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.
  • #581
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If creationists where to study evolution and comprehend it... well.. they wouldn't be creationists anymore.

and i bet if christians were to find out some information about their bible they wouldn't be religious anymore.

Now shows how little you know about the Christian faith. Here is a webpage of some Christian scientists who seem to have studied all there is to study about evolution and haven't found one reason to beleive:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/

As for me, I'm not am not religious anymore; I have not been for a long time. I am a follower of Christ.

Peter
 
  • #582
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 06 2005,9:07)]but it doesn't mean it's right and it was already pointed out why it wasn't very good.
you said "but" as if i said something to contradict.
 
  • #583
On the news today, I heard that some group said that evolution should only be taught in school as therory, not fact, and that those who didn't hold with the theory of evolution could study the theory of Intelligent Design. Not Creationism, but Intelligent Design. Hmmm. Well why not. One is as good as the other as far as I am concerned at the moment.
 
  • #584
As long as they also believe gravity and magnetism should only be taught as theory, not fact.  As one of our more vocal correspondents has pointed out repeatedly, people are being tripped up by the word theory.
 
  • #585
ARGH!!! NOT AGAIN! my post got deleted. here's what i said in a nutshell.
first of all, I've noticed that all the people I've ever talked to who didn't believe in evolution were christians. That shows top-down thinking because scientists wouldn't include the "great flood" (which would have been IMPOSSIBLE)

that site talks about racism and hitler and darwin being a psychotic... that just goes to show
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Most biology textbooks show a glass apparatus in which the precursors for amino acids were boiled and electrically sparked for a week, and sure enough, there were trace amounts of a few amino acids. The implication is that if similar, unthinking processes were continued, then a living cell would evolve. Such logic is like stating that automobiles evolved long ago by means of rubber sap, sand, iron ore, and coal falling into a volcano. The iron ore and the carbon in the coal made steel, the sand melted and made glass, and the sap vulcanized and made rubber. Then after billions and billions of trials and errors, the text may say, there evolved spontaneously better and better pistons, cylinders, whole engines with spark plugs and transmissions, axles on four wheels with rubber tires under bodies of steel with glass windows, windshield wipers, headlights, and tanks full of gasoline. The text might state that the first cell and all life evolved in a similar way.
how life began has nothing to do with evolution.
That analogy is COMPLETELY and utterly ... wrong. The environment they re-created in the lab was like the one in the earth, and amino acids have been found in meteors. so we KNOW they occur naturaly. Besides... there are many enzymes and other things necessary for life that occur naturally without help form life.

I can't find the document (I had already written a response and closed the document window and then the post got deleted) but there was one that said evolution was all by random chance.
That's not ture. natural SELECTION is not random.
It also said that genomes "leap". that's also not true. Evolution is GRADUAL.
They also resort to talking about hitler being an evolutionist and that it leads to racism and abortion and that darwin was supposedly psychotic and that evolution is a RELIGION and not science...
oh please. They also talk about "noah's flood" ... very scientific.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]That marvelous first cell, the story goes, filled the oceans with progeny competing in incredible polysaccharide, lipid, amino acid, nucleotide, and cannibalistic feasts. The predators thereby thinned the soup to the watery oceans we have today while the prey escaped by mystically transmuting themselves into the current complex animals and plants, or perhaps vice versa because no one was there to record it. We are assured by the disciples of Darwin and Huxley that the "once upon a pond" story to obtain a blob of protoplasm is still sufficient for the spontaneous generation of the cell as we know it today.
first of all evolution is NOT about the beginnings of life so this is totally irrelevant to evolution (shows you how educated they are about evolution...)
the first cell wasn't like we know cells today. It was much simpler. and who said it was a "predator"? it was probably chemosynthetic.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The mutation may confer a benefit in a particular environment, but the overall fitness of the population of one kind of bacterium is decreased as a result of a reduced function of one of the components in its biological pathway.
Evolution isn't about achieving perfection. It's about surviving and having offspring that can do the same. Sometimes you trade things in evolution. like we traded being able to walk upright for lower back pains, and like we traded being able to eat better for having useless wisdom teeth...

I was just skimming around because I have tons of homework to do :-/
 
  • #586
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As long as they also believe gravity and magnetism should only be taught as theory, not fact. As one of our more vocal correspondents has pointed out repeatedly, people are being tripped up by the word theory.
I can't stress that enough. It drives me NUTS!
smile_k_ani_32.gif

(I ain't finished with the site by the way... I'll take a good look at it when I have time... unless you don't want me to :p)
 
  • #587
We know gravity exists as a fact but the explanation is theory.
 
  • #588
There was a nice article on Intelligent Design in Wired a few months ago:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html

I particularly like this line:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"I'm not a PhD in biology," says board member Michael Cochran. "But when I have X number of PhD experts telling me this, and X number telling me the opposite, the answer is probably somewhere between the two." An exasperated Krauss claims that a truly representative debate would have had 10,000 pro-evolution scientists against two Discovery executives.
 
  • #589
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]ARGH!!! NOT AGAIN! my post got deleted. here's what i said in a nutshell.
first of all, I've noticed that all the people I've ever talked to who didn't believe in evolution were christians. That shows top-down thinking because scientists wouldn't include the "great flood" (which would have been IMPOSSIBLE)

Anybody who doesn't beleive in creation (wether by God or some other deity) has to come up with some other explanation. Scientists don't include the "great flood". They don't include an explanation for why the earths population is what it is today, if people have been reproducing since hundreds of thousand if not millions of years ago.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]That analogy is COMPLETELY and utterly ... wrong. The environment they re-created in the lab was like the one in the earth, and amino acids have been found in meteors.

In they lab the provided electric sparks for a week. By your logic, this means that in nature, there must have been gentle steady lightning hitting the earth before life developed.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It also said that genomes "leap". that's also not true. Evolution is GRADUAL.

So much for the punctuated equlibrium theory
confused.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]first of all evolution is NOT about the beginnings of life so this is totally irrelevant to evolution (shows you how educated they are about evolution...)

So, was life created or did it evolve? I thought we were just talking about the development of amino acids...

Peter
 
  • #590
I'm on the same side as you Peter but I don't get where you are going with the human population thing. Afterall, flies/cockroaches/mice/frogs/cats etc. reproduce at astounding rates yet we are for the most part not covered in them. They have ways of being kept in check whether by predators or natural phenomenom such as the weather disease etc. Not to mention carrying capacity. In the case of humans, carrying capacity has increased due to our "improved" agriculture methods.

I forgot the exact math but if you started with a pair of houseflies supposedly at the end of the year you would have around 1 million flies.
 
  • #591
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 07 2005,12:06)]So, was life created or did it evolve? I thought we were just talking about the development of amino acids...

Peter
I don't see why both can't be true! God does the creating but uses what we understand to be evolution as His method of doing things. I'm not saying that this IS what He did, only that it is POSSIBLE for Him to do so. We just weren't there when He did all of this.
 
  • #592
the experenemt with ammino acids was not ment to show what happened, meary that it could appen, wich is the first step.


confused.gif
 i think its laughable how some of you refere to sience as somethig big and special, and others say its lies.

science, my freinds, in nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking
biggrin.gif
 
  • #593
Rubra,
You still have not answered my question. How does the geologic column support recent creationism?
 
  • #594
I thought it might help to bring this up again, since I detect some undertones of misunderstanding regarding what is a theory in SCIENCE, as opposed to our everyday use of the word:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Evolution of life is simply not a hypothesis or a guess or belief: it is a theory.  This is what many people don't get: in science a theory explains a group of facts or phenomena, and has been repeatedly tested, is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.  For all intents and purposes, it is a fact: evolution occurs.  

Regarding the origins of life: if one makes a hypothesis about what happened, one needs to test that hypothesis.  For instance, the famous experiment performed by Stanley Miller in the 50's.  He had hypothesized that conditions on the young earth (ie reducing atmophere, lighting (always been there)) may have allowed the molecules within the atmophere to react to form molecules such as amino acids and nucleic acids which are essential to life.  He did the EXPERIMENT and discovered that amino acids were present (later experiments found nucleic acids).  These results lend a measurable degree of plausibility to his hypothesis...that's why it's in your science textbooks.  As for creationism, someone needs to create a hypothesis, do an experiment and publish the results...until then...there's no plausibility as far as the scientific community is concerned...and that's why it's not in your textbooks.
 
  • #595
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 06 2005,9:12)]That's not ture. natural SELECTION is not random.
It also said that genomes "leap". that's also not true. Evolution is GRADUAL.
Well so much for the Cambrian Explosion. I guess that fossil evedince was planted by creationists. Yes I realize that there were orginisms present before that but where is the link?
 
  • #596
Mike, geologic columns hold billions of fossils, and no credible evidence from more than the mere thousands of years recorded by Biblical standards. And we do find widespread evidence of death at one specific point in time.

Peter
 
  • #597
The Cambrian Explosion occured due to a mass extinction event.  This opened up many biological niches, and the surviving organisms quickly (in geological terms) EVOLVED to fill these niches.  This is known as puncuated evolution--niches open up and organisms quickly (remember, in geological ermsa only!) fill them via evolution.  During times of relatively no change in the environment, the mutations that occur offer no advantage to the individuals that aquire them.   However, when a considerable environmental change occurs, such as a mass extinction, mutations (whose rates have not changed (a gradual rate you might say)) confer variablity which allows organisms to adapt to the changed environment.

As these organisms undergo these adaptation quickly (again, in geological terms), and as fossilization is a relatively rare event, fossilized remains of intermediate organisms are rather rare.  But they are found: consider the half dinosuar-half bird fossils.
 
  • #598
no u got it wrong. teeth, jaws and, aurmor evolved,causing a virtual natural 'arms race'
 
  • #600
Ah, forgot the most important thing about the Cambrian Explosion...oxygen!! The reason for the mass extinction was due to the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from cyanobacteria. Most all anaerobic organisms died. And those organisms that evolved to live in an oxygen atmosphere took over the NICHES opened up (ie outcompeted the anaerobes). Puctuated evolution in action. And yes Finch, eventually organisms evolved which had jaws, armor and teeth, and these competed for resources as always: the Cambrian Explosion resulted in massive amounts of fossilizible organisms, whereas before the world was small microbes which do not fossilize easily (soft bodied and microscopic to boot).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top