Cration Vs. Evolution

[wrath99]

It has always been my stand point that Evolution is the key contender when it comes to talking about the origins of life. because to me something can not be true unless proven with solid evidence.

God, Or his Supposed True Name Yahweh(i think that's how it is spellt in English) Can not be proven, which leads me to stray away from the religious notion of Creation. Now on the other hand Evolution, we can see in our every day life, with evolution of how we think, how we act, and from each generation of children we produce, small evolutionary changes occur. With the Darwin study, Evolution occurs in different areas in different ways, such as Birds of the Same Geno-logical strain use different methods of obtaining food, Some of the same insects use different methods of hiding from prey.

All of these things, to me prove evolution to be true, and keeps, on a daily basis, disproving Religion.


Now a little back ground to my self, i have studied, Judaism, Catholicism, Christianity, and Muslim. i know the words of each one, and i have disproved each one. i also Have done extensive research on Secret orders, such as the Knights Templar, illuminate(they may or may not exist), and the Free masons guild.

now, Discuss your thoughts

 

[Mind-Designers]

Well i believe in Evolution because i not believe in GOD and that is it:biggrin:

 

[wrath99]

well to me there can not be a god, seeing as no one has seen him, he is not in fact tangible a touchable object. he is more of a figment of the mind in the literal sense.

now then of course creation by big bang can not be explained either cause were d the first atom come from

 

[farscapeone]

Why does everybody narrow this topic to two choices? Don't you think that there is another possibility? Maybe it's a mix of those two. Just think about it.

On the other hand, there is no solid evidence of evolution neither. The theory relies on spontaneous chemical reaction that lead to creation of life. How can you prove that? But you can prove evolution process (and they did). Maybe god created it and made evolution possible.

I don't believe in "God" or any other religious figure because I think that religion is far more deeper and complex that that. It's not all like it seams it is. All figures represent something and they actually don't have to real persons. They could be ideas represented as persons so we could understand them better.

I don't believe in "God" as church represents and I also don't believe that life is a spontaneous chemical reaction made form chaos.

The fact is that we are currently not intelligent enough to understand it and the truth is that, right know, we don't have an answer.

 

[wrath99]

Why does everybody narrow this topic to two choices? Don't you think that there is another possibility? Maybe it's a mix of those two. Just think about it.

On the other hand, there is no solid evidence of evolution neither. The theory relies on spontaneous chemical reaction that lead to creation of life. How can you prove that? But you can prove evolution process (and they did). Maybe god created it and made evolution possible.

I don't believe in "God" or any other religious figure because I think that religion is far more deeper and complex that that. It's not all like it seams it is. All figures represent something and they actually don't have to real persons. They could be ideas represented as persons so we could understand them better.

I don't believe in "God" as church represents and I also don't believe that life is a spontaneous chemical reaction made form chaos.

The fact is that we are currently not intelligent enough to understand it and the truth is that, right know, we don't have an answer.

your point well taken, evolution can not be truly Proven, nor can Creation, me i am an agnostic, meaning i do know know what to believe but i know there is something.

Everything that comes and goes is always controlled by another force, always, that force is controlled by another and so on.

Evolution is the basis that all things are created with the inaint need to survive and renew ones self to be better for the environment that it is put into.

Creation on the other hand is put on the basis that all things are pre-destined to do one thing and can not change except for the need to accomplish that one specific goal set to them by the "Creator"

 

[deltavolt]

1) Evolution is SCIENTIFIC theory which means it has a lot going for it, it can be proven. Gravity is also a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, does that mean it cannot be proven? Anyone who says Evolution has nothing going for it should jump out of an airplane without a parachute, after all gravity's nothing but a theory too, right? =P

2) This is very important. Evolution is not a theory on origins and has nothing to say on how life began. It doesn't care about anything that happened pre-biological mutations.

 

[truthguild]

it always amazes me that people still argue this issue.
the theory of evolution has withstood the toughest scientific scrutiny for over 150 years, and is still going strong. every bit of evidence we ever uncover perfectly supports it.
creationism doesn't even qualify as a theory as there is no evidence for it, it makes no testable predictions, it is not falsifiable, and doesn't actually explain anything.

 

[farscapeone]

These two theory are two completely different things and you can't compare them in any possible way. Creation theory (religious one) talks about creation and evolution theory is everything after the creation. There are scientific theories about creation (big bang is currently most popular one) but there are no solid proofs for it, just like there is no proof of religious creation theory.

Creation is one thing and evolution is completely different one. Evolution is what happen after creation.

This thread has no meaning cos it compares two completely different things.

 

[truthguild]

These two theory are two completely different things and you can't compare them in any possible way. Creation theory (religious one) talks about creation and evolution theory is everything after the creation. There are scientific theories about creation (big bang is currently most popular one) but there are no solid proofs for it, just like there is no proof of religious creation theory.

Creation is one thing and evolution is completely different one. Evolution is what happen after creation.

This thread has no meaning cos it compares two completely different things.

but as i already mentioned, creationism isn't a theory - it's blatant speculation asserted as if it were a theory. there is no positive evidence for it, it's not testable, it makes no predictions, and it's not falsifiable.
regarding big bang theory, there's plenty of evidence supporting it such as large scale homogeniety, the hubble diagram, abundances of light elements, existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, fluctuations in the CMBR, large-scale structure of the universe, age of stars, development of galaxies, time dilation in supernova brightness curves, tolman tests, sunyaev-zel'dovich effect, the integrated sachs-wolfe effect - to name a few.

 

[farscapeone]

Guess we'll see that theory if people in CERN (including my sister ) successfully finish their project

 

[GaleRogers]

From my perspective, there is only one rational way to look at it: Agnosticism. One can not know for certain about an event that happened so long ago. The creation of the universe is beyond our ability to comprehend -- or at-least discover -- at this point in time. My personal opinion on religion is that it has not one shred of evidence to stand on and its been a burden on the progress of humanity in many ways. Also quite dangerous (holy wars, crusades, suicide bombers, etc.)

 

[truthguild]

From my perspective, there is only one rational way to look at it: Agnosticism. One can not know for certain about an event that happened so long ago. The creation of the universe is beyond our ability to comprehend -- or at-least discover -- at this point in time. My personal opinion on religion is that it has not one shred of evidence to stand on and its been a burden on the progress of humanity in many ways. Also quite dangerous (holy wars, crusades, suicide bombers, etc.)

science doesn't deal in terms of certainty, it deals in terms of degrees of confidence. as far as big bang theory goes, it's degree of confidence is quite high (though no where near as high as evolutionary theory), esp. since it has been 100% successful in terms of making accurate and testable predictions regarding future discoveries since then.

 

[joejv4]

I'm going to say that there is some sort of intelligence behind the biodiversity of plant and animal lifeforms that have inhabited this planet through it's life. While I can also say that the evolution effect brought about by genetic mutation is also in evidence.

Evolution theory goes a long way in describing the changes to a given species over time, but can not explain how the first living organism came to be "alive" or how this supposed single cell in the primordial soup could have possibly evolved into all of the different plants and animals that have inhabited the earth.

And for the record, Evolution is indeed a "theory", however, Gravity, on the other hand, is not a theory. Gravity is a natural phenomena. There is no question that it exists and it's effects can be fully characterized through calculations based on behavioral observation. Where theory comes into play with gravity, is the explanation as to what causes it (Newtonian physics, relativity physics, and quantum physics all provide different theories to explain it).

 

[deltavolt]

I'm going to say that there is some sort of intelligence behind the biodiversity of plant and animal lifeforms that have inhabited this planet through it's life. While I can also say that the evolution effect brought about by genetic mutation is also in evidence.

Evolution theory goes a long way in describing the changes to a given species over time, but can not explain how the first living organism came to be "alive" or how this supposed single cell in the primordial soup could have possibly evolved into all of the different plants and animals that have inhabited the earth.

And for the record, Evolution is indeed a "theory", however, Gravity, on the other hand, is not a theory. Gravity is a natural phenomena. There is no question that it exists and it's effects can be fully characterized through calculations based on behavioral observation. Where theory comes into play with gravity, is the explanation as to what causes it (Newtonian physics, relativity physics, and quantum physics all provide different theories to explain it).

Like I have already stated, Evolution does not deal with the first organisms, it's like saying that the theory of Gravity is false because it doesn't say how the world began =/

Gravity is a theory and is, just like evolution, a natural phenomena. Ever wondered why you need to get a flu shot every year as opposed to just getting it once and being immune from the virus? Because the virus evolves.

When you say that gravity is a scientific law you most likely mean that objects are, in fact, attracted to each other. Yes, that is true. However, that is irrelevant in this conversation as the Theory of Evolution describes the process, just as the Gravitation Theory describes the process of gravity.

 

[truthguild]

since deltavolt explained it so well, i'll just focus on this one part...

I'm going to say that there is some sort of intelligence behind the biodiversity of plant and animal lifeforms that have inhabited this planet through it's life.

now, there's over 240,000 peer-reviewed articles presenting evidence for evolution, but not a single one providing evidence for intelligent design. so what evidence brings you to the conclusion of some for of intelligence behind it? and, more importantly, where did that intelligence come from?

 

[walidno1]

listen, consider this..........in ocean life is supposed to have originated. But if u see, the terrestrial organisms (supposed to have evolved 1 billion year later) are intelligent than aquatic ones.

with a billion years of head start, the aquatic, there shud have been one or two aquatic animal with intelligence near to humans (PS: Dolphins are stupid)
Edit:

It has always been my stand point that Evolution is the key contender when it comes to talking about the origins of life. because to me something can not be true unless proven with solid evidence.

God, Or his Supposed True Name Yahweh(i think that's how it is spellt in English) Can not be proven, which leads me to stray away from the religious notion of Creation. Now on the other hand Evolution, we can see in our every day life, with evolution of how we think, how we act, and from each generation of children we produce, small evolutionary changes occur. With the Darwin study, Evolution occurs in different areas in different ways, such as Birds of the Same Geno-logical strain use different methods of obtaining food, Some of the same insects use different methods of hiding from prey.

All of these things, to me prove evolution to be true, and keeps, on a daily basis, disproving Religion.


Now a little back ground to my self, i have studied, Judaism, Catholicism, Christianity, and Muslim. i know the words of each one, and i have disproved each one. i also Have done extensive research on Secret orders, such as the Knights Templar, illuminate(they may or may not exist), and the Free masons guild.

now, Discuss your thoughts

HAHA........whats muslim..I thought it was Islam................so, much for ur research.........

btw, m8s, I have done a research on Islam.........the terrorists aren't muslim tho they like to think they are.......in Islam, ur not supposed to hurt any human beings........unless for self defence........and what the terrorists do isn't self defence.......................

PS: in a randomizer, what are the chances that u will get 1, 3, 19, 28, 39...................more than 3000000 of these numbers in the correct sequence????? ZERO.............likewise the chances of evolution is mathematically zero.............Also, if universe is there, it had a beginning...........isn't it?? How did it begin?? Its not like evolution, there was raw materials......how can smth suddenl;y appear out of nothing??

Oh and how come silicon based lifeform isn't found (same catenation property as carbon, abt a 100% times more abundant than carbon.............)

imagine sm1 saying they walked over the Arabian desert and said they found a cell phone popping out of the ground....supposedly evolved from all that sand (silicon) and oil (plastic)...........u wud say he is crazy but why?? Cell phones are a million times simpler than a simple bacteria

 

[deltavolt]

listen, consider this..........in ocean life is supposed to have originated. But if u see, the terrestrial organisms (supposed to have evolved 1 billion year later) are intelligent than aquatic ones.

with a billion years of head start, the aquatic, there shud have been one or two aquatic animal with intelligence near to humans (PS: Dolphins are stupid)

You are correct in your assumption that life is thought to have originated in the oceans. What you seem to misunderstand is the assumed origin of life on land. According to the large consensus in modern science life on land evolved from life in the water. Simply put, we are an evolutionary branch of the original aquatic organisms.

P.S. Dolphins are not stupid.

Edit:
Evolution has had billions of years to get those numbers, and the chances for evolution are 100%. Were they not 100% you would not need to get a flu shot every year.

Agreed, how can something appear out of nothing? For example, how can the "intelligent" life form for which you are arguing have appeared out of nothing? Another thing, how exactly does this tie in to evolution?

Should have simply googled silicon-based life and you would have found your answer. Here's an article for you:
http://nai.nasa.gov/astrobio/feat_questions/silicon_life.cfm

First, let’s look at the competition. Carbon, the MVP in all known biological molecules from sugar to DNA and even squid ink, is unique in that its bonding versatility allows it take on many forms: long side chains that make up fatty acids and cell membranes, ring structures that compose hormones and sugars, and even simple gaseous molecules like methane (CH4) or carbon dioxide (CO2). Can silicon compete?

The short answer is probably not. Silicon simply doesn’t have the moves. While carbon is perfectly comfortable in a variety of different structures (rings, long chains, multi-ring chains, and double-bonded carbon catenations), silicon’s analogous structures are comparatively unstable and sometimes highly reactive. Additionally, such analogous silicon compounds may never occur in nature; the largest silicon molecule ever observed had only six silicon atoms. In contrast, some carbon-based molecules can have tens of thousands!

One problem with your cellphone analogy, sand doesn't tend to undergo very many reactions. To learn more about this you should read about the Miller–Urey experiment.

 

[walidno1]

dude, in a volcanic eruption (which is assumed to have given the energy for reactions for carbons), the temperature (over 1000*C) is enough to start reactions of silicon in silica..........sorry, but evolution is the FAIRY TALE of the old ppl.....
Edit:
btw, mutation isn't evolution, then the virus' name wud have been changed each year..they aren't separate species.....just diversity increases....I don't take flu shots (Don't need it ).......... 3 Billion years isn't enough time............

 

[deltavolt]

dude, in a volcanic eruption (which is assumed to have given the energy for reactions for carbons), the temperature (over 1000*C) is enough to start reactions of silicon in silica..........sorry, but evolution is the FAIRY TALE of the old ppl.....
Edit:
btw, mutation isn't evolution, then the virus' name wud have been changed each year..they aren't separate species.....just diversity increases....I don't take flu shots (Don't need it ).......... 3 Billion years isn't enough time............

Volcanic eruptions are not assumed to have given the energy for carbon reactions, lightning is. If you had bothered to read the article to which I had linked to, you would see that silicon does not bond well enough to achieve any serious complexity.

To the contrary, God is the FAIRY TALE of old people, the idea of a magical beings to whom unexplainable, at the time, natural phenomenon, were attributed have existed for thousands of years. Lighting, for example, used to be attributed to Zeus, war was attributed to Mars, etc. Now, the creation of the universe is being attributed to "God" and will, just as with the rest, be proven wrong in given time.

Mutation is evolution on a grand scale. What do you imagine will happen to the flu virus once it has had thousand or, better yet, millions of years to mutate? It would be unrecognizable.

Dictionary.com, for example, defines evolution correctly as:

Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

Seeing as you have acknowledged mutation, and one would be wholly unintelligent to argue against such a commonly occurring phenomenon, you have, by definition, acknowledged evolution.

As for your time frame, 3 billion years have proven to be more than enough time. Mutation occurs upon a generational basis and, as such, the lower a generation's lifespan, the faster the evolution of the creatures occurs. What's sixty years compared to three billion? That's enough time for 50 million generations of a creature with a large span. Most species do not live nearly that long. Lets take a lion, for example, which would be lucky to survive for 10 years. They would have 300 million generations. Even then, by most standards, that's a very long lifespan.

 

[walidno1]

HEHE......lighting goes over 3000*C......................btw, silicon does react to form a transistor.........how many tansistor are popping out of the ground due to random creation ??(PS: Rhetorical question.........no need to answer)
Edit:
btw, googling this: mathematical probability of evolution.................u will get all the answer u need.......