7 days or 7 billion years?

lil'princess · 16-06-2009 7:01pm

Mrmoe wrote: »

There is only one theory in this poll and that is the theory of evolution. The rest can not be called theories.

Dictionary: the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary

n., pl. -ries.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

For arguments sake:
number 6 of that definition proves that others well creationist are theory anyway - Genisis being the limited information that people take word for word as it is inspired by God

philologos · 16-06-2009 7:01pm

Interesting you say that because many have argued that the universe indeed did create itself.

lil'princess · 16-06-2009 7:06pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting you say that because many have argued that the universe indeed did create itself.

Well we'll know for sure if it did creat itself when they can get the multi billion dollar tube in Cern working and they find the Hicks particle.

Hagar · 16-06-2009 7:08pm

Well if God got 1 day off after working for 6 days I'd say fair enough but if he is on a 1 billion year holiday now it explains a lot.

j1smithy · 16-06-2009 7:09pm

Smart Bug wrote: »

It's 200 years since Darwin's birth & 150 since the publication of 'On the Origin of Species'.

So, how far have we come? Have we evolved or are we still superstitious idiots, hmm?

What's your view on life on earth & how it got here...

Why pose the question, then refer to people who don't adhere to your view idiots?

I do believe in Darwins theories but opening statements like that aren't conductive to rational debate.

Zombrex · 16-06-2009 7:18pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting you say that because many have argued that the universe indeed did create itself.

Not only could the universe have created itself, but we know how it could have created itself (note this is the not the same thing as saying that is what happened).

It becomes a much less absurd idea when you realise that time can be "curved".

Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs-giving no first-cause.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997astro.ph.12344G

mobius42 · 16-06-2009 7:29pm

It seems stupid to me to say that the Universe can't have created itself and then say that God doesn't have a creator. Why does the Universe need a creator but God not? Why not use Occam's razor and cut out an unneeded layer of complexity by saying that the Universe created itself?

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever discover what, if anything, created the Universe because the start of the Universe is time=0. Before that, nothing existed, by definition. However, who knows what future discoveries will be made?

uprising · 16-06-2009 7:33pm

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "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."
Words from the man himself.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

So all you experts here know more than darwin, he confesses its absurd

bleg · 16-06-2009 7:38pm

pointless thread is pointless

mobius42 · 16-06-2009 7:40pm

uprising wrote: »

Darwin confessed, "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."
Words from the man himself.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

So all you experts here know more than darwin, he confesses its absurd

Nice try. You'll have to do more than misquote people to disprove evolution.

this quotation has been lifted out of context. According to the edition of The Origin of Species published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (in the Great Books series), here is the entire quotation in context:

"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. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only "aggregates of pigment-cells...without any nerves ... [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness." Then, in animals a bit more complex, like "star-fish," there exist "small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] -- depressions which are "filled ... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, "like the cornea in the higher animals." These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a "depression" in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps "focus" the image like a simple "box-camera" may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a "sack-like fold in the skin."

uprising · 16-06-2009 7:41pm

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-evolution-faq.htm

Theres another link boys and girls, notice this bit:

In reality, evolution is not without controversy. Religious objections aside, in-depth analysis of evolution raises doubts that the scientific community is hard pressed to answer. Evolution has never been fundamentally proven, and most scientists admit as much. Ironically, many evolutionists defend the theory using arguments once attributed to fundamentalist Christians, such as "it just makes the most sense," and "because I choose to believe it," or "because I refuse to believe the opposite." These scientists fill in the gaps in the evolutionary model using reasonable assumptions, something for which non-evolutionists are often criticized.

TheInquisitor · 16-06-2009 7:42pm

uprising wrote: »

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "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."
Words from the man himself.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

So all you experts here know more than darwin, he confesses its absurd

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. 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. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Wow how selective you are my friend. If you had read the rest of the paragraph from that text you would see that he then goes on to explain how it might have happened.

philologos · 16-06-2009 7:44pm

mobius42 wrote: »

It seems stupid to me to say that the Universe can't have created itself and then say that God doesn't have a creator. Why does the Universe need a creator but God not? Why not use Occam's razor and cut out an unneeded layer of complexity by saying that the Universe created itself?

People have attempted to answer these questions before. However it is up to you whether or not you want to accept these answers as sensical.

The cosmological argument in particular deals with why God is a necessary being as opposed to contingent. Contingent meaning that it either can exist or not, necessary means that not only does it exist, but all other things are dependant on it. If all things are dependant on God for existence, there is no scenario where God could not have existed. That's the general argument.

I'd say look to Aquinas' Third Way, Avicenna, and Al Ghazali. A mixture of philosophers from Islamic and Christian backgrounds generally tried to put forward a rational case for how these things could have possibly occurred roughly from the 10th century onwards. Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides also contributed to the discussion.

TheInquisitor · 16-06-2009 7:46pm

uprising wrote: »

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-evolution-faq.htm

Theres another link boys and girls, notice this bit:

In reality, evolution is not without controversy. Religious objections aside, in-depth analysis of evolution raises doubts that the scientific community is hard pressed to answer. Evolution has never been fundamentally proven, and most scientists admit as much. Ironically, many evolutionists defend the theory using arguments once attributed to fundamentalist Christians, such as "it just makes the most sense," and "because I choose to believe it," or "because I refuse to believe the opposite." These scientists fill in the gaps in the evolutionary model using reasonable assumptions, something for which non-evolutionists are often criticized.

We believe the pursuit of truth is the highest calling of humanity. We are a collection of people who have wandered many paths, but all discovered that same truth. We are passionate about sparking authentic life journeys and sharing compelling content with skeptics, seekers, believers, and a hurting world.

We seek to be non-threatening, practical, and informative, using the technology of the Internet to pose tough questions and seek candid answers about God, Creation, Life, Humanity, Thought, History, and Truth.

Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as tantamount in each of our personal life journeys.

I like how when i went to the about us section of this website i found where their claims were really coming from. Website owned by www.allaboutgod.com

How neutral

uprising · 16-06-2009 7:52pm

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I like how when i went to the about us section of this website i found where their claims were really coming from. Website owned by www.allaboutgod.com

How neutral

The facts remain, evolution has never been proven, its an idea taken as fact, believed as fact, but all in all not fact.

mobius42 · 16-06-2009 7:52pm

Jakkass wrote: »

The cosmological argument in particular deals with why God is a necessary being as opposed to contingent. Contingent meaning that it either can exist or not, necessary means that not only does it exist, but all other things are dependant on it. If all things are dependant on God for existence, there is no scenario where God could not have existed. That's the general argument.

That statement is true, provided you prove that all things are dependent on God. If you can't prove that, then the statement is meaningless.

Earthhorse · 16-06-2009 7:54pm

Enzo Helpless Golf wrote: »

WTF are you talking about, troll? I had a treehouse when I was a kid.

But you evolved out of needing it as you grew up? That kinda makes sense to me.

Not a troll btw.

Mrmoe · 16-06-2009 7:58pm

uprising wrote: »

The facts remain, evolution has never been proven, its an idea taken as fact, believed as fact, but all in all not fact.

I don't know where you get this from but there is an awful lot of evidence to support evolution.

mobius42 · 16-06-2009 7:58pm

uprising wrote: »

The facts remain, evolution has never been proven, its an idea taken as fact, believed as fact, but all in all not fact.

Saying this over and over again won't make it true and posting links from stupid creationist websites doesn't help your argument either.

Evolution has been demonstrated countless times. Why do you think people need flu shots every year? Is God making new flu viruses to screw with you? We've seen the huge similarity between our genetic code and that of other primates. The only thing that remains unproven is various aspects of the mechanism of evolution. We find new evidence and alter the theory to take that into account. Through this, we build up a better picture of how evolution works. We know that it happens, we just don't know how all of it works yet.

Hagar · 16-06-2009 7:59pm

uprising wrote: »

The facts remain, evolution has never been proven, its an idea taken as fact, believed as fact, but all in all not fact.

Yes it has. Go to Holland, look at the height of them, all the little ones died in the floods years ago. If that isn't evolution in action then I'm a monkey's uncle grandchild.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 16-06-2009 8:01pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

But you evolved out of needing it as you grew up? That kinda makes sense to me.

Not a troll btw.

Not really, I was just too afraid to go back up there after I fell out of it one time.

HEY! Maybe that's why the monkeys evolved!

mobius42 · 16-06-2009 8:02pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

But you evolved out of needing it as you grew up? That kinda makes sense to me.

Not a troll btw.

The reason you keep being called a troll is because some of the things you've said are so shockingly ignorant as to be unbelievable. In fact, I still don't believe that you're not a troll. For example:

Earthhorse wrote: »

And another thing; if man came out of the ocean billions of years ago...how come apes don't live in the water?

Earthhorse wrote: »

If we're descended from apes then how come we don't build our houses in trees? Can someone please just answer that question for me?

If you are not a troll, I suggest you pick up this book and learn what evolution is before you start trying to say that it's not true. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-30th-Anniversary/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245178904&sr=8-1

uprising · 16-06-2009 8:03pm

mobius42 wrote: »

That statement is true, provided you prove that all things are dependent on God. If you can't prove that, then the statement is meaningless.

And if you cant prove evolution then your argument is also meaningless, so maybe this debate is just as meaningless as neither side can prove anything. I said I believe in God, I cant prove he exists here or anywhere for that matter, but I'm not pushing fiction as fact, as the evolutionists are, when you have hard evidence, not presumptions maybe I'd be persuaded, but I think I'll see God before that ever happens.

midlandsmissus · 16-06-2009 8:04pm

I'm just looking at my co-worker scratch his arse in an uncanny ape-like movement.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 16-06-2009 8:04pm

mobius42 wrote: »

If you are not a troll, I suggest you pick up this book and learn what evolution is before you start trying to say that it's not true. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-30th-Anniversary/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245178904&sr=8-1

Richards Dawkins? The guy who writes about god all the time? Talk about a conflict of interest, ignore this canny trickster Earthhorse.

mobius42 · 16-06-2009 8:07pm

uprising wrote: »

And if you cant prove evolution then your argument is also meaningless, so maybe this debate is just as meaningless as neither side can prove anything. I said I believe in God, I cant prove he exists here or anywhere for that matter, but I'm not pushing fiction as fact, as the evolutionists are, when you have hard evidence, not presumptions maybe I'd be persuaded, but I think I'll see God before that ever happens.

And if you'd cared to even read my post correctly, you'd have seen that it had nothing to do with evolution. My point was to do with the existence of God. Then again, as a creationist, you're used to ignoring things to suit your arguments.

mobius42 · 16-06-2009 8:09pm

Enzo Helpless Golf wrote: »

Richards Dawkins? The guy who writes about god all the time? Talk about a conflict of interest, ignore this canny trickster Earthhorse.

That's the thing about science, you don't have to take his word for it. There are countless other books that would explain it as well, all based on the same evidence. I just suggested that one as I found it excellent at explaining how evolution works.

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 8:13pm

uprising wrote: »

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "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."
Words from the man himself.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

So all you experts here know more than darwin, he confesses its absurd

Alot of animals have much better eyes than humans. What do you think happened; all life evolved from a common ancestor or all species were placed on earth in their current or past (in the case of extinct animals) form?

uprising · 16-06-2009 8:14pm

Looks like evolution downgraded itself

Mrmoe · 16-06-2009 8:17pm

uprising wrote: »

And if you cant prove evolution then your argument is also meaningless, so maybe this debate is just as meaningless as neither side can prove anything. I said I believe in God, I cant prove he exists here or anywhere for that matter, but I'm not pushing fiction as fact, as the evolutionists are, when you have hard evidence, not presumptions maybe I'd be persuaded, but I think I'll see God before that ever happens.

Here is some evidence for you. Read it and you might learn something.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17520026?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

KINGVictor · 16-06-2009 8:27pm

IF the Darwin's theory of evolution is to be believed,and lets assume that Human beings transformed from apes to their present likeness,it would also mean that this has to be a continuous process...then I have 2 questions.

1.Are humans as we know them today going to transform or evolve into an higher being given the fact that we came from apes.

2.Are the apes and several other animals going to make this scientifical,gradual transition to be humans or maybe something different at natures whims.

Or has the process stopped since the evolution theorists shouted eureka!

uprising · 16-06-2009 8:31pm

Mrmoe wrote: »

Here is some evidence for you. Read it and you might learn something.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17520026?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Anything with .gov I wouldnt be interested in looking at.

Genesis
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhTPxnjgtAM&feature=fvw

turn the sound down

dr.bollocko · 16-06-2009 8:32pm

I think many people are misunderstanding what Darwin tried to set out. He didn't go do far as to postulate why this was happening. He just recognised and studied a behaviour. Species are adapting, changing to suit their environment overtime. At the very least one must accept this as truth. If you don't you are so blind to all evidence that there is no help for you. He kinda left the rest open to questons.

philologos · 16-06-2009 8:34pm

mobius42 wrote: »

That statement is true, provided you prove that all things are dependent on God. If you can't prove that, then the statement is meaningless.

You can read the literature from the people I cited if you want to see their reasoning on it.

I'd recommend An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies, or for a more complete view Philosophy of Religion - A guide and anthology by Brian Davies.

This contains lots of sources from the original authors and commentary and debate from modern atheists and theists.

For Moses Maimonides you can read his Guide for the Perplexed in full on Google Books and it is downloadable in PDF form. It's a bit more Jewish based but is understandable. Maimonides also wrote the Mishna Torah which is oneo f the most important rabbinical texts in Modern Judaism.

Donkathon · 16-06-2009 8:35pm

uprising wrote: »

Looks like evolution downgraded itself

+1 lol

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 8:36pm

KINGVictor wrote: »

IF the Darwin's theory of evolution is to be believed,and lets assume that Human beings transformed from apes to their present likeness,it would also mean that this has to be a continuous process...then I have 2 questions.

1.Are humans as we know them today going to transform or evolve into an higher being given the fact that we came from apes.

2.Are the apes and several other animals going to make this scientifical,gradual transition to be humans or maybe something different at natures whims.

Or has the process stopped since the evolution theorists shouted eureka!

Humans didn't transform from apes, both of us decended from a common ancestor, our closest ancestor is the chimp. The thing that set humans apart is our brain capacity.
Why would any other animal become close to human? We are not the pinnacle of evolution, alot of species have been around longer than humans and many will outlive us.
It's hard to measure evolution in humans as we live relatively long and it's hard to measure any change. That's why alot of research is done with fruit flies and microbes, they can breed within a short time frame and changes can be seen after a small number of generations.
One biologist claimed recently that evolution in humans has more or less stopped due to advances in medicine, in the past people with genetic diseases may not have lived as long.

uprising · 16-06-2009 9:00pm

If evolution were to believed, would not humans that live in cold places still be hairy and the ones in the tropics not, so eskimos and mongolian people etc should have kept their hairy bodies, and why do we need airoplanes to fly?, surely humans would be better if they could have had wings, save all that walking and running from dinosaurs, or maybe wheels instead of legs.

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 9:04pm

uprising wrote: »

If evolution were to believed, would not humans that live in cold places still be hairy and the ones in the tropics not, so eskimos and mongolian people etc should have kept their hairy bodies, and why do we need airoplanes to fly?, surely humans would be better if they could have had wings, save all that walking and running from dinosaurs, or maybe wheels instead of legs.

Icarus died, god didn't give us wheels did he, or maybe the giants were too heavy.

uprising · 16-06-2009 9:09pm

DTrotter wrote: »

One biologist claimed recently that evolution in humans has more or less stopped due to advances in medicine, in the past people with genetic diseases may not have lived as long.

What about the tribes lost deep in the jungles and forests, with no other contact untill recently, they should be still evolving, more advanced biologically as they never got any of the advances in medicine we westeners have, and therefore should be still evolving

dr.bollocko · 16-06-2009 9:09pm

uprising wrote: »

If evolution were to believed, would not humans that live in cold places still be hairy and the ones in the tropics not, so eskimos and mongolian people etc should have kept their hairy bodies, and why do we need airoplanes to fly?, surely humans would be better if they could have had wings, save all that walking and running from dinosaurs, or maybe wheels instead of legs.

That argument falls about 200 feet short of making any sense whatsoever. Or even being worth refuting.

dr.bollocko · 16-06-2009 9:11pm

uprising wrote: »

What about the tribes lost deep in the jungles and forests, with no other contact untill recently, they should be still evolving, more advanced biologically as they never got any of the advances in medicine we westeners have, and therefore should be still evolving

Evolution does not work in the blink of an eye nor could you trot out an isolated tribe as evidence that evolution does not occur. Adaptation to one's environment if the name of the game.
That said I believe Darwin picked the Galapagos as his focus because of both its isolation and climate / array of species as a perfect study ground for his theories. However to apply that theory to an isolated species that may or may not have evolved jet engine / wheels for legs / 43 eyes is completely nonsensical.

jonon9 · 16-06-2009 9:13pm

One of the best threads iv read.

Evolution v the Creator is an age old saga that will probably go on for countless more years. To me I think Darwin wasn't interested in reading the bible about how to earth was created he was smart enough to know that a bunch of guys wrote this based on non factual events to rope in and control people and make millions in funds doing so, no Darwin was a scientist meaning he wanted to see for himself how us as a being as well with other animals came about its called been curious.

Now on the other hand even though they are lots of theories in science they are still lots of proven facts I haven't seen or heard one proven fact in the creator side of things as well as stories from the bible
It comes back to an old saying 'seeing is believing' and that's what Darwin did he studied and watched animals evolved.

philologos · 16-06-2009 9:17pm

Darwin was training to be a Church of England minister before he did study on this subject so he did have an interest in God and the Bible albeit he must have had doubts as through doing his study on species he became an agnostic.

As for Darwin in the Galapagos, he didn't see animals evolving before his eyes, rather what he saw were different types of similar birds and deduced that there must have been some form of evolution between these different types of birds and a common ancestor. At least that is what I heard on documentaries and the like.

uprising · 16-06-2009 9:18pm

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That argument falls about 200 feet short of making any sense whatsoever. Or even being worth refuting.

Yes it's bollocko, purposeful nonsense, just seems the way evolution seems to have come about these would be beneficial to us, so why not?

Saruman · 16-06-2009 9:19pm

uprising wrote: »

If evolution were to believed, would not humans that live in cold places still be hairy and the ones in the tropics not, so eskimos and mongolian people etc should have kept their hairy bodies, and why do we need airoplanes to fly?, surely humans would be better if they could have had wings, save all that walking and running from dinosaurs, or maybe wheels instead of legs.

You are thinking too small. Humans have not been around long enough for that sort of thinking. Compared to a lot of species like Crocodiles etc we are a very young species.

Besides, we altered the need for much of evolution such as the invention of clothes. No need to stay hairy when we can prove natural selection by killing animals and using their fur to keep us warm. The strong survive and the weak perish.

Humans can not have wings, we are too heavy and the only way something as heavy as us can fly is with an artificial wing. We can not evolve a jet propulsion system, besides... again we have only been flying for about a hundred years. Not enough time for evolution to do anything as there are still people alive today that were alive when the wright brothers flew in 1903.

Try thinking a little more. Evolution takes time, time that humans have not been around long enough to see happen with some obvious exceptions.
I say obvious but if you need them explained then you must be about 12 and have never paid attention to history lessons.

My name is URL · 16-06-2009 9:20pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Darwin was training to be a Church of England minister before he did study on this subject. On doing so he became an agnostic.

As for Darwin in the Galapagos, he didn't see animals evolving before his eyes, rather what he saw were different types of similar birds and deduced that there must have been some form of evolution between these different types of birds and a common ancestor. At least that is what I heard on documentaries and the like.

That's so true. Imho, Darwin would be mortified by the examples of '''Strong''' Atheism that are so abundant today.. not to mention Dawkins' take on it all, and his own citations of the great Scientist

sells · 16-06-2009 9:22pm

well hands down for evolution. the comments above me sort each other out, but i love people having their own opinion. humans cant have wheels instead of legs. evolution probally did happen, given all the evidence...humans wrote the bible and humans get scared and sad and all other emotions...so what better way than to express those emotions in books, to teach people not to make each other sad or scared..or to steal etc. evolution only answers that we evolved from apes basicallly, i beleive that and theres evidence too....but evolution doesnt answer what came before the universe or the meaning to it all...so you cant rule out a god or whatever. Humans are the closest thing to god that we know of, anything we dream of, we can build. but god could exist its just ignorant to say he doesnt. maybe he just let one of his apples fall onto the ground and then that created our universe..thus in some way created everything now, etc....maybe god is some person like us. u could create many universes by just stepping on the ground.....so we will never know.

ScumLord · 16-06-2009 9:24pm

jonon9 wrote: »

One of the best threads iv read.

Evolution v the Creator is an age old saga that will probably go on for countless more years.

I don't know about that, Religion is on it's last legs as it is, most people say they believe in god but would under no curcumstances live to the strict rules of their chosen religion. I have friends that baptized their children just to appease the grandparent but the kids haven't seen the inside of a church since.

In the past religious people made great scientists because they where trying to prove god and the obvious way to know god is to study his work. In actual fact science is a much better way of getting close to god because it's the only real method of understanding him (if he does in fact exist and did create the universe)

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 9:25pm

uprising wrote: »

Yes it's bollocko, purposeful nonsense, just seems the way evolution seems to have come about these would be beneficial to us, so why not?

What is your alternative?
I actually call Poe.

16-06-2009 9:26pm

sells wrote: »

but evolution doesnt answer what came before the universe or the meaning to it all...

Why on earth would it?

Christ, there are many things that amuse me about these arguments:
1/ people trying to argue against evolution as if that somehow gave any credence to their creation stories whatsoever.
2/ people using any other branch of science to argue against THIS branch of science
3/ people throwing out "well why doesn't it explain xyz then! ha!" as some kind of trump card. I'd love to see them go to an organic chemistry lecture and yell "well why doesn't it explain why my bicycle broke this morning then if it's so true! huh?" Or perhaps to a theology lecture demanding answers on how to build cars? They have nothing to do with each other.

7 days or 7 billion years?

Comments