Evolution vs. Creation

[random guy]

Okay, I'm not going to quote that huge block of text but surely "proof" of microevolution implies that the other forms of evolution you speak of (well most of them) are also "proven"?

[Skythe]

Science was able to prove some events from the bible that actually happened (though there is no telling if it's exact) not proving Creationism.

[taratata]

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

This is getting really really lame. In no other industrial country than the US there is a debate about this, because there are so many evidences. Want a proof of what you call macroevolution? Here are some arguments:

 

DNA and genes is the way of transmission of phenotype characteristics within ALL species in the world, except a few primitive bacterias which still use RNA.

 

RNA which plays a very important role in the expression of these genes is present in ALL the living species on this planet.

 

What makes scientists think we share a relatively recent common ancestors with monkeys? We have 99% of our genes in common with chimpanzees, and also share a whole lot of physical characteristics.

 

From fossiles, we can trace a big part of the evolution from primitive life forms to actual life forms.

 

The list of arguments is so long I won't put them all here.

 

 

Now what arguments are there for creationism?

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. 

Your arguments are all based on "we have never seen...".

Noone has ever seen the soil of Mars, therefore it doesn't exist. It's just a lightbulb someone put in the sky.

I have never seen you, therefore you don't exist!

come on...

 

Now what arguments other than "we have many evidences against creationism but we are so dumb we can't have logical thought and need to see it with our eyes" and bible verses?

 

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. 

The book is called the origin of species, not the origin of races. When some sick bastards took his theory to say that there are some races greater than others, Darwin felt very depressed about this. His whole theory is between the difference between species, and humanity is a single specy. ONE specy. So his theory doesn't apply at all to different human races. It's not because some sick psychopaths tried to use his theory in tortured ways to proove a stupid thing that his theory doesn't stand.

I'd like to remind you that centuries before, the bible was used to proove that the american indians were not humans. "There is no sign of a cross in their culture, therefore Jesus had no influence on them therefore they are not humans". Does that mean the bible itself is about saying other races are not humans? Of course not!

 

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. 

So according to the creationist "theory", how was life created? Some kind of god pulled all the different species out of his ass? What evidence is there for that except a few bible verses and "we have never seen and have no logical thought"?

 

I gave here a few evidences about evolution. Please give me evidences about creationism other than "we have never seen a cat come out of a dog" because of course we have never seen that and it'll never happen.

 

The only proof creationism gives me is that religious fundamentalism in the US is far worse than what I thought. Because it all boils down to trying to prove religious stuff with pseudo-science, and being stubborn when proven wrong using real science.

 

It's not a school of thought about one theory or the other. You believe in your religion and want to go on thinking "god blah blah blah..." fine for you. But don't try to take science into this because you'll get your ass handled to you anyday.

[Jjangthekid]

The only proof creationism gives me is that religious fundamentalism in the US is far worse than what I thought. Because it all boils down to trying to prove religious stuff with pseudo-science, and being stubborn when proven wrong using real science.

 

buddy i dont know what your talking about.. science never proved creationism wrong..but in a way it proved some of it right.

 

and if somebody did prove creationism wrong..bring me an article..w.e from a source thats reliable.

 

[edit] :Is Creationism wrong about the origins of the Earth and the life on it? then we get into a very sensitive issue, as belief in a creator is a matter of faith- something that by its nature cannot be proven, which is what science always seeks to do- prove or disprove ideas.

Edited September 11, 2004 by Jjangthekid

[taratata]

The only proof creationism gives me is that religious fundamentalism in the US is far worse than what I thought. Because it all boils down to trying to prove religious stuff with pseudo-science, and being stubborn when proven wrong using real science.

 

buddy i dont know what your talking about.. science never proved creationism wrong..but in a way it proved some of it right.

 

and if somebody did prove creationism wrong..bring me an article..w.e from a source thats reliable.

Read this: http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm. It's a pity people say and believe things without actually knowing.

If that didn't provide you food for thought, I'm sorry I can do nothing for you man.

Science proved some of creationism right? Could you tell me how and what part please?

Just a question about creationism: if you think it's creation, how was life created? I mean, what processes?

Edited September 11, 2004 by taratata

[Jjangthekid]

The only proof creationism gives me is that religious fundamentalism in the US is far worse than what I thought. Because it all boils down to trying to prove religious stuff with pseudo-science, and being stubborn when proven wrong using real science.

 

buddy i dont know what your talking about.. science never proved creationism wrong..but in a way it proved some of it right.

 

and if somebody did prove creationism wrong..bring me an article..w.e from a source thats reliable.

Read this: http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm. It's a pity people say and believe things without actually knowing.

If that didn't provide you food for thought, I'm sorry I can do nothing for you man.

Science proved some of creationism right? Could you tell me how and what part please?

Just a question about creationism: if you think it's creation, how was life created? I mean, what processes?

If that didn't provide you food for thought, I'm sorry I can do nothing for you man.

Science proved some of creationism right? Could you tell me how and what part please?

Just a question about creationism: if you think it's creation, how was life created? I mean, what processes?

 

well i thought someone said scientifically the noah's flood was proven but now i look at it.. scientists cant's prove noahs flood.,however the evidence that they are finding is pointing towards the catastrophic event.

 

examples.. if Noah's Flood did occur..following would happen,

 

1.Would have deposited many layers of sedimentary material full of dead creatures (later turned to rocks and fossils)

 

2. We ought to see evidence that the majority of rocks were deposited rapidly by dynamic events, not by slow and gradual processes

 

3. Erosion would also be extensive and different from modern erosion. Since the Flood was global, we should see that processes operated on a regional or continental scale, not merely on a local scale.

 

4. We should see that late in the Flood, as the earth began to adjust to a new equilibrium state, we should see evidence of late-Flood mountain uplifts and massive volcanic eruptions.

 

And now geologists are have seen individual beds that are now recognized as being regional or even continental in scale.

 

and Mr.Gryph if you see anything wrong with this information..please correct me.

so that could possibly be science proving one "part" of creationism..

Edited September 11, 2004 by Jjangthekid

[taratata]

What a bunch of bullshit...

1.Would have deposited many layers of sedimentary material full of dead creatures (later turned to rocks and fossils)

If these were caused by one gigantic flood, the layers would be mixed up, not having different steps of evolution in different layers as we have observed, right?

2. We ought to see evidence that the majority of rocks were deposited rapidly by dynamic events, not by slow and gradual processes

There is evidence for the opposite.

3. Erosion would also be extensive and different from modern erosion. Since the Flood was global, we should see that processes operated on a regional or continental scale, not merely on a local scale.

The different continental scale layers are caused by changes in the atmosphere. Now if there was only one big flood there should be one single layer, right? There are a great number of them, dated from different periods.

4. We should see that late in the Flood, as the earth began to adjust to a new equilibrium state, we should see evidence of late-Flood mountain uplifts and massive volcanic eruptions.

And we shouldn't see mountains created by a slow process called techtonism(sp? I have rarely discussed that kind of stuff in english), and we shouldn't see earthquakes caused by this phenomenon, and we shouldn't observ a very slow motion between the continents as we do.

And now geologists are have seen individual beds that are now recognized as being regional or even continental in scale.

Individual layers on a huge scale have been found, and many of them on top of the others. Like I said, if it was caused by a flood there should have been only a uniform one, right?

I really don't get the point of saying that they were on a huge scale.

 

What you gave us are evidences against creation, not proving it.

And even if there was a big flood (probably happened more than one time anyway, in what way would that lead to evidence of creation?

And what is creation anyway? Like I asked you, if you believe in creation, what processes did create life? Is creation just about "God came and made the world in 7 days"?

[Jjangthekid]

And what is creation anyway? Like I asked you, if you believe in creation, what processes did create life? Is creation just about "God came and made the world in 7 days"?

 

well isn't that pretty obvious?.. what proccesses did create life?.. first of all there was a God..he mad the universe.he made earth.. he made day and night..and etc.. go read the Bible if you want to know.. and yes creaiton is about God making the world in 7 days. and like i said before.

 

Is Creationism wrong about the origins of the Earth and the life on it? then we get into a very sensitive issue, as belief in a creator is a matter of faith- something that by its nature cannot be proven, which is what science always seeks to do- prove or disprove ideas.

[taratata]

And what is creation anyway? Like I asked you, if you believe in creation, what processes did create life? Is creation just about "God came and made the world in 7 days"?

 

well isn't that pretty obvious?.. what proccesses did create life?.. first of all there was a God..he mad the universe.he made earth.. he made day and night..and etc.. go read the Bible if you want to know.. and yes creaiton is about God making the world in 7 days. and like i said before.

 

Is Creationism wrong about the origins of the Earth and the life on it? then we get into a very sensitive issue, as belief in a creator is a matter of faith- something that by its nature cannot be proven, which is what science always seeks to do- prove or disprove ideas.

Exactly like I said,

It's not a school of thought about one theory or the other. You believe in your religion and want to go on thinking "god blah blah blah..." fine for you. But don't try to take science into this because you'll get your ass handled to you anyday.

[Gryph]

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

You don't know how to read do you? If you did then you would have read the proof of macroevolution in some of those bullet points.

 

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

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

 

 

Look at the similarities in embryological states.

 

Here is a nice monophyletic phylogeny:

 

Read these:

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html

http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

 

Now you show me a source that ISN'T affiliated with a religious organization that has better proof.

[Jjangthekid]

It's not a school of thought about one theory or the other. You believe in your religion and want to go on thinking "god blah blah blah..." fine for you. But don't try to take science into this because you'll get your ass handled to you anyday.

 

do you keep up with news??. religion never asked scientists to prove if creationism is true or not.. we dont try to take sciience into taking.. you scientists are the ones thats trying to prove and disapprove everything... and i'll get my ass handled..?? haha.. how old are yoU/?? 13/14?.. damn. dont assume that ill get my ass handled..bring me some information where bible scholars/pastor got owned by you scientists.. alright?.

 

and if you do give me a legit source..ill try to defend myself.and if i cant..ill gladly accept that science proved creationism wrong..

Edited September 11, 2004 by Jjangthekid