Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism
| 1486 | 250385 |
im just opening this topic so that people can have a NICE, FREINDLY place to talk about their beliefs, i Myself believe in evolutionism
- 1,486 Replies
Considering it's as stupid as saying accepting gravity exists is gravityism. Considering creationism is propagated solely on quote mines, logical fallacies, and flat out lies. As apposed to actual evidence (which I know you don't except so there's no need to go there again). I think the term "creationist idiot" is rather fitting.
There is plenty of propaganda for evolution out their too. Haeckel's drawings, that show embryonic similarities between organisms, were faked; 4 winged fruit flies, saying that it's an example of a positive mutation, when it really only screws up their ability to fly; antibiotic resistant bacteria, another 'example' of a positive mutation, when they reproduce slower and if they are in an environment without the antibiotic the original bacteria eventually gain dominance over the colony and the resistant ones die out. There's plenty more, but that's all I can remember off the top of my head.
I would have to say a fail of the magazine, considering it leads stupid people to conclude reproduction works similarly more or less to cloning.
I didn't see it like cloning, per se, but as they shared the same gene pool with the same traits.
I pointed out the Nylonase, which you refuse to see as a mutation. I pointed out the lizards, which your arguing over with me. The moths changing color is a result of a mutation activating/deactivating certain genes.
Again, the Nylonase could have very well been tampered by the person conducting the experiment, just trying to spread more propaganda for evolution. Well if the lizards have the same gene pool, it's just a matter of which individual lizards have which traits, and eventually, only the ones with the most desirable traits will live. If 2 lizards homozygous for big heads have a baby, the baby will have a big head. And no, the moths didn't go through mutation to achieve their color, because before the Industrial Revolution, there were already rare cases of the exact same moths. Their gene pool stayed exactly the same. No mutations. It was just a matter of natural selection, unless your going to claim that natural selection is a small form of macroevolution.
Unlike you, their definitions were evaluated and excepted.
I mean what the hell are you trying to say we should throw out the excepted definition and use yours?
Yes, but their very first ideas for their theories were probably not written down or reviewed. Darwin saw finches and thought "Maybe they all evolved from something similar?" and didn't have proof. Dalton was experimenting with steam and other gases when he thought "Wow. Steam is really similar to water and ice. Maybe it's just the small building blocks inside them that are slightly different." yet he didn't have proof and didn't write it down.
Well definitions have to come from somewhere, and right now your just "blindly accepting," if you will, someone's definition without even questioning it. And no, I'm not saying "ACCEPT MINE I'M THE ONLY RIGHT ONE," for I haven't studied it very indepth at all, but currently, these observations that I have made have brought me to these definitions.
I guess you fail on understanding the basics of peer review.
Again, their first speculations for their theories weren't published at all and they had no proof to back it up, yet they still believed in them.
Considering some believe in a literal 6 day (day=24 hours), some believe it means millions of years= 1 God day. It would seem it can be taken figuratively.
Seems you didn't read the verse. Peter is saying that God doesn't have the same measure of time as us. What you are referring to above is Genesis.
And we've been constantly pointing out that definition is a load of bull*&^%!
By using definitions you guys have just copied and pasted from random places and pointing out things that aren't your own. Definitions change over time, why wouldn't evolution be any different?
Never said humans and bird just suddenly popped up. It was an evolutionary step that allows these forms to eventually exist. Wait, do you think the Cambrian explosion included humans and birds?
No, I don't. But someone said something about the major similarities between humans and birds, so I addressed it.
It is possible that the descendants of humans and birds once shared a common ancestor.
Proof. Give me a specific example of the organism that shows the common ancestry between birds and humans. And yes, I just did pull the "Proof, or your statement is wrong" card.
I'd like you guys to keep in mind the extreme difficulties and complexities of evolutionary theory. Unless someone here is an evolutionary biologist, all we really have are discoveries made and these scientists' interpretation of the data. The random genetic mutation that (presumably) occurred over millions and millions of years is extremely difficult to understand.
Typically in science, we can use experimentation to predict certain outcomes. If I do x, then y should happen. But evolutionary theory, for the most part, is not predictive. It is a descriptive theory of how things got the way they are.
That being said, Darwin did make certain predications about the necessary existence of certain species with specific features. And these predictions turned out to be right (the species simply hadn't been discovered yet).
And I think it's worth recognizing that evolution is an accepted theory among biologists; and at the risk of fallaciously appealing to authority, I really do think this acceptance lends incredible credence to the the theory.
But it really sounds like you guys are getting into something that no one here is equipped to argue for or against. We can go find research done by actual scientists and quote it, but it's hard to critically assess these kinds of studies because they're so involved and require so much background knowledge.
Just... I dunno... keep this in mind throughout your discussion.
There is plenty of propaganda for evolution out their too.
This is why we use peer reviews to help determine what information is trusted or not.
I didn't see it like cloning, per se, but as they shared the same gene pool with the same traits.
With slight genetic differences I.E. mutations.
Yes, but their very first ideas for their theories were probably not written down or reviewed.
This really does show your lack of understanding for the scientific process. In science no one person can create a theory. At the point your referring to Darwin would have only had a hypothesis.
Well definitions have to come from somewhere
And I would appreciate it if you stopped pulling yours out of your a$$.
So long as you insist on using one set of definitions while everyone else is using another set there really can't be any dialog.
Far as I'm concerned anything your saying using your bogus definitions as a basis has no ground to stand on, as such fails. Because of this I seen no reason to debate with you on any such point you make with them any further.
and right now your just "blindly accepting," if you will, someone's definition without even questioning it.
I'm not even going to address this line of bs. Hell even making this comment seems a bit much.
Proof. Give me a specific example of the organism that shows the common ancestry between birds and humans. And yes, I just did pull the "Proof, or your statement is wrong" card.
Keep in mind I said possibly. As we follow the linage of mammals back we find a reptilian like creature with mammalian traits. Go further back we get a full out reptile. We follow the ave linage back we find Dinosaurs, go further back from then reptiles. If we follow this linage back we find amphibians. So the divergence between the two species could have been somewhere around the reptilian or amphibian stages.
While I'm not saying there was for certain, but by following the evolutionary trail back we see there could have been a common ancestor between the two species at one point.
I say that we evolved, but something had to start it all right. That's why I am agnostic. Calling it evolutionism is just stupid. You don't call scientific theories "ism"s. I mean common, people seem to begin to think that science is a religion. Only sad part is, science is backed by facts.
I say that we evolved, but something had to start it all right.
Well this would be getting into another theory called abiogenesis. Basically under the conditions found on Earth when life first began certain chemicals were able to form into self replicating molecules.
It's no more mysterious or mystical then mixing sodium and water resulting in an explosion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGSmUf3zn_0
That perfectly could be true. I actually have believed that for a long time. But, after years of being an atheist I finally realized that it is impossible for the human mind to find another answer to the universe. For, all the scientific theories can be true(big bang ect.) I now think something had to have created the first chemicals and all that. Which after a very very long time, the theory you said could of happened. But of course there almost has to be thousands of other life forms out there, just by sheer size of the universe.
I read in a book once (can't quite remember the title) that there first were thoughts, these thoughts "evolved" into gasses, which quickly condensed into a liquid, and eventually, creating a vaste mass.
(i don't know what to think about it, on the other side it supports atheism, on the other on it supports creationism)
I now think something had to have created the first chemicals and all that.
For that to be true you have to first demonstrate matter/energy being created. Otherwise we should stick to matter and energy can only change form but can't be created or destroyed.
But of course there almost has to be thousands of other life forms out there, just by sheer size of the universe.
Yes, your right. Based on the Drake Equation some people have estimated as many as thousands of other sentient species just in this galaxy alone. But even if life with a brain about as complex as our was only one per galaxy we are still talking about billions of galaxies.
Well if the lizards have the same gene pool, it's just a matter of which individual lizards have which traits, and eventually, only the ones with the most desirable traits will live. If 2 lizards homozygous for big heads have a baby, the baby will have a big head. And no, the moths didn't go through mutation to achieve their color, because before the Industrial Revolution, there were already rare cases of the exact same moths. Their gene pool stayed exactly the same. No mutations. It was just a matter of natural selection, unless your going to claim that natural selection is a small form of macroevolution.
In what seems like you arguing against evolution, you just explain EXACTLY what the theory of evolution states... You seem to disagree, but then you just went and explained exactly the same thing that the theory of evolution does...you know that what you said IS evolution...right? Yet you try to use that to argue against it?
Yet you try to use that to argue against it?
I think what there saying is the plan of an organism is not something that was developed but already in place. That's why you think they are developing big heads from evolution, but the fact is big heads were already part of the plan.
And no, the moths didn't go through mutation to achieve their color, because before the Industrial Revolution,
It's also sad to see evolutionists have to make hoaxes like the peppered moth and the industrial revolution in order to support their claims.
I think what there saying is the plan of an organism is not something that was developed but already in place. That's why you think they are developing big heads from evolution, but the fact is big heads were already part of the plan.
That doesn't explain new trains arising. Such as with the lizards. Yes they have the same gene pool just as you have the same gene pool as your parents. This is just saying they were related to the ones the put there. Not that the ones they put there had the new traits already built in.
It's also sad to see evolutionists have to make hoaxes like the peppered moth and the industrial revolution in order to support their claims.
Those aren't hoaxes. With the peppered moth this was a change in the species as a result of the environment to allow them to better survive.
One things that seems to keep being missed is evolution happens to species not individuals.
Im catholic but i belive in a mix of the two that everything was created but not in a second, eveything evolved acoding to a divine plan.
The fossil record, what we know about life and the lack of proof of a deity to me only point to the Theory of Evolution being correct.
Im catholic but i belive in a mix of the two that everything was created but not in a second, eveything evolved acoding to a divine plan.
The start of life and the evolution of life aren't the same thing.
Thread is locked!