Evolution Dun Exist Because...

[Prime2U]

So as one thing is unproven you chose a even less proven theory to be true? That is not science, that being a sheep! if they are proven to current science standerds, just like the theorys of gravity, realitive and many others which the basies of teaching stand upon, would you disclaim these?


That a assumtion not all scientiest are tring to disprove god and you are doing just what you are having a go them for, It is pointless to contine this as you seem to stand on the basies that the bible is all truth while everything else is wrong and while you claim to be of a scietifict mind to is blantly overious that you are not because your mind is close anything different.


In what way is creation less proven? It has been believed in from the beginning of written history, and that implies that it was believed in before. It was the standing belief, accepted universally, until very recently when evolution was postulated. As the standing belief, it cannot be disproven until evolution is proven. This is not being a sheep, this is simply a fact. If all of your areas of evolution are proven to current scientific standards, I will no longer argue against the 'theory'. I'll still believe in creation, but I will have no grounds to say that evolution is false either.


I never said all scientists are trying to disprove God, just a select, very influential group. It does not matter whether you think the bible is all truth or not. The original scrolls with the original writings have been dated, and are among the earliest of written history. You can argue that all of mankind was mistaken for millenia as to how we came to be, and in that sense the writings are false, but that does not change the fact that creation has long been accepted as how we came to be. You cannot replace a millenias old belief with a 25 year old one meerly on speculation and think it has anything to do with it being more true.


------------------



"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

[This message has been edited by Prime2U (edited 10-31-2001).]

Originally posted by Prime2U: So as one thing is unproven you chose a even less proven theory to be true? That is not science, that being a sheep! if they are proven to current science standerds, just like the theorys of gravity, realitive and many others which the basies of teaching stand upon, would you disclaim these? That a assumtion not all scientiest are tring to disprove god and you are doing just what you are having a go them for, It is pointless to contine this as you seem to stand on the basies that the bible is all truth while everything else is wrong and while you claim to be of a scietifict mind to is blantly overious that you are not because your mind is close anything different. In what way is creation less proven? It has been believed in from the beginning of written history, and that implies that it was believed in before. It was the standing belief, accepted universally, until very recently when evolution was postulated. As the standing belief, it cannot be disproven until evolution is proven. This is not being a sheep, this is simply a fact. If all of your areas of evolution are proven to current scientific standards, I will no longer argue against the 'theory'. I'll still believe in creation, but I will have no grounds to say that evolution is false either. I never said all scientists are trying to disprove God, just a select, veryinfluential group. It does not matter whether you think the bible is all truth or not. The original scrolls with the original writings have been dated, and are among the earliest of written history. You can argue that all of mankind was mistaken for millenia as to how we came to be, and in that sense the writings are false, but that does not change the fact that creation has long been accepted as how we came to be. You cannot replace a millenia old belief with a 25 year old one meerly on speculation and think it has anything to due with it being more true.

There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory that a divine being created us. theres a lack of evidence to prove that creation is true. just beacuse it is belived for thousands of years this does not make it any more true. the theory of evolution is not based on speculations, there is considerable scientific evidence to support it, certainly more so than creation. You do not need to prove evolution to any great degree to disprove creationism.

[This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 10-31-2001).]

[Prime2U]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory that a divine being created us. theres a lack of evidence to prove that creation is true. just beacuse it is belived for thousands of years this does not make it any more true. the theory of evolution is not based on speculations, there is considerable scientific evidence to support it, certainly more so than creation. You do not need to prove evolution to any great degree to disprove creationism. [This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 10-31-2001).]

Acutally no, there is no more proof for one than the other, other than natural selection, which is not a part of how we all came to be. Both at this time have a lack of proof. There is not any concrete evidence that any type of evolution other than natural selection occurs. Creation was the universally accepted explanation of how we came to be for since history began. Whether is it true or not is not the issue. The issue is that it cannot be proven false. Not until evolution is proven to be true, and right now, I am sorry, but there is NOT any evidence to support evolution, 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. You DO have to prove that evolution is the truth in order to prove creation is false. Otherwise you're only stating your belief, not the truth.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

I posted something in this thread, and I've just now looked at it again, and finally there is one person who has the same opinion on the matter as me (Sir Real.) Plus, whoever it was who posted that I was just pointing out natural selection, no I wasn't and plus, natural selection is an aspect of evolution, when I said evolution you treated it as if evolution is something totally unrelated and that isn't true.

------------------
Resident cantankerous sorcerer of the Clan HADB
and Sorcerous Nuttella salesman of the O.R.T

Long live HADB!!!



'What doesn't kill me makes me stronger'

[Prime2U]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel:
I posted something in this thread, and I've just now looked at it again, and finally there is one person who has the same opinion on the matter as me (Sir Real.) Plus, whoever it was who posted that I was just pointing out natural selection, no I wasn't and plus, natural selection is an aspect of evolution, when I said evolution you treated it as if evolution is something totally unrelated and that isn't true.


It's not totally unrelated, that isn't what I meant. It is indeed not only an aspect of evolution, but it's the only thing encompassed in the original definition of evolution. These other things that were added later, they are what I have issue with. Today, when people say evolution, they don't mean only natural selection anymore. So to make things clear in explanations, they have to be separated from each other, 'evolution' consisting of natural selection, the big bang, life from the sea, etc, and natural selection on it's own. The way that natural selection is inrelated to the rest of the evolutionary perspective is that it is the only part that is proven. None of the rest of it is.


What you talked about in your post was humans not evolving much in recent years, and that evolution was shown more clearly in animals. I'm sorry if you disagree, but this IS natural selection in action. You can look at animals through generations and see this. You cannot see where the animal came from an amoeba from the see. You cannot look at animals and see the big bang randomly happening. So yes, you were only pointing out natural selection in that post.




[This message has been edited by Prime2U (edited 10-31-2001).]

[Sir Real]

Originally posted by Prime2U: Ummm, no. I can accept natural selection and not accept that all life came from the sea, or a microbe that randomly decided to live, or a big bang that randomly decided to happen. They are NOT proven things, they are only speculated at. We find less old organic matter on the land than in the sea? This tells us nothing, there is more sea, and more life in the sea, and things tend to be preserved more often in the sea. Doesn't prove a thing. A theory cannot just be altered. It must have concrete proof in order to do so, and so far this only fits our current guesses, nothing to do with actual knowledge. "would expand outward again as the big bang, but that is just theory." NO, that is not theory. That is hypothesis. There is a clear demarkationbetween what is a theory and what is a hypothesis, and many of the things that you and many others claim as theories in the modern view of evolution are not at this point. They get pushed off as such because natural selection IS a theory and they are tacked to it under the term evolution.

WE FIND THE SEA LIFE ON LAND WERE THE WAS ONCE SEA, AH HELL GO READ SOMETHING ABOUT THE FREAKING THING THEY TRY TO GIVE A GOOD ARUGMENT!!!
AND THE BIG BANG DIDN@T DESIDE ANYTHNIG IT NOT A LIVE!!!!
SO A THEORY CAN BE ALTER BUT THINGS CAN BE TACKED ON??? THAT ALTERING IT, COME BACK AND PLEASE MAKE SENSE!

[Sir Real]

Originally posted by Prime2U: In what way is creation less proven? It has been believed in from the beginning of written history, and that implies that it was believed in before. It was the standing belief, accepted universally, until very recently when evolution was postulated. As the standing belief, it cannot be disproven until evolution is proven. This is not being a sheep, this is simply a fact. If all of your areas of evolution are proven to current scientific standards, I will no longer argue against the 'theory'. I'll still believe in creation, but I will have no grounds to say that evolution is false either. I never said all scientists are trying to disprove God, just a select, very influential group. It does not matter whether you think the bible is all truth or not. The original scrolls with the original writings have been dated, and are among the earliest of written history. You can argue that all of mankind was mistaken for millenia as to how we came to be, and in that sense the writings are false, but that does not change the fact that creation has long been accepted as how we came to be. You cannot replace a millenias old belief with a 25 year old one meerly on speculation and think it has anything to do with it being more true.

BELIEF IS NOT PROOF OR EVOULTION IS PROVEN BECAUSE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN IT!!
AND IT NOT UNIVERSAL, GET ME AN ALIEN AND LETS SEE WHAT HE BELIEVES!
OKAY SOME TIME DIACTIS HOW THINGS WORK THEM FINE, PAINS IN THE BODY, DESISE, ETC ARE CAUSED BY DEMONS AS THAT BELIEF LASTED LONG THE SO CALLED MEDIEN.

[Prime2U]

WE FIND THE SEA LIFE ON LAND WERE THE WAS ONCE SEA, AH HELL GO READ SOMETHING ABOUT THE FREAKING THING THEY TRY TO GIVE A GOOD ARUGMENT!!!
AND THE BIG BANG DIDN@T DESIDE ANYTHNIG IT NOT A LIVE!!!!
SO A THEORY CAN BE ALTER BUT THINGS CAN BE TACKED ON??? THAT ALTERING IT, COME BACK AND PLEASE MAKE SENSE!

You find sea life on land where there was once sea? That's very nice, I'd be pretty surprised if you didn't find the remains of sea life in a place where the sea once was. It doesn't have anything at all to do with our debate or evolution though. My arguments are completely sound, the understanding of them may be limited, but that's no fault of mine. Things can be tacked on AFTER they have enough proof to be considered theory. At this point natural selection is the only one qualified to be called a theory.

I'll say this as clearly as possible. Evolution, defined as descent with modification, does happen. How does it happen? Through natural selection. This is the only true theory so far. All of the other things such as all life from the sea, or all life from a microbe, or a random big bang, are meer speculation and can only be called hypothetical at best. You have not given me any proof to prove any of these, all you have given me are increasingly angry opinions read from biased middle school textbooks. That's ok though, as I don't really expect you to give me any concrete proof, as none exists.


[This message has been edited by Prime2U (edited 11-01-2001).]

[Sazerac]

Originally posted by Sir Real: WE FIND THE SEA LIFE ON LAND WERE THE WAS ONCE SEA, AH HELL GO READ SOMETHING ABOUT THE FREAKING THING THEY TRY TO GIVE A GOOD ARUGMENT!!! AND THE BIG BANG DIDN@T DESIDE ANYTHNIG IT NOT A LIVE!!!! SO A THEORY CAN BE ALTER BUT THINGS CAN BE TACKED ON??? THAT ALTERING IT, COME BACK AND PLEASE MAKE SENSE!

Sir Real, when debating others:

1) Do not respond in all caps. This is called SHOUTING, and it's considered extremely rude.

2) Please keep your remarks impersonal. Attack the idea, not the person. Telling someone to "come back and please make sense" is rather demeaning.

I realize you are new here, but please do show courtesy to our other members. Ironworks is basically a friendly place, and we all must do what we can to keep it that way.

Thanks,




------------------

Welcome to Ironworks...over 4100 happy members and one old buzzard!

[Prime2U]

Originally posted by Sir Real: BELIEF IS NOT PROOF OR EVOULTION IS PROVEN BECAUSE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN IT!! AND IT NOT UNIVERSAL, GET ME AN ALIEN AND LETS SEE WHAT HE BELIEVES! OKAY SOME TIME DIACTIS HOW THINGS WORK THEM FINE, PAINS IN THE BODY, DESISE, ETC ARE CAUSED BY DEMONS AS THAT BELIEF LASTED LONG THE SO CALLED MEDIEN.

Belief is not proof, I never said creation was MORE proven, I simply said it is not LESS proven. And it does have far more credibility at this point. Believe lends credibility to something. If you have a solid theory with plenty of evidence but no one believes it then it's pretty worthless, for example.

In our case we have two unproven things, one of which has millenias of common belief and one of which has 25 years of belief by part of the population. Obviously creation has far more credibility as a belief. No if you can prove that your version of evolution is true, then it can replace a much older, more credible belief. Then it can become the common belief. Until then, you saying creation is false is only an opinion with no facts whatsoever to back it up.

------------------


"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon