Creationism VS Evolution - Page 4

beautiful-green-beast · 04-16-2006, 01:03 AM

If you're speaking of it in those terms then yes, I undertsand what you mean.

SF Salazar · 04-22-2006, 10:08 AM

First of all, IN MY OPINION, people are misunderstanding many facts,

1) Vestigial organs like the human tailbone prove that we evolved from animals with tails. (Vestigial – a shrunken part of the body that is no longer used)

1*) There are nine muscles that attach to the tail bone, it is not a Vestigial.

2) Whales evolved from walking mammals – Many people believe this true due to the whale’s vestigial pelvis which “proves” that they evolved from a land dwelling creature.

2*) However, those bones serve as anchor points for muscles. Without them whales would be unable to reproduce. They have nothing to do with walking on land, and even if they were “vestigial” organs, isn’t losing something the opposite of evolution?

3) Six basic concepts of evolution –
1) Cosmic evolution – Big Bang makes hydrogen
2) Chemical Evolution – Higher elements evolve
3) Evolution from stars and planets from gas
4) Organic Evolution – Life from rocks
5) Macro-evolution – Changes between kinds plants and animals
6) Micro-evolution – Changes within kinds

3*) Only the last one has been observed and can be called science. The first five are believed by faith.

4) Lucy is the oldest ancestor of humans dated at 2.9 millions years old.
4*) Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years old. Most scientist agree that Lucy was just an unusual chimpanzee.

5) Man’s Evolution – Changes over time

5*)
Lucy – Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee
Heidelberg Man – Built from a jaw bone that many conceded by many to be quite human.
Nebraska Man – Scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
Peking Man – Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared.
Neanderthal Man – At the International Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed that this famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man…so what’s the difference?

6) Layers of earth are millions of years in difference, which helps in dating fossils. Age is known depending on the layer of earth that it is found in.
6*) Isn’t that circular reasoning? Petrified trees are often found going through many layers. Some are even upside down running through “millions of years” worth of rocks.
(For pictures visit www.drdino.com)

7) Human embryos have gill slits which proving man evolved through the fish stage millions of years ago.

7*) Earnst Haeckel made up those drawings in 1869, which were proven wrong in 1874. Those folds of skin are not gills; they grow into the bones in the ear and glands in the throat. (It’s been proven wrong for almost 125 years and its still in textbooks)

8) The binding force of an atom is gluons

8*) Gluons are made up! They have never been seen or measured. They don’t exist! We know that the electrons of an atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second and that the nucleus of an atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral, BUT, Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren’t the answer…what is?

Age of the Earth:

One example is that the strength of earth’s magnetic field. It has been measured well over a century, which provides scientists with exceptionally good records. In an important recent study, Thomas G. Barnes has shown that the strength of earth’s magnetic field is decaying exponentially at a rate corresponding to half-life of 1,400 years. That is to say that 1,400 years ago the magnetic field of earth was twice as strong as it is now. If we explorate back as far as 10,000 years, we find that the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as a magnetic star! That is, of course highly improbable, if not impossible. So it seems that 10,000 years is the upper limit for the age of the earth.
Also keep in mind that any objections to this conclusion must be based on the rejection of the same unifortarium assumption that evolutionists utilize to derive a great age for the earth.
In defense of their long-age chronology, evolutionists have proposed a reversal hypothesis. They suggest that earth’s magnetic field has remained relatively stable through out geologic time, except for certain periods in which it went through a reversal, dying down to zero and rising up again with the reverse polarity. The last such reversal is alleged to have occurred about 700,000 years ago. Unfortunatetely for evolutionary scientists, the reversal hypothesis absolutely no valid scientific theoretical basis. Furthermore, rock magnetization cannot be used to support these so-called reversals because there is a self-reversal process known to exist in rocks, completely independent of the earth’s magnetic field.
Finally it is believed that the earth’s magnetic field is due to circulating electric currents in its core. If we explorate backward about 20,000 years, we find that the estimated heat produced by the currents would have melted the earth. Clearly, the testimony of the earth’s magnetic field is strongly in favor of a young earth, not an ancient one.
Another interesting factor is petroleum and natural gas. Petroleum and natural gas are contained at high pressures in underground reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock reveal that the oil and gas pressures could not be mainted for much longer than 10,000 years in many instances. Thus, the assumption that such fossil-fuels deposits have been confined for millions of years, having not leaked out through their cap rock, becomes preposterous.
Other recent experiments have demonstrated conclusively that the conversion of marine and vegetable matter into oil and gas can be achieved in a surprisingly short time. For example, plant-derived materials have been converted into a good grade of petroleum in as little as twenty minutes under the proper temperature and pressure conditions. Wood and other cellulosic material have also been converted into coal or coal-like substances in just a few hours.

DATING:

Dr. Kent Hovind cites an occasion where a living mollusk was dated at 2300 years old. Another document reported that an "absolute date had been obtained" for a geological formation and it was a "value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." One leg of a mammoth discovered frozen in Alaska was dated at 15,380 years while his skin was set at 21,300 years.
A guide may have told you that it takes a thousand years to grow a stalactite an inch. Among them is a photo of stalactites, some 50 inches in length, that have been formed by dripping water under the Lincoln Memorial, built in 1922. These stalactites have grown nearly 2/3 inch per year! So much for the "thousand years per inch" idea.
Hovind also shows a photo of a bat covered by flowstone in a cave before he could rot. Imagine how long this bat would have had to lie here dead, without rotting, for this flowstone to cover him as it has! Obviously, these mineral deposits occur much more rapidly than we are led to believe. Hovind, in his seminar, offers many examples, including:
• The Great Barrier Reef, the oldest and largest reef in the world, has been determined to be 4,200 years old.
• The world's oldest tree is 4,300 years old.
Minerals being washed into the ocean by erosion would bring the salt content of the ocean to its present level in less than 5,000 years!
Different parts of another baby mammoth dated at 40,000 years and 26,000 years while the "wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000." New advanced dating techniques used on sediment found with Homo erectus skulls in Java in the 1930s date them no more than 27,000 years old. Scientists previously declared that the species, supposedly an ancestor of man, vanished some 250,000 years ago. So maybe it was just a man, after all.

To me evolution is just full of holes.

DarkAztek · 04-22-2006, 10:32 AM

So much of what you just wrote is wrong... So I'll just point out the incredibly silly parts. (Another note: Stealing quotes off of websites and then not giving the links is called PLAGARISM.)

Quote:

Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years old. Most scientist agree that Lucy was just an unusual chimpanzee.

BULLSHIT. Put up a link or shut up.

Quote:

Isn’t that circular reasoning? Petrified trees are often found going through many layers. Some are even upside down running through “millions of years” worth of rocks.

No, it isn't. Geologists can properly determine whether or not the ground has moved from an original setting. It's actually fairly easy to see the changes. The layers in dirt are only one way to HELP determine the age of a fossil. However, the main way in which a fossil's origin can be properly discovered is through Carbon-14 dating.

Quote:

Gluons are made up! They have never been seen or measured. They don’t exist! We know that the electrons of an atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second and that the nucleus of an atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral, BUT, Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren’t the answer…what is?

Who the shit said this is real? Do you have ANY sources to back up the shit you're slinging around here or do we have to just assume you're right?

Quote:

Age of the Earth

The Earth's magnetic pole changes constantly over time. It is not a reliable source to determine the Earth's age. The magnetic field is HEAVILY influenced by other celestial bodies (the sun and moon) as well as everything that is happening on the Earth. Even a kid who has taken a BASIC geology course knows that the Earth's poles have actually moved around over the past few billion years.

The Earth is NOT 10,000 years old. It is FAR older. You even pointed out a SKULL that is a few MILLION years old and yet you still claim this crap? Make up your mind and try to know what you're talking about from now on.

Quote:

Carbon 14 Dating

I SO knew you were going to bring up that living mussle. This is a VERY famous creationist claim that has been proven wrong and yet is still mentioned. Frequently.

A) Mussles, clams, and oysters form their shells from the rocks on the sea floor. It helps to make their shells bigger and stronger. The dating found the elements that make up the shell were that old, not the oyster itself.

B) Even though I do not personally know the others that you are talking about, please allow me to assure NL that you somehow ignored or changed some facts. ...Or if you didn't, the person you ripped this off of did.

And perhaps you just have McDonald's Syndrom and refuse to read anything I've posted... But the fact that the ToE has holes in it does NOT mean it is false. How can people see more evidence in ID but not the ToE? ID has ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that backs it up. The only thing that ID does is point out some of the flaws in the ToE. That isn't a bad thing... The problem is when the Creationists find some hole (or make something up / pretend like they don't see the evidence disproving them) is that they assume it proves the ToE wrong and ID correct. That is not the case.

**Ninja48** · 04-22-2006, 06:52 PM

My god. This is the... stupidest thing I have ever seen. Ever. Jesus motherf*cking Christ. My god (my use of "God" and references to "Jesus Christ" are not to be taken literally :P).

Quote:

Originally Posted by SF Salazar

2*) However, those bones serve as anchor points for muscles. Without them whales would be unable to reproduce. They have nothing to do with walking on land, and even if they were “vestigial” organs, isn’t losing something the opposite of evolution?

Did you even read what the hell evolution is before implying all this crap? Or are you driven by blind faith?

Listen, if something evolves, it doesn't necessarily mean an organism becomes bigger and more complex. Evolving is just change to the environment when it is beneficial for the organism to survive. If losing our intelligence would be beneficial to our species, we could lose it just to ensure our survival. If becoming small and simple is beneficial, again, we could lose it just to ensure our survival. It just so happens that a lot of evolutionary changes from the time of amoebas to the time of animals involve change into a more complex organism.

So just saying "oh, um, well, this aminals lost sumthing so liek, thats NOT evolutumuon cuz evolusion meens to become BIGGER AND BETTER LOL HA!1!" does not cut it.

Quote:

3) Six basic concepts of evolution –
1) Cosmic evolution – Big Bang makes hydrogen
2) Chemical Evolution – Higher elements evolve
3) Evolution from stars and planets from gas
4) Organic Evolution – Life from rocks
5) Macro-evolution – Changes between kinds plants and animals
6) Micro-evolution – Changes within kinds

3*) Only the last one has been observed and can be called science. The first five are believed by faith.

Lol. So, logical thinking to predict things is considered faith? Even if its backed up by evidence? Come on. I hate it when people compare evolution to faith. "omG u liek, have to... liek believe n stuff SO ITS FAITH AND RELIGION HA!!11"

Quote:

8) The binding force of an atom is gluons

8*) Gluons are made up! They have never been seen or measured. They don’t exist! We know that the electrons of an atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second and that the nucleus of an atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral, BUT, Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren’t the answer…what is?

I think this portion is the funniest of all. They can't be observed so they don't exist. They must be "made up". Funny. Wherever you got this from, they used "gluons" to make the atomic theory sound rediculous. "omG gluoon? wtf LOL THEY MUST B RONG LOL".

The most well known model of the atom is, like you said, made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. This is taught in a basic 5th grade science class (and even in these classes, it's simply and basically explained that strong nuclear force and neutrons are what hold the atom together). But most people don't know about the further inner workings of atoms. Such as, of course, the gluon (8 types actually), an up quark, two down quarks, neutrinos, leptons (neutrinos and neutrons together), photons, weak and strong nuclear force (which bind atomic nuclei together), etc. Which connect to the String Theory and the M-theory, stuff that I don't feel like explaining right now (and are a bit irrelavant).

The point is, what you said is massive BS. "oh wowzorz they dun explain what binds atomz together rofl there4(fore) SCIENTESTS ARE RONG AND WE R RITE !!!" Just because you don't know the deep and researched explanation (or the article you read doesn't show the explanation), doesn't mean there is no explanation.

Quote:

To me evolution is just full of holes.

Well your post is f*cking full of holes, too. Get it straight. As for the rest of the things you've posted, provide a source plz :P. And it better not be a "the bible is rite" site.

BTW Dark Aztek, I googled his stuff. He didn't plagiarize, technically. Word for word I mean.

sheik · 04-22-2006, 07:14 PM

There have been scientist that believe that if the Earth was created in seven days, it was not a period of 24 hours. It was more of a longer time in change. Some scientist think that back in the past, when the formation of the Earth started that it was a lot longer days.

If there was a Divine being from another galaxy, how would you know that when the bible said 7 days, it would mean 7 glactic days in outer space? If there was a divine being from outer space that created Earth, their 7 days on their planet might be thousands of years.

You can't just look at the Bible and ASSUME that it was 7, 24 hour periods.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

It raises some good points and sadly it isn't from www.thebibleisright.com

THey are actually smart enough to interpret the bible.......

You can't just read the bible as if it was a text book or else you would be most confused.

The bible uses quite a few of Similies and Metaphors!

**Ninja48** · 04-22-2006, 07:38 PM

^A lot of religious people interpret the Bible literally. That's why so many of them are pissed off at the theory of evolution and Darwin. It's also a misconception that the theory of evolution was made to prove the Bible is wrong, which is the vibe I'm getting from that website.

Perverted-Hermit · 04-23-2006, 08:21 AM

Maybe this will solve some of you're questions

Quote:

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.

When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

Perverted-Hermit · 04-23-2006, 08:23 AM

And here's some more

Quote:

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

Perverted-Hermit · 04-23-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)

Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.

The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.

Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.

Taken from scientific american's article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"

Ohw and, srry for triple posting

SF Salazar · 04-23-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkAztek

The Earth is NOT 10,000 years old. It is FAR older. You even pointed out a SKULL that is a few MILLION years old and yet you still claim this crap? Make up your mind and try to know what you're talking about from now on.

Is said DATED at around 212 million years. That does not mean that it is 212 million years old.

**Ninja48** · 04-23-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SF Salazar

Is said DATED at around 212 million years. That does not mean that it is 212 million years old.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? You claimed the earth was 10,000 years old, and you also claimed of a skull found dating (regardless if IS or if it is AROUND) 212 million years old.

Peregrin · 05-10-2006, 12:56 AM

"There are many benefits to the idea of creationism. One example is that it provides an explanation as to how life became so complex. Another is that it conforms to the beliefs of Christianity. Creationism also makes several arguments against evolution. For example, because the complex organs of humans and other creatures require many different, unique parts to work together in a certain way, they must have been created, not developed. An example is the human eye. The eye is useless unless all of its complex parts are working together. With this in mind, creationists question how such a thing could develop unless it was created all at once. Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said that if the eye is to be believed to have formed through evolution, "We have to imagine . . . a chance mutation that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility capable of giving the creature an advantage in producing offspring" (3, p. 753). Another argument that creationists give against evolution attacks modern knowledge of the fossil record. In addition to pointing out the large gaps in it, creationists also say that it fails to provide examples of species caught in the act of evolving. However, both of these statements against evolution are easily countered by evolutionists. Lee Dugatkin, a biology professor at Louisville University in Kentucky, said that "if you look at various creatures, you see a continuum. Some can only sense light and dark; others can sense colors and so on" (3, p. 753). This observation is an example of evolution, as it shows examples of how an eye developed in effectiveness over time. As for the fossil record, according to the Congressional Quarterly Researcher in 1997, "The overwhelming majority of paleontologists say [the fossil record] clearly shows evidence of animals being transformed into new species. For example, they point to fossils of whales that still have legs" (3, p. 748). Another, more recent argument against evolution was brought up by Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University. Behe said that "scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system" (6, p. A12). However, his opponent in the case in which he made that statement presented him with large amounts of biology and medical texts that all addressed the topic of the evolution of the immune system (6, p. A12). Evolution certainly has the upper hand on creationism. It is widely supported by a majority of scientists. Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said that "evolution is so well reported that we don’t even argue about whether it happened, we argue about how it happened" (3, p. 747). Also, in addition to its support, evolution has the definition of science backing it up. It is based on observation, which is an essential part of the creation of scientific theories. Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be truly observed. Also, observations that credit evolution are still being made. Larry Martin, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Kansas’ Museum of Natural History, stated that "a very high percentage of the genetic code is shared among all creatures" (3, p. 752). This evidence strongly supports Darwin’s ideas that animals share common ancestors, and that they change through genetic mutations. Another supporting statement for evolution is the fact that many high-ranked religious believers, including Pope John Paul II, say that "Darwinian theory is not inconsistent with the idea that humans were made by a divine creator" (3, p. 749)."

This is an excerpt from a research paper I wrote about this debate. If anyone would like to see my works cited and/or bibliography, or any other parts of the paper, feel free to ask. I firmly support evolution, and outline my reasons in my essay.

Makoto_Duke_War_IV · 05-10-2006, 04:05 AM

I'm a very stronge beliver in Evolution. Intelligent design just sound like a big pile of steaming shit like say... religion. ID is just a very dated idea on how life was made. It's a laughable to think that people now and days can still relay on fairy tales to get through everyday life.

ID can't be proven unless some giant dude who looks like grandpa comes down and tells the world just he manage to make life. Then and ONLY then will I not only shit myself, but take ID seriously.

Until then ID cannot be proven and Evolution can.

Tookaipai · 07-05-2007, 03:26 PM

Okay, Creationism is what the catholic church believes in it's the story of how the earth and all it's inhabitants were created in 7 days by God. Evolution is the theory that every organism was once a simpler organism that went through many changes in order survive turning it into a more complex organism. Personnaly I believe in evolution, but hey, that's just my opinion. Let the debate, Commence

DarkAztek · 07-05-2007, 09:45 PM

We've already had a thread on this topic before... But I think it's about time we re-open up the debate a bit. I'm gunna merge this new thread with the old one (just in case y'all want to check what was said before).

Note: This thread will NOT be "I believe in evolution," "I believe in God." That's not a real debate, that's a flame war waiting to happen. Don't just give opinions, back them up.

04-16-2006, 01:03 AM	#46
beautiful-green-beast Shiddy-Chicken Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Check your trash can. Age: 21 Posts: 1,641 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	If you're speaking of it in those terms then yes, I undertsand what you mean. __________________ "The world will look up and shout 'Save us'. And I'll whisper...no." -Rorschach

04-22-2006, 10:08 AM	#47
SF Salazar Genin Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Texas Age: 23 Posts: 168 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	First of all, IN MY OPINION, people are misunderstanding many facts, 1) Vestigial organs like the human tailbone prove that we evolved from animals with tails. (Vestigial – a shrunken part of the body that is no longer used) 1) There are nine muscles that attach to the tail bone, it is not a Vestigial. 2) Whales evolved from walking mammals* – Many people believe this true due to the whale’s vestigial pelvis which “proves” that they evolved from a land dwelling creature. 2) However, those bones serve as anchor points for muscles. Without them whales would be unable to reproduce. They have nothing to do with walking on land, and even if they were “vestigial” organs, isn’t losing something the opposite of evolution? 3) Six basic concepts of evolution* – 1) Cosmic evolution – Big Bang makes hydrogen 2) Chemical Evolution – Higher elements evolve 3) Evolution from stars and planets from gas 4) Organic Evolution – Life from rocks 5) Macro-evolution – Changes between kinds plants and animals 6) Micro-evolution – Changes within kinds 3) Only the last one has been observed and can be called science. The first five are believed by faith. 4) Lucy is the oldest ancestor of humans dated at 2.9 millions years old.* 4) Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years old. Most scientist agree that Lucy was just an unusual chimpanzee. 5) Man’s Evolution – Changes over time 5) Lucy – Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee Heidelberg Man – Built from a jaw bone that many conceded by many to be quite human. Nebraska Man – Scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Peking Man – Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared. Neanderthal Man – At the International Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed that this famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man…so what’s the difference? 6) Layers of earth are millions of years in difference, which helps in dating fossils. Age is known depending on the layer of earth that it is found in. 6) Isn’t that circular reasoning? Petrified trees are often found going through many layers. Some are even upside down running through “millions of years” worth of rocks. (For pictures visit www.drdino.com) 7) Human embryos have gill slits which proving man evolved through the fish stage millions of years ago.* 7) Earnst Haeckel made up those drawings in 1869, which were proven wrong in 1874. Those folds of skin are not gills; they grow into the bones in the ear and glands in the throat. (It’s been proven wrong for almost 125 years and its still in textbooks) 8) The binding force of an atom is gluons* 8) Gluons are made up! They have never been seen or measured. They don’t exist! We know that the electrons of an atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second and that the nucleus of an atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral, BUT, Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren’t the answer…what is? Age of the Earth: One example is that the strength of earth’s magnetic field. It has been measured well over a century, which provides scientists with exceptionally good records. In an important recent study, Thomas G. Barnes has shown that the strength of earth’s magnetic field is decaying exponentially at a rate corresponding to half-life of 1,400 years. That is to say that 1,400 years ago the magnetic field of earth was twice as strong as it is now. If we explorate back as far as 10,000 years, we find that the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as a magnetic star! That is, of course highly improbable, if not impossible. So it seems that 10,000 years is the upper limit for the age of the earth. Also keep in mind that any objections to this conclusion must be based on the rejection of the same unifortarium assumption that evolutionists utilize to derive a great age for the earth. In defense of their long-age chronology, evolutionists have proposed a reversal hypothesis. They suggest that earth’s magnetic field has remained relatively stable through out geologic time, except for certain periods in which it went through a reversal, dying down to zero and rising up again with the reverse polarity. The last such reversal is alleged to have occurred about 700,000 years ago. Unfortunatetely for evolutionary scientists, the reversal hypothesis absolutely no valid scientific theoretical basis. Furthermore, rock magnetization cannot be used to support these so-called reversals because there is a self-reversal process known to exist in rocks, completely independent of the earth’s magnetic field. Finally it is believed that the earth’s magnetic field is due to circulating electric currents in its core. If we explorate backward about 20,000 years, we find that the estimated heat produced by the currents would have melted the earth. Clearly, the testimony of the earth’s magnetic field is strongly in favor of a young earth, not an ancient one. Another interesting factor is petroleum and natural gas. Petroleum and natural gas are contained at high pressures in underground reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock reveal that the oil and gas pressures could not be mainted for much longer than 10,000 years in many instances. Thus, the assumption that such fossil-fuels deposits have been confined for millions of years, having not leaked out through their cap rock, becomes preposterous. Other recent experiments have demonstrated conclusively that the conversion of marine and vegetable matter into oil and gas can be achieved in a surprisingly short time. For example, plant-derived materials have been converted into a good grade of petroleum in as little as twenty minutes under the proper temperature and pressure conditions. Wood and other cellulosic material have also been converted into coal or coal-like substances in just a few hours. DATING: Dr. Kent Hovind cites an occasion where a living mollusk was dated at 2300 years old. Another document reported that an "absolute date had been obtained" for a geological formation and it was a "value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." One leg of a mammoth discovered frozen in Alaska was dated at 15,380 years while his skin was set at 21,300 years. A guide may have told you that it takes a thousand years to grow a stalactite an inch. Among them is a photo of stalactites, some 50 inches in length, that have been formed by dripping water under the Lincoln Memorial, built in 1922. These stalactites have grown nearly 2/3 inch per year! So much for the "thousand years per inch" idea. Hovind also shows a photo of a bat covered by flowstone in a cave before he could rot. Imagine how long this bat would have had to lie here dead, without rotting, for this flowstone to cover him as it has! Obviously, these mineral deposits occur much more rapidly than we are led to believe. Hovind, in his seminar, offers many examples, including: • The Great Barrier Reef, the oldest and largest reef in the world, has been determined to be 4,200 years old. • The world's oldest tree is 4,300 years old. Minerals being washed into the ocean by erosion would bring the salt content of the ocean to its present level in less than 5,000 years! Different parts of another baby mammoth dated at 40,000 years and 26,000 years while the "wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000." New advanced dating techniques used on sediment found with Homo erectus skulls in Java in the 1930s date them no more than 27,000 years old. Scientists previously declared that the species, supposedly an ancestor of man, vanished some 250,000 years ago. So maybe it was just a man, after all. To me evolution is just full of holes. __________________ Which character are you test by Naruto - Kun.com View My Special Ops Brigade Page Remember: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" John 15:13 Member of: Hyuuga Hinata FC naruhina FC My Bros/Sis: M1ke C22 - The "cool" friend Naruto18 - First guy that welcomed me HokageRicky - A born storyteller Last edited by SF Salazar; 04-22-2006 at 10:12 AM.*

04-22-2006, 07:14 PM	#50
sheik S-Ranked Shinobi Join Date: May 2005 Location: on the planet earth in the good ol USA Age: 22 Posts: 2,696 Thanks: 315 Thanked 20 Times in 11 Posts	There have been scientist that believe that if the Earth was created in seven days, it was not a period of 24 hours. It was more of a longer time in change. Some scientist think that back in the past, when the formation of the Earth started that it was a lot longer days. If there was a Divine being from another galaxy, how would you know that when the bible said 7 days, it would mean 7 glactic days in outer space? If there was a divine being from outer space that created Earth, their 7 days on their planet might be thousands of years. You can't just look at the Bible and ASSUME that it was 7, 24 hour periods. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml It raises some good points and sadly it isn't from www.thebibleisright.com THey are actually smart enough to interpret the bible....... You can't just read the bible as if it was a text book or else you would be most confused. The bible uses quite a few of Similies and Metaphors! __________________ What happened to Typhoon_4434? made by rasenganfox Last edited by sheik; 04-22-2006 at 07:30 PM.

04-22-2006, 07:38 PM	#51
Ninja48 48 Cypherin' Ninjas Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: 305 Posts: 2,466 Thanks: 182 Thanked 644 Times in 257 Posts	^A lot of religious people interpret the Bible literally. That's why so many of them are pissed off at the theory of evolution and Darwin. It's also a misconception that the theory of evolution was made to prove the Bible is wrong, which is the vibe I'm getting from that website. __________________

05-10-2006, 12:56 AM	#57
Peregrin Fool of a Took Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Somewhere with a Mediterranean climate. Age: 22 Posts: 574 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Evolution vs Intelligent design "There are many benefits to the idea of creationism. One example is that it provides an explanation as to how life became so complex. Another is that it conforms to the beliefs of Christianity. Creationism also makes several arguments against evolution. For example, because the complex organs of humans and other creatures require many different, unique parts to work together in a certain way, they must have been created, not developed. An example is the human eye. The eye is useless unless all of its complex parts are working together. With this in mind, creationists question how such a thing could develop unless it was created all at once. Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said that if the eye is to be believed to have formed through evolution, "We have to imagine . . . a chance mutation that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility capable of giving the creature an advantage in producing offspring" (3, p. 753). Another argument that creationists give against evolution attacks modern knowledge of the fossil record. In addition to pointing out the large gaps in it, creationists also say that it fails to provide examples of species caught in the act of evolving. However, both of these statements against evolution are easily countered by evolutionists. Lee Dugatkin, a biology professor at Louisville University in Kentucky, said that "if you look at various creatures, you see a continuum. Some can only sense light and dark; others can sense colors and so on" (3, p. 753). This observation is an example of evolution, as it shows examples of how an eye developed in effectiveness over time. As for the fossil record, according to the Congressional Quarterly Researcher in 1997, "The overwhelming majority of paleontologists say [the fossil record] clearly shows evidence of animals being transformed into new species. For example, they point to fossils of whales that still have legs" (3, p. 748). Another, more recent argument against evolution was brought up by Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University. Behe said that "scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system" (6, p. A12). However, his opponent in the case in which he made that statement presented him with large amounts of biology and medical texts that all addressed the topic of the evolution of the immune system (6, p. A12). Evolution certainly has the upper hand on creationism. It is widely supported by a majority of scientists. Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said that "evolution is so well reported that we don’t even argue about whether it happened, we argue about how it happened" (3, p. 747). Also, in addition to its support, evolution has the definition of science backing it up. It is based on observation, which is an essential part of the creation of scientific theories. Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be truly observed. Also, observations that credit evolution are still being made. Larry Martin, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Kansas’ Museum of Natural History, stated that "a very high percentage of the genetic code is shared among all creatures" (3, p. 752). This evidence strongly supports Darwin’s ideas that animals share common ancestors, and that they change through genetic mutations. Another supporting statement for evolution is the fact that many high-ranked religious believers, including Pope John Paul II, say that "Darwinian theory is not inconsistent with the idea that humans were made by a divine creator" (3, p. 749)." This is an excerpt from a research paper I wrote about this debate. If anyone would like to see my works cited and/or bibliography, or any other parts of the paper, feel free to ask. I firmly support evolution, and outline my reasons in my essay. __________________ "The chief has spoken" -Lord of the Flies

05-10-2006, 04:05 AM	#58
Makoto_Duke_War_IV ANBU Join Date: May 2005 Location: In a white padded room. Yay! Age: 93 Posts: 1,977 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Evolution vs Intelligent design I'm a very stronge beliver in Evolution. Intelligent design just sound like a big pile of steaming shit like say... religion. ID is just a very dated idea on how life was made. It's a laughable to think that people now and days can still relay on fairy tales to get through everyday life. ID can't be proven unless some giant dude who looks like grandpa comes down and tells the world just he manage to make life. Then and ONLY then will I not only shit myself, but take ID seriously. Until then ID cannot be proven and Evolution can. __________________ What Came Before What: Astro Boy--->Dragon Ball/Z--->Naruto Midori Cache Aoi Cache Chairo Cache

07-05-2007, 03:26 PM	#59
Tookaipai Azalea Jacques Join Date: May 2007 Location: Somewhere between an S-bend and a gutter-rat. Age: 20 Posts: 418 Thanks: 1 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Creationism VS Evolution Okay, Creationism is what the catholic church believes in it's the story of how the earth and all it's inhabitants were created in 7 days by God. Evolution is the theory that every organism was once a simpler organism that went through many changes in order survive turning it into a more complex organism. Personnaly I believe in evolution, but hey, that's just my opinion. Let the debate, Commence __________________ Literary Mary

07-05-2007, 09:45 PM	#60
DarkAztek Sand Man Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Massachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 3,324 Thanks: 64 Thanked 583 Times in 190 Posts	Re: Creationism VS Evolution We've already had a thread on this topic before... But I think it's about time we re-open up the debate a bit. I'm gunna merge this new thread with the old one (just in case y'all want to check what was said before). Note: This thread will NOT be "I believe in evolution," "I believe in God." That's not a real debate, that's a flame war waiting to happen. Don't just give opinions, back them up. __________________ [CENTER] Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō[/CENTER] [CENTER] [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/HookerBodyShots/shark.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] [center][b]Filler content[/b][/center]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode