I found this article about the theory of evolution quite interesting, but with no offense, i thought it was crap, anyway, on wich side are you? creationism or evolutionism? discuss.

Your linked article is a stupid waste of my time.

Only an ignoramus would "believe" in creationism as it's laid out in that article.

There can be no question whatsoever that evolution occurs. How it occurs is debatable. The [b]fact[/i] of it's occurence is rudely thrust under our very noses every flu season, for God's sake!

Your linked article states that


That's a lie. I thought Christians weren't supposed to lie?

What, lying for Christ is okay?

What about Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.? They have "creation stories" as well, two of them the same as Christians, yet the site says:


Short-sighted to say the least, considering Christains are outnumbered.

"They won't join us because they won't admit we're right!!!"

Some argument.

Harte

You know, I'm an avid supporter of evolution. I think that, scientifically, the case for evolution is nigh impossible to ignore, and I get into it quite often with creationists. It just boggles my mind how they could possibly deny the world around them.

But after reading your reply, I couldn't help but try to think up some argument for creationism. I'm sure there is one out there which I can't think of. But my point is that you replied with such overwhelming condescension and haughty crappiness that you actually momentarily moved me to consider arguing against my own beliefs. And you do realize that the original poster stated his or her feelings about the invalidity of the argument, right? Well done, fellow. Well done.

P.S. If you think I'm being facetious or overreacting, I would like to point out your use of "ignoramus." What kind of jackass calls somebody an ignoramus?

I think evolution and creationism both are to hardcore. Evolution is science saying this is it and there is no other way, and Creationism is Christains saying this is is there is no other way. How about a open-minded study to find out what really happened with no prejudice.

I read that Darwin never expected or wanted his theories to be taken in the context that they were taken.

And there are alot of people who belive in God and also belive that science is correct as well.

Evolution is a flawed theory, although not wrong altogher, by any means. Creationism bases belifes on a book that has been interpreted way to many times to be 100% proof of anything, not to mention not having the whole story even if it were interpreted correctly.

Thank God that he left some mysteries for us to figure out.

Does it have to mean a war between Science and Christians, I don't think so if we all would just get back to the basics.





All that being said my personal theory on it, after doing alot of research in trying to decide what I would teach my own children is that the bible hints at humans on earth before Adam and Eve. Does that make God any less? No, It just means that everything on earth was like an animal is, with no real intelligence, then he blessed a new species, perhaps formed from the old (evolution) with intelligence, and God like qualities. Adam and Eve are who are important to our own species, therefor the rest of the early humans are not listed in the Bible. To me it is that simple. I am not saying that is defanatly what happened, but my own studies lead me to belive it.

Evolution is a fact.

Evolution by Natural Selection is a scientific theory. And it's not going away, just like the theory of gravity never went away.

Creationism: Zero proof.

Its very hard to argue creation vs. evolution because theres no hard evidance to support one or the other it all comes down to arguing our different belifes. but to me it seems possible that the creation stories were made up along with the devil and hell to keep people in line with no fear of punishment society would crumble so these stories are a necessity to life. evolution on the other hand does have a bit more credibility with fossil's and carbon dating but many of the theroys in evolution are just some random thought dreamed up by some scientist with no proof yet they teach us evolution in the schools insted of creation if you ask me they should teach both.

creation makes us belive in the greater good and a life after death, evoultion makes people belive in themselfs

Yes, there is solid proof of evolution.

http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/publicatio...2008%20PNAS.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04...lizard.php#more

Evolution does occur naturally. Evolution by natural selection has been proven, and there is much evidence to support the theory of evolution. The term "theory" doesn't mean "unsupported opinion" by any means. In the scientific community it has to be supported by a lot of evidence, not just a scientist's opinion and imagination. The only reason the theory of evolution hasn't been proven for a fact is because evolution that causes noticeable results takes thousands of years to happen. The reason they don't teach Creationism is because evolution has evidence, whereas Creationism does not. Creationism is unprovable, whereas evolution is a plausible, and nearly proven theory. Schools aren't saying students HAVE to believe in evolution, but it's something that all people should be exposed to. Also, not everyone is a Christian, so if we teach Creationism we would have to teach all of the other religious ideas about how the Universe and life came to be in order to remain true to our very own Constitutional rights. Simply put, it's not practical or fair to teach one religious idea over all others. Science is unbiased in the religious field, so it's more practical, and people who aren't Christians don't have Christian ideas forced upon them. It's to be fair and accurate, not because Creationism is condemned by modern people.

How do you know if occurs naturally if it takes thousands of years to occur. It's not real science if it's not observable.

there is a difference between evadence and similarities, and im not saying that they should only teach christianity in schools im saying dont rule it out because of sum fossil look-a-like contest show me the missing link between man and monkey then ill have no problem with people calling it fact but until then evoultion is still just a theroy

Man did not evolve from monkeys. That's a large misconception. Monkeys, apes, and humans had a common ancestor. They did NOT evolve from one another, so you won't be getting a link between monkeys and humans..well, ever. They did not evolve from one another. Decent with modification is most certainly NOT a "fossil look-a-like" contest. Similarities between species of the same kingdom that lived later than the older species but had the same trait as the older species is a sign that that trait was passed down to the new species. This can be seen with dinosaurs and birds. There are fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, and tree-dwelling dinosaurs developed bird like wings (Archaeopteryx : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html)

Links for feathered dinosaurs:
http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs/featdino.html
http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/feathered/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1081677.stm
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolutio...d_dinosaurs.htm
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/explore/cfd/
http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/dinobird.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/feather3.htm

Therefore, by looking at the fossil record, we can piece together the chain of species until we see them evolve into birds.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/system/files/u3/birdcompl.gif
http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/BirdS/morphevol/main.htm
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/or...evolution_birds
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/BirdEvolution.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws1.gif
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_con...56dinobirds.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~becky400/paleol.../gansustree.jpg
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/554images...l_evolution.jpg

Now, me must also take into account that only a tiny percentage of dead organisms become fossils. Therefore, it's only natural that we don't have every single transitional form that ever existed. It would be inconceivable and ludicrous to have a copy of every single organism that ever lived. We would have millions upon millions of fossils. We'd be up to our elbows in fossils if that was true. The conditions for fossilization have to be just-so in order for the dead organism to be preserved. Also, we haven't excavated every single piece of land on Earth, and new fossils are constantly being found.

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/taphonomy.html
http://www.enotes.com/earth-science/fossil-record
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BI...ges/4fsmain.htm
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/...998/spriggs.htm

lmao at that article. ....

as one who does believe in God ??? Evolution. because in honesty it has the evidence. Creationism does not.

How dare you all. You have no right at all to dishonor and smear the creational wonder of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) with silly notions of all the life sciences and your mountains of evidence/facts. I feel sad for you all, for the Purple Oyster has surely lead you off the path that her hooves so gracefully cut into the earth for us all. I plead with you all to order and eat a pineapple and pizza to reject the Purple Oyster!



(evolution!)

Evolution is a fact.

The theory of Evolution, is well founded. I have more issues with the theory the closer to Abiogenesis you get, however.

I'm not convinced that there was a single common ancestor, for instance. I think there's a decent case to be made for Horizontal Gene Transfer, which would negate the need for a single proto creature or gene pool.

However - it's not my field of expertise, so I usually don't spend much time looking at it, to be honest.

I'm an atheist. I believe that the possibility of the Universe being created by a deity to be far less likely than one created by the inherent nature of Matter.

The Purple Oyster? Heresy! Who is spreading these lies about Bivalves?? The IPU's deadly adversary in the battle for our soles (may they emulate her hooves), is of course The Grim Saddle. He of the blighted leather and obscene horn!

From all the evidence that is in, I think evolution is inference to the best explanation. Which is all ya got in life really.

There is actual evidence that proves evolution is possible, creationism on the other hand...

Very true, it is not like these are equal competing theories. Evolution supported by tons of evidence (which has been posted on other threads, try the evolution thread in the Science and Nature section) and has had no one suitably form and argument against it (Which guess what, attacking evolution in way shape or form supports creationism or gives evidence to creationism).

it's been proven that we have evolved so im always for evolution. creation theory is more confusing because god created man, so who created god ...

I'm with Creationism all the way - for reasons that I will post on the other thread of this very same topic, in just a few minutes. Creationism is the best explanation for the world we see. IMO

So you just dismiss all the evidence in regards to evolution?

creationism-you should have made this a poll

no, it's definatly not, it's dumb that you even think that. it's just a theory that onbody can PROVE to be true.

Clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is do you.
There is irrefutable evidence of evolution, it has been observed.


There is nothing at all to suggest creationism.

so you think that you used to be a monkey?

nvm, i quit...i can see this thread turning into something that i don't want part in. hf though

Never studied evolution did we.
Me no I was never a monkey I was born Homo sapiens sapiens, however we are a species of ape. Genetic data shows this quite clearly. We also have great evidence to show that humans and monkeys have a shared ancestor. This is also supported by the physical evidence, both morphology and genetic data. It is also supported by the fact the closet relative to the gorilla is us and the closest relation to the chimpanzee is us.
We have excellent fossil records showing species evolution.
We have observed that reproductive isolation can cause speciation.

There is nothing special or unique about humans. We are not capable of living with out other life forms (not even internally). All that really sets us apart is our tool making ability.

See this is wilful ignorance, the bane of humanity.

To be honest I think both evolution and creationism are wrong. I think creation which undergoes evolution is a mere illusion and the only thing that truly exists is infinite love which can only be truly proven by a subjective mystical experience.

Evolution is a fact and love is caused from hormonal release.

I'm sure you believe that we share 98% of our genes with the chimpanzee right? It will be interesting to see if humans and chimps can produce offspring as i'm sure you would agree science will go for soon. Interesting, what if they can't? Would that change your mind about anything? No, it will not. I predict, no offspring that survive and function in spite of us being to similar to the chimps as you assert. Let's wait and see who's correct. Remember me when the results are in.

Depends upon your definition of love. Im talking about unconditional love that is inherent and transcends all creation, pure consciousness. Consciousness isnt a proven fact because it cannot be observed. Evolution isnt a fact also because the world in which evolution takes place cannot be proven to exist and since evolution is believed to be a product of this world we cannot prove to be real then evolution isnt a fact.

Our senses could very well be lying to us. There is no way of knowing via science or philosophical speculation.

Bad grammar mistakes, hence the edit.

That has been proven yeti, remember you tried to argue it but actually ended up supporting it.
No it would not change my mind, it would not make a difference. But you are still wilfully ignorant of evidence and I think ignorance is the most dangerous thing on the planet.
If you want my opinion though, I would say it is extremely likely that a human could hybridise with a chimp.

We don't need to prove this world is real, we just need to observe it. That has been done.
Love is an emotion.
Actually you can observe conciousness.

Why do we need to just observe it? How can we prove that what we observe is real?



Your opinion.



Show me a picture of it and then I may consider this. *sighs*. . . .

Repeatability. If you get to philosophical down that route, nothing happens and you achieve nothing. It is silly pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
You don't need a picture, you can for a start observe actions, brain waves, responses.


And no love is defined as an emotion. Sorry.

So is your opinion. And I like how you say this so that you can avoid hard questions. *rollseyes*



Hahaha great one. So can you show me a picture of consciousness or not? Can you scientifically prove that awareness exists? By your logic I could say "I dont need to show you a picture of God, you can start by observing his creations."



According to whatever school of thought or religion or philosophy you agree with. I happen to agree with the mystic definition and because it contradicts what you believe you sweep the definition under a rug. But hey it is cool if you dont want to debate too deeply on issues you dont like seeing contradicted : )

I don't want to debate with you at all because you all you have done is thrown wild speculation and raised no valid points. So I am happy for you to sweep away any evidence because of your belief. You have nothing to contradict with but fanciful claims, but feel free to enjoy them.

Do you think its possible that creation and evoulution are the same thing just hasnt been defined that way in a religion, what if god created evolution

Your opinion that they arnt valid. Many others would disagree like me



You wont even put up a picture of consciousness itself to back your claim that we dont have to prove it exists.

No, I don't remember that, otherwise I woulnd't have made my predictions. I'm saying that we are different than chimps, and the research should prove it.

Well you say 40 mill out of 3 bill gene differences, which as was pointed out 1.3%. You are saying we different against ALL the evidence research disagrees with you.

You think your picture point is clever don't you. Well there are many things shown to exist that you can not see but can measure and conciousness is one of them. No since there is a chance you do not exist, am going to leave you be since talking to you is possibly not happening.

Cleverness or not is not the point mattshark thats your trip. The point is that it shows contradiction in what you are saying.





How? How is consciousness measured? For an example how do they measure how far consciousness permeates the body? What kind of quantities does each person have?

Yes, I do remember that conversation. I was arguing that 40 million was alot and you said that 1.3 % was alitttle. Got it.

40 mill being a lot is subjective to what it was being related to. I was just pointing out you ratio which you posted backed up my point, are you going to now dismiss it because of that reason?

No, I'm not trying to dismiss it at all. I'm interpreting the evidence differently. With respect to extremely complicated programming language or code, a small change is alot. If you think of it in terms your chances of winning the lottery, then it's not very much. But, I am making the bold assertion that humans are different from animals as you know from my thread. And therefore, we can't breed with apes, chimps, sasquatches or any other ape or monkey. If I'm wrong I will be surprised, but what if I'm right?

How are you coming to the conclusion that because humans may be unable to breed with apes that we are not animals? Dogs can't breed with apes but how does this relate to the notion of being an animal?

We have a soul, we also have other abilities such as literacy, teaching others ideas and being able to learn ideas, the ability to create that falls outside pure animal instinct that allows beavers to construct dams, birds to build nests, and spiders to weave webs. There is so much that separates us from other animals. If someone wants to believe all these things were attributed to us by chance that is their belief and fine. But most of the world knows that even if evolution are responsible for them that it was a designer who chose for us to evolve in this manner and to have all those things that differentiate us from animals.

It is rather simple that even the authors of Genesis with their limited technology understood that humans can master any other animal while the reverse is not true. Therefore we have dominion and should use it wisely. Saying we are just like other animals is a bad use of that dominion but hey if someone wants to denigrate their humanity go ahead. Just do not expect the majority of the world to agree with that.

Because Lady O and many other evolutionists assert that we humans are apes, and that we differ very little from the modern chimpanzee. They assert that we share more than 98% of our dna, making us almost identical genetically speaking. I'm taking issue with that statement and attemptiing to prove that is incorrect and that science will soon prove me correct.

Well your not going to get anywhere because you are not going to find evidence in the opposite direction, because we are that close genetically.

Whether we can breed with them or not doesn't matter because that little of a genetic change is necessary to make breeding not capable of occuring.