Evolution - Creation 'rabble rabble rabble'

Originally posted by Elijio
That does not account for the huge leap in intelligence from nenderthal man to us, and that the smarter ones lived longer and could mate more can be said for every other species. Why can't a chimp build a PC? see...

It's not like we just became the intelligent race which we are today. You can see a social-intellectual evolution throughout the ages, as we invented more and more. From the start, we can predict that man, or our prior species, started with tools, and built up from there. Eventually, over a fairly short period of time, considering how old the earth is, our minds evolved into the brains of today.

Also, you must take into account the heredity of a family. A child born in the jungle, and raised by chimps, will have a much different muscle structure, and mental capacity. We integrate our babies and children into an intelligent society. Who knows what a human would be like, if they didn't have their first words by the age of two, and if they didn't have an education. That child would not be intelligent. He would be out in the wild, working with all the aspects of survival that every other species works with.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by alpha_omega]

Originally posted by alpha_omega

Also, you must take into account the heredity of a family. A child born in the jungle, and raised by chimps, will have a much different muscle structure, and mental capacity. We integrate our babies and children into an intelligent society. Who knows what a human would be like, if they didn't have their first words by the age of two, and if they didn't have an education. That child would not be intelligent. He would be out in the wild, working with all the aspects of survival that every other species works with.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by alpha_omega]

So the tribes in the Amazon are not intelligent? edcation equates intelligence? Please clarify. This is a very good discussion IMO. I remember reading an article about our genetic makeup and us having
dna(?) that we didn't acquire from neanderthal man and it has something to do with scientists searching for a missing link. Perhaps someone who knows the article i'm speaking of can provide a link. If everything added up for them(scientists) there would be no search for a "missing" link, I think. It's very interesting and BTW what do you think of my Genesis theory? (Please be kind)

God created man. God created the angels. God knew ahead of time, that these people would deflect from him. Therefore God created evil.

God created the possibility of evil. Human sin resulted in evil being brought into the world

You stated that Satan chose not to follow God... therefore how would you be punished? If I, who is not a believer in God, were sent to hell by 'him', then why would I be punished by a fellow non-follower? That makes absolutely no sense.

You are not being punished by Satan. Satan is also there being punished.

How do you know God was there before anything? 'He just is,' is not a viable answer. You state that you want evidence to believe in something. There is no evidence for anything which you are saying right now. What evidence do you have that the universe isn't eternal, and God is? What evidence do you have that God is outside the universe? Where is this coming from? Is this just a random thought or belief of yours, that can not be backed up by anything? Evolution can be backed up with the exception of several gaps. What you state, can not be backed up by anything, other than faith and belief, there is no hard evidence. Just because you say something is true, doesn't mean it is. That goes for whoever told you all of that mumbo-jumbo.

I agree this is all about faith and you can choose if you believe me. Just because evolution can be backed up doesn't prove God cannot exist. You believe God doesn't exist by faith. Just as we cannot prove that he does exist, we believe he does by faith.

Science points back to the big bang, which indicates that the universe had a beginning and as a result is not eternal and you can't get something out of nothing, and so I believe that God was the one responsible for creating the universe.

Going back to #1... God knows everything that has ever happened, or will happen. Why would he create a person knowing that they would not follow. Why would he create me, if he knew that I would not follow? If I don't exist yet, then I don't have a free will yet. Why would he create me knowing this turn out? 'Live the way he designed us to live,' implies that we have no free will. We don't have a choice, we will do as he wants, that is exactly what you just told me.

We have the free will to choose our actions. God is outside time and so he looks at the universe at all times. He does know what we will choose, but just because he knows, doesn't mean that we cannot choose. God created you because he loves you. He didn't have to create you, but he did.

What pleasure does God get out of us? What evidence do you have to support this, and how do you know?

He has the power to create anything. Im sure he enjoys watching his universe work and seeing his children grow. Again the bible is my source. God created us so he can have a relationship with us.

"You created everything, and it is for your pleasure that they exist and were created" Revelations 4:11

Evidence. Creationists will never believe in Evolution for the lack of solid 100% evidence, even though we have 80% filled out. That is ironic however, considering the fact that they only want to believe the area which has the most evidence... and their area of belief to be true, has none...

Actually a number of creationists believe in evolution. One theory is that God used the Big Bang to create the universe and God created humans once evolution had done its job. I believe it is possible for evolution to exist to some degree. I find it unlikely that 80% of evolution theory complete.

Originally posted by Elijio
So the tribes in the Amazon are not intelligent? edcation equates intelligence? Please clarify.

Well, when comparing the intelligence of a man in the amazon, to a man who went through a public school system, and graduated from college, the college grad will have more knowledge. This could extend into geographical knowledge, world events, advanced mathematics, literature, electricity, physics, a great deal of knowledge that many tribes in the Amazon will never obtain, because nobody "passed it on-"to them.

Originally posted by Elijio
This is a very good discussion IMO.

Indeed. It's always a pleasure to be in a good discussion.

Originally posted by Elijio
I remember reading an article about our genetic makeup and us having
dna(?) that we didn't acquire from neanderthal man and it has something to do with scientists searching for a missing link. Perhaps someone who knows the article i'm speaking of can provide a link. If everything added up for them(scientists) there would be no search for a "missing" link, I think.

Well that's just it, everything hasn't been added up yet. Scientists gradually gained information and gradually began to piece it together. We have enough evidence to be able to base a reasonable theory, despite the gaps which we haven't yet discovered. No evolutionist (or real evolutionist), will ever tell you that we know everything, and that everything has been solved, and it's all been pieced together. We have a rather large majority of information, that pieces together in this way... we haven't found it all yet, but we are looking for those missing puzzle pieces at the moment.

Originally posted by Elijio
It's very interesting and BTW what do you think of my Genesis theory? (Please be kind)

I'm assuming that you are referring to the first book of the Torah, and Old Testament, telling of the creation of earth and man? I don't think that theory directly corresponds with what Genesis says. The part which says the creation of man... is:

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

This was on the "fifth day" of the the universe's creation.

1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

For one, obviously, it's impossible for it to be 5 days, because the sun, and earth, were not yet created for there to be "days," considering a day is a rotation of the earth. One could obviously argue that God put the earth that way, and set it in place to have 1 earth day, to be equal to 1 "God" day. So lets assume that a day, refers to 24 hours. It's impossible for evolution to have occured in 5 days, that quickly. If you truely believe that Evolution is real, and that God set in place evolution, then you would instantly disregard the fact that man evolved in a mere 5 days of life.

So, to what I think of the theory that Genesis describes the creation of "Homo Sapien," I don't believe it can be supported. Now, I know you said not to ask to prove your point, because you came to that conclusion over a period of time, so I will not question what you believe. I do however, hope that you take into consideration what I outlined above.

In addition for further thought, feel free to take into account that I'm an atheist, and that I believe all religious texts are a big load of crap.


Much love!=)

(forgot to finish my post, I'm editing it right now)

Originally posted by LancerJ1
I agree this is all about faith and you can choose if you believe me. Just because evolution can be backed up doesn't prove God cannot exist. You believe God doesn't exist by faith. Just as we cannot prove that he does exist, we believe he does by faith.

Actually, no. I don't believe in God do to reason, what many Creationists claim to have. When I think of God, I think of the probability of such a thing, and I use my reason to believe that he doesn't exist.

The definition of faith which best describes what believers in God, I believe would be:

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance

I have nothing to be loyal to.

Originally posted by LancerJ1
Science points back to the big bang, which indicates that the universe had a beginning and as a result is not eternal and you can't get something out of nothing, and so I believe that God was the one responsible for creating the universe.

Actually, the "Big Bang" doesn't describe the beginning of the universe. "Matter can not be created nor destroyed." If that were the beginning, matter would have been created. The Big Bang, describes how the Universe that we know of, came to be. Before the big bang, everything was supposedly one big rock. The Big Bang theory, doesn't describe a specific point of creation for everything. Some theorists believe that matter is in a constant cycle of combining to one big rock, exploding outword, coming back in... and it's a cycle that reamps constantly.

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Evidence. Creationists will never believe in Evolution for the lack of solid 100% evidence, even though we have 80% filled out. That is ironic however, considering the fact that they only want to believe the area which has the most evidence... and their area of belief to be true, has none...

Actually a number of creationists believe in evolution. One theory is that God used the Big Bang to create the universe and God created humans once evolution had done its job. I believe it is possible for evolution to exist to some degree. I find it unlikely that 80% of evolution theory complete.

As I explained in my previous post, that would completely disprove the book of Genesis, the first book of the Torah and Christian Bible. If you believe in that theory, than you should also believe that the book of Genesis has been disproven... which disproves the word of God (to many), which disproves God in the first place, which proves that evolution was the source of all life.


(that was very sketchy)

[edit on 17-8-2006 by alpha_omega]

As earlier stated, the big bang explains that which happened during the massive expansion of a singularity/point that became the universe. It does not attempt to explain that which "made" this point. However there are a number of proposed explanations for what "made" this point which do not need a God my favorite of which is the M-theory which also covers a number of other problems in physics. Unfortunately current technology cannot prove or disprove the string/m-theory: en.wikipedia.org...

I don't completely understand how people can insist that there is a God with zero proof. Why does the universe have to have been created by a God?

Science points back to the big bang, which indicates that the universe had a beginning and as a result is not eternal and you can't get something out of nothing, and so I believe that God was the one responsible for creating the universe.

This has got to be one of the most piss poor exuces I've ever heard, and quiet frankly I'm surprised people still use this one. GOD CAME FROM NOTHING. If you can't get something out of nothing, then where did your god come from? THINK.

If god could have always just been, then so could whatever properties that have lead to the universe. You don't know what existed prior to this universe. NO ONE does. Supernatural dieties were primitive GUESS'S. It started off with natural process's being from gods, slowly evolving into US being from gods. This is easily seen if you bother to look.

Originally posted by Prot0n
If god could have always just been, then so could whatever properties that have lead to the universe.

That is based on the precept that the Creator is a material being. All matter in the universe is governed by the laws of matter...slightly understood but tentatively predictable. But the Creator is not, and therefore is not governed by such laws

You don't know what existed prior to this universe. NO ONE does.

Exactly my point

Supernatural dieties were primitive GUESS'S.

Not quite...they were the result of visions experienced by early mankind, through deprivations, of another reality coexistant with the one we are in but still don't completely understand.

It started off with natural process's being from gods, slowly evolving into US being from gods. This is easily seen if you bother to look.

Look where, Prot0n...where have you looked?

This is a good discussion, however highly susceptible to individual prejudice.

The entire concept is based on a system of belief, whether you are a creationist, evolutionist or a combination.

Life based on evolution is NOT provable at this point in our technological development.

Creation is NOT provable period. At least until such time as one or more of the theological predictions comes true.

In order for a God to promote freewill, he (or she) can not reveal themselves. Doing so would eliminate all free choice in any faith based belief.

So almost all of this is based on faith or the social-economic structure of the individual.

Some very great scientists are religious, and vice versa.

Semper

Good points semper, however I would say that we wil never prove the Theory of Evolution, no theory ever gets proven. This is a basic 'problem' of science, it doesn't get at "The Truth" (notice the caps), but rather, at best "approaches the truth", or, as some have said "increases in truth-likeness (aka "versimilitude")".

But, at the same time, scientific theories can't be proven, but they work. Atomic theory is just a theory, atomic bombs work.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Good points semper, however I would say that we wil never prove the Theory of Evolution, no theory ever gets proven. This is a basic 'problem' of science, it doesn't get at "The Truth" (notice the caps), but rather, at best "approaches the truth", or, as some have said "increases in truth-likeness (aka "versimilitude")".

But science is the closest, most reliable, testable, logical way we've been able to come close to "the truth" as you put it.

No argument from me on that point!

Nor from me.

Still I assert the individuality and thus the impossibility of any averment to another's point of view.

I for one, support them all, and criticize them within my own mind.

Semper

The only problem I have with believers of creationism/ID is when they try to push it as fact or just as scientifically possible as evolution. This ideas fails completely for a number of reasons, one of the most noticeable being the fact the ID is unfalsifiable, so it is not scientific at all.

Originally posted by alpha_omega
Actually, no. I don't believe in God do to reason, what many Creationists claim to have. When I think of God, I think of the probability of such a thing, and I use my reason to believe that he doesn't exist.

The definition of faith which best describes what believers in God, I believe would be:

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance

I have nothing to be loyal to.

Nonetheless this is still faith. Your definition of faith is just one aspect. I believe a better definition for this would be "believing in something without conclusive evidence".
Wiki gives some good info here

Actually, the "Big Bang" doesn't describe the beginning of the universe. "Matter can not be created nor destroyed." If that were the beginning, matter would have been created. The Big Bang, describes how the Universe that we know of, came to be. Before the big bang, everything was supposedly one big rock. The Big Bang theory, doesn't describe a specific point of creation for everything. Some theorists believe that matter is in a constant cycle of combining to one big rock, exploding outword, coming back in... and it's a cycle that reamps constantly.

Maybe God created the matter.

As I explained in my previous post, that would completely disprove the book of Genesis, the first book of the Torah and Christian Bible. If you believe in that theory, than you should also believe that the book of Genesis has been disproven... which disproves the word of God (to many), which disproves God in the first place, which proves that evolution was the source of all life.

I am assuming that creation was during a much longer period than 6 days. I dont think God was meaning earth days. So this does not disprove Genesis or anything else you said.

Originally posted by alpha_omega

Actually, the "Big Bang" doesn't describe the beginning of the universe. "Matter can not be created nor destroyed." If that were the beginning, matter would have been created. The Big Bang, describes how the Universe that we know of, came to be. Before the big bang, everything was supposedly one big rock. The Big Bang theory, doesn't describe a specific point of creation for everything. Some theorists believe that matter is in a constant cycle of combining to one big rock, exploding outword, coming back in... and it's a cycle that reamps constantly.

What, since when did this happen? "Matter can not be created nor destroyed." I think you mean Energy cannot be created or destroyed not Matter. Remember E=MC2 so matter can be destroyed/converted to energy.
Since when was there a 'big rock' before the big bang? Are you inventing this stuff as you go along?


G

"big rock" is perhaps misleading, more than likely it was a point/singularity or something similar. Maybe god did create the matter, but what proof do you have of this? I also must disagree with the idea that early ideas of god were not speculative evidence based on ignorance. The idea of god/gods originated from a lack of knowledge, for example people did not know how lightning was created or what it was so they determined that some sort of ultra-powerful being must be the cause. This is ignorance, not legitimate evidence that god exists as they use to think. God was originally (and sitll is) a creation of man's ignorance and the in ability of his man's brain to comprehend how certain things work. God was not thought up because of "premonitions" or "visions" early man had of another reality. Besides the obvious "where is the proof?" question, a number of other questions must be raised. For example how does this god of another reality interact with our reality? Going even deeper, how is it possible for god to interact with our reality since it is bound by the uncertainty principle which the god of this alternate reality would have to not be.

Originally posted by Valhall
Actually he is applying the scientific method - to the theory of evolution - and then pointing out where that theory falls short when the scientific method is applied. It's called a logical argument.

BUT - I have some physical proof I would like addressed that I have presented a couple of times on this board and never gotten an adequate answer to.

Scientists extracted the DNA of a honeybee trapped in amber 40 million years ago and then they compared it to the modern day honeybee. THEY WERE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL.

By applying Darwin's survival of the fittest rules and the theory of evolution wouldn't this mean...

1. The honeybee is apparently the ultimate design, and
2. We're all evolving toward superior honey-bee-ish-ness?

Please help me understand. *bzzzzzz*

nope.

it just means that the honeybee has all of the features it needs to have survived for so long. the honeybee is the ultimate honeybee, and that's the short and long of it.

Ah yes, evolution versus Creation, Science versus people who killed thousands rather then admit the Earth is round.

Anyways, it wasn't a big rock, it was a Singularity. Also, it was not a Big Bang but a Big Expansion. Scientists believe that there may actually be a process where the Universe itself expands and collapses every few Trillion years or so. Creation? "God did it!"

Science has answers, Creation... Not so much. Creation is all faith while Science has proof. Theory of Gravity? Just ask Sir Isaac Newton. Atomic Theory? Just ask a Japanese man who is his own night light. Oh and the people at Chernobyl what that healthy green glow is coming from the ground. Evolution? Fossil records, genetic mapping, watching it happen in labs with bacteria, viruses, Fungi, plants, so forth.

Then of course there is the falacy that Darwin ever said "Survival of the Fittest". He never said this, he spoke of animals adapting to what best suited them. Just because the animal may be best suited for living in say, Africa, drop it in Canada and watch it die. So at best, he would have said "Survival of the animals who adapt the fastest to their surroundings".

Also, Darwin never recanted Evolution on his death bed. This lie was started by, of course, a Creation believing Bible Thumper who wasn't even in the country at the time of Darwin's death let alone at his bedside. Darwin was scared out of his mind to release his theories because of persectuion from the church. When he was finally convinced by several people he worked with to release his work he got hate mail, death threats, things thrown at his house, and one time even attacked. Although he got lucky, Christians usually go in and slaughter the whole city when someone had "blasphemes" material. Although the Church wasn't the all powerful being it had been and didn't have the armies it use to have so that's probably why.

The only proof of Creation is... The church killing people who disagree with it. That's all the proof they ahd of flat Earth, Earth Center with everything revolving around it. When someone produced evidence this was wrong, they killed them. They didn't try to present evidence of what they thought was right, they just went in and sometimes killed entire families and towns if the person had told others or it was feared he had told others of his work. Actually, one case, the village was nearly wiped out, except for the kids... I wonder what the CHurch did with all that young supple little boy meat...