What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Where does everyone stand in regards to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #521
behavior can evolve too, not just the organisms themselves

think of chikens. if chikens (okok, wildfowl) didnt hide their nests in the wild, things would come along and eat tasty chiken eggs. if a few chikens began to think it might be nice to find some secluded place to nest, they would also as a side effect, have their nests  hidden and be more   difficult for predators to spot. the ones who didnt hide their eggs wouldnt breed because all their eggs would be eaten. over generations, it became instinct to hide the eggs because ones who had that instinct were more likely to pass their genes on.
 
  • #522
well, those of you who don't believe in evolution, ask something :p
or does everyone now believe in evolution? LOL
 
  • #523
I've asked several evolution questions in the last 53 pages but they never get answered because the discussion always changes to Jesus and the bible. I'm giving up here and going to find my own answers - and I might just go count my own neck vertebrae while I'm at it.
 
  • #524
You don't believe in evolution?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Going back to whale pelvic bones...did anyone offer an explanation of why the exist other than whales evolved from a terrestrial ancestor? Here is my evolution question: Is everyone ok with the peppered moths and industrial melanism as an example of natural selection? If so, couldn't this eventually lead to the "dying out" of one specific set of melanism genes, and couldn't this eventually (through environmental isolation) lead to a new species? I know the conditions have changed and the 2 colored populations have basically reached equilibrium - I'm just asking couldn't that happen.
you mean that? I thought that was for creationists.
no, nobody offered any explanation for whale pelvises.
as for the peppered moths, yeah. That's why they're used as examples.
 
  • #525
[b said:
Quote[/b] (buster1 @ Jan. 03 2005,10:06)]I've asked several evolution questions in the last 53 pages but they never get answered because the discussion always changes to Jesus and the bible. I'm giving up here and going to find my own answers - and I might just go count my own neck vertebrae while I'm at it.
What's your question?
 
  • #526
Alpha, I have to agree with those who are tired of hearing about the bible when evolution is the topic. AE, keep away from the scriptures and stick with the facts. If you do not believe in the bible, God, whatever, then quit bringing it up, and stay with your subject. Like Alpha said earlier, he will discuss it with anyone through PM's, AIM, etc, so lets hear the rest of the evolution story, and stop the excess stuff coming in from all over the place,disrupting trains of thought on this subject.
 
  • #527
I haven't quoted scriptures. If we would be sticking directly to facts the creationists wouldn't even have an argument now would they.
confused.gif
 
  • #528
Well I don't know what they would have, AE. Any more than anyone else, including you. I am not talking about quoting scripture, I am talking about bringing up that in which you do not believe anyway. So forget the Christians, and the bible, and hit me with evolution please. Thank you.
 
  • #529
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Bugweed @ Jan. 03 2005,10:25)]I am not talking about quoting scripture, I am talking about bringing up that in which you do not believe anyway.
Yes, after you edited your post. Who said i don't belive in it? A part of being able to argue with someone is understanding where they are coming from. I know ALOT about religion, i'm bringing it up for comparative reasons. Creationism IS based on religion.. after all.. it owns half the thread.
 
  • #530
OK, AE. Point taken. I will watch, and say no more.
 
  • #531
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Bugweed @ Jan. 03 2005,10:34)]OK, AE. Point taken. I will watch, and say no more.
I hope i don't sound defensive... i do so without notice sometimes.
confused.gif
 
  • #532
No, you are OK, AE. No offence was taken. I am planning on just sitting here and go bald.
 
  • #533
Take a look at this site bug...
http://library.amnh.org/
Thats the AMNH database. You can find just about everything about evolution there. Info on fossils and all other sorts of things are at the ready.
 
  • #535
let me just say one thing, creationism and evolution are not incompatable, i dont mean to sound mean but many of you evolutionists dont seem to understand this. i mean i believe in evolution as a source of the current speices we have, and the diveristy that is currently there, however i still have not heard a good explaination of the origin of life. If you say evolution does not deal with the origin of life then how can you debate it against creationism, which is a belief about the origin of life.

i do know about the experiment where they "created" a few simply strands of RNA? i believe but to me that just supports creationism since the only way for it to happen is in the lab with the application of human Intelligence. This in my opinion would point to a greater power, you may call it god or what ever you want.

How do you know that evolution is not just a tool of this greater power, or maybe this greater power is just observing earth as a closed ecosystem that it created and allowing things to progress as they will.

Oh and one last comment that is not meant to be hurtfull to anyone or target at anyone, but the majority of evolutionists i have talked to/read, have been totally unwilling to believe that their maybe some other explaination for the origin of speiceis which in my opinion makes them horrible scientist since the best thing any scientist can have is an open mind to the fact that they maybe wrong.
 
  • #536
The terms "creationism" and "evolution" are very broad and mean different things to different people. The extreme positions taken may be incompatible, but you will find many "born again" Christians who have absolutely no problem accepting God's use of evolution into His creating. God can do His creating in any fashion He chooses. We do not need to understand how. We DO need to understand THAT He created. Below is a quote frome Scripture.


Isaiah 55:6-13 6 Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake their way, and the unrighteous their thoughts; let them return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Two questions have been left unanswered. One refers to the notion that Jesus isn't God. I don't have time to enumerate right now, but Jesus very much claimed to be God and the Jews of his day understood that claim. Anybody who wants the scripture verses to back up what I said is free to PM me a bout it. Challenege me!

The other is about how Jesus redeemed us. I will PM the person who asked about that.
 
  • #537
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]How do you know that evolution is not just a tool of this greater power, or maybe this greater power is just observing earth as a closed ecosystem that it created and allowing things to progress as they will.
I don't know. I'm just saying that evolution is real.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The terms "creationism" and "evolution" are very broad and mean different things to different people.
and for simplicity's sake we're talking about the branch of creationism that doesn't believe in evolution (that believes every single species in this earth was created as they are right now by God and that they haven't evolved into other species) so in that sense they ARE incompatable (as I've said many times before... why the heck would we be debating then?). I don't care if you also believe that there the big bang is stupid (hey, even I'm not sure I believe in the big bang) or that god created a bacterium and put it here to evolve.
The evidence is overwhelming on the part of evolution, and that is what I'm concerned about.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]supports creationism since the only way for it to happen is in the lab with the application of human Intelligence.  
they replicated the enviornment as it was billions of years ago. Right now it does take human intelligence because we don't live "in the same world" that life appeared on.
and they're just trying out combinations. For example lipids like to stick together and for some reason clay makes those lipids form a hollow sphere (cell membrane).
Scientists are not just trying to create life by taking an already formed cell membrane and adding in stuff. They're doing it from the basic up.
It has also been proven that certain things occur naturally (ie. amino acids in meteors) so it's obvious that doesn't take human intelligence.
 
  • #538
Great food for thought, AE!!! Thanks! So far, Alpha, I have researched what I could, and have way too much more to see with my own eyes before saying too much more. However, It still occurs to me that Creationists have some valid points too, however badly it may seem to you. I still think that the two should be studied side by side not as one versus the other as a sports contest, but rather, in what way does evolution fill gaps in Creation Theory, and how does , or can, Creationism Theory compliment or fill supposed gaps in Evolution Theory. Now THAT could get interesting. You might even uncover something because of it, not thought of before. Just a thought. No more.
 
  • #539
Very interesting, Bugweed, and very well said!
 
  • #540
I cannot agree, Bugweed. There is simply no scientific basis for creationism that would warrant it being taught side by side with evolution. Contrast this with the work of thousands of geologists, biologists, anthropoligists, paleontologists, chemists, physicists and others whose work supports and bolsters and continuously hones evolutionary theories.

Creation "theory" isn't really a theory as much as a theological assertion, one that flies in the face of mountains of evidence of both an ancient earth and the fact of genetic mutation and change. Without a lot more real evidence, they are just not on any sort of parallel, and insufficient basis for teaching as science as policy, at very least in public institutions.

Capslock
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top