Evolution Discussion

[Rinpun]

Do you think Evolution or a hybrid with religion is true?

Why do you think so?

Where have you heard about it?

Were you raised in it?

----

Please answer those questions before entering this discussion in where I intend to make it clear the Evolution is not actually proven true

Do you think Evolution or a hybrid with religion is true? No to both.

Why do you think so? I have yet to see true Evidence that suggests it exists. Adaptation is different than Evolution and besides, it only occurs in Bacteria and Viruses, and never in any other creature.

Where have you heard about it? I studied under an Evolutionist Professor for High School Biology, so I have an idea about what he was getting at. I do not, however, believe it, for there are way too many pieces of evidence suggesting no, it's not true.

And I have read about it in books and the internet and the word of mouth, so I highly doubt my knowledge is misguided.

Were you raised in it? No, my parents are both Christian. As a result, I somewhat consider myself Christian, but I have yet to conclude that God exists or not. I have been performing experiments, and they suggest both ways. I have been taught by an Evolutonist, but I refused his belief in Evolution, and it has not effected my opinion in the matter except that I can now discuss Evolution without throwing garbage that most Christians spout, since they themselves never really bother in things like Biology, except for a very few.

 

[Logical_1]

Lemme see if I can help with the question of if there is a God. Answer the following:

Where did everything come from?

 

[SD_Ryoko]

YES, they have the skulls. The have the ICE MAN. The do have pre-historic skeletons as well. There WAS a primitive man I tell you. Theres tons of evidence.

Evolution won again last week. The supreme court ordered schools to remove a sticker from the science books that said "Evolution is a theory, not a fact".

But how we got here is for you to pick.

Independantly, or nudged along by a higher force. There are MAJOR time jumps that are yet unexplainable.

Theres no possible way we ALL came from an amoebia by luck.

GET THIS: Plate techtonics are still considered a theory. But so much evidence and studies exist, and it makes perfect sense. All earthquakes recorded have been plotted into lines almost perfectly.

They even have NAMES for the plates. The news and MSN said the burma plate slid under another over in indonesia.

So WHY - would plate techtonics be a theory?

Because - its just such a MASSIVE (world wide massive) thought, it may never be possible to prove.

 

[Logical_1]

Here's a link to check out: http://www.higherpraise.com/WilderSmith.htm

 

[Rinpun]

Originally posted by SD_Ryoko
YES, they have the skulls. The have the ICE MAN. The do have pre-historic skeletons as well. There WAS a primitive man I tell you. Theres tons of evidence.

Evolution won again last week. The supreme court ordered schools to remove a sticker from the science books that said "Evolution is a theory, not a fact".

But how we got here is for you to pick.

Independantly, or nudged along by a higher force. There are MAJOR time jumps that are yet unexplainable.

Theres no possible way we ALL came from an amoebia by luck.

GET THIS: Plate techtonics are still considered a theory. But so much evidence and studies exist, and it makes perfect sense. All earthquakes recorded have been plotted into lines almost perfectly.

They even have NAMES for the plates. The news and MSN said the burma plate slid under another over in indonesia.

So WHY - would plate techtonics be a theory?

Because - its just such a MASSIVE (world wide massive) thought, it may never be possible to prove.

Show me this bloody evidence! I keep asking and I'm not receiving! I have no reason to receive any notion that Evolution is correct if they can't even show me their "evidence" which is actually either a skeleton of a man or monkey.

There are no found missing links. People perceive that they exist, but they do not know, and they have not found them.

I honestly don't care. Whilst the sticker is entirely true, I don't care if kids grow up blind. I could care less, because Evolutionists do so little for the world with their theories it is amazing. We don't need to fascinate ourselves with the new idea of where we come from, but how that helps us in the future. Duh, a bacteria "evolves", so what are you gonna do about it? Evolutionists friggin postulate, they have never really got down to doing anything action-based in a while. "Lucy" as I've mentioned before, is a few shards of bone that look EXACTLY like a human pygmy. We all know about those little guys in Africa...right? Well, apparently they lived all over the world alongside the larger humans. No, they were not related to monkeys. And most importantly, no, they were not by any means stupider than the taller humans beside them.

Exactly, and for that reason I fail to see how "Evolution is completely proved and therefore true." Humanity is hopeless if it keeps this kind of reasoning--and it's Disney company that throws a bunch of senseless hippies into the world that start complaining then they realize the world isn't a disney movie.

That's funny, because to me Plate Techtonics seems nearly true. It has been predicting accurately for some time so it must have some truth to it, right?

Evolution though, cannot be compared, since it has nothing that it has ever added or helped anything except as another thought about where we came from. Let alone those ugly time gaps, you've been talking about. I can't believe the blind still state that it's possible to come from an amoeba in billions of years. It doesn't take a non-Christian non-Evolutionist Scientist to prove that changes are always MINOR and will forever be MINOR. Minor changes always switch back, and it's called gene variation. Evolutionists like to believe, however, that somehow adding a billion years to the subject. It is virtually impossible to get a bacteria to even grow into a worm. The graphic detail is way too deap, and somewhere along the line, if it actually works without divine help, you'll end up with only some organs evolved yet the other ones you need are gone, and therefore the new "worm" quickly dies out.

The only answer I can find is either just God, or God and Evolution together. Gradualization hasn't proven to be correct.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

Maybe not everyone is convinced soley on one theory or another; nor have to be.

No evidence for evolution? Try evidence for religion. If any of it was solid, there wouldn't be soooo many religions. Gotta love how every one thinks they are the right one.

Notice, many concepts of religion, but not different theories of evolution?

My family is mostly catholic. My brother worships trees. I myself follow the 'force'. C'mon, everyone likes star wars.

CLEARLY this well made video is evidence the force is true.
http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/star.htm

uuuuuuuuuuuuuse the forcee

 

[Rinpun]

Correct.

Correct! That's why it's called "Religion". You take on "faith" that this is what you believe, even though it might not make complete sense. My problem here is that Evolutionists like to think that Evolution is a Science, where, actually, their belief is so off with it's little evidence, if any at all, that Evolution should be classified a Religion. And yet, they don't. It is so messed up to the point it isn't even funny.

I don't, however, go along saying "I won't even consider your theory as there is no chance of being a God". Whilst we can't prove the majority of religion, you will know that there most likely is a God. I suggest you listen to the Evolution or Creation in the link that Logical put up. I listened to it just for fun, and it was quite explanatory. Things to not gather together randomly without the help of SOMETHING!! Energy + Matter does not equal life, but rather Energy + Matter + (Something else) equals life. In the lecturer's words, you need 'concepts' to be added. You NEED a design. Now one can argue that, for some reason, that working designs can come together randomly in a very long period of time. But, this period has to be a lot longer than several Billion years! If you could deduce that working designs automatically formed for some reason, the process would take a lot longer than 3-4 Billion years. If this were the case, we should still be bacteria slowly building our way up to fish and worms. If bacteria can ever hope to breach the gap into creating an organized collection of cells, then Evolution can, possibly, take place over several billion years to create Humans. However, since this has yet to be proven, there is no evidence that Evolution be true. Bacteria are Bacteria.

So, I can easily agree with your theory to the extent that there must be some designer for the DNA. What we have yet to deduce though, is if God really did make Humans and all the animals, or started off bacteria with the designs to create everything. You can read Genesis both ways.

With God creating the world and then animals in "days", you can go so far to say that days are a long amount of years for God and that "making" may be a metaphor. He could've just made bacteria to "evolve" into creatures so that at the end of x God days, these particular creatures were evolved.

And you can look it like a Christian where you take the passage seriously. God created everything and they all lived alongside. The fossils in the ground, if not just a human or ape, could've been a species that went extinct. It wouldn't have to be a "missing link" if it was just a special kind of designed ape or human. It's like how mammoths went extinct. They don't have to have much relation to Elephants in that one evolved from the other, along a particular branch of the Evolutionary tree, but rather that God wanted to create an insane amount of variety.

Since there is a "design" implemented into beings, there must be a designer or designers. Call it what you like. Force, God, Almighty One, Mother Nature (God as he roams in the Earth--though I don't think he wants his creations worshipped (trees, plants, other things Druids worship) but rather himself).

And heheh, I listened to that funny flash a while ago. It was very amusing

 

[Mind]

Neglecting the existence of God with complete certainty is perhaps somewhat arrogant or simplistic, but neglecting the truth of The Theory of Evolution with total sureness is completely nonsensical.

Originally posted by Rinpun
Do you think Evolution or a hybrid with religion is true?

The theory of evolution, in my insight, is true. It would be supernaturally coincidental if all species on earth didn't share a common ancestry, although they are similar to eachother.

The chance that molecules are coincidentally put together and form an amoeba is incredibly small.

Yet, you believe that every life-form arose apart?!

Originally posted by Rinpun
Where have you heard about it?

I don't quite remember. In a zoo, I believe.

Originally posted by Rinpun
Why do you think so? I have yet to see true Evidence that suggests it exists. Adaptation is different than Evolution and besides, it only occurs in Bacteria and Viruses, and never in any other creature.

That is either foolish or hypocrite. I'm sorry, but I can no longer suppress my disbelief and irritation. What you just said, was that we all are identical!

Sigh.
Why am I arguing with you? You're simply to stubborn to listen.

Originally posted by Logical_1
Where did everything come from?

As I said, molecules were coincidentally put together in such way, that they formed an amoeba with magnificently complicated deoxyribonucleic acid. An amoeba is the simplest life form, which slowly evolved…

The chance that this happens is extremely low, but time had enough patience.

Originally posted by Rinpun
"Lucy" as I've mentioned before, is a few shards of bone that look EXACTLY like a human pygmy

What the hell do you know about that? You've never even seen it!

Originally posted by Rinpun
I can't believe the blind still state that it's possible to come from an amoeba in billions of years.

Amoeba's often split up. That is how their chance of survival was increased significantly and rapidly.

Originally posted by Rinpun
The only answer I can find is either just God, or God and Evolution together. Gradualization hasn't proven to be correct.

And how would you explain the existence of God?

If your God is almighty, then he is a sadistic, contemptible, loathsome monstrosity, whose only pleasure is to torment its creations!

Originally posted by SD_Ryoko
My family is mostly catholic. My brother worships trees. I myself follow the 'force'. C'mon, everyone likes star wars.

My God is called "the coincidence".

 

[SD_Ryoko]

Luke! Use the force! Run to vegabond! Run to Vegabond!

I'm Yoda! Im a soldia! You won't believe your eyes when you see the X-wing rise!

 

[Mind]

Please don't try to bend the conversation. I know my previous reply was pretty arrogant, but that is a bad excuse.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

I am expressing my religious views like everyone else is.

 

[Rinpun]

May you explain why? Pardon, but you do sound arrogant, convincing yourself that denouncing Evolution is like denouncing that grass is green.

And carried a design for looking similar, while not following the same function.

What? I don't understand quite what your stating, but I will admit that we all have a similar design and therefore look similar. Too stubborn to listen? Well, whatever, go and state to a blind man that he can see. It's all the same.

If you throw random bits of inanimate objects into an infinitely lasting-long Earthquake, those little bits will not form life. At the very least, they can conjoin together in small parts before breaking up again, because it is during an eternity-lasting Earthquake, which keeps shaking and eventually destroying any bondage the parts have with one another.

And, as I've stated before, oh stubborn one, that Matter and Energy do NOT create life! Look at robots for goodness sake! They don't have a soul and can't think, and they're made out of bloody energy and bloody matter! Of course, this is a bad example, since robots are created by humans and so, have a purpose. I should say, a better example may be a rock. Take a rock and charge it with energy or anything you can find really, the rock will not roll itself along, even if it has energy it can use. Take a corpse and charge it with energy, you will find that it will not budge. Even though it contains the design to walk and talk and think, it will not. Something has left the being, and it is not energy! A being who died from a disease should be rid of the bacteria in time, and still has the blood and organs, if they're kept from decaying, should live with energy put in, no?

....

As the above example, bacteria can not come out of inanimate objects, no matter how long you wait. And monkeys or fish will never come out of bacteria, no matter how long you WAIT! If it's a friggin minor upgrade, it has a FRIGGIN MINOR EFFECT, and minor effects DO NOT AND NEVER WILL bunch up to create a major effect and a major upgrade.

What's this then?

http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/novs.jpg

Best picture I can find. Show me a better one or something. It's a pygmy. The skull doesn't look too special, and it's structure looks entirely like a human's. This is a midget, folks.

Except when you kill all the amoebas. Earthquakes do that. Floods to that. And, Volcanoes do that. I'm surprised the amoebas lived in their billions of years worth of "evolving" in circles.

I can explain his existence as I've already stated it. I see DESIGN in these creatures, not just inanimate objects. Therefore, there must be a designer, lest we all be like the rocks of the ground.

Please explain how he has been tortureous. You've obviously forgotten sin and you've obviously forgotten the STUPIDITY of man. If this God does indeed exist, he has been rewarding those who have faith in him who have died by lunatics and of the harsh conditions God originally made the world in.

Coincidence, eh? Yep, I knew it, you're insanely stubborn and too blind to know it.

I will actually accept your views on the matter, but I of course will not agree with them. Not because I'm Christian because I'm not, but because I've studied many of what little Humans know of the universe and this is what I've been able to piece together. If you have any logic at all, you will know it is best to actually look at the big picture, not the little tiny pieces of theory the Evolutionists have been throwing around for years.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

That picture and the entire write up you posted supports evolution. Are you contradicting yourself?

Wow, it says this homid skeleton, Lucy, " is dated to just less than 3.18 million years old."

Score one for evolution.

 

[Rinpun]

What?

(Pulls off this "point" for Evolution)

Perhaps if you THOUGHT to look at the link you MIGHT have noted that I would have DISAGREED with what they've said. All I've posted was that it was a LINK to Lucy's skeleton. As far as I can tell, it's a pygmy, and it's several thousand years old.

Please tell me how Evolutionists can date these things past 5000-50000? Carbon dating only goes back that far since:

1) Decay rates actually do vary. Carbon varies from 5700-5800 or so, usually averaging around 5730. And, this varying increases with the half life. Potassium, with it's half-life of "1.3 Billion years" could easily range from 1 to 1.5 Billion, therefore throwing your score off by an amazing multiple.

2) Don't you need a stable supply of Carbon 14 to 12 in the environment? You should know that Atomic Bomb Testing would've greatly increased the Carbon 14 in the atmosphere, which would give you an incredibly perverted and large number up to an extra multiple factor of 10. And opposite too, for in the Industrial Revolution, which of course was a lot longer ago, more Carbon 12 was thrown into the atmosphere. I have reason to believe that the ratio then was unreasonably small and the ratio now is unreasonably large, therefore throwing off your formula answer.

Well, you're being stubborn for the moment and believing you know quite a bit, so here are a few questions.

1. Where did all of our starting ground (Matter, Space, and the laws of Inertia and etc.) come from?

2. How did matter get so perfectly organized (the chances are way too small to point for it to take only 5 billion years, if at all)?

3. Where did the energy come from (you, of course, need some to bring life, to an extent, alive)?

4. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? I know this is asking a lot, but you should be able to answer this.

5. With what did the first cell/organism capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? There was asexual, but you run into problems when you get to sexual. There will never be two organism holding the same exact genes that lets them survive AND reproduce.

6. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? It should just live the good life, right?

7. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? Turns out you need a DNA injection to create most of your helpful changes.

8. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? I mean, what the hey, this proves for BOTH sides.

9. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? It surely would've broken down from it's increasing fragile likeness. Think of a glass bowl that you kept dropping on the ground. If, as you're suggesting, this Evolution bowl wouldn't break on the very first drop and never get back together again, your bowl will break anyway as the mainframe breaks down. You need to evolve many "minor" changes to accompany the changes. As I repeat myself, a fish needs gills, and bacteria doesn't have gills. A fish needs a complex blood flowing system along with the blood. And of course, bacteria doesn't have this nor anything else. At the VERY least, when the bacteria decides not to create a new immunity but rather a useless organ that would somehow come into use later, why would it stay? I don't suppose a cancered individual would give birth to a baby who had cancer, right?

10. How did the intermediate forms live? In resuming the previous question, the intermediate forms either have no change to the basic forms, and therefore incapable of turning into more complex forms, or they have an interesting life where they can't reproduce. In the jump to a multi-celled organism, you have to go from asexual to sexual reproduction and heck, you have to evolve all the organs--even the ones we haven't discovered yet--to come with the creature if you hope to keep it alive. A bacteria-fish hybrid ISN'T possible. If a bacteria survives underwater, does it need to evolve gills? If a bacteria survives underwater, does it need to evolve a better method of reproduction? Splitting is much more efficient.

11. How did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

They are all useless, as you should know, in "intermediate" forms.

12. Which evolved first and, somehow, worked without all the others?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?

There are many, many changes to be made when you take a step from one cell to many cells, such as cell communication.

13. How would evolution explain mimicking? Did the plants and animals develop the idea of mimicking by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

14. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. Even if they are chemicals in the brain somewhere.

15. How did photosynthesis evolve? It's a pretty big jump to take once you decide you want to use the sun instead of something else as the rest of the bacteria are feeding on that.

16. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

17. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

 

[Logical_1]

Mind, I don't think you get the question I asked. The question was "where did everything come from?" Your reply about ameobas just coincidently occurring is all well and good, but it sidesteps the question. Where did the cells that make up the ameoba come from? What is the point of origin? And how did that point of origin come to exist?

 

[Mind]

Originally posted by Logical_1
Where did the cells that make up the ameoba come from?

An amoeba is mono-celled.

Originally posted by Logical_1
What is the point of origin? And how did that point of origin come to exist?

Life was born coincidentally; It has no point.

 

[Logical_1]

Once more, you fail to get the point. Where did the cell that makes up the ameoba come from? If it was some kind of coincidence that that particular cell became alive, where did the material to make up the cell come from? I think you misunderstand the meaning of the question "what is the point of origin? I don't mean it in the philosophical sense, but in the sense of "where did everything begin?"

 

[Mind]

Ah, you are asking were matter came from?

Matter and energy, as Einstein said, are equivalent. Matter is a complicated, frozen form of energy, often also called "chemical-energy".

The amount of energy in the universe always stays the same. You can't annihilate energy, nor can you create energy. You can, though, convert energy into another form of energy.

Thus, the energy of the universe was not created, but transformed.

We don't know exactly how and why this process took place, unfortunately. Humanity is still a young, ignorant and unknowing child.

 

[Logical_1]

Yes, but this energy ultimately had to come from somewhere.

 

[SD_Ryoko]

Yes, I skim your posts. You post way to long to read it all seriously. let me highlight some points.

As far as I can tell, it's a pygmy, and it's several thousand years old.
Yup! Its a pygmy hominid. An ancestor of humans, but prior to our current state. Perhaps you should look up pygmy & hominid. This does NOT support your argument. Being a pigmy does not mean it supports your concept. I suggest you drop that one.

Please tell me how Evolutionists can date these things past 5000-50000? Carbon dating only goes back that far since:
Artical says argon gas.

How did matter get so perfectly organized (the chances are way too small to point for it to take only 5 billion years, if at all)?
OMG. I have never head ANYONE say "hey, thats only five billion years"

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
Basic elements don't think like that at all. They don't think a lot of things. Were intelligent - do we think like that? No.

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?
Why couldn't it? Ducks that live near cliffs have longer necks to get food. Guess the shorter necked ones didn't live as well, and the longer necks were dominant.

DUCK BILLED PLATYPUS
-Evolutionary wonder.
-Has reptilian features, mammal features, and a bill like a duck.
-A mammal that lays eggs.
-Only found in one part of the world.

PLEASE EXPLAIN how Mr. Platapus trecked from aussie to Mt Ararat to get on the Ark? Scientists speculate it would take centuries, but not ONE fossil of them have been found in asia or and land mass in between.