Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
If you believe in evolution, then that is a belief. If you believe in intelligent design, then that is a belief. If you believe in creationism, then that is a belief. You people say that you can test evolution with facts and you can't test creationism with facts, well you are horribly wrong, unless you count the missing fossil records of evolution, or Darwin making his theory during when he didnt have access to the complex design of the cell. Sure, little mutations, or microevolution takes place, and Christians believe in that, but macroevolution, there are no fossil records of birds turning into horses, or little blobs of slime turning into fish, it simply isnt there. Ever here of irreducible complexity? How did complex organs such as the eye, which wouldn't function unless ALL of the parts were there, not one by one they slowly evolve. A few cells evolve into a cornea, then they add the other parts, that is mad. It is easy to spot things that were made by someone, or something. For example, your walking on a beach and you find a wristwatch. You think to yourself, "Hmm, look at this complex thing, something had to make it." But someone else says, " Hmm this must have appeared through random mutations, where the parts formed this complex thing." Common sense tells us what makes sense. These examples are just a few things to give scientific PROOF to creationalism. So, before you shoot down creationalism, or intelligent design with things such as this lacks scientific proof, so it must be wrong, think and look whats out there.
One last thing, Darwin said himself that.. QUOTE from his book of origin " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existedm which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..."
Irreducible complexity, such as an eye found in humans, dogs, cats, etc. The cell, which contains complex organellese, all prove this. Darwin himself, before he had the knowledge of micobiology, disproves his own theory.
PS- I am a 15 year old Christian who decided to post this after looking for ideas on my science fair project on bacterial mutation and seeing absurd statements about creationalism having no right to be in our schools, or science texts. Thank you.
I'd suggest you read the whole thread before judging. Many of your questions are answered(it's your choice to believe them or not of course) in this thread and elsewhere on the forum.
here's one for example
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
No, birds and horses are on different lines but here's an example of fossil evidence.
http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/lev ... seevol.gif
I'm sure if you googled for more you'd find it.
You can search the forum, patrick has already answered the irreducible complexity argument. As for organnelles, they support evolution because each organelle looks like it was a foreign cell that is living in symbiotic existence with the larger cell. And your comment about common sense does not apply very well in the scientific community. If common sense is all we needed, there would be no science. People would just sit around and debate, what is more probable. Is it more probable that the earth is rotating or the sun is revolving around us? common sense says that the sun is revolving around us, everyone can see that!
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
I will again answer to some of the arguments here:
- If creationism is a belief, Evolutionism is a scientific theory, NOT a belief. Why? Because evolution make some claims and predictions that can be tested and disproved (if necessary). Creationism states think but do not allow tetsting and search of proof.
- Fossil records are at best fragmentary and very few lines can be traced. But other sort of fossiles are here that proves the common origin of all life: The molecular mechanism of the cell are full gene lines that are a very good trace of evolution over time.
-Micro and macro evolution are just terms used by creationnist in a bad attempt to try to cope with the evidence of molecular evolution. They do not reflect anything in real life, macro evolution is microevolution over a long time...
-Once again the irrducible complexity is definitely not a good argument, since for the moment no such Thing exist. All the type of eyes that evolved prove that there is nothing like one solution, but that light sensitivity is indeed a huge advantage and that everything that would improve vision even lightly will give a huge selective advantage to organisms.
-Intelligent design? I would care if there was any proof of intelligence in our design, but there is none or one with a very twisted mind! Just look at our "plumbing"! It mixes the sewer system and the play ground in a very stupid way if you ask me (and all the women with frequent urinary tract infection...)
-And my last point: just learn about science, there is no such thing as a proof of a theory. There is only proof that a theory is not valid. But a theory is just a model that gives an idea of how the world works. It allows prediction that can then be tested. As long as the predictions are verified, the model is a good one and can help us understand the nature, but when the predictions are not verified, The model must be discarded or modiifed.
Since creationism cannot be tested it cannot be used as a scientific model (as I said in my first paragraph) as for the theory of evolution, it evolved slightly since Darwin, and its working at the molecular level are not all completely understood. But until now we have yet to find any thing that do not fit in the largest framework set by Darwin.
I believe God created everything, you people believe it evolved from something. It's obvious that neither side is going to budge, so I'm done. Thanks for the insight though.
EDIT: And me being some 15 year old punk and just touching on science your knowledge is more vast, so more times than not your going to make me look bad.
I do not want to make you look bad, I am trying to make you understand the diffrence between science and religion.
When I say that the living world as we see it comes from evolution through natural selection, I am saying that this is the best insight we have yet on how life appeared. The model called Neo-synthetic evolution is making some prediction about the world as we see it:
- presence of intermediate forms in fossil record in spite of all the holes in the record
- vestigial organs in recent organisms
- molecular data obtained from DNA sequence
But you can try to find some facts that do not fit the theory and disprove it. For the moment we still learn a lot things on the most intimate working of the cells and the genetic transmission. And there is fierce debates about the details, but everyone a bit serious agree that evolution through natural selection is the framework for the history of life on our planet. But if anybody come with a model that gives a better model and more accurate prevision on how life evolved (or not), we'll have (more or less reluctantly) to change paradigm and shift our way of seeing the world. But if you ask me I think there maybe plenty of new and interesting thing that could arise in the field of molecular biology and how celles work, but still the large Darwinina framework will stay untouched.
But if you take creationism, basically all you can say is God created the world as we see it, and said it was good. Period. You cannot explain anything. You believe it or not: it's a faith.
I'm just curious, since I obviously don't know all the facts, but are there any facts that your willing to acknowledge as supporting to creationalism? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea of a few proteins joining together to form a cell, which way down the road we as humans "evolved" into being the superior beings (I've heard dolphins have a more complex language, but never really really bothered to find out much about it) over the animals. Me as a logical person, not so much as a Christian, finds it hard to accept that life as we know it, thinking, expressing ideas, etc., came from some Big Bang (another subject I know) or come from slime from the sea (or whatever it originated as). I know what I just said isn't the definition of science, but as a logical human being that is why I see the need for an intelligent designer to create all of this and if he/she/it used things like evolution to create this world, then I'm willing to accept that, because from our human understanding and observations we can see how our world works and make intelligent guesses on how it came about. Again, I'd like to thank you because the things we learn in Sunday School are obviously biased and dont present the facts from a different point of view and this is a big help.
Actually it would benefit you much more in the long run to either take a literal view of creationism from the bible or draw your own interpretation of christianity that makes sense to you and that you feel comfortable with than to place your faith in pseudoscience like "intelligent design". People on this board will probably tell you that ID is a "god-of-the-gaps" theory. In other words, things that are currently beyond the grasp of science are explained away by an intelligent designer.
So what happens to God according to intelligent design as these gaps get smaller and smaller and eventually close as they are right now because of the human-genome project and advancing technology? Well, the answer isn't included in the ID framework.
How can ID's founders be so naive as to leave out a failsafe to the advancement of technology? What happens to all of the people who have invested their lives and faith into this "theory" and it becomes obsolete, especially if they were taught ID at such an early age in high school science classes because some close-minded fundamentalist on the school board decided not to do their research and take a close look at what they were going to introduce into the minds of impressionable kids. These kids may look at ID as something that they will
live by as the years go on, ideas that will be so ingrained within their consciousness that to disprove ID would be akin to removing the ground that they walk on.
You don't want to be that guy, do you bvrhockey?
Close minded? I find it funny you call me close minded, actually quite hillarious. I myself am searching for the answers, you however have a strict evolutionary theory and if that is taken away from you, you would have nothing left. Anything that isn't strictly evolution and are alternate theories you automaticly throw out, irreducible complexity, microevolution, missing fossil records, etc. I will continue to believe that God created this earth and everything on it untill a scientific breakthrough proves it otherwise, which hasn't.
You complain that "impressionable" kids will hear intelligent design and stick to it. Most schools have a paragraph or maybe a brief teacher mention, or nothing at all about the subject, your evolution, big bang theories with false illustrations are what flood our textbooks.
Do you all consider Behe a scientist? Or just some lune who doesn't agree with your theory? God created the earth IS a theory and a belief, evolution or life come from sea slime IS a theory and a belief.
I hardly see the gaps of ID getting smaller and smaller, in fact I've seen more evidence of how God made things than how you can disprove them.
Lastly, my time on this board is over. Again, I have a good laugh at how you call me close minded, a real good one. What happens if God makes his presence known, I won't get into specifics about this, then the people who labored disproving creationalism will suffer a similar fate to those who believe it. Please. Do yourself a favor and see whats out there. Good Bye.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests