If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Artbell.com)   Man offers $250,000 if you can prove evolution.   (drdino.com) divider line 414
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

4865 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2002 at 12:46 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



414 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
jre
2002-03-01 02:02:07 PM
The US is the laughing stock of not just Europe but neighbouring North American countries too. A politician once tried to curry favour by expressing his Creationist views last election. He was laughed at, mocked, and lost the election. He later appeared on the 700 Club (or whatever Robertson's mental BSDM jerk-off session is called).

This is somewhat related:
"On September 11th, 2001, the United States of America, the most technologically advanced nation on this world today, was attacked by cavemen." -- Slim Mackerel
 
jre
2002-03-01 02:03:38 PM
I should've mentioned that politician was the leader of a Canadian political party.
 
2002-03-01 02:03:40 PM
"True. It is very sad. You know, as far as I know, Jews, even Orthodox Jews, do not seem to generally object to the teaching of evolution in the schools. Nor do the Catholics, generally. It's the more rural Fundamentalist Christians who raise all the stink."

Correct, as was the case in McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education. The group of plaintiffs (those fighting to remove creationism from the school curriculum) included:
the Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, the Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic churches, the African Methodist churches, the principle official of Arkansas Presbyterian churches, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy (wow), the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty. And, of course, the high school teacher who initiated it.
 
2002-03-01 02:03:56 PM
NaTaX, I feel sorry if your thinking skills isn't up to par with the other people, but twisting other people's words to make them sound like racists isn't going to make you look any smarter than you've demonstrated you aren't.

Now, if you want to say I'm thumbs-up on saying only Creationism should be taught in schools and therefore I'm biased in my religion, look at yourself a second. Evolution and Creation are both valid theories regarding the arise of mankind. So if you want Creationism out as much as I want it in, then you're as discriminatory as I am. Evolution's a valid theory, so let it in with Creationism, I don't mind either way. Just don't be biased toward Evolution because it's not grounded with a deity.

God coming down Himself? Ehhhh, he sent His Son, good enough?
 
2002-03-01 02:03:59 PM
Jre - The most telling fact about the 700 Club is that the number 700 has nothing to do with God... it is the number of original members needed to keep the money coming in so that the show could stay on the air and Robertson's mansion could stay air conditioned.
 
2002-03-01 02:06:17 PM
Is it evolution if you have your left foot cut off by a hacksaw with no anesthetic, then get buggered by the German scientist and his buddies, just so you can get the flying car?
 
2002-03-01 02:10:39 PM
In a bout of irony, I misuse "isn't" when telling a guy he's stupid. That should be "aren't".

*hangs head in shame*
 
2002-03-01 02:10:45 PM
Bisifiniti
El Bulbil Emir: Explain the crossover from asexual binary fission to sexual reproduction. Planarians don't count, as they only asexually reproduce when cut in half (as far as I know, if I'm wrong here, tell me).

I am not a biologist, and in my request for comments, was referring to the matter on which I was writing, the evolution of the eye. But I will try to answer your question. The generally accepted theory, whose foundations have been confirmed in the laboratory, is that of Lynn Margulis. I quote from http://www.panspermia.org/sexual.htm:

"Research biologist Lynn Margulis has finally won acceptance for the theory that eukaryotic cells formed by symbiosis among bacterial cells. Under the theory Margulis advocates mitochondria and plastids did not originate within the eukaryotic cells that now carry them. Rather, these subunits were once free-living prokaryotic cells that infected other bacterial cells and came to reside in them with benefits for both parties. Even the bounded nucleus that characterizes all eukaryotic cells may have evolved this way. This is a whole new kind of evolution. Not just new genes, but new whole cells were incorporated into existing cells. This kind of evolution has already been confirmed by experiment (2). This theory represents a significant amendment to the prevailing paradigm of evolution. Now we know that evolution can proceed by assembling subunits. This mechanism would help evolution to take the giant step from prokaryotes to eukaryotes relatively quickly."

(Your remark on the asexual reproduction of planarians confuses me -- "binary fission" refers to asexual reproduction among unicellular organisms like bacteria, as far as I know -- not more complex creatures like the planarian.)

Does this answer your question?

Thanks.
 
2002-03-01 02:15:41 PM
OK...OK..listen up. I've been working on it all night and all morning but I think I can prove it.

OK. You take like an old record player right. Now turn it on. OK, now take an album and lay it on the turntable. Now see it going round and round? Well, there you go. I proved it. Wasn't that hard really.







Oh, ev-olution. Never mind.
 
2002-03-01 02:16:21 PM
As far as the planarian goes, I simply meant cutting it as to cause it to reproduce asexually. Don't know if binary fission is the correct term.

And as far as I understand, cells actually re-join up and then DNA randomly evolved? I don't exactly understand that. Plus, that asks the question, when the first cell spontaneously generated, what did the cell use as DNA? If DNA was spontanteously generated at the same time, that's one coincidence. But otherwise, how did DNA come about? There's no DNA to mutate to give rise to it.
 
2002-03-01 02:18:15 PM
Bisifiniti,
How is it twisting when you say that you'd support those "other" religions being taught if they can get enough support? That statment means those without support (minority) will not be heard, and they will be forced to hear your religion (majority). That's descrimination. I also never mentioned race at all, just religion. Racism is descrimination based on race. Please be clear about that. And I'm not trying to make you sound descriminatory either, you did that yourself. Perhaps you didn't realize it, but you illustrated a classic example of religious descrimination. Unless you'll teach every one of the thousands of religions and variants and sects (which would be impossible if students are to learn anything else) then teach none, teach only science. Let families pass on their religions if they choose. You keep harping on the idea that creationism is a theory, which it isn't (read above, it's explained about 50 times). It's your religion. Evolution, though possibly at odds with your religion (depending on you religion and your interpretation of it), is based on facts that we gather. When you can come up with some data that show the existence of god, then it can be taught in science class. Till then it should remain where it belongs, in mythology/religion classes, which most schools don't teach. You seem to also miss the point that science isn't based on sociology or culture, but religion is. We have plenty of other cultures alive and well in the US, and they should not be subjected to forcefeeding of religions they don't believe in to satisfy a majority (a majority I was once a part of).

As far as sending his son down, christians themselves argue that one, and there is no evidence for it anyway. Why wouldn't he show is face now? What's the big deal? Apparently he's not all that concerned with getting his religion taught in public schools in america, and is fine to let it stay in the church and family (where it is still morally wrong, but hey, I'm not gonna control your family, and don't want to). Why can't you be satisfied if your god is satisfied?
 
2002-03-01 02:20:36 PM
BigPeeler: Certain christians loose credibilty in my book when they try to convince me that 1 (god) + 1 (jesus) + 1 (holy spirit) = 1. The whole trinity dogma really throws a veil of unbelievability on their other statements.

Actually, that's what's known in Quantum Physics as a "superposition". Ever heard of Schroedinger's Cat?

Sheseala: Does evolution say anywhere that there is no God?

As far as evolution is concerned, the existence of God is irrelevant. He, she or it may or may not exist, but it doesn't matter, since he, she or it is never factored in.
 
2002-03-01 02:23:21 PM
I have a theory that in a thread this long, nobody reads the whole thing any more. Therefore, I am going to insult somebody at random from the middle...

Natch, you're a nut! (I didn't read what you wrote, but I had to pick on somebody in order to test my theory of Fark thread evolution.)
 
2002-03-01 02:24:17 PM
I find it interesting that Hovind uses the word "religion" as an epithet. That's as funny as a bucket of pelicans.
 
2002-03-01 02:25:17 PM
Creationism's a theory concerning the arise of mankind, religious or not, and if you're going to teach the arise of mankind, then teach them all, or teach none, or simply tell them about the many choices and let THEM decide, giving them a reference point and not trying to influence their decision. Point is, Evolution jives with Creation, and a lot of parents don't want their kids being taught that without at least something to counterbalance it, and I feel it'd be best to let the child (or the child's parents, depending on age) decide. People should choose to be Christians, not be forced into it. When Constantine made Christianity the only option, the church got polluted with paganism. It's best left up to the individual to decide.

God's an advocate of free will, and he's going to let people do what they want. He'll talk to those that listen to him without pride or spite.

Added note: I'm homeschooled
 
2002-03-01 02:31:43 PM
On a good day a monkey is more intelligent than your average person.

03-01-02 04:34:45 AM Jer780
[snip]"The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, although no one has ever observed the process to this day."[snip]

Voyager took a picture as it left the solar system. Shows pretty clearly the whole mess moving around the sun, you can buy a poster of it from the USGS. But of course you don't need such a picture to deduce that this is so, as so many could tell you better than I. If you want to educate yourself you can find out what smart people knew 400 years ago. Your claim that there is no mathematical difference (except a coordinate system change) between the two models is false. Various attempts were made to reconcile an earth-centric model with the observed motion of the planets and the sun, all of which failed, cheers to you if you could find a suitable solution. The only accurate model for hundreds of years was Galileo+Newton. Not that long ago Einstein provided us with a much better picture. Your problem is your convictions, you're able to support them with the various arguments that you've posed here and the only threat they face are fellow Farkers. "A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!" I don't know what people like you expect to prove or have proved to you in a place like this. All of your various questions have been answered rather well and are available if you're curious. I would not take lightly a simple dismissal of vast areas of physics, astronomy, geology, and biology, even in the face of great hatred for an idea.
 
2002-03-01 02:35:17 PM
Bisifiniti
As far as the planarian goes, I simply meant cutting it as to cause it to reproduce asexually. Don't know if binary fission is the correct term.

And as far as I understand, cells actually re-join up and then DNA randomly evolved? I don't exactly understand that. Plus, that asks the question, when the first cell spontaneously generated, what did the cell use as DNA? If DNA was spontanteously generated at the same time, that's one coincidence. But otherwise, how did DNA come about? There's no DNA to mutate to give rise to it.


I'm not sure now if you are asking serious questions or just trolling. You seem to have some lingo, but seem unsure of what the words mean. Dr. Margulis's work that I cited has to do with prokaryotes -- reproducing asexually -- evolving into eukaryotes -- capable of sexual reproduction, which accelerates the process of evolution dramatically. Now are you suggesting that the transformation I just described gave rise to DNA? That's a totally different question which has little to do with your earlier question, which I did my best to answer.

I will try to answer this one as well, but if you respond with an unrelated challenge on another front, I will have to assume this is either flamebait, or that you are ignorant of the scientific terms you are using. This is characteristic of Creationists, whose audience is typically other Creationists or the scientifically illiterate. They use points like these which they either don't understand, or build up as straw men, to suggest that the theory of evolution contains holes which it in fact does not contain.

Anyway, this page should answer your questions about DNA, which like the human eye, is believed to have evolved gradually rather than arising all at once.

Anything so far that is incorrect from a factual or logical point of view?
 
2002-03-01 02:35:18 PM
Added note: I'm homeschooled

I feel sorry for you... you have my sympathy. But don't try to weasel your way out of this argument by using that as an excuse... just because your parents farked you out of a decent education is no excuse.
 
2002-03-01 02:37:17 PM
Since both views are considered THEORIES, and it seemed that evolutionists have research to back up their theory, I was curious as to whether creationists had actual research that was credible to back up their theory... it looks like they do, and it raises so great questions: www.creationresearch.net
 
2002-03-01 02:37:17 PM
Science: Following facts to see where they lead you.

Dogma: Forcing facts to fit a preconceived notion.
 
2002-03-01 02:41:48 PM
Evolution = profoundly simple inanimate material earnestly desiring to become readers of poetry and eaters of ice cream.
 
2002-03-01 02:43:27 PM
www.creationresearch.net was debunked a long, long, long time ago by reputable scientists.
 
2002-03-01 02:48:40 PM
Schard-Man
Since both views are considered THEORIES, and it seemed that evolutionists have research to back up their theory, I was curious as to whether creationists had actual research that was credible to back up their theory... it looks like they do, and it raises so great questions: www.creationresearch.net

Give me a break. On their front page it says "Creation Research exists to seek evidence for the bibical account of creation, to investigate and to promote such evidence , as we glorify Christ and build His church."

That is NOT the scientific method. The theory of evolution derives FROM facts. Scientists do not come up with a theory and then go looking for facts to support it. The pabulum on this website is so far from scientific research it's absolutely laughable.

I hope that this site gets a billion hits -- it's the best argument against "creation science" I have seen yet.
 
2002-03-01 02:49:02 PM
BornAgainPagan--

... and, in time, all the present day reputable scientists will be debunked.

Stay tuned.
 
2002-03-01 02:49:54 PM
BornAgainPagan, I know. Effed out of a decent education... after wanting to homeschool for so long, and I end up homeschooling, then I skip a grade and I STILL haven't mastered C. I'm still the lowest-of-the-low, I'm only up to PHP & MySQL, along with some BASIC. If I went to a public school, I could have gone along with the class and not have had a one-on-one learning experience. I could have been flipping burgers instead of programming!

El Bulbil Emir, I didn't intend to flame, but if that's how you saw it, I apologize. What I was wondering, is that the basis of evolution is mutate, pass genes on, and repeat, right? So what's there to mutate if the cells don't yet have DNA? Or as that article suggests, where did RNA come from? Light knocking atoms together to form a cell is extremely extremely rare, but conceiveable. But now, the RNA too is assembled? That's what gets me, is how light/fire/lightning could have just knocked some atoms together into a cell, and that cell decided to live.

How would the eukaryotes be capable of sexual reproduction? Joining, exchanging DNA, then splitting? There's a lot of unanswered questions, and until there's a reasonable answer, I still disagree with it.
 
2002-03-01 02:53:28 PM
BornAgainPagan

Science: Following facts to see where they lead you.

Evolution: Forcing facts to fit a preconceived notion.
 
2002-03-01 02:58:40 PM
Bisifiniti
BornAgainPagan, I know. Effed out of a decent education... after wanting to homeschool for so long, and I end up homeschooling, then I skip a grade and I STILL haven't mastered C. I'm still the lowest-of-the-low, I'm only up to PHP & MySQL, along with some BASIC. If I went to a public school, I could have gone along with the class and not have had a one-on-one learning experience. I could have been flipping burgers instead of programming!

I studied C in my Public High School in 1985. Urge your parents to do more to support funding for their school district, so that Computer Science, Biology, and other important subjects can be taught there.

El Bulbil Emir, I didn't intend to flame, but if that's how you saw it, I apologize. What I was wondering, is that the basis of evolution is mutate, pass genes on, and repeat, right? So what's there to mutate if the cells don't yet have DNA? Or as that article suggests, where did RNA come from? Light knocking atoms together to form a cell is extremely extremely rare, but conceiveable. But now, the RNA too is assembled? That's what gets me, is how light/fire/lightning could have just knocked some atoms together into a cell, and that cell decided to live.

How would the eukaryotes be capable of sexual reproduction? Joining, exchanging DNA, then splitting? There's a lot of unanswered questions, and until there's a reasonable answer, I still disagree with it.


Even though a lot of your questions don't make a lot of sense, the questions you seem to be trying to ask have been answered. I just answered some of them a few minutes ago, and now you're asking them again. Not finding holes in a theory, just displaying your stubborn ignorance.

Again, these questions have been answered. For refutations to many of the spurious arguments raised by Creationists against evolutionary theory, this book is pretty good.

No more questions, unless you're prepared to pay attention to the answers.
 
2002-03-01 02:59:14 PM
Not that my post will be read being that there are a thousand posts before me, but evolution is easy to prove, so easy that a monk from back in the day did it. I just wish I knew his name. He took tall and short plants and cross bread them and all sorts of bs. He found out that it turns out that breeding short plants with short plants creates more short plants, same logic with tall plants. If this is not evolution at work, I don't know what is. I'm not saying that creationism and evolution can't live together, but EVOLUTION IS A FACT.
 
2002-03-01 03:02:17 PM
Homeschooling isn't necessarily bad.
There are many intelligent parents who can give their children a better education than public schools can give, especially if they live in an area with poor public schools. The downside is that the child misses 8 hours a day of interaction with his or her peers and has to make it up with a lot of other social activities.
 
2002-03-01 03:04:59 PM
Warren, you're missing a lot of points. Mainly, scientists are not only wanting to be debunked in time... they are relying upon it because that means that better ideas will have replaced current ones. That is how science, not religion, works.
 
2002-03-01 03:06:25 PM
Blue, that was Gregor Mendel. Yes, a monk pioneered genetics.
 
2002-03-01 03:07:57 PM
Bluenovaman: His name was Mendel.
 
2002-03-01 03:17:19 PM
Bevets
Evolution is the the result of examining facts and seeing what it suggests. Do you think Darwin just was sitting around dreaming up an idea and then went out looking for supporting information? If you do, you are wrong. He observed life in it's forms and similarities, then formed a theorem. From there scientists have expanded his data with information from all kinds of scientific disciplines. This forms the ideas we know as evolution.

If you think some omnipotent (and therefore impossible) being stuck bones under us to find, your tinfoil hat might be on a bit tight.

Bisifiniti
Okay, I think I understand the problem here... when we say theory, we are referring to scientific theory, an idea created based on gathered information. When you say creationist theory, you are referring to a theory that came from a religion, and has so far had no factual information to back it up, but is still believed by the members of that religion. We don't teach religion in schools, and we shouldn't. People who want it taught to their children should do so in their homes and churches. We do teach science in classrooms, and science is taught by teaching the scientific process, then showing what other scientists have discovered thus far using those processes, which includes the scientific theory of evolution, but cannot contain the religious theory of creationism. Evolution doesn't suppose that god doesn't exist, or even that god didn't create the universe, it only has guessed that from the overwhelming evidence that can be found on our planet, the most probable way that humans and other species developed was by changes from other species over extremely long periods of time. We can observe this in some animals, and then using other information, like fossile records, etc, we extrapolate. To teach creationism in school would necesitate infringing on the religions of those who are not christians, which isn't acceptible in our country (nor any civilized modern nation). Think of physics class. If your religion says gravity is the work of giant magnets in the earth, then you can teach that to your children at home and tell them that regardless of the compilation of all scientific data up to this point, it was incorrect what was taught in class, and they should believe in the magnets. In my opinion you'd be doing your children a dis-service, but currently, that is your right. I tell you what, though, good luck getting hired as a geneticist or medical researcher, or any number of careers that expect a foundation in modern science, flawed or not. I certainly wouldn't let a doctor who believed evolution was a big lie anywhere near myself or my family.
 
2002-03-01 03:25:26 PM
Evolution is like a home cooked meal... just like Gramma used to make.

Creationism is like eating the corn out of someones shiat.

Get the picture? Good.
 
2002-03-01 03:33:18 PM
RageX, i'm not saying that the geocentric model is correct, i was just making a point, but it's odd to note that NASA bases all it's space launches as if the world wasn't moving in orbit or rotating, just odd, i would be very interested to see that poster as well, do u have a link to an image of it? remember, a satellite orbiting the earth doesn't show the earth moving, it shows that the satellite is moving

on another topic, i would still like someone to explain to me, why a single cell amoeba living on a barren planet of rock and water would need to evolve, it's already perfect for that environment
 
2002-03-01 03:36:36 PM
Jer, you're a retard. Evolution occurs through mutations in DNA. Mutations happen all the time, no matter if the environment warrants it or not. However, most mutations are either harmless or end up killing the creature affected. In a small number of cases the mutation leads to an advantage that is passed on through reproduction. Species don't "choose" to evolve or mutate. It just happens and natural selection weeds out the poor mutations.
 
2002-03-01 03:37:21 PM
Well, my PHP news script calls out to me. I'm getting the hang of doing database-intensive scripting with it. Just got this box set up with Apache, and I'm dying to start doing something with it.

'tis been fun, everybody.
 
2002-03-01 03:38:27 PM
Bite on this, Jer: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-solarsystem.html
 
2002-03-01 03:46:03 PM
el,
i didn't mean to suggest that animal "X" woke up w/ eyes this morning. What I'm saying is that an number of things have to happen at the same time (even w/in a billion yrs.). A beast having rudimentory eye's or some sort of photo detection, would simaltaniously need to develope a mental capcity to deal w/ the stimulus in another location in the body, the brain. I believe this is way too complex a configuration to happen through mutation(s) even over a very long time.
As for the moths, I believe a study concluded they had always had that "gray" dusty gene, and it became more previlent as the less camoflaged moths in the pool became suseptable to preditors. They didn't evolve to become another color or species, and are genetically the same as they always had been.
These are just a few of many problems dealing w/ evolution.
I would endorse putting the theory through the same "tests and proofs" that all science requires before we claim that evolution has happened. I am sure that these "proofs" are being studied, until proven by science I would prefer that evolution be reffered to as a "THEORY" rather than implying it is fact. I hear to often from "scientists" phrases like "evolution teaches us", or "E has made this animal ears hear..." or "billions of years have made this whale evolve to......" without any disclaimer that this is still just theory.
You seem to be think evolution is a fact, maybe you or someone else could find just one piece of fossilized evidence showing one species becomming another. Episodes like this should have happened billions and billions of times, and if it happened as often as the theory portends, then the evidence should be easy to find, it could make you 250K richer.

TS
 
2002-03-01 03:47:12 PM
"Species don't "choose" to evolve or mutate. It just happens and natural selection weeds out the poor mutations."
BornAgainPagan, then why didn't natural selection weed out you? j/k
i know i'm a retard, but think for a minute, if natural selection weeds out the poor mutations, or those not fit for the environment, it would have already been perfect for that enironment so any mutations would have been downgrades, in anycase, i'm done with this thread, u guys have your fun though
 
2002-03-01 03:49:55 PM
You're a loony!
 
2002-03-01 03:50:47 PM
He's done with this thread because everything he said was proven wrong and he ran out of ass lube.
 
2002-03-01 03:59:17 PM
TyeeEVERYTHING in science is a theory. If the farking fundamentalists let the schools teach our children science, maybe everyone would know that. Anyway, apparently it bears repeating, so I'll say it again: EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS A THEORY.

But some theories are better than others. There is tons of evidence supporting evolution, and NO EVIDENCE supporting Creationism (other than the Bible -- but let's not rely on 4000 (?) year old books as our evidence).

If you were to study biology, and learn about the theory of evolution, and all the facts and logic supporting it, then you might be able to make a case to dismiss it on its merits. Until then, we might as well debate the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. There's just no point.

And obviously no one's ever going to get that $250000 if the guy even has it. There's no way to prove any theory to someone's arbitrary criteria. In fact, the way it's worded, you have to not only *prove* evolution, you have to *disprove* a supernatural being's hand in the process. Obviously undoable.

I'll give $100 (which I actually have) to the first person who proves to me that there is a God. Or that the earth is round. Or that it's not flat. Or that it orbits the sun. Or that the universe even exists.

Any takers?
 
2002-03-01 03:59:33 PM
BornAgainPaga, those images still support the tychonian model, which you obviously have never seen and do not understand, when you think of geocentrism you are probably thinking of the ptolemaic model, in which case, yes those images debunk that model, and why am i to "bite it?" i never said i supported or believed in a geocentric model, i was just making a point previously, you people like to take things out of context, bravo, now i am really done
 
2002-03-01 04:04:10 PM
Creationism's a theory concerning the arise of mankind, religious or not

Sorry, no: creationism is not a theory in any meaningful sense. The word "theory" does not mean "story we make up to explain anything we don't understand." Theories are conceived to explain very disparate empirical observations, are constantly being tuned and refined, and if sound can be used to predict future findings and outcomes. Creationism meets none of those criteria. It does not change (what's in the Bible is it, period); it can't predict any future findings, since God by his nature is supernatural and unbound by physical laws; and its entire notion of "science" is back-asswards: it starts with a conclusion (God created the earth and human beings, as described literally in the old testament) and works backwards to find the evidence.

One other thing no one has really mentioned: evolutionary scientists do not omit God from their work because they are atheists; many if not most are probably not. They do so because science can only operate on the assumption that the universe works according to predictable, discoverable rules, and that it has always done so even if humans weren't around to see it. I drop a rock and falls to the ground today. It will do so tomorrow, and it would have done so a million years ago; there's simply no credible reason to think otherwise.

One last thing to all the creationists out there: why do you even want to use science to try to "prove" the Genesis myth? Genesis is a beautiful story in its way; its become one of the essential, archetypal myths of human civilization. By forcing the rigidity of science onto it, all you do is push it out of shape and into a role it was never meant to fulfill; you end up highlighting its inadequacies while ignoring its beauty and strength. Stop worrying about science so much. Evolutionists aren't out to destroy your beliefs; they're not a cabal of atheists determined to wipe out Christianity and drive America into the mud.
 
2002-03-01 04:05:35 PM
I believe that the Universe was created by Casper the Friendly Ghost 29 years ago, and I have $250,000 for anyone who can prove me wrong.
 
2002-03-01 04:16:26 PM
Timmothy No YOU are the nut Haw haw haw. I only read what you said =P. Sometimes I feel like cutting and pasting the last Cre v. Evo thread and say "There I did the work for you" It dosn't really matter, I think your theory is correct. I honestly don't think people read what others have to say in threads.
 
2002-03-01 04:18:32 PM
A really cool point about creationism that I've never really been able to figure out is this: Think about codes. Our entire world is made up of codes and we are basically a walking organic code. Our DNA is a code made up of G's , T's, C's, and A's. The way these are organized in the universe will create anything humanly imaginable. However, there is a specific number and order these have to be in to create anything viable. This is the same way computer programming works. There are 0's and 1's that , when put together in specific orders and in specific numbers create invaluable information and are the building blocks for complex programs. However, if even one number is off, the whole program is useless... this is where the programmer comes in. The programmer alone has the knowledge and ability to create the specific programs. No computer sitting idle can create a program on its own, nor can the electricity running through the machine randomly form programs on its own. In creation the same is considered true. God is the creator of all things... the programmer. Just something to think about.
 
2002-03-01 04:20:05 PM
What I'm saying is that an number of things have to happen at the same time (even w/in a billion yrs.).

I'm thinking someone has very little grasp of how long "a billion years" actually is. It's a long farking time.

A beast having rudimentory eye's or some sort of photo detection, would simaltaniously need to develope a mental capcity to deal w/ the stimulus in another location in the body, the brain. I believe this is way too complex a configuration to happen through mutation(s) even over a very long time.

Thus spake the neurologist. :D
 
2002-03-01 04:25:20 PM
Also, consider the fact that people sometimes look at evolution like you are gaining genes or getting another eye or something like that. In reality, there is only proof that things LOSE genes and lose parts or whatever... snakes don't grow legs. If anything is happening it would be de-evolution, and de-evolution is probable in a creation theory because we aren't being given new genes from thin air.
 
Displayed 50 of 414 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report