ha and i love how you say, it can pretty much be considered a fact, its still not one
and yes it says that we came from a swampy pool material, little more research
im sorry i dont want to think i came from an animal
Science on Creating Living Matter from Nonliving Matter!
- Thread starter wurd2
- Start date
ha and i love how you say, it can pretty much be considered a fact, its still not one
and yes it says that we came from a swampy pool material, little more research
im sorry i dont want to think i came from an animal
The videos are great, he has awesome points!
Honestly that guy in the video is an idiot.. evolution is not science? Wrong you dumb ****, we've already proved multicellular organisms evolving.
Also, anyone who uses the bible in a debate against evolution is just downright stupid.
Also, anyone who uses the bible in a debate against evolution is just downright stupid.
im pretty sure he provided scientifical proof for all his arguments, did you see any of what your guy on the evolution side said? pretty sure hes the idiot
Okay I've been thinking about evolution vs survival of the fittest, I don't think they are one and the same.
Let's say that a disease exists, and this disease is 100% effective in killing all but read red-headed people. So in 100 years, some alien comes down and finds our planet with only red-headed people, but they find evidence that there once were brown, black, blonde, etc. headed people, would they think that this is evolution? I think not.
I would think that evolution would require a modification to the gene pool, with survival of the fitest all you are doing is widdling out the weaker traits of a gene pool. To me evolution and survival of the fittest seem to be at odds.
Now if they came down and we had orange haired and green haired people, then it would be evolution, because that trait didn't exist before the event that killed off all the blonde, brown, blakc haired people.
I would think the same would apply to diseases, have the diseases evolved, or have the few genetic versions that are resistant to our medicines flourished because their counter-parts were killed off?
Let's say that a disease exists, and this disease is 100% effective in killing all but read red-headed people. So in 100 years, some alien comes down and finds our planet with only red-headed people, but they find evidence that there once were brown, black, blonde, etc. headed people, would they think that this is evolution? I think not.
I would think that evolution would require a modification to the gene pool, with survival of the fitest all you are doing is widdling out the weaker traits of a gene pool. To me evolution and survival of the fittest seem to be at odds.
Now if they came down and we had orange haired and green haired people, then it would be evolution, because that trait didn't exist before the event that killed off all the blonde, brown, blakc haired people.
I would think the same would apply to diseases, have the diseases evolved, or have the few genetic versions that are resistant to our medicines flourished because their counter-parts were killed off?
408-COUPE said:
As for the first of your YouTube videos, I don't waste my time with videos created or narrated by people that do not have a biology education. I can guarantee that the religious man in the first video does not even have a basic understanding of what a scientific theory is let alone an understanding of evolution. He has no business critiquing evolution.
As for the other two of your videos, does the gentleman involved have a biology education? Who is he and what are his qualifications? Until these questions are answered, I won't waste my time with unfounded nonsense. If you care to type up any key arguments contained in these videos, I will be happy to read them though.
And by the way, there is no real debate between evolution and creationism.
.
Last edited:
408-COUPE said:
This is an extremely common misconception where scientific theory is concerned. A scientific theory is based upon THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of OBSERVATIONS. Observations in science are synonymous with facts.
Observe:
.
408-COUPE said:
Evolution says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of how or where life originated. There are so few antievolutionists that actually realize this.
408-COUPE said:
What is true is not dependent upon how you feel about it.
.
swoosh_stang said:
Survival of the fittest is just an evolutionary or Darwinian concept.
swoosh_stang said:
Evolution is driven by the frequency of genes in the gene pool. Those genes that offer survival advantages have a greater chance of being passed down from generation to generation via procreation and therefore have a higher frequency in the gene pool. So if a virus that eliminates people with genes that produce non-red hair prevails, the frequency of such genes in the gene pool will decline and eventually reach zero. This is evolution at work.
swoosh_stang said:
A change in gene frequency in the gene pool IS a modification of the gene pool.
swoosh_stang said:
I struggle with your use of disease because this term essentially means disorder and does denote a particular thing. If we are talking about a virus here, then consider that people need flu shots every year. This is because the flu virus itself evolves.
.
this is actually a real debate, and they both have education in biology
he actually defines everything from a websters dictionary,
the religious man actually doesnt bring religion into the subject and he has a great understanding of evolution, it might just be the professor that he is debating against doesnt have a very good understanding of it
i understand where your coming from though, and i respect your opinion, you are truly an intelligent person but as you well know we just dont see eye to eye on some things
Such a skewed perception of faith.
408-COUPE said:
Okay. I watched the first 10 seconds or so before I realized who one of them is—the infamous criminal and intellectual fraud Kent Hovind. His Ph. D. lies in the "field" of "Christian Education" and comes from Patriot Bible University, which is said to have the lowest graduation requirements of any university in the United States. As I said, this man has no business whatsoever talking about evolution.
408-COUPE said:
Now seriously, do you really think terms defined in the dictionary are going to correspond with terms as they are defined in the context of science? The meaning of theory in the dictionary differs greatly from scientific theory.
408-COUPE said:
I only watched about 10 seconds of the video and within that time he read from the Holy Bible.
408-COUPE said:
This is just not true. Kent Hovind does not even realize that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.
408-COUPE said:
This is possible but it does not matter because the strength of evolutionary theory does not depend on the results of a religion versus science debate.
408-COUPE said:
This is very fair. I would only urge you to consider that evolutionary theory does not conflict with belief in a theistic deity. My favorite evolutionist is a religious man named Kenneth R. Miller. He is a brilliant defender of evolution and devoutly believes in a theist god. Another noteworthy figure, as head of the Human Genome Project, is Francis Collins who is Christianity's most qualified biologist. He is attempting to spread a message through the Christian brotherhood that evolution is very real, must be taken seriously, and involves the hand of God. He wrote a book called The Language of God in case you are ever interested. Miller also wrote a book called Finding Darwin's God.
:beer:
.
I'm kind of on both sides so I hope that we can have a reasonable discussion that can bring both points in. I accept that there's a creator but I don't readily accept that if you don't love Jesus you'll burn (I'm not affiliaed with any other religions either.)
These have probably been repeated but I'll just put them here, these are my scientific reasons for why I believe in a creator. Again not trying to prove anyone wrong (which is why I think both sides are so heated, because one person is saying the other is ignorant) so consider this me just sharing and asking
Something doesn't come from nothing, how did the universe come to be, where did the materials that the planets are made from come from? As far as the big bang if a cosmic vaccum caused the big bang than what caused the cosmic vaccum? If at one time nothing existed it would be impossible for anything to exist. If we can retrace the expansion of the Universe up to a single event than the Universe has a timeline of existence which argues it came to be or was created.
The Universe is very complex and works in unison. We know complexity doesn't just happen (we assume our computers were built even though we didn't see them being built, none of us would think that if we put all the parts of a say a computer monitor out in a field that a tornado would ever come and put it together perfectly.) I'm still not satisfied by the watch maker counter argument nor am I convinced when people mention the complexity of snowflakes or diamonds. Snowflakes and diamons are as complex as rivers that carve intricate designs, they don't share complex process's like a cell or carry code like DNA.
Newtons law of equal and opposite reactions, we know nothing will move unless someone or something moves it, the universe is in motion so it begs the question of who or what started it? This is where I think religious individuals could say God left imprints to prove his existance, but problems arrise from this theory that I'll explain at the end.
Although some might, I can't grasp infiniti. To me, and I would have to assume others, the idea of a beggining and end exists in most people. Why do we search for the beggining or have a need to explain why we exist? Why are people going to argue so passionatly in this thread? If we are only programmed to get ahead and survive because there is no reason for our existance why is this imprinted so heavily in us? Why do we seek this out when it has no relevance to basic survival?
Where do our sense of right and wrong come from? Why do some sacrifice themselves for others? If we are only meant to get ahead why not steal and murder rather than jump on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers? Why is stealing and murdering wrong, in some instances it gets us what we want.
To the Christians or believers of other religions: Using these arguments you could reasonably say that being accountable for sin (sin being going against the ingrained moral laws) is rational. God has left us signs of his existance, we seek him out and the complexity of our surroundings are signs left by him. We have moral laws so we know that stealing and killing is wrong so on the day of judgement it's reasonable that we would be held accountable for these actions.
However where does Jesus or following one particular religion come into this? Why is this considered sin too when it's not ingrained in us the same way? If God created us he knows that we can be programmed. Most of us are going to be programmed to believe what we are told when we are raised. So if a person is raised Muslim how can he burn for not accepting Jesus and vice versa? Now how you are raised doesn't give you a free pass, I can hold a muslim who flies a plane into a building accountable for his actions because obviously those ingrained moral laws are present (so the theory of being accountable to God still holds.) However I don't have a set of ingrained laws that tell me Jesus or Mohammed is the way so how can I be held accountable for that? How could a God who created me possibly expect me to know which is the correct religion when I have nothing scientific that I can relate it too such as his existence or how he wants me to act towards others (ingrained moral law.)
If you can't be held accountable for choosing one religion how can you be praised for choosing another?
My contention would be that the only true religion would be one where God is respected as your creator, you treat his other and complex creations with respect as well, and gain his favor by following the ingrained moral laws. That is all that can be rationally expected based on what you have to work with and how you are prorammed IMO.
These have probably been repeated but I'll just put them here, these are my scientific reasons for why I believe in a creator. Again not trying to prove anyone wrong (which is why I think both sides are so heated, because one person is saying the other is ignorant) so consider this me just sharing and asking
Something doesn't come from nothing, how did the universe come to be, where did the materials that the planets are made from come from? As far as the big bang if a cosmic vaccum caused the big bang than what caused the cosmic vaccum? If at one time nothing existed it would be impossible for anything to exist. If we can retrace the expansion of the Universe up to a single event than the Universe has a timeline of existence which argues it came to be or was created.
The Universe is very complex and works in unison. We know complexity doesn't just happen (we assume our computers were built even though we didn't see them being built, none of us would think that if we put all the parts of a say a computer monitor out in a field that a tornado would ever come and put it together perfectly.) I'm still not satisfied by the watch maker counter argument nor am I convinced when people mention the complexity of snowflakes or diamonds. Snowflakes and diamons are as complex as rivers that carve intricate designs, they don't share complex process's like a cell or carry code like DNA.
Newtons law of equal and opposite reactions, we know nothing will move unless someone or something moves it, the universe is in motion so it begs the question of who or what started it? This is where I think religious individuals could say God left imprints to prove his existance, but problems arrise from this theory that I'll explain at the end.
Although some might, I can't grasp infiniti. To me, and I would have to assume others, the idea of a beggining and end exists in most people. Why do we search for the beggining or have a need to explain why we exist? Why are people going to argue so passionatly in this thread? If we are only programmed to get ahead and survive because there is no reason for our existance why is this imprinted so heavily in us? Why do we seek this out when it has no relevance to basic survival?
Where do our sense of right and wrong come from? Why do some sacrifice themselves for others? If we are only meant to get ahead why not steal and murder rather than jump on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers? Why is stealing and murdering wrong, in some instances it gets us what we want.
To the Christians or believers of other religions: Using these arguments you could reasonably say that being accountable for sin (sin being going against the ingrained moral laws) is rational. God has left us signs of his existance, we seek him out and the complexity of our surroundings are signs left by him. We have moral laws so we know that stealing and killing is wrong so on the day of judgement it's reasonable that we would be held accountable for these actions.
However where does Jesus or following one particular religion come into this? Why is this considered sin too when it's not ingrained in us the same way? If God created us he knows that we can be programmed. Most of us are going to be programmed to believe what we are told when we are raised. So if a person is raised Muslim how can he burn for not accepting Jesus and vice versa? Now how you are raised doesn't give you a free pass, I can hold a muslim who flies a plane into a building accountable for his actions because obviously those ingrained moral laws are present (so the theory of being accountable to God still holds.) However I don't have a set of ingrained laws that tell me Jesus or Mohammed is the way so how can I be held accountable for that? How could a God who created me possibly expect me to know which is the correct religion when I have nothing scientific that I can relate it too such as his existence or how he wants me to act towards others (ingrained moral law.)
If you can't be held accountable for choosing one religion how can you be praised for choosing another?
My contention would be that the only true religion would be one where God is respected as your creator, you treat his other and complex creations with respect as well, and gain his favor by following the ingrained moral laws. That is all that can be rationally expected based on what you have to work with and how you are prorammed IMO.
Last edited:
i think science has to much time on their hands..
this is hillarious.... some of you people actually believe that a supernatural power on a different plane of existance created everything.... if that is true, then who created God?
grow the fu** up and realize that the fairy tales you read in the bible were just written (and edited about 10,000 times) to control the general population and get them to do whatever the person who wrote them to do. . MAN CREATED GOD, not the other way around. pretty sad that your life is so empty that you need to fill it with an imaginary friend that governs your whole life and controls what you do...
grow the fu** up and realize that the fairy tales you read in the bible were just written (and edited about 10,000 times) to control the general population and get them to do whatever the person who wrote them to do. . MAN CREATED GOD, not the other way around. pretty sad that your life is so empty that you need to fill it with an imaginary friend that governs your whole life and controls what you do...
Users who are viewing this thread
