum from turbulence in the interstellar cloud from which it was born.

6. Planets' spins can change considerably, due to tidal drag and precession. If the spin-axis precession is at approximately the same frequency as some of the orbit-parameter oscillations due to perturbations, the spin axis may acquire large chaotic oscillations, possibly making it retrograde. Tidal drag and capture of large retrograde-orbit satellites may also cause retrograde spin.

7. Some of the outer planets' satellites are in retrograde orbits; that is likely a side effect of their capture from drag by residual gases around their primaries early in the Solar System's history.

Source: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Retrograde...es_the_Big_Bang

 

Evolution has much better scientific proof than Creationism. Just try to enter a university with that mindset and try to argue with a professor about that and just see how you will get humiliated. There is a reason more work is done on evolution that creationism and it's not because of religion, it's because it makes more sense.

 

And the use of evolution as a tool for racism was known as Social Darwinism and is a complete misconception of Darwin's work. But did you know that anti-Semitism and xenophobia were around for centuries before and done by CHRISTIANS! Hell even Martin Luther was an anti-semite. So don't even bring up the use of evolution for horrible deeds because religion has MUCH MORE blood on its hands.

its nice that you can quote me all this but you still failed to give me proof of anything other than microevolution.