Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

One big difference between evolution and creationism

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I was thinking about this the other day...

When Darwin was coming up with his theory, which he spent 20+ years on, he actually looked for things in nature that refuted his theory. He noted that observations such as size differences between the sexes in animals did not fit well with his theory at the moment.

See, he actually looked at things that might have proved him wrong. That's the beauty of science; you make hypotheses and take them through rigorous tests.

HOWEVER, you don't see the same thing with creationism. All you see is "this is the way it happened, there's no way this is wrong and there's no other possible explanation." BIG difference here.

Now, if you run into a person who says EVOLUTION is the only possible explanation, be wary. Those types are just as bad as the staunch creationists.

Anyway, I side with the people who concede that they may be wrong, rather than those who assert that it's their way or no way.




posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I agree evolution is just a theory and is open to debate and change, I think its the best theory we have at the moment and may have a few holes but,im sure were gonna discover some new insights and mabye even a hit few brick walls along the way but thats the beauty of it, the theory of evolution will evolve.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
You say "just a theory" like it's trivial.

Not to slight you at all, but that's one of the biggest problems in this debate. People use "theory" in the wrong sense; a theory has stood up to rigorous testing and, for the time being, is fact. Cell theory is "just a theory," but those in the medical field will tell you it is fact.

But, I agree with the rest of what you said. I just had to point out the theory thing.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Let me just clarify I see evolution as fact, it was not my intention to make it sound trivial, but to emphisise that its not a static fact and it will change as we progress.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Not to slight you at all, but that's one of the biggest problems in this debate. People use "theory" in the wrong sense; a theory has stood up to rigorous testing and, for the time being, is fact.


Not all theories have stood up to rigorous testing, and all are certainly not facts. There are opposing theories, how do you suppose we accept them both as facts?

Ask any physicist if the string theory is a fact. 9 times out of 10 their answer would be no.

[edit on 1/11/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Originally posted by truthseeka
Not to slight you at all, but that's one of the biggest problems in this debate. People use "theory" in the wrong sense; a theory has stood up to rigorous testing and, for the time being, is fact.


Not all theories have stood up to rigorous testing, and all are certainly not facts. There are opposing theories, how do you suppose we accept them both as facts?

Ask any physicist if the string theory is a fact. 9 times out of 10 their answer would be no.

[edit on 1/11/2005 by AkashicWanderer]


I didn't say ALL theories are like this. The IDEAL theory is. I'm not saying theories are perfect, but most theories are thoroughly tested. Perhaps with the string theory you mentioned, it's more of an observational thing than experimental. Maybe the physicists can't test that theory like others.

My point is that a theory is usually taken as a fact. You know for a "fact" that gravity makes you fall down when you trip. You know "for a fact" that your body is made up of cells. I can't say anything on string theory, but I can say this; facts can change in science. If someone comes up with irrefutable evidence, say nano beings that pull you towards the earth, that totally refutes the theory of gravity, it goes to the scrap pile.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Agreed! A scientific "theory" is not a guess, not even an educated guess--it's as close to solid fact as science ever gets. Creationism is not based on any kind of "fact" or evidence, it's a matter of (fundamentalist) faith entirely. And this whole "intelligent design" thing is a crock: a dishonest attempt by said fundamentalists to drag creationism back into the classroom under a new name, since the courts outlawed teaching of creationism (since it's based only on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible and not science or anything else for that matter). It's the old sleight-of-hand trick and I find it very disheartening that so many people are falling for it--that and the bogus "equal time" notion which is pure unadulterated bull$h!t.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I didn't say ALL theories are like this.


You did not say it, but you did type it. I'll quote you:


Originally posted by truthseeka
People use "theory" in the wrong sense; a theory has stood up to rigorous testing and, for the time being, is fact.


Maybe you were just talking about the theory of evolution, but it didn't seem like it to me.


I'm not saying theories are perfect, but most theories are thoroughly tested.


All tests, no matter how scientific and precise, have a margin of error.



Perhaps with the string theory you mentioned, it's more of an observational thing than experimental.


I think it's based more on mathematics than observation. A string is to an atom, as a marble is to the universe, we will not be able to observe them for any time soon
.


My point is that a theory is usually taken as a fact.


Agreed, but just because most people take theories as a fact does not make them so.


You know for a "fact" that gravity makes you fall down when you trip.


A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality. (Merriam-Webster).

I do assume that gravity is a fact, but only because it is the most probable outcome. Objectively speaking though, I do not know it as a fact, but as a very solid belief.


You know "for a fact" that your body is made up of cells.


I personally don't. I've never objectively seen a cell in my body.


I can't say anything on string theory, but I can say this; facts can change in science.


Objective reality cannot be changed, however, subjective reality can.

Subjective reality is the most probable explanation, but not the absolute one. I understand that labelling probable explanations as facts is easy to do, and is commonly done, but personally I do not do so.

The only reason we disagree on whether such and such is a fact is because our definition of the word, "fact", is different.


If someone comes up with irrefutable evidence, say nano beings that pull you towards the earth, that totally refutes the theory of gravity, it goes to the scrap pile.


Again, I don't see how objective reality, in other words absolute truth can change.


[edit on 2/11/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
abovereproach

There is a difference between Fundamentalist Christianity and Intelligent Design. I for one do not believe that there is a God as described by any religion so far, but at the same time I cannot accept that life exists without purpose. In my view it is a cold and sad existence to believe that life is an accident or some random chance. I find it frustrating that the discussion around here often turns into (Atheist) Evolution vs. (Christian) Creation, when there are so many shades of gray, in the philosophy of life.

I think however that ID does not belong in a science class, but I would have no problem with it being taught in a philosophical sense in conjunction with science. The theory of evolution cannot explain for example how life started in the first place, and so there is room to discuss possible answers, ID, Alien ‘seeding’, Abiogenesis, whatever.

The real difference is not faith because an evolutionist can have faith. I am a living example. The biggest difference is who’s dogma you chose to follow, the churches or your own.



[edit on 4-11-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think somewhere down the line a "god" did give us the initial start. I don't think its the "god" that is most worshiped today though. Evolution did happen, but its just figureing out where did it start from.

p.s. deny hate



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
A fact is something that can be duplicated over and over again. Gravity is a fact, not a theory. Gravity exists. We know it exists. It is a fact that it exists. We can predict how it behaves, and it always behaves the same way.

A theory is a hypothesis that has not been proved, cannot be proved in the lab or observed to occur. It's just an idea in search of a proof.

Therefore evolution as an explanation of origins and creation is a theory. It cannot be duplicated in the lab, cannot be observed in nature, and in fact contradiccts all the known laws of nature and of physics.

Creationism however, explains what we see around us in every instance and it can always be demonstrated and proved in every single instance. There's only one problem with Creationism -- it says the Creator is self-existant and that He made everything. Evolution says the atom is self-existant and not created and that it IT made everything.

Well, even though evolution has no proof, and Creationism has all the proof, we will call evolution science (because it spits on God) and we'll call Creationism religious superstition even though it conforms with everything we see and know around us, and conforms to every law and every other proven fact. The only thing that's lacking is an eye witness. And of course the fact that the one who actually did this thing, God, give us a Book and told us how He did it doesn't count, a priori.

People hate God so much they will believe a Big Lie rather than accept any truth that acknowledges God in it.

Well, we've not observed atoms to form themselves out of a vacuum. We have never observed any godlike qualities in atoms. Atoms are miraculous creations in and of themselves, but they are not capable of self-existance or of intelligently forming themselves into anything. No atoms -- separated or clumped togeterh -- have ever been observed to spontaneously bring forth life. Atoms are necessary to create the body, but once the created being or body is conceived or formed, the life must be put into it. When I die, my body is just a bag of bones. My life/soul left. Where did my life come from and where did it go? Dead matter cannot create life. This can be demonstrated in the laboratory with 100 percent certainty.

Does this not fit the definition of a fact?
Answer: Yes, it does.
Does it matter to the atheists? No, because to them there is NO POSSIBILITY THAT GOD EXISTS. Therefore, we will exclude any explanation that includes God in it. And we will continue with our evolution theory against all odds and against all evidence, and keep scratching in the dirt or looking for "aliens" or anything to explain God away. Why? Because we got all kinds of sins we wanna do, and we don't need God looking over our shoulder while we're doing them and spoiling all our fun.

Since when does the Big Lie get to be called "Science" and the truth called religious superstition? How is it that people are so sure God does not exist that they are willing to weigh in on a theory that has not one feather of proof, and contradicts everything we know or see in the natural world or that true science has ever learned or discovered and declared to be "fact."

Evolution?




[edit on 5-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Res, you miss-understand what Evolution tries to explain. Evolution in no way is an explination of "origins and creation". It does no such thing. Evolution attempts to explain how things change not how they got here in the first place. Why is it that you feel that evolution is the opposite of creationism?
It is not.
I don't understand why you feel it nessesary to deny evolution in order to believe in God?


Evolution says the atom is self-existant and not created and that it IT made everything.


No it doesn't!
Evolution says that life can change over time in response to the environment.

You say that Evolution has not been observed, well neither has Creation what makes one more beliveable than the other? Why can they not co-exist. Is your faith in the bible stronger than your faith in the truth?

Personaly I am offended by your assumption that beliefe in evolution means that I cannot belive in a higher purpous. Shame on you.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Halfo -- Stop trying to redefine what evolution is.

According to evolution life arose spontaneously in the soup. (no God)

Dead matter came to life on its own without God. All evolutionists believe this.


Second, once the dead matter that accidentally clumped together was struck by lightening or whatever they think might have done it in the soup BY ACCIDENT, then this very, very low-life creature started "evolving."

All evolutionists believe all living creatures come from this one "thing" in the soup, something less than a cell, some protein, some thing they have claimed to have been able to duplicate in the lab. Of course this thing they duplicate in the lab is DEAD, but that's okay. The evolutionist says somehow if you hit it right with some heat or electricity or whatever that this will come to life.

Then they say this thing kept on adding more and more DNA and changing from one kind to another, many plants kept splitting off from other plants. Then the plants began to turn into fish. The fish began to turn into reptiles. The reptiles crawled up on the land and turned into birds. The birds turned into mammals. The mammals finally evolved up the chain into monkeys and from there we get humans.

This is what they believe.

In reality what do we see? Do we see anything turning into something else? No. Everything is as it is, all perfectly formed. If evolution were occuring, woul it not be still occurring? Would we not see creatures half-way formed as they are morphing into something else? A milkweed caterpiller goes into a pupa and in two weeks emerges as a butterfly. While it's in the pupa it is a mushy mess as it morphs into the butterfly. Why don't we see any "pupa-like" creatures in real life? Only in the life of Disneyland of the evolutionist, with their artist renderings do we see these depictures of things "evolving." They say the dinosaurs turned into birds. Ha. Sure they did. The big haunches shriveled up and became little bird stick-legs, and the puny little forelegs turned into big wings. The scales became feathers. The teeth fell out and the mouth turned into a beak, on and on. It's beyond ludicrous but it's what they believe.

I hate to use the word, but the word microevolution comes up here. Microevolution is speciation. Speciation comes from the parent or kind, a splitting off. The genetic material was already there, put there by God. Evolutionists say mutation causes evolution, causes the simple to become complex. But speciation causes simplification (speciation) when you have a loss genetic material when a species is split off from the parent. This species may or may not be able to breed with the parent kind or with other species coming from the parent kind. There is a LOSS OF GENETIC MATERIAL in speciation.

One kind cannot turn into another kind because there is no genetic material there for that to happen. A turnip will never become a bumblebee.

Mutation results in damage to or loss of genetic material. Never does it result in the creation of new genetic material. Most mutations result in stillbirths or deformities. They most assuredly do not result in the production of a new "kind" or "family." And speciation is not technically a mutation. It is a splitting or a natural emerging of genetic combinations that were already within the parent kind, put there by God.

If you want to say you believe in evolution but in God too -- where do you draw the line? Where does God come into the picture? Did God create a bunch of atoms and then stand back and wait to see what happened? Did the atoms clump together by accident to form the earth, sun and moon that are perfectly sized and distanced from each other to support life on earth? Do you give God the credit for that part of creation? Then afterwards, did God just stand back and see what might arise all by itself on Planet Earth? Where does life come from? When you die, your body is just a bag of bones, no matter what a work of art your body is. Man can't create even one cell in the lab. Even if he could, it would still be a dead cell. DEAD. How do you get a planet full of living creatures without the author and finisher of life being part of that? Answer: It's not going to happen.

Life comes from life. This is a FACT. Not a theory. A FACT. The evolutionists would like to WISH this is not so, and they have a lame-brained THEORY (that I would not dignify as a theory because it is preposterous and it's been around long enough, this stupid "theory,") The evolutionists have had more than ENOUGH time to prove their stupid theory. I say time's up and let's just go with the EVIDENCE.

But no. The evolutionists say, why should we believe our lying eyes? And they just keep scratching in the dirt hoping for some magical creature to pop up that will prove there is no God, that evolution is true after all. The one who finds this proof will get the Nobel Peace Prize and become a billionaire and be a bigger hero than Neal Armstrong. (I say that sarcastically about Neal Armstrong). But they will be similar kinds of heros -- false and phony ones.

99 percent of government-funded "science" is seeking to disprove the existence of God. The government is controlled by the Illuminati. The Illuminati worship Lucifer. Duh. Figure it out yourself.

These are facts. Not theory. Facts. Since when is there something wrong with acknowledging facts as truth? Now all of a sudden if you do this, you are considered to be a supersitious religious creep who believes in that G word.

The Bible says The fool has said in his heart there is no God.

I'm no fool. I don't like being fooled. I will ask questions and use the brain God gave me and figure out things for myself. I will listen to what people tell me, but if what they tell me doesn't make any sense I don't care who it is that tells me. It can be Dan Rather, my high school science teacher, my parents, my best friend, National Geographic, the Smithsonian, the Pope -- I don't care. I can think for myself, and I will think for myself, and nobody is going to tell me that what I know isn't so, IS so.

Evolution.




[edit on 5-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
A fact is something that can be duplicated over and over again.


From what dictionary is this?


Gravity is a fact, not a theory.


Gravity is a theory. The movement of objects towards each other is a fact.


We can predict how it behaves, and it always behaves the same way.


Just because a phenomena has behaved in a consistent way in the past, does not mean it will continue to do so in the future.


A theory is a hypothesis that has not been proved, cannot be proved in the lab or observed to occur.


From which dictionary is this?

A theory and a hypothesis are very different things. I suggest you look at this thread which should explain to you clearly enough the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.


It cannot be duplicated in the lab, cannot be observed in nature, and in fact contradiccts all the known laws of nature and of physics.


Evolution contradicts gravity?


Creationism however, explains what we see around us in every instance and it can always be demonstrated and proved in every single instance.


How is creationism proved in a lab?



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   


According to evolution life arose spontaneously in the soup


SINCE WHEN!!!!
show me proof!!!!
Evolution does NOT postulate any such thing!!!!!




While most evolutionary biologists believe that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter. Yet many creationists argue that since scientists cannot fully explain the origin of life, evolution as a whole is flawed. Many vocal Young Earth Creationists, such as Kent Hovind, explain this by recasting "evolution" as a broader statement than the one typically accepted by mainstream science.

source




The idea that there is a dichotomy between creationism and the broadly termed "evolution" itself has been pointed out by opponents of creationism to be an example of a false dichotomy. Since it is in principle possible for someone to be a creationist while simultaneously accepting the fact of evolution (see evolutionary creationism), there may be no need for any controversy. Even the two alternative points of view, creation and evolution are not black and white options. There is a spectrum of views on these topics ranging from a belief in young earth creationism and disbelief in evolution to a belief in both atheism and evolution.


source same as above.

YOU are the one re-defineing evolution


The following is what I believe...




Theistic evolution, or the less common term, Evolutionary Creationism, is the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution.

Theistic evolution holds that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held both religiously and scientifically correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution.

This synthesis of religious teachings with science can still be described as creationism in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. For this reason, some on both sides prefer to use the term "theistic evolution" to describe this belief.

The term evolutionary creationism is used in particular for beliefs in which God transcends normal time and space, with nature having no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, in which, for example, the events of creation occurred outside time as we know it.


Evolutionary creationism

You go around telling people to open thier minds to illuminati yet your mind is as closed as any I've seen...



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Akashik -- You say it's not a fact that gravity exists. Yo are mistaken. It is a fact that gravity exists. There is a theory as to HOW it exists.
The idea that gravity will some day stop being gravity is ludicrous. I can't believe you'd suggest this. Meantime, gravity is a FACT. Please don't waste my time with bickering and stupid stuff.

Akashik:


A theory and a hypothesis are very different things. I suggest you look at this thread which should explain to you clearly enough the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.


I suggest I already know what a theory is already. If you don't like my definition, then YOU go read the old threads and bring me something you think is better

Akashik:


Evolution contradicts gravity?


I didn't say that, but yeah, in a way evolution actually does. The giraffe's neck contradicts gravity and requires a special heart to both pump the blood way up to the brain and then to keep the head from exploding when it bends over to drink. Only a determined, highly inventive and all-knowing Creator could come up with a design that in effect does "contradict gravity." And the calf is born in a special way that allows it to land safely on the ground from a high place without breaking its long neck. Evolution has no imagination, no sense of humor, and no intelligence to put together an atom, let alone a creature like a giraffe.



Akashik:

How is creationism proved in a lab?


Take your pick. Anything. You don't even need to go to the lab. Everywhere you look the Creation attests to the Creator. Try the "dead meat doesn't grow maggots experiment" which disproved years ago evolution's brainless-child "theory" of spontaneous generation. Take some chicken eggs and try to hatch one that's not fertilized. You can sit on it from now to Judgment Day and it won't hatch. Life comes from life. It takes TWO. Male and female are different, but they need each other to get each other. Get it?Did the sexes evolve over billions of years and then finally they were ready to get together and reproduce? Before that they popped new ones out of their ears or something?

Try to create a cell in the labon purpose. You can't. But you say this happened by accident. Dump some paint on a canvas and see if it turns into the Mona Lisa. You'll see that all you get is a mess. Do some mathematical calculations of the probability of elements randomly forming to create anything, let alone an eye, a brain, or even a toenail. Examine in the lab any creature on this earth, bar none, and you will see it is a wonder, an amazing wonder of creation, and that everything in this creature is all done, finished. There's no paratially formed anything on this creature, and it's already probably surpassed most any other creature in certain respects, because every living creature has its miraclulous abilities and structures. This is proof of a special creation. There are no morphing creatures. None.

Please don't do the go-through-the-whole-post and bicker routine or I just won't answer your posts. Pick the main point or points you want to discuss and make your case. I'm not here to bicker with people that just want to argue.







[edit on 5-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
Theistic evolution, or the less common term, Evolutionary Creationism, is the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution.

Theistic evolution holds that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held both religiously and scientifically correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution.

This synthesis of religious teachings with science can still be described as creationism in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. For this reason, some on both sides prefer to use the term "theistic evolution" to describe this belief.

The term evolutionary creationism is used in particular for beliefs in which God transcends normal time and space, with nature having no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, in which, for example, the events of creation occurred outside time as we know it.


My daughter's friend's biology book says the life came from the soup and lightning struck it possibly. I believe this is the standard evolutionist belief. Somebody on this board tell me differently. I think you'll find they all believe this.

As to your belief in theistic evolution as described above, to boil it all down it seems you're saying you believe God took his hands off creation after the first cell? Like we needed God to get things going, make the planet, sun and moon, the watery soup, and the first cell or even cells. But then God took his hands off and they just started evolving? Or God was there guiding the evolving? But God never just created anything living except that first cell? That's it? You agree that a cell is too complicated to form itself out of dead matter? You admit you need God to breathe life even into a one-celled creature? So why do you stop there? Why don't you believe God created all the billions of life forms, all unique and amazing in themselves? How could they come about any more than that first cell without God?

The Bible says Adam and Eve were real people. It could not have been an allegory because the Bible tells us how long they lived, said they had many chidren, gave the names of three of them -- Cain, Abel and Seth. The Bible goes on to give the genealogy of Jesus tracing back straight through David and on to Adam and Eve.

Like produces like. And life comes from life. This is an observable fact that never ever changes. If like does not produce like and if life does not produce life then the evolutionists may have a point. But since this is not the case. they can just keep digging in the dirt, which is where evolution belongs.

Speciation is NOT evolution. God already created the species and their genes were already placed within the parent kind. The first people on this earth carried the genes for all the races, all the types of people we see -- tall, short, blond haired, black, yellow, whatever. There was a parent "kind" for the horse family, the cat family, and when Noah went on the ark he took them by kinds, not species.

Evolution.



[edit on 5-11-2005 by resistance]
mod edit to correct BB quote code

[edit on 5-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Akashik -- You say it's not a fact that gravity exists. Yo are mistaken. It is a fact that gravity exists. There is a theory as to HOW it exists.


Correct, point taken.


The idea that gravity will some day stop being gravity is ludicrous.


I never said some day gravity will stop being gravity. Furthermore you have just called ludicrous your own twisting of my words.

What I did say was just because a phenomena has behaved in a consistent way in the past, does not mean it will continue to do so in the future.


Meantime, gravity is a FACT. Please don't waste my time with bickering and stupid stuff.


Please actually quote what I said next time, instead of twisting my words and replying to them. That way you can actually call what I've said stupid, rather than what you've rewritten.


I suggest I already know what a theory is already.


Good suggestion, however your comparison between a theory and a hypothesis shows you don't.


If you don't like my definition,


If you wish to ignore dictionary definitions for words, and instead use your own personal definition, in an attempt to make what would normally be nonsensical scentences into partially coherent ones, we will get nowhere.


then YOU go read the old threads and bring me something you think is better


That's exactly what I did.

Maybe you read my post too fast and missed it, so here it is again:

The Difference Between a Theory and a Hypothesis



Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Evolution contradicts gravity?


I didn't say that,


I agree you did not say that, however you did type it:


Originally posted by resistance
Therefore evolution as an explanation of origins and creation is a theory. It cannot be duplicated in the lab, cannot be observed in nature, and in fact contradiccts all the known laws of nature and of physics.


Gravity is a law of physics. You said that evolution contradicts all known laws of physics, ergo you said evolution contradicts gravity.


but yeah, in a way evolution actually does.


I thought this had already been established...


Only a determined, highly inventive and all-knowing Creator could come up with a design that in effect does "contradict gravity."


Probability is not absolute proof.


Evolution has no imagination, no sense of humor, and no intelligence to put together an atom, let alone a creature like a giraffe.


Do you expect the theory to have a personality?



Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
How is creationism proved in a lab?


Take your pick. Anything. You don't even need to go to the lab. Everywhere you look the Creation attests to the Creator. Try the "dead meat doesn't grow maggots experiment" which disproved years ago evolution's brainless-child "theory" of spontaneous generation.


Every experiment has a margin of error.


Take some chicken eggs and try to hatch one that's not fertilized. You can sit on it from now to Judgment Day and it won't hatch.


The theory of evolution does not claim that a non-fertilized egg is fertilized. Actually neither does creationism. This experiment will prove nothing...



Life comes from life. It takes TWO. Male and female are different, but they need each other to get each other.


Have you ever heard of Hermaphrodites?


Get it?


Not at all.


Did the sexes evolve over billions of years and then finally they were ready to get together and reproduce? Before that they popped new ones out of their ears or something?


Have you ever heard of Asexual Reproduction?


Try to create a cell in the labon purpose. You can't.


Evolution does not claim that cells can be produced in laboratory conditions.


But you say this happened by accident.


No I don't.


Dump some paint on a canvas and see if it turns into the Mona Lisa.


Given an infinite amount of time and trials such a thing will happen.


Do some mathematical calculations of the probability of elements randomly forming to create anything, let alone an eye, a brain, or even a toenail.


Probability is not absolute proof.


Examine in the lab any creature on this earth, bar none, and you will see it is a wonder, an amazing wonder of creation, and that everything in this creature is all done, finished.


Agreed
.

Unless of course this creature is deformed.


There's no paratially formed anything on this creature,


Evolution does not claim that partially formed "anythings" exist on any creature.


Please don't do the go-through-the-whole-post and bicker routine or I just won't answer your posts. Pick the main point or points you want to discuss and make your case.


The only way I can answer every one of your points is by quoting them, and answering them. Unless of course you want me to write 8 paragraphs in which I repeat all of my points, and give no thought to yours.

If you are going to ignore my posts, becuase I answer to everyone of your points, then so be it.


I'm not here to bicker with people that just want to argue.


There are plenty of creationist forums in which people will agree with you no matter what you say. This forum is for the exchange the ideas, and critical analyzation of them.

If you want to write your speculative theories somewhere where people will not critically analyze them, I suggest you post in the Skunk Works forum.

[edit on 5/11/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Akashik -- blah, blah, blah. I don't post with people who like to bicker.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Akashik -- blah, blah, blah. I don't post with people who like to bicker.


Do you want me to joyfully agree with you?

Write a large post outlining my points and ignoring yours?

If you do not want critical analyzation of your theories, you are welcome to post in the Skunk Works forum! That's why it's there, for speculative theories.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join