Creation: yea or nay?

I probably shouldn't get into this discussion, because it will degenerate into a flame war between Sleek and I, but I will say this: Evolution is a theory. Not a law. A theory, because there still isn't enough scientific proof to back it up.

 

All those things, about the cells having to get it just right... that's why it takes a few million years. And not ALL multicellular organisms have organs. Increasing to two cells doesn't require a heart, brain, liver, etc.

 

I'm talking about the simplest creature with organs, whatever it may be.

By the way, I'd never heard of organisms that have only two or three cells; I thought it was mucho o uno. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Please tell me you're not a creationist, I had credited you with some intelligence in the past. Respond with a "Nay, I am not a creationist, and I spit upon their SOULS!" and you'll receive that intelligence credit back.

 

Wow, this discussion is still going?

The laws of thermodynamics are well named; they apply to thermodynamics, i.e. heat and energy, not any perceived notion of complexity of matter. To human sensibilities molten carbon may seem random and diamonds may seem highly organized lattices of crystal; yet this is the progression through time, not the other way around. Organization of matter into what we consider complex structures has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics, which concern waste heat. Incidentally the laws of thermodynamics are one reason Newton's laws are obsolete; under Newton, the universe could run backwards or forwards, there was no direction of time, because he had no conception of entropy.

The evidence suggests that chloroplasts and mitochondria were actually independent structures living on their own before becoming incorporated into larger organisms in a symbiotic relationship. The first cells almost certainly were not plants, they were just cells which ate the nutrient rich soup that was present in the primordial oceans. Plants came later and are responsible for generating our high oxygen atmosphere.

In an infinite universe, anything possible can and will happen, statistically. The fact that it happened here is not significant; if it happened somewhere else, the creatures on that planet would be having the same conversation.

The monkeys-typewriters thing is a fun thought problem, but it assumes there is a non-zero probability of them writing a novel, and then that there is an infinite supply of monkeys, typewriters and time, which there isn't, so it doesn't really prove anything if monkeys haven't written Shakespeare or whatever.

Finally, I must point out that statements that "the eye is too complex to form by itself" or "this aspect of the universe [insert favorite example here] is too complex to have happened on its own" are subjective statements in the worst way. Too complex compared to what? This is the only universe we have to study, and it has eyes, chloroplasts, etc. From the evidence in front of us it seems obvious these things not only can exist, but they do. There is no other universe to compare ours to which makes it appear ours is somehow miraculous. Saying these things could not have happened through natural processes because they are "too complex" simply is saying that you find the processes too complex to understand, not that they are too complex to exist. Because we didn't know about DNA before the 1950s did not mean it did not exist; it meant we didn't understant it yet.

To me, the much more interesting problem is consciousness, not anything related to the material world, which is what it is. But that is another topic.

 

Newton's laws dealt with kicking a ball. Technically that COULD run backwards, if time did. If time ran backwards than all your processes would also. What's your point, are you trying to draw some deep connection between thermodynamics and motion? I'm sure there is one, you're just explaining it miserably.

Xento. Explain a fusion creation then. If all matter strives for a less orderly state, how can hydrogen combine to form something with higher order? The energy inputted is the answer, and the energy from the sun and the center of the Earth is what has driven evolution.

 

I'm not the one who bought motion into this. I was just saying that sand blowing around isn't proof that evolution is valid.

Stars are the only places true fusion takes place; everywhere else there is simply not enough energy to keep the process running.

As for the center of the earth, it is merely heat energy. I don't see how that could (or had anything to do with) causing chemicals to come together to form a living organism.

 

Thanks a lot.

 

Dipshit, I was talking to Sigurd, hence I quoted his post.

 

Dipshit, he was talking about your inference about the intelligence of creationists, because he thinks he is one.

 

Still, the post applies to him aswell. Being a Christian and believing god created stuff makes him a creationist.

 

Very well, in that case, let me make a special exception for retard:

Retard, I know you are intelligent, even if you are somewhat of a religious person and a creationist. You're not a blind zealot, just a voluntary believer, so that I can live with. While I may be questioning your judgement, I am not questioning your intelligence.

Sigurd, on the other hand...

 

http://www.swarthmore.edu/natsci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/index.htm

 

wrong. evolution is a fact. we know things evolve. even if you believe God created everything (which i do), you can easily accept that he created the process of evolution. the only thing that should be under discussion is the evolution of humans from apes. scientists are trying to prove this, but have been able to make the complete connection. that's the only theoretical part of the evolution fact.

 

As I've said, it's somewhere in there, we know evolution exists, there just isn't enough evidence to prove that evolution is the reason for the incredible diversity of life on this planet.

 

Well to be technical they don't think we evolved FROM apes, but rather, shared a common ancestor. And I disagree Blinky, there's tons of proof for evolution and the diversity on the planet does nothing but bolster the idea. What I really dislike about this whole thing (example: the stickers Icky posted) is that they ATTEMPT to discredit evolution. Not only that, but some of them are purely wrong. We do have a damn good idea of how old the Earth is, and it isn't 10,000 years. If people intend to put those stickers in textbooks, they better damn well have stickers that say "Creationism is not a theory, it's just an idea, and most scientists think it's a load of bull." I certainly hope we aren't regressing back to OMG NO EVOLUTION! (Monkey Trial hello) because faith shouldn't mean a blind desire to halt scientific progress.

 

We should be discussing natural selection over creationism not evolution.

There is a huge, undeniable (except for those who choose to) amount evidence in support of evolution.
We are sure that during our DNA replication process (cell reproduction or a new child) that sometimes part of code mutates and changes, changing our make-up. This normally has no real effect but natural selection suggests that if enough of these mutations occur and manifest themselves in a waty that give an organism an advantage over others then it will pass that mutation on the code on. And so the code gets more complex and through probability and time you end up with humans from amoebas.

I, personally am not sure that this explains how a bird, perfectly engineered to fly can exist, if while developing these wings to perfection they lost such a large advantage of two of their limbs. So I would suggest such a 'perfect' mutation would die out before it could be refined. And also, why would a bird ever evolve if their ancestors, weird crawling fishy things from the sea, were already evolved for life on the ground. Again during the process of loosing their valuable limbs, which would help greatly for an amphibian swimming and navigating on the ground they would probable die off.

I'm still not a creationist but natural selection cannot be proven and even if the 'missing link' is found there is still enough holes for there to be reasonable doubt.

 

i think that the general idea is that small mutations don't do much, but a large mutation is supposed to change the whole face of a species... but i'm right there with you on not understanding how that's supposed to happen without wiping out a species...

 

Mah mahmma said Ah was smaht and a gud cach! Don mak funn uf mee!

Blind zealot? Not since I was five years old and thought that it was my life's goal to slay abortion doctors.

I've been voluntarily believing in Creation and God since I was old enough to reason and study all the sides of the argument. Hey, if someone could show me some proof of evolution, I'd believe it in a second. I'd even believe in it side by side with the existence of God. In short, I'd turn generation-gap. For those of you ignorant hippies who don't know what the generation-gap theory is, listen: God created the world, but "seven days" is a reverse hyperbole, and it was actually a few million years. For some unfathomable reason, God thought it would be a good time to create a blob and watch it evolve. Hey, he has infinite patience, right? Then, somehow, the Pre-Adamites (yes, that's a serious term) evolved into a first man and a first woman. Say what?

So, basically, some pussy, weak-kneed Christians didn't want to sound dumb to the pseudo-scientific arrogant agnostics, so they altered their perception of the Genesis account to fit evolution into it.

Going back to "if I had proof I'd believe," where the fuck are all the missing links? If there are so many stages between each species, where can they be found in the fossil record? Quite honestly, that alone turns me off from evolution completely. And if someone is ignorant enough to say anything about the "evolution of the horse (Eohippus/Hyracotherium nonsense, etc)" I'm going to go and bomb an abortion clinic. Fossils of Eohippus have been found buried together with fossils of the "modern" horse. Interesting, no?

And since when are large mutations ever beneficial? Anyone ever heard of the fruit fly mutation experiment? In what environment can a pseudo-amphibian creature with shrunken gills and half-developed lungs survive? Oh wait...None.

I don't blame any of you for believing evolution, even though I think it's a ridiculous, outdated theory. Darwin wrote this in the late 1800s, people, and at the time people also believed, because of Darwin, that humans evolved at different rates, causing an Australian Aborigine to be kept in a cage at the Brooklyn Zoo. I blame the public school system for teaching it as a fact. Then again, many of you are so closed-minded (like most liberal hippies) that you consider any belief but your own to be utter stupidity. I thought I was supposed to be the narrow-minded, intolerant troglodyte?

I also think it's cute how some say "I don't understand how large mutations can be beneficial, but I believe in them anyway." Can I have another glass of Blind Faith? Thanks, that was tasty. I think I'll take my next one with a double shot of Denial.

 

Don't give shit to Chritstians who choose to make modifications to their religion (don't let the bible dictate their beliefs). We all know that the bible is far more outdated than you claim Darwin's theory is. A lot social values and stuff in the old testament-Genisis-is not applicable to today.

There are alot of 'missing links' and evidence to support the theory. THE missing link is a theoretical point in our evolution that scientists refer to is the missing link between apes and us. The actual mammal where are ancestors split off from the apes' ancestors and evolved differently. It is still quite possible for it to exist and be very hard to find. Not every animal that ever existed has fossilised remains found and remains found that aren't a clear enough picture have been found.

Where you say "blame the public school system for teaching it as a fact." you are quite wrong.
In alot of American schools, still today it is forbidden to teach the theory of evolution. Got blind faith and chosen ignorance? My school teaches both but places a higher emphasis on the theory of natural selection, I suppose becuase it's more complex (not making it right).

The theory itself has no real flaws and doesn't require pure faith.

If one base in our DNA changes every generaion (actually higher I believer) it will take a helluva long time but if enough is changed to make a different protein that gives and advantage and the organism finds a way to gain an advantage then it will survive. That is pure logic. We know that minor code changes occur and if enough occur (which is an inevitability) then an advantage or disadvantage is presented and so the animal survives and passes it on or dies out. Pure logic but we can't be sure it is the only factor, I agree.

Maybe God did make shit, but shit has evolved and will keep doing so aslong as he lets it. Evolution and Natural Seleciton are still a factor in whatever truth exists.

Large mutations are lots of small ones which will either be useless and ineffectual or do kill the animal off. It is possible for birds to evolved say from those flying fish, when strong limbs aren't a disadvantage. It is an inevitability with the materials and enough time.

That god crap with the hyper bole is a crock. He wouldn't do it and then call it 7 days and who ever the fuck wrote the bible wouldn't state 7 days without a reason. Unless God lied to him, in which case God is immoral by his own rules.