Creation

[Talon]

I just wanted to see what others thoughts were on the subject. Plus a good debate! Remember that everybody has opinions and should not be criticized because of their view. I believe in Darwinism to a point. I think that it is possible for us to have evolved from neanderthal, but not on the great scale that Darwin presented. There is plenty of evidence proving it. The funny thing is that I was raised Baptist. But look at me now... lol I'm a Wiccan.

[Tsen]

Your description and post were a bit inaccurate. First off, we didn't really evolve from Neanderthals. We're still working on exactly what happened in what order with human evolution, but from what we know, humans and Neanderthals diverged several thousand years ago. There was at least some interbreeding between the two species at a few points, but eventually the Neanderthals went extinct, and modern humans survived. Next, we did not evolve from primates, we ARE primates. Humans are really just exceptionally intelligent, extraordinarily bald apes. Now, what do you mean about "the grand scale" Darwin presented evolution on? I'm a bit lost as to your meaning there.

[Talon]

Now, what do you mean about "the grand scale" Darwin presented evolution on? I&#39;m a bit lost as to your meaning there. [/b] I am sorry for the lack of knowledge that I have about the subject, I just like to hear peoples opinions . What I meant by "grand scale", is this: <div align="center"> </div> We always see it, its always taught. And yes I know we are primates... I am just not good with my vocabulary (nor spelling) and it&#39;s hard for me to put sentences together... dislexia is a b****.

[13redfan]

I believe in a bit of both (and yes, I did catch the inaccuracy of your original post but I'll reply anyway). I think that it is possible that a higher power (powers) created the earth and us via a process of evolution. Something along the lines of the Gods wanted to play on a world, so they created one, and we are the eventual result of that world. Evolution was natural, a side effect of the creation of the Gods.

[Raz]

I believe in a bit of both (and yes, I did catch the inaccuracy of your original post but I'll reply anyway). I think that it is possible that a higher power (powers) created the earth and us via a process of evolution. Something along the lines of the Gods wanted to play on a world, so they created one, and we are the eventual result of that world. Evolution was natural, a side effect of the creation of the Gods. [/b] Wooot! You have no idea how right you are =) But you soon will if you keep having your mind this open! You are a little insacure in your self but you will get there... Where you ask? right here, right now, LIVE and always new. as soon as you think things are like this or like that you close your mind just a tiny bitt. Do not question reality. Just *BE* the question and the awnser in your world and expand your point of view. There will be no fear and no worry and you will find things are quite funny as we enjoy funny =) in other words: Embrace your freakiness and be free(k).

[Brilliand]

Wooot! You have no idea how right you are =) But you soon will if you keep having your mind this open! You are a little insecure in your self but you will get there... Where you ask? right here, right now, LIVE and always new. as soon as you think things are like this or like that you close your mind just a tiny bitt. Do not question reality. Just *BE* the question and the answer in your world and expand your point of view. There will be no fear and no worry and you will find things are quite funny as we enjoy funny =) in other words: Embrace your freakiness and be free(k). [/b] Whoa... New Ager? Even if you aren't, that wording is quite repugnant to me. I believe in a 6,000 year history of Earth, which is just just as rare. But, my philosophy and science hold together. It's nice being internally consistent - I can explore anything. Admittedly, though, it does cause me problems in trying to use ideas from contrary worldviews. If I want to use anything an evolutionist says, I have to unwind it from his worldview and wind it into mine first. That's a lot of work.

[wendylove]

I believe in a 6,000 year history of Earth, which is just just as rare. But, my philosophy and science hold together. [/b] Well the scientific community does not support young earth so science and your philosophy doesn't go together. See their no evidence for creationism just belife, which is not science. Belife in creationism is funny. If only people were not scientifically illiterate. I remeber a film called Hell house in a scene they had a kid learning evolution and then standing up pulling out a gun and saying there is no god and shooting people.

[Talon]

Whoa... New Ager? Even if you aren't, that wording is quite repugnant to me. I believe in a 6,000 year history of Earth, which is just just as rare. But, my philosophy and science hold together. It's nice being internally consistent - I can explore anything. Admittedly, though, it does cause me problems in trying to use ideas from contrary worldviews. If I want to use anything an evolutionist says, I have to unwind it from his worldview and wind it into mine first. That's a lot of work. [/b] I agree... to a point. There are only 6,000 years of recorded history, is that what you are saying?

[Jeremysr]

I believe God made our bodies without evolution. I don't know about the earth being 6 000 years old though, the "7 days" that God used to make the universe could've been longer than just 24 hour days (although I don't doubt that he could've done it in 7 days.)

[Lord Toaster]

I'll believe in whatever sounds most plausible to me (atm, Darwinism) until they come up with something better

[Talon]

I believe God made our bodies without evolution. I don't know about the earth being 6 000 years old though, the "7 days" that God used to make the universe could've been longer than just 24 hour days (although I don't doubt that he could've done it in 7 days.) [/b] One thing to remember is that it is very possible that the orbit of Earth could have changed, as well as pressure differences and things of that sort. You are absolutely correct saying that the 7 days may have in fact been longer.

[Indecent Exposure]

i think the facts speak from them selfs, we evolved from primates. The missing link is needed, but toher than that, its obvious to see. There are no holes. The greater question obviously stems back to creation on a whole, evoltion does not answer how those inital life forms came, Creationism does, I mnot saying tis correct, but it offers soemthing, science still offers very little in that respect. But o tnhe topic of evoluition, its un questionable really on one side there is a bible on the other, intelligent beings, 2000 years in the future, experiments, facts, DNA, extensive books detailing every minor detail. its no comeptation Imran

[Tsen]

Imran, there isn't any such thing as a "missing link". That seems to have been a myth created by creationists that spread rampantly. Here is a brief explanation of the issue. As for the 6,000 year old earth myth, if that's correct, how is it that we have extensive records of history since before that point in time? I posted a list of events that happened in human history before ~4000 BC in another thread, I'll see if I can dig them up.

[Talon]

i think the facts speak from them selfs, we evolved from primates. The missing link is needed, but toher than that, its obvious to see. There are no holes. The greater question obviously stems back to creation on a whole, evoltion does not answer how those inital life forms came, Creationism does, I mnot saying tis correct, but it offers soemthing, science still offers very little in that respect. But o tnhe topic of evoluition, its un questionable really on one side there is a bible on the other, intelligent beings, 2000 years in the future, experiments, facts, DNA, extensive books detailing every minor detail. its no comeptation Imran [/b] The thing is though, and this is my opinion, if we evolved from primative primates, the should be no missing link.

[Tsen]

ARGH. Did you read my post? THERE IS NO MISSING LINK.

[Talon]

ARGH. Did you read my post? THERE IS NO MISSING LINK. [/b] Well I am sorry that HUNDREDS of scientists disagree with you!

[Tsen]

Care to provide sources? I showed mine.

[Drk Pwnr]

Evolution is fact. Only in the sense that the worm that doesn't blend in will be eaten by the bird, so over a while the worms left over will blend in, and poof, that's evolution. Making the leap from monkey to human is just as absurd as any other, but at least works scientifically.

[Brilliand]

6,000 years of history in the absolute sense that there wasn't anything here before that. Well the scientific community does not support young earth so science and your philosophy doesn't go together. See their no evidence for creationism just belief, which is not science. Belief in creationism is funny. If only people were not scientifically illiterate. I remember a film called Hell house in a scene they had a kid learning evolution and then standing up pulling out a gun and saying there is no god and shooting people. [/b] We have a veritable army of scientists. That's a popular view you're citing, but the only rationalization for teaching that view is that anything that's wrong can't have evidence for it because that evidence is really evidence for something else. Evolution is fact. Only in the sense that the worm that doesn't blend in will be eaten by the bird, so over a while the worms left over will blend in, and poof, that's evolution. Making the leap from monkey to human is just as absurd as any other, but at least works scientifically. [/b] Actually, that's natural selection. I believe evolution (in the usual sense) is the entire progression from chemical sea to human.

[13redfan]

I remeber a film called Hell house in a scene they had a kid learning evolution and then standing up pulling out a gun and saying there is no god and shooting people. [/b] See. Science is a meanie sometimes. There are no holes. [/b] Science is riddled with holes. Anything and everything offers some tiny little aspect of something we cannot explain. The more we learn in science, the more we find out we don't know. The greater question obviously stems back to creation on a whole, evoltion does not answer how those inital life forms came, Creationism does, I mnot saying tis correct, but it offers soemthing, science still offers very little in that respect. [/b] Science doesn't really offer an answer on the grand miraculous scale of creationism. But it does have some ideas on how the little fishies with bigger penises got brave and walked on land. I read somewhere that it was an incredible oddity that life evolved, because it was so unlikely. Like, the Earth had to be rotating at that exact speed, and the sea had to be that exact PH and the air had to have this exact amount of Nitrogen and all different things counted towards the eventual evolution of man. So yeah, whatever eventually happened it was pretty hectic.

[Tsen]

Science is riddled with holes. Anything and everything offers some tiny little aspect of something we cannot explain. The more we learn in science, the more we find out we don't know.[/b] Once again, I refer you to one of my favorite quotes: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." -Isaac Asimov Science is an ongoing process, and the more we learn, the more we are able to refine our predictions. Yes, we're finding more things we've yet to learn about, but pretending that all of science is a moot point because we don't understand everything right this very moment is a very moronic statement, don't you think? I read somewhere that it was an incredible oddity that life evolved, because it was so unlikely. Like, the Earth had to be rotating at that exact speed, and the sea had to be that exact PH and the air had to have this exact amount of Nitrogen and all different things counted towards the eventual evolution of man.[/b] Oh please tell me you've done at least a LITTLE more research than that. It's the most bogus claim I've ever heard. Life, as we know it, requires a very specific Ph balance in order to sustain life. It requires a narrow temperature field, the prevalence of the proper elements, and much, much more. But that's because of something called SPECIALIZATION. One of the very basic tenets of evolution is that organisms will grow and adapt to fill niches in their environments. The first life thrived in a methane-rich atmosphere, and to them, oxygen was poisonous. So, according to your logic, they shouldn't have existed. But they did. And at one point, global temperatures dropped to -50 C. Life still thrived. Modern life would almost entirely go extinct if exposed to that kind of conditions. This is specialization in action. Mammoths, for example, were well adapted to cold climates, but (among other things), a warming earth forced them to extinction. Modern humans are adapted to a very narrow range of temperatures, and require an atmosphere of at least 15% or so oxygen. But, as I've shown you, not all life had that requirement. It's simply a vestige of the constant process of specialization.

[Talon]

Care to provide sources? I showed mine. [/b] Go to Google and search... I need no sources. They are everywhere. If I must point out certain sources, I will search myself. It's a little late now and I am very tired lol. Evolution is fact. Only in the sense that the worm that doesn't blend in will be eaten by the bird, so over a while the worms left over will blend in, and poof, that's evolution. Making the leap from monkey to human is just as absurd as any other, but at least works scientifically. [/b] I completely agree. Evolution DOES happen. Just not on the scale they always show. Darwins finch letters were an excellent example of evolution. Marine iguanas are another excellent example. GREAT POINT!!!

[Brilliand]

Oh please tell me you've done at least a LITTLE more research than that. It's the most bogus claim I've ever heard. Life, as we know it, requires a very specific Ph balance in order to sustain life. It requires a narrow temperature field, the prevalence of the proper elements, and much, much more. But that's because of something called SPECIALIZATION. One of the very basic tenets of evolution is that organisms will grow and adapt to fill niches in their environments. The first life thrived in a methane-rich atmosphere, and to them, oxygen was poisonous. So, according to your logic, they shouldn't have existed. But they did. And at one point, global temperatures dropped to -50 C. Life still thrived. Modern life would almost entirely go extinct if exposed to that kind of conditions. This is specialization in action. Mammoths, for example, were well adapted to cold climates, but (among other things), a warming earth forced them to extinction. Modern humans are adapted to a very narrow range of temperatures, and require an atmosphere of at least 15% or so oxygen. But, as I've shown you, not all life had that requirement. It's simply a vestige of the constant process of specialization. [/b] I think that by that argument life would have developed everywhere. So far as we can tell, Earth has the only life in the solar system, with the possible exception of a bit of bacteria on Mars (a pitiful excuse for the time it was supposed to have to develop). Life would have to have its own restrictions just to be as rare as it is. For that reason (and not yours) I cannot accept the "special conditions required" argument, even though it is for my own side. There are too many possible places for none of them to have the required features, provided those features could form by purely naturalistic means.

[Tsen]

I never said it was common, or that it could thrive anywhere, I only said it was adaptive. Saying life on earth requires conditions to be exactly so is a moot point because conditions considered unlivable to modern life are not necessarily unlivable to all life, as shown by the examples I cited. Life on earth has adapted to suit earth as well as possible. It's quite simple, I fail to see why you don't get it. EDIT: Go to Google and search... I need no sources. They are everywhere. If I must point out certain sources, I will search myself. It's a little late now and I am very tired lol.[/b] Until you provide sources, your argument is pointless and bogus. I gave you evidence of transitory forms between humans and our most recent common ancestor with chimps. You fail to cite evidence back, and therefore you have no point to argue. Either cede the argument, or provide your rhetoric. It's not MY job to look up evidence to support your claims, is it?

[13redfan]

Once again, I refer you to one of my favorite quotes: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." -Isaac Asimov Science is an ongoing process, and the more we learn, the more we are able to refine our predictions. Yes, we're finding more things we've yet to learn about, but pretending that all of science is a moot point because we don't understand everything right this very moment is a very moronic statement, don't you think? [/b] Yes, an incredibly moronic statement. One that I never made. I didn't at all say "all of science is a moot point", I was simply contradicting the statment made by imran that "there are no holes", because, well, there are. Oh please tell me you've done at least a LITTLE more research than that. It's the most bogus claim I've ever heard. Life, as we know it, requires a very specific Ph balance in order to sustain life. It requires a narrow temperature field, the prevalence of the proper elements, and much, much more. But that's because of something called SPECIALIZATION. One of the very basic tenets of evolution is that organisms will grow and adapt to fill niches in their environments. The first life thrived in a methane-rich atmosphere, and to them, oxygen was poisonous. So, according to your logic, they shouldn't have existed. But they did. And at one point, global temperatures dropped to -50 C. Life still thrived. Modern life would almost entirely go extinct if exposed to that kind of conditions. This is specialization in action. Mammoths, for example, were well adapted to cold climates, but (among other things), a warming earth forced them to extinction. Modern humans are adapted to a very narrow range of temperatures, and require an atmosphere of at least 15% or so oxygen. [/b] So this proves my point wrong how? What I was saying was, the chances of the conditions being exact for the evolution of us happening is quite incredible. For example, Mammoths died out because of a warming earth. Had the earth not warmed, would we have been here? Maybe, but we'd be very hairy. In any case, all the above stuff you mentioned shows how much goes in to there being this amazing magic (specialization), and I think that's quite hectic. So, let's say the atmosphere in the early days WASN'T methane rich. Isn't it quite possible that things may have branched off differently and specialization made species completely different from us because, well, the environment was different? All them little variables, specialization adapted species to fit the environment. And all of them eventually led to us.