Printable View
Wow. That's strong stuff.
Luckily and unfortunately, I'm far too ignorant and far too much of a religious zealot to change my views.
But it is a good point.
Anyway, I've never heard of creationists talking about miracles in their theories. That wouldn't make any sense. It'd make the entire occupation a dreadful waste of time. I'm sure that there's science involved.
If we were formed by intelligent design and then evolved yes. (some creationists believe this, I don't think it has any serious evidence) Otherwise probability is still up in the open.Quote:
Besides, as has already been pointed out, probability is irrelevant where evolution is concerned.
If by miracles you mean the creation of matter, lets put it this way. Evolutionists do not have an answer for this, it cannot be understood by science. We do not consider this part to be science unless it is proven that it happened. (which is what I'm trying to get at)Quote:
No, there would need to be science for it to be a scientific theory, or science at all. Inserting miracles negates any possibility of it being taken seriously.
I've heard ideas about why it is accelerating, but I've forgotten them. (maybe I'll look it up)Quote:
That theory's been around in scientific circles for a long time - the big bang theory specifically states that there was a beginning to time, matter, and space itself. It's not a perfect theory either - otherwise it would explain why it seems that the universe's expansion is accellerating rather then decelerating, among other things, but it's a good start with plenty of evidence, both mathmatical and observational.
Similar DNA is not very good evidence for evolution. That is like me writing two different computer programs and having them look similar. (creationist standpoint)Quote:
And most of that evidence lies in DNA. For instance, the fact that human and chimpanzee DNA is 95-99% identical. (I can't remember the exact figure.)
In mathematical proofs the only uncertainty is in it's premises. Otherwise it is like deductive logic. So if you were talking about general relativity you could try to argue that, but the proof itself has no uncertainty.Quote:
Until you factor quantum physics. Under quantum physics, as I am led to understand it, everything involves probability and uncertainty; under quantum physics, literally anything is possible, though most of it is extraordinarily unlikely.
It would be an interesting theory if it had some scientific backing. How a man can form out of dust would be a good start.
"If by miracles you mean the creation of matter, lets put it this way. Evolutionists do not have an answer for this, it cannot be understood by science."
Again, that has nothing to do with evolution. You are referring to the Big Bang, right?
Well, um...
"1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow." Agent K, MIB
Always liked that quote.
In my mind this is equal to the question of how matter was created in the first place, but that part of it has only to do with belief. As I said before, the topic was intelligent design, which would be a 100% if relativity was correct. The matter of how we got where we are now can only be looked at in terms of probability. Lets put it this way, evolution (except the matter coming out of nowhere) does not contradict intelligent design in itself. (some people think that the 6 days of creation were not literally 6 days) However, I've yet to see evolutionists give evidence which would make it even close to as likely as simple creation.Quote:
It would be an interesting theory if it had some scientific backing. How a man can form out of dust would be a good start.
There's too much pseudoscience in here. Please, please, please read that site that Unne linked. You can easily read it and still believe in creationism, you can just argue it MUCH better, and without giving me a migraine.
Evolution is the change of allele frequency in populations over time. If you don't know what that means, it means that the genes, ie, the looks/size/colour/whatever of populations change over time. Well, do they? Do inter-racial children exist now? That's evolution. Do new breeds of dogs and cats exist now? That's evolution! That is why that site calls evolution fact, because it is! If you have brown hair, and your daughter has blond hair, that's evolution. It's change. Species do not stay the same. Whether we see fish turning into lizards is very very very very irrelevant.
Evolution also says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how life came about. Can I say that again? Evolution says nothing about how live came about. That is a SEPERATE theory, called abiogenesis. And for the record, they've made amino acids and cell membranes using random circumstances already.
"I mean, the Seneca legend of somebody cutting a hole in the sky, through which a lady fell and landed on a sea turtle and became mother earth is more likely."
A process that is unlikely is still more likely than something completely unfounded and unscientific.
"so the question raised is, why did these animals stay the same, while others changed drastically?"
Evolution happens when other genes are being seleted for. For instance, if for some reason the human race decides for the next 100 years that brown hair is desirable, and we breed only with brown haired people, guess what trait will be there for the next 100 years? Brown hair.
Change only happens if there's pressure on the population, ie, if food's only available high up, only the tallest will survive. If there is no pressure like this, then there will be no change. That's why some animals have remained mostly the same.
This is highschool biology. Do you know how frustrating it is to tell this to people so ignorant about the subject, yet have already made up their minds? You don't even try to know about the subject. you just paste links from anti-evolution websites without even knowing the reasons WHY they're right or wrong. If you'd just read up a bit behind the theory, you'd see that there's nothing wrong with evolution. People are just ignorant and feel that it threatens their faith. The Pope has even agreed that evolution doesn't conflict with Christianity.
It's just very distressing to see a ridiculous amount of people disregard the theory out of sheer ignorance. It's like saying Christianity is false because Jesus doesn't call me up on the phone.
Do you guys really think that you have the answers about this science? And what, are the scientists who've spent their entire lives studying it just ignorant to the facts you know? Is this a conspiracy? Do they collectively ignore the facts?
I beg pardon for your migraine, emerald. obviously I was unclear with my point I was making about oppossums and sharks. But I hate to repeat myself, so I will not.
I would just like to toss in a couple facts to help along both sides of the arguement and not further express my opinion since that would be repeating myself.
at last calculation, chimpanzee (particularly Bonobo Chimpanzees) DNA matched that of a human with 98.2% accuracy.
bearing in mind, however, that a common housecat's DNA matches that of a human with 89.7% accuracy (mammalian, but not closely related to simian life-forms) An Aligator's DNA matches a humans at somewhere in the neighborhood of 72% (not closely related to mammalian life forms at all).
Emerald:
Everybody knows what evolution is.
The creationist argument is against the theory of evolution pertaining to, uh, the metamorphisis aspect.
The concept that chimps became people. Not that chimps could separate themselves by which ones have certain hair colors (If they have darker and lighter shades. I don't know)
Don't insult us by exiting the topic of discussion and spouting unrelated factual information. Don't make me tell you that you're not paying attention because Ford produces Jaguars.
Secondly, Emerald, if that is your real name, - After you insulted everybody (Except Dr. Unne. How suck-up you are! Coochie coo!), you decided to contribute nothing to the conversation. (Like I am doing right now. Except for that brief bit about my opinion on the existence of 2 definitions of evolution.)
Is it a flame to tell somebody to Shut Up?
yes martyr, in this case, I think it is. let's not get personal here.
getting personal and/or upset will not help debate. emotion has no place whatsoever in intellectual debate, as I'm sure you're aware I'm just reiterating it for those who may or may not be aware.
I dunno Martyr, let's make a 'martyr' out of you and check! :)
You're being far more insulting than anything I've seen coming from Emerald Aeris.
I know many scientists who believe in God based on how low the chances of evolution are. There's no reason why two societies shouldn't merge into one happy family.
DeBlayde: I don't see what your point is. A tiny change in DNA can cause huge changes. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not understood, and doesn't automatically make it god.
"Everybody knows what evolution is."
Not from how you're arguing you don't.
"The concept that chimps became people."
Yeah, see. Exactly. Evolution doesn't say that. You don't understand it. Saying "chimps became people" is wrong. It's not an insult. You're just mistaken.
"Not that chimps could separate themselves by which ones have certain hair colors (If they have darker and lighter shades. I don't know)"
It was just an example about how allele frequencies change. It has no actual application. In reality our being bipedal most likely development how I said, higher food. There are all sorts of morphisms within each species all the time. Mutations exist within populations all the time. Right now. Which one becomes prevailent in the next generation is a change in allele frequency, and varies between generations.
"Don't make me tell you that you're not paying attention because Ford produces Jaguars."
Uh, ok.
"you decided to contribute nothing to the conversation."
Aside from debate points and correct you on what evolution actually is. Alright then.
Yes, Inteligent design is a better and more believeable theory than "the big bang" But if someone was powerfull enough to control everything like the theory of Intel design, what would stop them from breaking the rules? Why would they obey the rules of time and space and create everything logicly? With so much power why not say "Let all this stuff be made"?
It's all right here:
Quote:
Observed adaptation: It is hopefully common knowledge that bacteria have been constantly adapting to survive the antibiotic assaults of mankind. It is hopefully also common knowledge that successive generations of cockroach can become resistant to chemical pesticides, as can numerous other forms of insect. A more specific example is the British peppered moth. Before the nineteenth century it had only been seen in a gray variant, but in 1850 a black mutant variant was seen. The black variant was not successful because it was so easily spotted by predators, compared to its gray brethren which could blend into the tree bark. However, the black variant remained in the species as a recurrent strain due to a recessive gene, and it began to dominate after the Industrial Revolution. There is some debate as to why and how the Industrial Revolution caused this change, but no one can dispute that they were predominantly gray before the Industrial Revolution and predominantly black afterwards, thus acting as an example of environmentally driven change, ie- evolution.
That's what Unne's site says.
That's the difference between evolution and evolution.
Creatures can adapt and change, but they can't transform. The moths may change color, people may change color, and intellignet breeding can make a species change to adapt in it's environment.
But the moths and cochroaches will always be moths and cochroaches. There is a theory of evolution, aside from the dfinition of evolution, which claims that "evolution" will cause more than adaptation. It will cause mutation and transformation with drastic results.
And ya know what? Maybe all humans could eventually be force bred/evolved into 2 ft tall midgets or 10 ft. giants. In the end, we'll be hmans.
Scientists have proved this.
But the debate isn't about evolution. Everybody knows that evolution happens. It's about the evolutionary theory that combats such theories as intellignet design.
And if there are not 2 evolutions, if nobody claims that this is true, then evolution has no place in this discussion. I doubt any evolutionist will admit that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the many species of the world.
Let's just end the snarkiness here, shall we? Starting over.
So you agree that populations do change, and that these changes accumulate (like you said, giant humans or whatever other change). And we know that things were different in the past (fossils). So species change over time, a lot of time has passed, and there are different species now than there were before (referring to fossils). This is all definitely true, right? Now where we disagree is what's happened there. I think that the changes have accumulated to create different species. I'm not completely sure what you believe. Do you believe that the species just died out, and god created new species to replace them? A point for that view: there's been several unexplained massive extinction events with population blooms shortly thereafter. Buuut of course I attribute those to completely natural events (overpopulation, catastrophic geological events). Just though I should mention that.
We really can only guess how -exactly- evolution happens. There's just a lot of evidence that it did happen. Am I explaining myself better now?
I'll address intelligent design. I see it as kind of a cop out. The idea behind it is basically "I can't understand how these complex things came to be, therefore god must have done it". This is apparent in statements like this:
"If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect."
But see, complex things DO form by natural processes. Plants grow, embryos grow into humans. These things aren't poof! created, they grow. In the same way, I believe species have grown.
I'll argue that site more later, I've got a physics exam to study for now though.
So TastyPies says that the Big Bang is ridiculous, and Auronhart says it's proof of Intelligent Design. Hm.
"Yes, Inteligent design is a better and more believeable theory than "the big bang" But if someone was powerfull enough to control everything like the theory of Intel design, what would stop them from breaking the rules? Why would they obey the rules of time and space and create everything logicly? With so much power why not say "Let all this stuff be made"?"
Because such power does not exist :)
You seem to be attacking your own theory though, which is somewhat confusing. Intelligent Design is stupid, therefore Intelligent Design is valid? What?
"I doubt any evolutionist will admit that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the many species of the world."
I doubt any creationist will admit God doesn't exist. Why is this relevant?
Because if the laws of physics could be broken at all, they wouldn't be laws of physics, because laws of physics can't be broken. Or to put it more clearly, laws of physics do not have exceptions. If an exception is found, then the law was incorrect in the first place. Of course, evolution is biology, and biology is full of exceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
Evolution is the only theory I have ever heard of which has evidence supporting it, and there's a pretty good amount of it. Creatures in the fossil record get simpler the further back we look. Similar creatures share many of the same genetic markers. And we've seen microevolution occur throughout a number of species; for example, dogs. We have a very large variety of domesticated breeds around. And yet, when we started there were just wolves.
Is evolution full of holes? Yeah. There are probably parts about it that are even wrong. But it is the best educated guess we have. Our civilization's practically built on educated guesses. Newtonian physics, for example. A very good educated guess. But eventually, a lot of it was proven wrong, since it stopped working when you dealt with the extremely small and the extremely large. But by studying Newtonian physics, we found out what was wrong and were lead to a better theory. Copernicus' model of the solar system was wrong. But thanks to astronomers studing it for a century or so, Kepler was able to make a much more accurate model. By following the leads our best guesses provide, we come closer to the truth, even if our best guess was incorrect.