Creation v Evolution argument can end

a reply to: LABTECH767

Well im no scientist, but i don't recall Evolution being called Factual any more then religion being called the same

a reply to: Raggedyman

So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically.

Animals that exist now didn't exist in the past, animals that existed in the past don't exist now.

Evolution.



There are no Tyrannosaurus now, there were no chickens then.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

You can't do it now. They know!

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Raggedyman

So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically.

Animals that exist now didn't exist in the past, animals that existed in the past don't exist now.

Evolution.

There are no Tyrannosaurus now, there were no chickens then.

I like it! Using Ray Comfort style logic to support evolution in front of a creationist!

My mind is blown and humbled at the same time!

I wish I could give you about 500 stars and 2 applause.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

I have no shame.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

How about a fish that learned to walk... more or less

There have been walking catfish in Florida for centuries. Didnt happen overnight.Sometimes they migrate clear across the breadth of that state.

a reply to: Raggedyman

There is no denying organisms change over time, and that changes stack up over time. Neither can natural selection be disputed. Why does this have to come into conflict with believing in a higher power? Can evolution not be another mechanism of the Lord, that we are just recently becoming aware of? It's like gravity; It was there the whole time, before we knew what it was or how it worked. And it's not in the bible. Yet a fundamental part of this Creation we live in. Why must these be at odds? Because of Genesis? Our modern bibles do not carry the most accurate depiction of Genesis anyhow. Sumeria's version was most likely closer to the truth, and even then I'm sure they didn't have the story quite right. Praise Allah, in any case. Whoever he is.

Bananafish



Your god is not here.

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
a reply to: Akragon

What if beached whales are just trying to learn how to walk on land, and we keep pushing them back in the ocean?

That is the funniest thing I have read all day!

a reply to: LABTECH767

The article you linked says people don't spontaneously develop fish gills doesn't it? I wouldn't expect that, or associate it with Darwinian evolution.

a reply to: Akragon

Well stated, however your own reminiscing about your school education is not actually the same experience for the majority in the western world today, most country's are imposing a secularist system often with teachers educating this theory as undeniable fact even in many of those country's that formerly regarded themselves as predominantly christian nations and the effect can be seen in an erosion of opinion driven social care and morality among the generations growing up in these country's and the effect this less altruistic animalistic outlook has upon there group mentality.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Perhaps...

but i would prefer that type of education system, as opposed to the answer to almost every question asked being "god did it"

Education and religion should remain separate... Unless one chooses to study religion in school

As far as i know secular schools teach, We're learning... not We have all the answers, which is what religion teaches

a reply to: VP740

I am actually a Christian, as for gill's we do not have the genetic instructions to produce them and so they are not part of us, the argument based in evolution is based around study of similar formation's within the body and that of animal's with similar structures and claiming that since they are similar they came from the same ancestor, hence mr hadock over there is the cousin of mr atheist over there (other direction), personally I think there is something fishy about the whole argument.

Historically Evolutionary theory was a useful political tool to justify the oppression of other people's by claiming they were less EVOLVED and therefore MORE animal.

I see no problem with the theory but feel free to disbelieve it at my leisure and there is no undeniable proof of it being a factual model.

Now if I fall into my scientific education (indoctrinated) mode let me show you some prime example's and how they are used.

An ancient fossil with feather's, oh that mean's bird's are raptors and they evolved from dinosaurs.
Since the end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago (I will leave the argument about how dating and chronology can be wrong out as it would drag on and on and on) there have been repeated appearance's (Evolution's if you believe in it) of creatures into the same or similar ecological niche's, rhino's and before them rhino type animals of comparable mass that we would recognise as rhino's but were no relative to them have appeared many time's and gone extinct, the marsupiels were replaced by the womb endowed mammal's as there offspring had a higher chance of surviving due to being born larger than the masupiel's which are extremely tiny and vulnerable and grow up outside there mother's body in a pouch, Panda's are descendants' of a bear that lived just like a grisly and looked just like it but was not a grisly or indeed an ursine species so was not related to the bear (If you believe in evolotion).

SO then where are the other races of man since man is a successful species, why has he not evolved before and gone extinct and evolved again and gone extinct and evolved again?.

Why did the fauna on new zealand adapt so very diffferently and yes it is insectoid and lizard's with bird's arriving by air much later but given the massive size of the Zealandia continent when at times' in the past it was above water why did maga fauna not evolve there until the bird's, or homotherium big cat analogues (Cat's are another species that supposedly kept evolving and going extinct and evolving again, from even before the dinosaurs though the early analogues if evolution was right would have been saurian, and there are so many other examples).

What it say's is that Evolution keeps copying itself not a linear progression, it keep's failing and then going back with what is essentially the same DESIGN all over again, bit strange don't you think.

Now I am a pre adamite believing christian, I believe there were humans or human like being in the distant past and that our race is different because of the type of soul, my religion bears it out in that former human's from a former human race (in the resurrection you shall be like the angel's) a group of angel's came and mated with human's not long after they had been sent out to REPOPULATE the earth, there children were abherations (hybrids) called nephilim and GOD was angry when he found that the new race had been polluted, it was doomed to become the same failure as the older race had been so he wiped it out but saved some pure specimen's, cleaned the petri dish and set them back to repopulate the earth again this time with a much more stringent guard upon the project.

Of course that is over simiplifying it, but I see no clash between evolution (once it is started up that is, first you have to have a complex eco system as otherwise a few chemicals becoming living self replicating complex macro molecular structure fundementaly violates all the law's of conservation of energy) and religion, it is just in the interpretation of it and the battle ground it has become between Atheist Fundementalists and Religious Fundementalists.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Akragon

Well stated, however your own reminiscing about your school education is not actually the same experience for the majority in the western world today, most country's are imposing a secularist system often with teachers educating this theory as undeniable fact even in many of those country's that formerly regarded themselves as predominantly christian nations and the effect can be seen in an erosion of opinion driven social care and morality among the generations growing up in these country's and the effect this less altruistic animalistic outlook has upon there group mentality.

Iran doesnt have that secular problem and look how well they are doing - oh...

a reply to: LABTECH767

Lot of interesting stuff, but no corroborating articles or sources?

a reply to: LABTECH767

So in your opinion, organisms adapting to fill the niches they find themselves in is more difficult to believe than:

I believe there were humans or human like being in the distant past and that our race is different because of the type of soul, my religion bears it out in that former human's from a former human race (in the resurrection you shall be like the angel's) a group of angel's came and mated with human's not long after they had been sent out to REPOPULATE the earth, there children were abherations (hybrids) called nephilim and GOD was angry when he found that the new race had been polluted, it was doomed to become the same failure as the older race had been so he wiped it out but saved some pure specimen's, cleaned the petri dish and set them back to repopulate the earth again this time with a much more stringent guard upon the project.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I understand why people accept evolution. It is a common sense, simple to believe theory for those who dont accept God.

Well, firstly, evolution is a reality whether one accepts it or not, and it is not exactly as common-sensical as you may want to make it seem. Secondly, there are those who accept both evolution and God (the archbishop of Canterbury and The Pope are two that immediately come to mind).

I once believed it myself

Facts don't require your belief.

O know many christians who believe in evolution, I consider them christians. That means my faith doesnt hinge on me believing in creation, I can be a christian and believe in evolution.

And you are absolutely correct in this!

So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically.

I have offered you evidence that can't be refuted, but it seem as if you ignored my response to yours in the other thread.

I should first like to start with evidence of microevolution. I suppose some of you may be asking what the hell is microevolution?
Microevolution is, essentially, evolution WITHIN a species (think bacteria, drosophilia melanogaster [fruit flies], viruses, etc.) What evidence do we have for microevolution? Well, antibiotic-resistant bacteria immediately come to mind, and such bacteria accentuate one of the fundamental tenets of evolution which is natural selection. These bacteria are the ones who will survive against the antibiotic (say, penicillin) and thus reproduce and produce successive generations that, too, are resistant to said antibiotic.

MACROEVOLUTION, on the other hand, is more complex. It is essentially evolution on a much larger scale that involves different gene pools--either it involves the separation of species, or evolving from one species into a completely new species. There are some evidences for this: just a few off of the top of my head being the physiological similarities among humans, chickens, and fish in their embryonic stages. Humans and chickens have what is called a pharyngeal pouch, and something called a post-anal tail. This particular structure sits at the back of the throat between the esophagus and the mouth... the structure in fish later becomes its gills (look up pharyngeal gills).


Such physiological similarities indicate common ancestry. Additionally, we share about 98% DNA similarity with chimpanzees! This indicates that we are pretty close relatives with them. This is all very fascinating things and the physiological evidences for macroevolution are further discussed in a book called "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Very interesting read and I highly recommend it.

If we have empirical evidence there can be no assumptions.

There really are no assumptions in evolution.

A bird with longer wings, a fly with a special adaptation, its not proof as far as I am concerned,

Your concerns are irrelevant to evolutionary biology.

it may well be to you and I accept that.

And to the entirety of biology, really.

Micro evolution just doesnt hold enough weight in my opinion.

Really? Why don't you write a paper contending microevolution and submit it to a scientific journal for review? I am sure you will change their minds.

a baby human with gills, yeah, that would be something as well

Not quite a baby, but we have something quite similar to gills in our embryonic stage as mentioned above.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I see no clash between evolution (...) and religion...

I'll agree with that. I've known plenty of Christians who believed in Evolution.

I am a man without earlobes, wisdom teeth and barely any nipples, all of which are useless unless you are into piercings (wisdom teeth excepted).

I therefore believe I am a living example of Evolution in action and that's just some physical traits!

Mentally I recently read a book called the Happiness Trap about Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, I realised after reading the book I had been doing everything written since before I could read, I essentially operate on a higher state of consciousness.

I can also walk on water and levitate and move objects with only my thoughts and eyes.

originally posted by: Forensick
I am a man without earlobes, wisdom teeth and barely any nipples, all of which are useless unless you are into piercings (wisdom teeth excepted).

I therefore believe I am a living example of Evolution in action and that's just some physical traits!

That's not exactly how evolution works...

Unless earlobes and nipples start hampering the rest of our ability to survive and procreate...

a reply to: Forensick

I can also walk on water and levitate and move objects with only my thoughts and eyes.

You might want to be careful practising that water walking thingy though, just saying.