Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

Originally posted by Yoda411
Once again this demonstrates that the creationist argument is; we don't know therefor it is supernatural.

Everything is natural. Everything you see, and do, is natural. So, obviously, if we see something we can't explain, it IS "supernatural".

reply to post by Yoda411


Carbon 14 dating proves, according to evidence collected at the U of
Az, that dinosaur bones come in at under 10,000 years. But the pHD overseeing the research said we KNOW that can't be true so he directed the masters candidate to set up a separate graph for dinosaurs using the sam information but interpreting it in millions of years. I also have trouble with the non-human skulls as "proof" of evolution. Especially since so often they are trumpeted on the basis of one or rwo specimens only to be debunked on finding additional ones. Turns out they are not "almost" human after all.
"

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Incorrect.

Natural means that it exists within this universe. Supernatural means that it is independent of this universe and not subject to it's laws or reactions to it's interactions. Just because we don't understand a phenomena, doesn't mean it's supernatural. By definition, we cannot study a supernatural phenomena, because it leaves no evidence in the physical universe.

If you do not understand the mechanism behind IR sensors, that doesn't make remote control devices supernatural. We still don't understand the exact mechanisms behind the cause of gravity, but gravity is not supernatural.

First thing you need to do, is clarify your exact definition for a God. Obviously since you are debating about a God, you MUST have some type of definition for 0ne.

My definition of God is as follows:

I believe this is felicitous. If a god or gods do exist, then they are thus far completely beyond our understanding and detection. How, therefore, can you make any presuppositions about what YOU would expect god to be and go off in search of that? You are not searching for god, but for justification of your own suppositions.

I, myself, believe in a god... and a creator god at that.

Is that god omnipotent? I don't know.
Is that god omnicient? I don't know.
Is that god just? I don't know.
Is that god loving? I would hope so, but I do not know.
Is that god interested in a personal relationship with me? I don't know.

However, what I do know about reality and my (insubstantial) relationship to god/gods in this reality leads me to some logical conclusions.

Is god omnipotent? Not enough data.
Is god omnicient? If he is, I find it hard to accept him as just and personal.
Is god just? The presence of injustice make it doubtful, if he's omnicient and omnipotent.
Is god loving? I would hope so, I believe so, but I don't know. Tragedy and suffering seem to suggest that he is not if he is omnipotent, omnicient, personal, and just.
Is god interested in a personal relationship? He's yet to approach me on the buddy level, let alone the father-son/Mother-son level.

While my perceptions of god may also be painted with biases, I at least try to erect a basic framework with which to use reality to - not define god, but at the very least to falsify claims about him/her/it that apparently are not true.


[edit on 19-12-2008 by Lasheic]

if humans evolved from apes monkeys exc.... why do we still have apes mokeys exc... ???? i mea cmon think about it

Every time I see these kinds of debates, this is what gets me: Earth is one out of a nearly unimaginable amount of planets. Human civilization has only existed now for what- a few thousand years maybe? Modern science- especially evolution- is only a few hundred years old. I see the "scientific" people in here talking as if science is some unquestionable and concrete thing. I think its safe to assume however, that, in a universe billions of years old, a few hundred years of even the most logical and scientific thinking won't even scratch the tip of the iceberg.

No offense, but I find it as hysterical that Science is treated with such a certainty as most scientists find it that religion is treated as an absolute. I think it's a good bet that somewhere out there, the aliens are having a good laugh at Earth's "finest" minds.

Everything "Scientific" is the conjure of humans and nothing but humans. We've only managed to name what's around us. Our definitions of what's around us are likely completely wrong.

In addition, there have never been any factions other than humanity that have contributed to Science.

Religions around the world however, whether they are the more popular religions or more obscure, even tribal religions, have mostly said that higher intelligences, beings other than humans, have contributed to them.

It takes a only a brief look at history to see that humanity alone should not be trusted. Humanity will become blinded by pride if it takes too much confidence in itself. There's very little we've done on our own. Humans themselves have yet to even journey beyond the moon.

I find teachings that are said to be based off of the words of those from far beyond the Earth to be much more trustworthy than those of a civilization that is frankly, still quite ignorant of what's actually out there.

The textbooks of science will likely look nothing as they do at the moment 200 years from now. The holy books of religions, however, have been, for the most part, unchanged for much longer than modern Science has even existed.

I find the concept of putting one's faith in something that will, almost certainly, all be changed in a few hundred years absolutely absurd.

Religions are solid, have contributions from otherworldly beings, and most of their beliefs aren't going anywhere. I put my complete faith only upon solid ground, and only grounds that aren't the complete product of humanity.

My take is that I am not evolved enough to even begin to understand exactly what the creator of the universes grand plan is.Why should I?I can't even understand where my taxes go! My point is,if you knew the plan wouldn't that make you the creator?The truth is, if you believe, it is real to you no matter what and man will kill to prove it.I say go back to your taxes and understand where it goes and evolve....

[edit on 19-12-2008 by flyingfish]

I posted these questions on an earlier page, and I didn't get any responses, so I'm going to try again:

Originally posted by Warrior of Light
reply to post by Yoda411

 

Thanks for the explanation.

You said: "While they share very few similarities at the cellular level..."

So does this mean we do share some traits? Particularly chemical? Or are there just biological similarities which can be compared, but nothing more?


reply to post by Lasheic

 

Thanks for the responses.

Your statement: "Both plants and animals are Eukaryotic (they both have a nucleus). So we share some similarities."

So is the fact that both have a nucleus the only similarity? Do you know of any other similarities on a chemical level.


Another question I have, or rather another way of stating the general question I've been posing: Would it go against the laws of evolution for a mammal to naturally produce a chemical in its brain which is also produced by a particular plant species? Would this mean that plants and animals evolved from the same organism, that plants and animals are more closely related than evolution has theorized?


Also, for anyone who has knowledge or an opinion, why haven't we found more fossils or bones of primitive homonids? We have found some skulls, but I can only assume (based on my limited understanding) that with the number of dinosaur discoveries, we should also find more homonid skulls too. Is this because dinosaurs were more abundant and lived longer? After so many years of existence, the various homonids must have grown in number. And even if many of them died early on, their bones would still exist, right?

Once again, I am not trying to argue a point, I just want to learn. I have some questions that may seem basic to many, but science has never been my strong suit. So thanks for the helpful explanations from Yoda411 and Lasheic so far.

reply to post by infolurker


The reason we don't see the "inbetween" fossil record is that because corpses of individuals from those species were so quickly demolished by the "fitter" species that they could not have possibly survived. The only reason we have any fossil record AT ALL is because the species which actually left fossils were so widespread that any amount of geological events or biological consumption could not have possibly dealt with the sheer volume of these "fit" species' remains. The "inbetweens" never survived long enough, nor were they ever fit enough to leave enough remains, or fossils, that were to be preserved for very long at all.

Basically, only the most fit species actually left fossils because there were enough of them to be left. Fossils are very delicate. You need massive volumes to even consider having them preserved. Fossils aren't an absolute.

Not having an absolutely complete fossil record for the Jurassic era, for example, is insignificant to proving the theory of evolution. Examining evolution for the past hundred or so million years, there is enough proof to extrapolate the theory for several more millions of years, all the way to the beginning of life on Earth.

Also, for anyone who has knowledge or an opinion, why haven't we found more fossils or bones of primitive homonids? We have found some skulls, but I can only assume (based on my limited understanding) that with the number of dinosaur discoveries, we should also find more homonid skulls too. Is this because dinosaurs were more abundant and lived longer? After so many years of existence, the various homonids must have grown in number. And even if many of them died early on, their bones would still exist, right?

Bones are very fragile. So simply put, no there is no reason for them to have been preserved. The probability of a fossil being formed is even less than having bones or even organic material preserved. Basically, you need calcium to drip into a depression in the ground left by bones... not very likely. The hominid populations have always been abysmally low. They just barely pulled through. Only the best ones could leave fossils.

[edit on 19-12-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by centrifugal

It is a popular belief among creationists, and certainly receives the most attention when evolution is involved. But it does not define creationism.

actually it does creationism its self says it happens they exact way it did in the bible 7 days things made in thier present form (unless you go to the creationist museum which uses super evolution after the flood which is evolution on steroids to the point the genetic code would collapse and everything would need to breed birth rear to breeding age in about 6 hours for the 2000 years until jesus popped up)

what your describing is theistic evolution, god started the ball rolling and used evolution to get us where we are today

Nice try.

Theistic evolution, intelligent design and progressive creationism are all forms of creationism. None of these creationist views contradict the theory of evolution.

The OP is attempting to disprove Young Earth Creationism.

reply to post by Yoda411


The idea of evolution by natural selection is provably false. It rests on rampant assumptions, speculation, and extrapolations (such as the peppered moth obsession). It is as much a matter of faith as is creationism. It is not science. Creationist beliefs also have problems. Both have misinterpreted much of the Old Testament record. An objective analysis of both sides reveals emptiness. An alternative to both is clearly required. The evolutionists, hamstrung by “gradualism,” will never explain the origin of consciousness or of language. But if we recognize the inefficacy of gradualism, and if we recognize that the Genesis creation account is not all completely literal, and if we consider a new perspective, a rational paradigm presents itself. (Pardon my breathless sentence.) We must revise our world view. Check out

www.eloquentbooks.com/ManAndHisPlanet.html

Originally posted by TruthParadox
When does man evolve 'enough' to get the choice of heaven or hell?

We are not debating evolution of the soul, we are debating evolution of the body. The soul is seperate from the body. A mans "evolved" body does not get to choose between heaven or hell. It is going to be destroyed regardless according to the bible.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
The Bible says that God made man in his image... At what stage of man's evolution is this image reflected? What about when we evolve past that 'image'?

This image is reflected in the soul.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
In Genesis, it says that God made Adam and then made Eve. If God worked through evolution, then how could man have evolved without a female counterpart? Or is all of Genesis a lie?

You make the assumption that sexual reproduction is required for evolution. If a male/female counterpart is required then how is it that a single organism evolved to begin with? Perhaps this is where the sexes split.

Originally posted by Yoda411
-

Precambrian Era - 4600-1000 million years ago
Landmark Event:
- Origin of solar system and Earth.

[edit on 12/19/08 by Yoda411]

And before that?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And before that?

wait? Are we discussing Evolution or Abiogenesis?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And before that?

ohhh ohh - I know! Pick me!

God did it.

Originally posted by Warrior of Light
reply to post by Yoda411

 

Thanks for the explanation.

You said: "While they share very few similarities at the cellular level..."

So does this mean we do share some traits? Particularly chemical? Or are there just biological similarities which can be compared, but nothing more?

Cell Structure of a Plant:


Cell Structure of an Animal:


What is a chemical similarity between the two?
The sugar in DNA is 2-deoxyribose, which is a pentose (five-carbon) sugar. Obviously DNA is available in both Plants and Animals. Also, they can both produce similar proteins such as Cytochrome C.

reply to post by MEAT10AF


All your logistics are so generalized that they are completely irrelivent to even bother descussing. In another conversation on the end of the world you may state that "Anything could happen", which is so obviously true that it does not need to be stated.

What your arguing, in generalization, is that we are a relatively young species, that we are insuperior to other beings not from this planet, and that our technology and minds are all false.

The problem with this is that you cannot prove any of this what so ever.

"we are a young species"
What defines a young species? To make this speculation you must Give evidence of a timeline of thousands of species which have run their course and died out or evolved into something else from other planets. You may be able to see that the crocodilians are alot older than us, but then you must also find an end to them, other wise you cannot brand them as young or old. You can label them older or younger, but not the distinct versions of those.

"We are insuperior to other beings not of this planet"
Once again, if you make a claim you must prove it or it is irrelivent. You have no evidence to show that the majority of alien species are more intelligent and older then the human race. I could state that "because there are probably so many other species, and by the evidence on this planet that one out of hudreds of millions are really inteligent, must prove that we are actually more inteligent then most alien species" however, that is an irrelivent statement because IT CANNOT BE PROVEN.

"Our technology and minds are all false"
And yet again you use complete speculation and have no way of proving this. A good example is someone around the age of 60 saying that the 14 year old kid cannot beet me at chess because i have more experience. Your making a claim that all of our technology and all of our studies are completely wrong, so, you must obviously have undeniable truth on ever single aspect of what science has gave us. But, you cant, because you only use speculation to prove a point, which ironically does not prove anything.


Now, let me use your logistics to "prove" something to you. You claim that you dont trust anything man made, did you ever consider that the bible was written by man? did you ever concider the idea of god to be man made?



[edit on 19/12/08 by Ghost147]

Originally posted by Ghost147
reply to post by MEAT10AF

 

You claim that you dont trust anything man made, did you ever consider that the bible was written by man? did you ever concider the idea of god to be man made?

Forgive me for just plopping out quotes by great men, but, It adds to the point he is trying to make perfectly...

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men."

--Carl Sagan

Sorry, another shameless Sagan plug... but the man really was a genius...




[edit on 19-12-2008 by nj2day]

Wow! Yoda411 sure has done an incredible job and some incredible research for this thread. It's very impressive...

But...there is only one real way to get this argument to fly with the creationalists.

First...you need a diety to say all this, we must either nominate Yoda411 to Godhood or maybe an unrelated heretofor unknown diety named Evo.

It will look much more impressive though if you always type it E-o.

You need some kind of building with a lot of imagery and symbolry to house this information. I would try to get the Leaning Tower of Pizza. Not only does the logical and sensible E-o hold it up in defiance of all laws of gravity, but he makes a mean slice too.

Instant credibility.

But...you can't share this information for free!

There must be someone wearing some kind of outfit you would never wear out on the street or ask a girl out for Saturday night wearing who passes some kind of gilded collection plate at some point half way through the presentation.

There must be an antithist too, like Devo! The devolver, who can make you age backward into a single cell, as a catalyst to make the doom and gloom creationist crowd really get on board.

At the very least Yoda411 will need a really funny looking hat no one else has and no one else is alowed to wear.

All this should fly then!

Great job Yoda411!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


ooooh can I get one of those big hats? I've noticed that level of "holiness" is directly related to the size of your hat...

yeah yeah, what what , talk'n bout evolution word. all dem Christians are off their hizzie fo shizzie. I was gonna get down at the Trinity Church on Sunday, but fk that , now I have sceience and logic. thanks brother.