Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
« 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: Evolution or Creation
Fat_Fett 
Registered: Dec '01
6282_John Williams
Date Posted: 4/7/02 8:19pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
ALL of my information on the theory of evolution was well documented, and I got it all from PRO-evolution sites. YOU should be angry at your fellow evolutionists for being so ignorant, for it seems that whatever you say is infallible......

Oh, and my teacher was my literature teacher, so no, she shouldn't be fired.

You type up this huge contradiction to my report, but you leave out my biggest points of evidence against evolution, like the reappearance of Coalacynth, and Darwin's denail of his own theories, and the millions of missing links in the fossil record.

 

-----signature-----
"Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW!
Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already...
You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Geist 
Registered: Oct '99
6270_Darth Vader
Date Posted: 4/7/02 8:24pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
"Creationism is based on FAITH, and it proves the FAITH that Creationists believe in to be TRUE by proving the Evolutionary theory (the only "opposite view" theory") FALSE, through scientific process, that as."

One: Evolution is far from the only "opposite view" theory.

Two: With that in mind, see what you can offer in the way of evidence for your own theory.

 

-----signature-----
When George Lucas was in his early twenties, he was wrecking his health in the burning Tunisian desert, risking a new and fragile career on a movie no one believed in.
When I was in my early twenties, I was complaining on the Internet about George Lucas.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Fat_Fett 
Registered: Dec '01
6282_John Williams
Date Posted: 4/7/02 8:30pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
If you read my previous (long) post, you would see the proof.

Snowdog, if YOU want to say that Creationists are using 40 year old material, perhaps it is becuase Evolutionists have to continually change their "theories" because Creationists continue to prove the old ones false. Sooner or later, Evolutionists will cease to come up with new ideas, and they will be beaten by Creationism's theories. If you want to say that Creationism is merely "playing catch up" with evolution, I say that evolution is "running away" from the truths of Creation.

 

-----signature-----
"Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW!
Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already...
You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth_SnowDog 
Registered: Sep '01
Date Posted: 4/7/02 8:33pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 4/7/02 8:48pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
Darwin's denial of his own theories was for a variety of reasons. One of them was the fundamental principle of scientific scrutiny. A scientific theory is not presented as fact. Another reason for Darwin's hesitation is the fact that he had no clue about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs... only observational evidence which is now supported by many scientific disciplines, including genetics, which didn't exist in his day. I would also say that he feared, in the face of a glowering Christian community, persecution like that which Galileo faced. I probably would have shut my mouth out of fear for my own life, too.

I'm not cramming my "theory" down anyone's throats... I'm merely refuting your assertions which, according to your own post, weren't well-documented, and are like pinholes in a much larger fabric of science that consists of far more than the few isolated examples which you've presented... each of which I have refuted.

If you want your ideas to be accepted, you have to be prepared, like those who came after Darwin, to face the scrutiny.

Furthermore, in precisely what way does the reappearance of the Coelocanth present itself as the stinger missile to shoot down evolution theory for once and for all? If anything, it's proof once again that you haven't the slightest clue about the non-linear nature of evolution.

EDIT: As for the answers to your other questions about missing links and transitory fossils.... apparently while I've shown respect by reading your entire post, you apparently have not read mine thoroughly. I answered all your questions already in my first response to your blind assertions about evolution theory.

Furthermore, I agree with Darth_Geist, do you have some earth-shattering evidence that directly proves Creationism itself? If you do, please present it here... that would be far more scientific than trying to poke holes at evolution with only half an understanding of it.

 

-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Republic_Clone_69 
Registered: Aug '01
6090_Clonetrooper
Date Posted: 4/7/02 8:53pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 4/7/02 9:03pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Republic_Clone_69
I think we have a nominee for the Darwin Awards, folks. plain

If you're going to try to refute a theory, at least try to have the SLIGHTEST concept of what you are talking about.

1. If an animal is born with a mutation that helps it exist in its current ecosystem (which itself is in a state of flux), and is able to flourish (thus passing its genes to future generations) that DOESN'T mean that the "old version" of said animal magically disappears (it may stay the same, evolve along a different, or similar, path... or eventually die out if that path no longer proves to be efficient enough to survive in a changing world).

2. If Coelocanth still exists, it is because that iteration of the species was the best suited for the enviroment it lived (and lives) in... if mutations of the species occured, they died out without any impact on the population. Sharks bear the same form now as they did millions of years ago for that VERY REASON.

3. And by the way, mathematics does support the theory of evolution. It's called Chaos Theory and Self Adaptive Complex Systems (in other words.. like so many of us have stated over and over... evolution is NOT a linear process).

Please try reading a book besides the Bible if you are going to attempt a debate in this thread. Starting with the Origin of Species might be a plan.



 

-----signature-----
You REALLY want to know what I look like under this helmet, don't you?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth_SnowDog 
Registered: Sep '01
Date Posted: 4/7/02 8:58pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
RC_69: Don't forget, Nobel Laureate John Forbes Nash, Jr.'s Equilibrium Theory for Strategic Noncooperative Games is a mathematical theory with applications in evolutionary science.

His theorem contributes a mathematical basis to natural selection by demonstrating how individuals within a group competing for the same or similar resources will be able to achieve both their individual and collective goals if they focus solely on what is best for themselves, given the actions of the other individuals within that system.

Nash's work has turned enough heads tuned to conventional theory in economics, quantum physics and evolutionary science that it earned him a Nobel Prize. As of yet, I don't know any Creationists who could even begin to argue on the same plane of thought with that man.

 

-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Fat_Fett 
Registered: Dec '01
6282_John Williams
Date Posted: 4/7/02 9:06pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Yes you did answer the question....in a way.

How is it that all of the fossils that would show how we evolved from different species don't exist? Is it just by chance that these fossils that would link two species together don't exist? Is it just by chance that these species show no dramatic change over time within themselves, or a change that would result in another species?

If you're going to give me the same answer that you gave about crocodiles and turtles not changing drastically over time, then how is evolution PROVED if no fossils show a CHANGE?

Like I said, I believe that Evolution is constantly running away from the truths of Creation. You see it in a way that Creationism is merely playing catch up to Evolution.

I'll admit it- Evolution does have very strong evidence for it. You should see that Creationism has very strong points for it as well. Years after we're gone, Snowdog, scientists will STILL be discussing all of this. Who knows, maybe they'll use our posts here as references. laugh

If someone who hadn't been introduced to either theory suddenly saw this board, they probably would call this discussion a stalemate. That is what this whole discussion is - a stalemate. Both sides refuse to give up, and both sides can repeatedly come up with new evidence to support their theory.

Snowdog, you are much smarter than me in this field, but I don't make fun of you for your beliefs. I would respect you more if you stopped flaming me. I just hope you see that my theory also has its strong points.

...I'm frickin 16 years old! My head hurts, and I have to go to school in about 7 hours . Hopefully my fellow Creationists won't leave me hanging here.





P.S. Whether you or I am right can never be determined 100%. I know what comes after this mortal life, and perhaps, 70 or so years from now, we will both see who had the real, correct answer.....

grin

'nite

-Fat_Fett

 

-----signature-----
"Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW!
Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already...
You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Jedi_Master201 
Registered: May '01
7710_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 4/7/02 9:42pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Yes, SnowDog, I'd appreciate it if you cut out the descrete flaming. wink


No one goes around flaming you, now do they? Well, none of us Christians anyway. No one tries to belittle your beliefs, much less your intelligence. I see you doing that to every Christian on these boards, every time you get the chance.

 

-----signature-----
Admiral JM201 - Wraith 12, AotCDF
http://witnessincontrast.org/NewWIC/NewWebDesign/CreationVideos/creation_videos.htm
[The Lord of the Rings reigns over all other works of fiction]
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth_SnowDog 
Registered: Sep '01
Date Posted: 4/8/02 7:02am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 4/8/02 8:25am (6 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
Fett: How is it that all of the fossils that would show how we evolved from different species don't exist? Is it just by chance that these fossils that would link two species together don't exist? Is it just by chance that these species show no dramatic change over time within themselves, or a change that would result in another species?

Go back and read my post again. There are numerous examples of transitory fossils, which, because of the fossilization process, are extremely difficult to find... but they have been found. I mentioned one of them in my original response to your post, Dromaeosaur.

If you're going to give me the same answer that you gave about crocodiles and turtles not changing drastically over time, then how is evolution PROVED if no fossils show a CHANGE?

Again, evolution isn't linear. Just because some species do not change because nothing forces them into adaptation by natural selection doesn't mean that no species change. Let's take the alligator, for example... if no external environmental factors, such as food, weather, etc., cause its numbers to be reduced... it will continue to thrive and multiply its existing gene set.

However, if external factors put pressure on a species, and some members of that species have mutations within their gene set that have somehow made them better at surviving through changes in their environment.. that species will thrive... but it doesn't always mean that the original species will instantaneously cease to exist everywhere in the world.

Let's put it this way... if an unexpected seasonal change were to wipe out nearly, but not all, the existing African Grey parrots in Africa... would that mean that all the African Greys elsewhere in the world, or those who have managed somehow to migrate, or a few who did survive in remote pockets of South America, instantaneously cease to exist? Of course not. Nor does it mean that all other parrots have ceased to exist.

No scientist has suggested the coelocanth re-evolved from newer fish... its existence has persisted all this time, and was so remote that it wasn't until recently found to be living. What this demonstrates is most likely that a few coelocanths managed to find a remote environment in which to survive, by whatever means, as nature often does persist in this way... and yet there are those coelocanths who carried genetic mutations and thrived in their original environments where other coelocanths had been wiped out. This explains precisely how coelocanths coexist with many other fish species today. Bear in mind, the distance between coelocanth and many other fish is thousands of generations of genetic variation... but just because coelocanth's numbers were reduced doesn't mean they were eliminated, and just because they weren't eliminated doesn't mean that none of them adapted through genetic mutation.

JM_201: Depends on what you consider flaming. So far, mods/admins on the Senate Floor haven't even approached me about it. So apparently they don't consider it flaming.

The problem is that, because you take your beliefs far too personally in this regard, it's hard for you to distinguish when it's your argument I'm throwing darts at, not you.

JM_201, so far, I don't recall telling a single person they'll go to hell or they're damned for eternity if they don't agree with me. Debates are as such... they leave little room for unprepared arguments. If you want me to reword my statements, fine... I'll state it this way: Fett's arguments are poorly constructed, they wouldn't hold their own in any court of scientific opinion, but he's (I'm assuming Fett's a he... but correct me if I'm wrong) a good person.

Don't confuse my defense as being anti-Christian. It's simply anti-ignorance. I'm well aware of the Christian bases for belief, and as a faith, I don't argue against anyone's right to believe in whatever they choose to believe.

Now, this is an Evolution vs. Creation thread, and I do expect, as in any other debate, people to at least prepare themselves with cogent arguments for their position... but when Fett, or yourself, for that matter, comes in here and flames us for being "blithering idiots" because we don't swallow your Jesus Christ rhetoric as easily as you would like us to, that doesn't help your position, nor does it make us flamers.

I don't go around starting 100 odd threads on the virtues of Hinduism... I don't see Muslims going door to door bothering people with their faith... but I consistently see a plethora of proselytizing coming from the Christian community... out in the world, as well as in these threads. The admins have given you an opportunity to talk about the virtues of Christianity in a single Jesus thread, but apparently that isn't good enough for you.

The thing that irritates me most about Creationist arguments is that you keep dancing back and forth between "Creationism is a science, unlike Evolution!" and "No, Creationism is faith, you can't argue faith with science!". You change that position whenever it suits you. Am I supposed to applaud this sort of thinking?

I feel sorry for Fett, not because he's a Christian... but because it's clear to me from the way he argues science, and the way his teachers don't seem to understand a non-scientific argument when they see one, that the public school system has done such a poor job of educating the youth of America about science when a kid his age has no concept of the difference between conjecture and scientific process. Granted, literature professors aren't required to grade on this, but at least you'd think they'd understand science... mine never seemed to understand the paradox between the rules of language they taught, and the literature we read which broke every one of those rules. I admire his tenacity, and though he has come in to this forum, guns blazing, not unlike yourself, JM_201, I give him full credit for at least, upon my prodding, going back over my arguments.

Once he did that, it was abundandtly clear I had made some headway in explaining to him some of the scientific processes by which evolution is observed, and not just conjured up out of thin air as morons like Dr. Gish and others would have you fall prey to believing, without first doing your own research on the matter.

I don't think Christians are foolish, JM. I think the arguments put forth by Creationists are foolish, and so far, not one of you has presented any... any tangible evidence whatsoever... to favor Creationism over all competing theories on its own merits. Contrary to what most Creationists in this thread believe, when you dismiss the evidence Evolutionists have brought forth, without even understanding it's relevance, the process by which it was verified, scrutinized, and just how long it takes each piece of evidence to gain acceptance of the whole scientific community... you aren't building up any support for Creationism itself. Pieces of that evidence may still be in question, but then I challenge you to throw all your mountains of tangible, forensic evidence of Creation on the table. Show me, don't tell me.

Of course when I say that, you'll cower back into the "Creationism is faith" argument. But then when you find one piece of 40-year old evolutionary research that doesn't appear to make sense, you'll come back again and hit me with the "evolution isn't science" crap again.

I would strongly recommend that if you can't handle criticism (and it's not personal criticism, mind you), then don't come into a forum challenging science... which is all about being able to withstand criticism.

I feel bad that Fett has somehow mistaken my arguments against his logic and my observations of the asinine nature of the factoids he regurgitates as personal attacks.

I give him some weight because he's still a kid and has a lot of studying to do before we're on an even playing field. However, I look at most of the arguments he presented and I come to the rapid conclusion that most of the information seems to have been regurgitated verbatim from either sources covering scientific disciplines and processes he clearly doesn't understand, or from Creationist websites that spout out prepackaged "anti-Evolutionism" arguments the bases of which are flawed, many of which come from the same cockamamie sources over and over again, like Gish and the ICR, without exploring at all the data that challenges their position... which is something that scientists are always required to do... and most of which consist of almost always misapplied or out-of-context random observations strung together as if that can somehow be mistaken for scientific process.

Fett and others won't hesitate to crack their knuckles and condescend to me with their "holier-than-thou" garbage... assuming they're right because God says so... which is, in the face of all other faiths, an extremely arrogant and naive position to take. Should I not be offended by this ridiculous insult to my culture, my common sense and my knowledge, experience and education? When you offend me with your insulting assertions about my beliefs, it's just faith, but when I offend you with logical arguments and evidence (and assertions that your logic is seriously flawed) it's flaming?!

Funny how Christians cry wolf when all they're receiving is, in return, not even one thousandth of the disrespect and insult towards other cultures, beliefs and disciplines that they and their forebears have dished out.

It might help for you guys to take a cue from Neon_Ninja who at least has initiated new debate by asking questions to try to increase his understanding of evolutionary science. You didn't see me "flaming" him... maybe it's because he didn't set foot in here flaming us all of a sudden.

The Golden Rule... it exists in every culture, and yet even Creationists, who attribute the very existence of benevolence exclusively to their Christ seem to always be the first ones to forget how simple and obvious and true this rule is. In my culture, we call it karma.

 

-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Peez 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 4/8/02 8:18am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Fat_Fett:
I am a VERY strict Creationist, and I have it backed by scientific facts....a whole ton of them.
By all means, present scientific facts that might "back up" creationism. Please note that in science a hypothesis must be falsifiable. That is, to be science you must be able to identify potential observations that would, in principle, provide evidence against the hypothesis.
The main thing is, Creation is true and so is Evolution....
One can argue this, but Creation is not science and Evolution is.
but not "evolution" as we know it.
What is evolution "as we know it"?
Things do not evolve into totally different forms, they develop what they already have (organs, etc) to their own environment. The best example I can give of this is: look at us ("us" being the people of the USA) and observe how much oxygen our lungs can contain, and how our bodies use up the oxygen. Now, look at the people of the Himalayan Mountains. Observe how they use the same God-given lungs that we have to use the limited oxygen in their air much more effectively than we ever could. Because these people have lived their for thousands of years, their lungs have addapted [sic].
We must be careful with terminology if we are going to communicate effectively. When you use the word adapted, do you mean that these people have genes that make their lungs more efficient at high altitudes, or do you mean that they have the same genes but their lungs have become more efficient at these altitudes due to their exposure to those conditions?
Now, if some group of people and all of that group's descendants just swam around in the water for all of their lives, they wouldn't develop gills and flippers to more effectively swim. The most they would develop is bigger muscles in the shoulders and legs, so they could swim better.
If some arboreal apes just walked around on the savanna, they would,'t develop a replacement for the spine for standing upright, they would evolve a curve in the spine that they had. Sound familiar? By the way, did you know that you had gill slits during your embryonic development?
I'll explain this all better in my next LLOOONNNNGGGGG post.
I look forward to it.

Peez

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Goldberry 
Registered: Oct '01
6040_Adi Gallia
Date Posted: 4/8/02 8:45am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 4/8/02 8:46am (1 edits total) Edited By: Goldberry
In regards to Darwin's denying his own theories, if you're referring to the Lady Hope story, in which he supposedly renounces evolution on his deathbed, I'd like to reference TalkOrigins.org:

The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant. A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. See the Lady Hope Story FAQ.

Just my two cents. happy

 

-----signature-----
'Mary 'ad a little lamb. I bit it in the head.' - Balrog of Moria tongue
http://www.yougotta.com/Goldberry
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Peez 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 4/8/02 10:45am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Fat_Fett:
The Search for Truth: Creationism vs. Evolution
Note that science in general and evolution in particular are not about something so lofty as "Truth." Science is about finding natural explanations for phenomena in the universe by the empirical testing of hypotheses and the development of theories that join these hypotheses in a meaningful manner.
There has been a question that has been continuously asked over the last 150 years: "What is the answer to the origin all of things- Creation or evolution?" My answer to this question is that everything we see and cannot see was made by the Creator, known as God. In my essay I will reveal amazing true facts that prove the theory of evolution to be completely false. I will start by pointing out the main ideas of each theory.
We had better get a few things clear right off. First, Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, nor even the origin of life. It is about what happens to life once you have it. Second, biologists who actually study the origin of species have not seriously questioned the validity of the common descent of species on the planet, nor the theory of evolution. Only those with social and religious agendas have continued to dogmatically question these things, usually out of ignorance. Third, there are many people who accept that humans (and other organisms) have evolved from ancestors who were quite different, and also accept that one or more gods created the universe and even created life. Some believe that evolution is how god(s) worked. Many of these people are Christians.
According to the theory of evolution, the universe was once a small, subatomic particle. Suddenly, rapid motions occurred in the particle hundreds of billions of years ago, causing it to expand very rapidly. This "Big Bang" theory allegedly explains the beginnings of the universe. After the explosions, particles gathered at random to form chance objects (Emporium Int). The chance objects formed include the stars, the planets, and all other universal phenomena. The Earth was one of these planets, and was at first uninhabitable and a hostile environment.
You are wrong right from the start. The theory of evolution is a biological theory, and has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, that falls into the study of physics (by the way, you have the "Big Bang" theory wrong anyhow, but you should discuss that with someone who knows more about physics).
According to the theory, the Earth was covered in a "Primordial Soup," out of which came the first cell.
No, this is abiogenesis, not evolution, and it has more to do with chemistry than biology (though it is at least on the edge of biology). Of course, you still have it wrong. Could you provide a reference for this idea that the earth was covered in a "Primordial Soup" (a popular idea, but not one that I have ever heard a scientist propose). The earth was certainly very different from what it is today, and there were chemical reactions going on in various places across the globe. Some of those reactions involved molecules that acted as enzymes (chemicals that cause certain reactions). Some of those enzymes caused reactions that produced more of the same enzyme. These self-replication enzymes, perhaps RNA (RNA forms naturally due to the chemical properties of matter) were subject to natural selection: the best replicators became more common as the poorer replicators were out-competed for resources. Because these replicators were not perfect, they often produced changed versions of themselves. These changed versions were often very similar and performed the same, but many were worse and disappeared shortly, and a few were better and tended to replicate faster and eventually take over. Some of these replicators found themselves in a phospholipid sack (which forms naturally due to the chemical properties of phospholipids). Thus you have a cell: genetic material and enzymes in a phospholipid membrane. But this is a digression, let's get back to evolution.
This cell soon evolved independently into a life form.
Are you saying that the cell was not a life form?
Slowly it evolved, changing from a cell, to a blob, then an invertebrate, next to an underwater creature, into an amphibious creature, then a land-dwelling creature, and finally, a flying creature.
The individual did not evolve, the population evolved. This is an important distinction. It should also be emphasized that early unicellular life forms evolved into many different species that are around today, including many unicellular forms such as bacteria and diatoms.
While these cells were changing over the process of millions and perhaps billions of years, other cells ceased to change at all over this huge span of time.
I do not understand what you are trying to say. Evolution does not produce morphological changes constantly. There are many examples of populations that display no detectable morphological change for millions of years, while others change considerably. Of course, there may be many changes that are not morphological (genetic, enzymatic, etc.). The unicellular life that we have today is much different than the unicellular life that lived 3.5 billion years ago.
This is how scientists "know" the millions of life forms alive today came to exist.
No, this is your description of how you think that scientists think that it happened. Whether or not scientists are right, you certainly do not know what they have been saying about evolution. By the way, scientists have been convinced that living species evolved from a common ancestor by many things (the fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, etc.).
The theory of evolution is supposed to be supported by the fossil record, which scientists say contains millions of fossils that have accumulated over millions of years (Library Int).
We should distinguish between the evolution of living species from a common ancestor and the theory of evolution that explains this pattern. The common descent of living species, evolved from ancestral forms, is certainly well-supported by the millions of fossils found (as well as by other, independent, lines of evidence).[blockquote]The most controversial section of the theory of evolution is that man evolved from apes.[/blockquote]More correctly: man evolved from non-human apes (we are apes). The only reason that this area is controversial is that it offends some people who cannot accept it, but there is no controversy among scientists who study the origin of humans: we evolved from non-human ancestors.[blockquote]As different creatures evolved into primates, the primates continued to evolve, themselves becoming smarter and beginning to walk upright.[/blockquote]Some did, others evolved different adaptations to their environments.[blockquote]Over hundreds of thousands of years, through the process of "survival of the fittest," pre-historic man appeared on the Earth.[/blockquote]Millions of years. Our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzees was about 6 million years ago, and primates existed long before that.[blockquote]Apes somehow still exist even today, even though they all should have evolved out of their species like the other apes, because according to the theory of evolution, the evolutionary cycle continues even today (Emporium Int).[/blockquote]I don't wish to be rude, but your ignorance is astonishing. Many people do not understand evolution, but if you are going to write a paper on the subject you should inform yourself. This is only the latest in a string of errors: of course apes exist today, we did not evolve from modern apes. What makes you think that chimpanzees existed 6 million years ago? But even beyond that, where did you get the idea that apes "should have evolved out of their species"? The theory of evolution does not propose that species must evolve. And please explain: what is the "evolutionary cycle"?[blockquote]Eventually pre-historic man became modern man, but only after making a long series of improvements, including the discovery of fire, blacksmithing, and culture (Library Int).[/blockquote]Cultural "evolution" is a separate issue, but Homo sapiens has been around for about 300,000 years.[blockquote]Now, the Theory of Creation states that in the beginning, before time itself even existed, an omni powerful, omni present God (the Creator) created the universe from the words that came from His mouth, and did it all in six 24-hour days (Library Int).[/blockquote]That is one creation theory, but there are many others. What about Cree creationists? Hindu creationists? Raelian creationists?[blockquote]He created the entire universe, the galaxies, and all of the planets about 10,000 years ago (Emporium Int).[/blockquote]This is certainly possible, but it is also possible that the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of greater age (including memories, 3 billion year old rocks, etc.).[blockquote]When He created Earth, He created all of the bodies of water on the first day.[/blockquote]How can you have "all of the bodies of water" without land, I wonder. happy [blockquote]Then, on the second day, He made dry land appear, and soon after He made the plants, trees, and grasses.[/blockquote]What about all those plants that lived in the sea before land plants? What about fungi? Bacteria? Protozoa?[blockquote]On the third day, to separate between the night and the day, He created the sun and the moon, and all of the stars.[/blockquote]How were there days before there was a sun? How did the light from the stars greater than 10,000 light-years distance get to earth in less than 10,000 years? Why is the moon called a "lesser light" when it does not produce light?[blockquote]After doing this He made all of the underwater creatures and all flying animals on the fourth day. On the fifth day of his creation, God created all of the land animals and mammals. Finally, on the sixth day of His creation, God created man. He said that He would make man in His own image (it's kind of hard to picture God as a monkey).[/blockquote]And it is easy to picture your god as having a penis? What does he use it for?[blockquote]He made man out of the dust, and breathed life into him. God told Adam, the first man, that he would rule over all the creatures, and he was to name all of the creatures as well.[/blockquote]Note, the man is put in charge, not the woman. sad [blockquote]On the seventh day, after completing all of His creation, God rested.[/blockquote]Didn't you say that he was "omni powerful"? Why did he need rest?[blockquote]God saw that His creation was good, and He was pleased by it. Soon, though, God saw that Adam, the man He had created, was lonely. So He put Adam into a deep sleep, and made the first woman, Eve, out of one of Adam's ribs. It was from Adam and Eve that the whole world became populated.[/blockquote]Again, a bit of a mystery: why would an "omni powerful" god need a rib from Adam?[blockquote]About 5000 years later, God was angry with mankind and his sins, so he decided he was going to wipe man off the face of the Earth with a world-wide flood. God spared one holy man, Noah, and the rest of his family, and instructed him to build an ark. He told Noah that a male and female of every type of animal were to enter the ark. After a flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights, the waters receded and Noah's ark came to rest on Mount Ararat, which is now in modern day Turkey (on an interesting note, photos of Noah's ark and even pieces of the ark itself have been produced as evidence that the ark really does exist and is still on the icy, perilous peak of Mt. Ararat, mostly buried by ice and split in two by a glacier) (Answers int).[/blockquote]Yes, and I have some nice dry land in Florida that I can sell you really cheep. Anyone can claim that they have a piece of Noah's alleged ark, but where is the evidence? Where is the ark? here is the evidence for this world-wide flood, that geologists the world over have been unable to find? How is it that ancient cultures like the Chinese were unaffected? How did the plants survive? How about fungi? How did the delicate ecosystems, like coral reefs, survive? How did all those parasites and genetic diseases survive? (the ark must have been a plague ship!) How did the kangaroos get to Australia, and why didn't they go anywhere else? How did millions of species of animals fit in a wooden boat, with all that food, for 40 days? What did they eat when they got off the ark? And besides, why on earth did an "omni powerful" god resort to such a messy and cruel method to destroy his own children?[blockquote]After the flood, Noah, his family, and all the animals left the ark and repopulated the Earth.[/blockquote]There is far more genetic diversity in animal species than could have arisen in 5,000 years. You are proposing faster evolution than scientists believe has occurred.[blockquote]Is the flood the cause for the fossil record? I'll answer that question and all the others soon. It is also interesting to note that almost all civilizations on Earth contain a story about a world-wide flood (Answers int).[/blockquote]This is a lie, but of course many cultures have stories about big floods. For a small village of people, any flood is a "world-wide" flood since their "world" is very small.[blockquote]In summary, the theory of Creation states that, unlike the theory of evolution, man and all creatures exist in the same form they were created as thousands of years ago.[/blockquote]Thousands? You make the common creationist mistake of thinking that thousands of years is a long time. It is only long from our perspective, it is very short in evolutionary terms.[blockquote]There are literally hundreds of mistakes, flaws, and flukes in the theory of evolution. I'll start with the flukes and flaws. Twelve "prehistoric" finds that allegedly prove the links between man and primate have either been proven to be a fluke or totally man or totally ape (Pathlights int). Some of the flukes include Peiking man, Java man, and Piltdown man (Saint 32, 85). Java man was formed from bones, both fossilized and un-fossilized, and some of the bones were even found as far as 50 feet from each other (Saint 47). A tooth that supposedly belonged to the same fossil was found two miles away! From these bones (six total – skullcap, leg bone, jaw fragment, three teeth), scientists concluded that Java man was the "missing link." What an appropriate name for a skeleton with over 200 bones missing (Saint 47)![/blockquote]I will assume that you have been mislead and are not lying. First, "Java Man" is only one example of Homo erectus, for which many other fossils have been found. Your various claims about the authenticity of Java Man are dealt with at this sight:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

In short, you are not correct. Finally, I have never heard of Java Man being referred to as a "missing link." Just what is a "missing link" anyhow?[blockquote]Piltdown man, "the dawn man of Dawson," was considered a huge scientific discovery in 1915. That is, it was a huge scientific discovery, until scientists in the 1950's discovered that the skull had been dipped in acid, filed, and dyed so it would look older and so it wouldn't resemble a modern human skull (Saint 85).[/blockquote]Guess who exposed the Piltdown hoax. Creationists? No, it was scientists. The fact is that the Piltdown find was never widely accepted and was never influential. Check here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

Note that "Piltdown Man" was found almost 30 years after Java Man, so why are you calling Java Man "the missing link" when scientists were supposedly still looking for it?[blockquote]The infamous Peiking [sic] man was "discovered" after an archeologist discovered a tooth, and only a tooth, and claimed it was another pre-historic man. Too bad the tooth really belonged to a pig (Answers int).[/blockquote]This is getting tiresome, look here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html

[blockquote]Along with these flukes, another huge flaw is how we perceive what ancient man looked like. While modern sculptures and reconstructions give as a dumb look with a huge brow and a pug nose as the example of ancient man's countenance, no facial tissue has ever been discovered (Saint 42). Having said this, we have no idea what pre-historic man looked like (Saint 42).[/blockquote]Actually, from the structure of the bone scientists can estimate the muscle tissue, and then estimate the facial shape. Of course, it is only approximate, scientists have never claimed otherwise. That being said, which human ancestors are you referring to, with the so- called "dumb look with a huge brow and a pug nose." More importantly, what has this got to do with the validity of evolution?[blockquote]Another flaw in the theory is the idea of the "missing link."[/blockquote]Perhaps you could define a "missing link."[blockquote]If evolution, based on all the information that has accumulated over all these years, were true, there would literally be million of missing links (Saint 15, 17).[/blockquote]If you mean ‘millions of fossils that are intermediate in form between older and younger forms,' there are (though this is due to geological processes, there is no reason in the theory of evolution that requires such millions to exist).[blockquote]Here's where the fossil record leads away from the theory of evolution. While all of the fossils are supposedly millions of years apart, there isn't a single change between a fossil from 100 million years ago and another fossil of the same species from 10 million years ago (Pathlights int).[/blockquote]What do you mean by a "change between a fossil"? Are you trying to claim that the fossils from 100 million years ago (or earlier) are no different than those 10 million years ago (or younger)? That is even more absurd than most creationist claims that I have seen. Trilobites jump to mind (found more than 250 million years ago, not found since) and humans (found only in the past 300,000 years or so). There are lots of examples, and it is hard to take you seriously here.[blockquote]Top-ranking evolutionists who have observed the fossil record have said themselves that it is much more likely that the fossil record is the result of one mass, catastrophic incident (the Great Flood), rather than something having formed over millions of years ago (Answers int).[/blockquote]Name one. If you are being honest here, you should be able to provide a reference. I hope that you are not just making this up.[blockquote]Why? Because there is no proof that shows that species experience dramatic change over a long time (Pathlights int). All fossils that have been found have eventually been determined as being fully fish, dinosaur, bird, reptile, etc (17).[/blockquote]You mean, like the Archaeapteryx is fully a bird because it has feathers, and fully a dinosaur because it has a tail, teeth, no keel, etc.?[blockquote]In this essay I have criticized the reliability of fossils from "hundreds of millions of years" ago, to fossils from a "few million" years ago.[/blockquote]All you have done is to claim that evolution isn't correct, given inaccurate information, and displayed your lack of understanding of evolution.[blockquote]Now I will show that the dating of these fossils isn't even accurate.[/blockquote]Ah, the geologists and physicists are all wrong too. Tell me, is this some kind of conspiracy, or are all those biologists and geologists and physicists and astronomers just stupid (not only stupid, but very, very lucky to have all their errors come out agreeing with each other, not to mention all the success they have enjoyed with medicine and finding oil and making atomic clocks and predicting eclipses)? The rest of this post is no more useful, so I will stop here.

Peez

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Peez 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 4/8/02 10:55am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Fat_Fett:
Oh, I got an A.... everything that I proved wrong in my paper was in my opponents paper, who couldn't find anything to say to defend evolution after I had given my report. He was left speechless.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Your post is not to badly written, in as far as use of the English language, but it does not merit a passing grade in terms of research, understanding, or logic. Sad, really.
Creationism is based on FAITH, and it proves the FAITH that Creationists believe in to be TRUE by proving the Evolutionary theory (the only "opposite view" theory") FALSE, through scientific process, that as.
You are so wrong.

If creationism is based on faith, then there is no proof (if it was proved, faith would not be required). Evolution is not the only alternate view, but evolution is the only scientific view. This doesn't make it true, of course, but keep in mind that creationism is not science (you said it yourself: it is based on faith). Even creationism is not just one hypothesis, as there are many non-Christian creationists. Even if creationism was one hypothesis, and that we did not have any other hypotheses (hey, aliens could have created us!), this still does not prove your particular creationism, it merely would mean that we had no viable alternative. Even ignoring the facts, your argument makes no sense.

Peez

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Peez 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 4/8/02 11:07am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Fat_Fett:
Let me get this straight. When I, a Christian Creationist, express my beliefs, I am "cramming it down people's throats."

But when you, a secular evolutionist, express your beliefs, it's just explaining evolution.

A bit unfair, hmm?
People who accept that we have evolved (is that what you mean by an "evolutionist"?), whether Christian or Hindu or atheist, are not necessarily "cramming it down people's throats" any more than creationists are. If you wish to believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe on 3 March 1938, I would be saddened but it is your business. On the other hand, if you try to teach people the lie that creationism is science, I object strenuously. Such libel should not go unchallenged.[/b][/blockquote]And WHAT do you have to say about Darwin denying his theories, and the Coalacynth [sic], and about all the farces and lies behind the "missing link" skeletons. WHERE are all of the fossils that would show a species developing into another species? THEY DON'T EXIST! Before you get all high and mighty on your throne of "I'm right and you are an uneducated peon," please answer these questions.[/b][/blockquote]Calm down. First, are you claiming that Darwin changed his mind and "denied" his theory of evolution? First, you should explain why we should care what Darwin thought. Then you should provide evidence that he did, indeed, do this. Next, what about the coelacanth? It poses no problems for evolution that I know of. As for the "farces and lies" surrounding the "missing links," please see my other post on that subject. As for where all those fossils are, just go to a good museum. Just because you have not seen them, and don't want them to exist, does not mean that they do not exist.
AND DON'T CRAM YOUR BELIEFS DOWN MY THROAT, KAPISH?
No need to yell, I am not trying to ram anything down your throat.

Peez