Evolution Dun Exist Because... - Page 6

John D Harris · 11-02-2001, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Real:
Okay freaky shit My post didn't contain what I wrote but the what I wrote in a post before I tryed to delete it and then edit it because I miss read John D Harris post.

Okay that post that you use for a reason is not saying anywhere in it that the bible didn't say fish life existed first and after being rasied as a christan I don't remember that passage by heck I'm rusty so you know better.
The point of that post was to tell Prime2U that they is evidence that life existed in the sea first not who said it first, Heck it should have Prime2U name instead of mine becuase he the one denying it. Now I amite that I called the story of creation fictious but the theory of Evolution proves that in my eyes.

So I'm sorry for jumping to the ideal that you attack me but I couldn't see what that post had to with anything I had said and was angery with having to explain another post to Prime2U (no offence intended).

[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-02-2001).]

No offence taken, we all understand anger. The point of my post (I could of phrased it better, I'm not immune to angermyself

) is that yes scienctific(SP?) facts show that life begain in the sea. Something that was proven in the last 100+ years, yet it was writen about 3500-4000 years ago. When you compare other ancient religions with their stories about how every thing came about, I beleive you will find that science backs creation. I personally don't have a problem with evolution, or even the Big Bang, because science can not answer the question of why it came to be. Science maybe able to answer the phsyical finite questions of how. I would see that as no contratdiction to creation, since it would be logical to me that God would have used the laws of phsyics,and of nature in the putting together of a universe, that is going to be run by those very laws.

------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

SixOfSpades · 11-03-2001, 01:19 AM

If a system can be enclosed, and then manipulated, and the results of that manipulation are predicted according to a theory, and it turns out that that prediction was correct, is it not logical to infer (after hundreds of tests) that the THEORY was correct?
In other words, if a population of fruit flies (some with normal wings, some with curled wings) is placed in a sealed case with food hanging from the ceiling, the theory of natural selection states that the flies with normal wings would thrive, and those with curled wings would eventually die out, even though both types are free to inter-mate and produce offspring, because those with curled wings have more difficulty in reaching the food. Actually performing this experiment shows this prediction to be valid, and therefore, the theory of Natural Selection is vindicated.
Natural Selection and Evolution are essentially one and the same: The difference is scale. Natural selection operates on the scale of the individual organism; Evolution operates on the scale of the entire species. And since we now know that changes in the environment provoke changes in organisms, and that our own environment is constantly changing, the logical conclusion is that we have been evolving ever since we existed.

Prime2U · 11-03-2001, 03:49 AM

quote:
Originally posted by SixOfSpades:
If a system can be enclosed, and then manipulated, and the results of that manipulation are predicted according to a theory, and it turns out that that prediction was correct, is it not logical to infer (after hundreds of tests) that the THEORY was correct?
In other words, if a population of fruit flies (some with normal wings, some with curled wings) is placed in a sealed case with food hanging from the ceiling, the theory of natural selection states that the flies with normal wings would thrive, and those with curled wings would eventually die out, even though both types are free to inter-mate and produce offspring, because those with curled wings have more difficulty in reaching the food. Actually performing this experiment shows this prediction to be valid, and therefore, the theory of Natural Selection is vindicated.
Natural Selection and Evolution are essentially one and the same: The difference is scale. Natural selection operates on the scale of the individual organism; Evolution operates on the scale of the entire species. And since we now know that changes in the environment provoke changes in organisms, and that our own environment is constantly changing, the logical conclusion is that we have been evolving ever since we existed.

Indeed, we have been evolving as long as we've existed. No arguments from me there. There is more difference than scale when common ancestry and random beginnings of life come into play. These entail more than natural selection. As you said, evolution operates on the scale of an entire species, and I personally belief it operates at an even higher order than that. However, I do not believe that it operates, for example between mammals and reptiles, reptiles becoming mammals and so forth, and there just isn't proof at this point to say that this happens.

Prime2U · 11-03-2001, 04:06 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:

Actually since creationism and Evolution are based on very different premises and ideas: Scientific thought and Faith,there is no need to prove one to disprove the other. Creationism can be proven false withine scientific arguement, but evolution cannot be comprehensively dispelled. Also Im sorry but there is scientific evidence for evolution(like the fossil record) but no true scientific evidence for creationism, there is only vague accusations and untruths as far as creationism is concerned(no one can seriously belive god created fossils to mislead us all can they?),it is not needed to offer any alternative theory to disprove creationism. some evidence for evolution anyway?

click here

try the article on 29 evidences for Macroevolution. also talking about "only a series of speculations using facts that were either rigged (and exposed) or circumstantial findings that in actuality hold no relevance in support of the idea" is too vague.If you can can present scientific evidence for creationism please do so.

The entire basis of my arguments in this thread are from a scientific standpoint, not a religious one. Scientifically, we cannot disprove creation. The only way we can do so is to prove that life was first begun randomly with no guiding force. And this is something that is just not possible. The fossil record is not conclusive in any way. There is absolutely no way to know if a prehistoric skeleton is that of a primitive form of man or that of an extinct primate. Plus there are gaps at this time that allow any hypothesis to be pure conjecture at best. Yes, in my logical reasoning, you must disprove the long term, established belief before the newfound, unestablished belief can become credible. Otherwise, you are only believing in the new belief (evolution) out of a desire to disbelieve in God, not out of any proof that one or the other is wrong. I did look at article "29 reasons" and I found it very interesting that the author stated clearly at the beginning of the topic that 1. It was a hypothesis (not theory) and 2. These were predictions (not facts nor proofs, nearly predictions based on what was found so far). This is exactly what I have said numerous times in this thread already. At this point, there is a lot of speculation, but no solid scientific proof. Perhaps when some of the gaps are filled in there might be some proof.

I cannot present scientific evidence for creation, except for the fact that what science has so far discovered mirrors what was written in the bible. I'm going at this whole thread from a technical scientists standpoint. trying to leave religion out of it. I've never said creation could be proven, as quite frankly it cannot. I simply say that a random beginning of life, and a common ancestory for either a microbe or sea life, cannot be proven either.

Neb · 11-03-2001, 04:09 AM

I've always believed in a combination of Creation and Evolution, I believe that there is a God, and I believe that he/she started everything off, I believe that he/she created the Big Bang, I believe that he/she has had an effect on life and it's creation, BUT I also believe that Evolution has shaped the way that life looks today and that it is happening right now.

11-03-2001, 04:14 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Prime2U:
except for the fact that what science has so far discovered mirrors what was written in the bible.

Actually scientific proof and truth is contingent on something not comeing along to disprove it. nothing yet can disprove evolution, nor offer a viable and credible alternative with current evidence, therefore evolution in all its forms could be considered the most plausible scientific truth of the moment regarding life on earth and how it evolved.
What science has discovered does not mirror that of the bible and to even suggest so is preposterous. Were heaven and earth all created on 4004 b.c? i think not.

Prime2U · 11-03-2001, 04:23 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:

Actually scientific proof is contingent on something not comeing along to disprove it. nothing yet can disprove evollution, nor offer a viable alternative therefore evolution in all its forms could be considred the most plausible scientific truth of the moment.
What science has discovered does not mirror that of the bible and to even suggest so is preposterous. Were heaven and earth all created on 4004 b.c? i think not.

Actually NO scientific proof is just that, proof. It is false UNTIL proven, it's not a trial in the US, it's science. If you want to show something is true in science, you MUST prove it, until the it is considered false.
There is no way to disprove creation, and it was around long before evolutionist ideas, and it is indeed very plausible, therefore by your own words creation is the true one of the two choices. You may want to rethink your argument there.... because logic trending that direction entirely supports creation, in fact that is my logic from a scientific viewpoint.
I am sorry, but nowhere in the bible does it say that everything was created in 4004 B.C. so that is irrelevant in the extreme. A rumor started somewhere, no doubt.

11-03-2001, 04:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Prime2U:

Actually NO scientific proof is just that, proof. It is false UNTIL proven, it's not a trial in the US, it's science. If you want to show something is true in science, you MUST prove it, until the it is considered false.
There is no way to disprove creation, and it was around long before evolutionist ideas, and it is indeed very plausible, therefore by your own words creation is the true one of the two choices. You may want to rethink your argument there.... because logic trending that direction entirely supports creation, in fact that is my logic from a scientific viewpoint.
I am sorry, but nowhere in the bible does it say that everything was created in 4004 B.C. so that is irrelevant in the extreme. A rumor started somewhere, no doubt.

if you look at the bible carefully you can work out that heaven and earth were created in 4004 bc it was some guy in britain i belive who worked that out from the bible.Evolution fits the vast majority of the evidence availible to us at this moment, therefore it is a scientific truth, nothing can conprehensively disprove it as of yet whereas there is considerable evidence against creationism, how ever as this is an emotive issue most people tend to ignore it. whether YOU think it is true or not depends on how you apply the term truth. But the vast majority of the scientific communtiy will accept evolution as a scientifc truth until it can be disproved.

Neb · 11-03-2001, 04:35 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:

if you look at the bible carefully you can work out that heaven and earth were created in 4004 bc it was some guy in britain i belive who worked that out from the bible.Evolution fits the vast majority of the evidence availible to us at this moment, therefore it is a scientific truth, nothing can conprehensively disprove it as of yet whereas there is considerable evidence against creationism, how ever as this is an emotive issue most people tend to ignore it. whether YOU think it is true or not depends on how you apply the term truth.

And what, Dramnek, is this considerable evidence against Creationism?

11-03-2001, 04:36 AM

BISHOP USSHER DATES THE WORLD: 4004 BC
James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 1491 BC `on a Wednesday'.

11-03-2001, 01:19 AM	#52
SixOfSpades Dracolisk Join Date: September 16, 2001 Location: Bellingham, WA, USA Age: 46 Posts: 6,901	If a system can be enclosed, and then manipulated, and the results of that manipulation are predicted according to a theory, and it turns out that that prediction was correct, is it not logical to infer (after hundreds of tests) that the THEORY was correct? In other words, if a population of fruit flies (some with normal wings, some with curled wings) is placed in a sealed case with food hanging from the ceiling, the theory of natural selection states that the flies with normal wings would thrive, and those with curled wings would eventually die out, even though both types are free to inter-mate and produce offspring, because those with curled wings have more difficulty in reaching the food. Actually performing this experiment shows this prediction to be valid, and therefore, the theory of Natural Selection is vindicated. Natural Selection and Evolution are essentially one and the same: The difference is scale. Natural selection operates on the scale of the individual organism; Evolution operates on the scale of the entire species. And since we now know that changes in the environment provoke changes in organisms, and that our own environment is constantly changing, the logical conclusion is that we have been evolving ever since we existed. __________________ Volothamp's Comeuppance Everything you ever needed to know about the entire Baldur's Gate series......except spoilers.

11-03-2001, 03:49 AM	#53
Prime2U Zhentarim Guard Join Date: October 2, 2001 Location: Manhattan,KS USA Posts: 316	quote: Originally posted by SixOfSpades: If a system can be enclosed, and then manipulated, and the results of that manipulation are predicted according to a theory, and it turns out that that prediction was correct, is it not logical to infer (after hundreds of tests) that the THEORY was correct? In other words, if a population of fruit flies (some with normal wings, some with curled wings) is placed in a sealed case with food hanging from the ceiling, the theory of natural selection states that the flies with normal wings would thrive, and those with curled wings would eventually die out, even though both types are free to inter-mate and produce offspring, because those with curled wings have more difficulty in reaching the food. Actually performing this experiment shows this prediction to be valid, and therefore, the theory of Natural Selection is vindicated. Natural Selection and Evolution are essentially one and the same: The difference is scale. Natural selection operates on the scale of the individual organism; Evolution operates on the scale of the entire species. And since we now know that changes in the environment provoke changes in organisms, and that our own environment is constantly changing, the logical conclusion is that we have been evolving ever since we existed. Indeed, we have been evolving as long as we've existed. No arguments from me there. There is more difference than scale when common ancestry and random beginnings of life come into play. These entail more than natural selection. As you said, evolution operates on the scale of an entire species, and I personally belief it operates at an even higher order than that. However, I do not believe that it operates, for example between mammals and reptiles, reptiles becoming mammals and so forth, and there just isn't proof at this point to say that this happens. __________________ <IMG SRC=\"http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/prime.gif\"> <P>\"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.\" - Lennon

11-03-2001, 04:06 AM	#54
Prime2U Zhentarim Guard Join Date: October 2, 2001 Location: Manhattan,KS USA Posts: 316	quote: Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Actually since creationism and Evolution are based on very different premises and ideas: Scientific thought and Faith,there is no need to prove one to disprove the other. Creationism can be proven false withine scientific arguement, but evolution cannot be comprehensively dispelled. Also Im sorry but there is scientific evidence for evolution(like the fossil record) but no true scientific evidence for creationism, there is only vague accusations and untruths as far as creationism is concerned(no one can seriously belive god created fossils to mislead us all can they?),it is not needed to offer any alternative theory to disprove creationism. some evidence for evolution anyway? click here try the article on 29 evidences for Macroevolution. also talking about "only a series of speculations using facts that were either rigged (and exposed) or circumstantial findings that in actuality hold no relevance in support of the idea" is too vague.If you can can present scientific evidence for creationism please do so. The entire basis of my arguments in this thread are from a scientific standpoint, not a religious one. Scientifically, we cannot disprove creation. The only way we can do so is to prove that life was first begun randomly with no guiding force. And this is something that is just not possible. The fossil record is not conclusive in any way. There is absolutely no way to know if a prehistoric skeleton is that of a primitive form of man or that of an extinct primate. Plus there are gaps at this time that allow any hypothesis to be pure conjecture at best. Yes, in my logical reasoning, you must disprove the long term, established belief before the newfound, unestablished belief can become credible. Otherwise, you are only believing in the new belief (evolution) out of a desire to disbelieve in God, not out of any proof that one or the other is wrong. I did look at article "29 reasons" and I found it very interesting that the author stated clearly at the beginning of the topic that 1. It was a hypothesis (not theory) and 2. These were predictions (not facts nor proofs, nearly predictions based on what was found so far). This is exactly what I have said numerous times in this thread already. At this point, there is a lot of speculation, but no solid scientific proof. Perhaps when some of the gaps are filled in there might be some proof. I cannot present scientific evidence for creation, except for the fact that what science has so far discovered mirrors what was written in the bible. I'm going at this whole thread from a technical scientists standpoint. trying to leave religion out of it. I've never said creation could be proven, as quite frankly it cannot. I simply say that a random beginning of life, and a common ancestory for either a microbe or sea life, cannot be proven either. __________________ <IMG SRC=\"http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/prime.gif\"> <P>\"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.\" - Lennon

11-03-2001, 04:14 AM	#56
Dramnek_Ulk Guest Posts: n/a	quote: Originally posted by Prime2U: except for the fact that what science has so far discovered mirrors what was written in the bible. Actually scientific proof and truth is contingent on something not comeing along to disprove it. nothing yet can disprove evolution, nor offer a viable and credible alternative with current evidence, therefore evolution in all its forms could be considered the most plausible scientific truth of the moment regarding life on earth and how it evolved. What science has discovered does not mirror that of the bible and to even suggest so is preposterous. Were heaven and earth all created on 4004 b.c? i think not.

11-03-2001, 04:23 AM	#57
Prime2U Zhentarim Guard Join Date: October 2, 2001 Location: Manhattan,KS USA Posts: 316	quote: Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Actually scientific proof is contingent on something not comeing along to disprove it. nothing yet can disprove evollution, nor offer a viable alternative therefore evolution in all its forms could be considred the most plausible scientific truth of the moment. What science has discovered does not mirror that of the bible and to even suggest so is preposterous. Were heaven and earth all created on 4004 b.c? i think not. Actually NO scientific proof is just that, proof. It is false UNTIL proven, it's not a trial in the US, it's science. If you want to show something is true in science, you MUST prove it, until the it is considered false. There is no way to disprove creation, and it was around long before evolutionist ideas, and it is indeed very plausible, therefore by your own words creation is the true one of the two choices. You may want to rethink your argument there.... because logic trending that direction entirely supports creation, in fact that is my logic from a scientific viewpoint. I am sorry, but nowhere in the bible does it say that everything was created in 4004 B.C. so that is irrelevant in the extreme. A rumor started somewhere, no doubt. __________________ <IMG SRC=\"http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/prime.gif\"> <P>\"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.\" - Lennon

11-03-2001, 04:09 AM	#55
Neb Account deleted by Request Join Date: May 17, 2001 Location: . Age: 38 Posts: 8,802	I've always believed in a combination of Creation and Evolution, I believe that there is a God, and I believe that he/she started everything off, I believe that he/she created the Big Bang, I believe that he/she has had an effect on life and it's creation, BUT I also believe that Evolution has shaped the way that life looks today and that it is happening right now.

11-03-2001, 04:33 AM	#58
Dramnek_Ulk Guest Posts: n/a	quote: Originally posted by Prime2U: Actually NO scientific proof is just that, proof. It is false UNTIL proven, it's not a trial in the US, it's science. If you want to show something is true in science, you MUST prove it, until the it is considered false. There is no way to disprove creation, and it was around long before evolutionist ideas, and it is indeed very plausible, therefore by your own words creation is the true one of the two choices. You may want to rethink your argument there.... because logic trending that direction entirely supports creation, in fact that is my logic from a scientific viewpoint. I am sorry, but nowhere in the bible does it say that everything was created in 4004 B.C. so that is irrelevant in the extreme. A rumor started somewhere, no doubt. if you look at the bible carefully you can work out that heaven and earth were created in 4004 bc it was some guy in britain i belive who worked that out from the bible.Evolution fits the vast majority of the evidence availible to us at this moment, therefore it is a scientific truth, nothing can conprehensively disprove it as of yet whereas there is considerable evidence against creationism, how ever as this is an emotive issue most people tend to ignore it. whether YOU think it is true or not depends on how you apply the term truth. But the vast majority of the scientific communtiy will accept evolution as a scientifc truth until it can be disproved.

11-03-2001, 04:35 AM	#59
Neb Account deleted by Request Join Date: May 17, 2001 Location: . Age: 38 Posts: 8,802	quote: Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: if you look at the bible carefully you can work out that heaven and earth were created in 4004 bc it was some guy in britain i belive who worked that out from the bible.Evolution fits the vast majority of the evidence availible to us at this moment, therefore it is a scientific truth, nothing can conprehensively disprove it as of yet whereas there is considerable evidence against creationism, how ever as this is an emotive issue most people tend to ignore it. whether YOU think it is true or not depends on how you apply the term truth. And what, Dramnek, is this considerable evidence against Creationism?

11-03-2001, 04:36 AM	#60
Dramnek_Ulk Guest Posts: n/a	BISHOP USSHER DATES THE WORLD: 4004 BC James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 1491 BC `on a Wednesday'.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Underworld: Evolution	Jotin	Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics)	32	06-30-2006 06:54 AM
Evolution of Dance?	robertthebard	General Discussion	1	05-12-2006 10:21 AM
Evolution II	Moiraine	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	87	02-28-2003 04:30 AM
Evolution	Moiraine	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	156	02-25-2003 04:19 AM
Pearl Jam - Do The Evolution	uss	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	6	09-14-2002 10:52 PM