Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've seen several people state that "something cannot come from nothing". Given our limited understanding of physics, we cannot say it can, but we cannot say that it can't, either.
Speciation has been observed, is an example of macro evolution. The main debate in the scientific community is whether or not macro is the result of micro.
And there are many objections and results that do not support the conclusion as such. Thats not the point though, as scientific process this is not a validated occurrence. As in it can not be explained as a validated result. So when we get down to the "nitty gritty" of the science, we find that "we don't really know the answers" we are speculating greatly, but we have no tested theory. It is not "observed" in the manner to which proves the hypothesis. Yet, in political and social realms, its a said and done deal. We don't need to worry the population about the details right? I mean, we can just "sum" it up for them and tell them that our "belief" is "truth"? irresponsible science at its worst.
Like the pope, I give a qualified yes to the question of if I accept the theory of evolution.
However, I think Creationism is the modern equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. Evolution is a theory just like nuclear science is a theory. No one has seen an atom. But those bombs go off, don't they?
I don't know, but I always thought God taking a rib from Adam to make Eve was like a cheap Vegas entertainer
I think the intelligence of God is best shown by the way evolution plays out. Kind of like the old keep it simple stupid (kiss) phrase. Is this theory 100% correct, I doubt it, but it does explain a lot.
BTW if our country goes toward accepting creationism as science just because someone wrote about it in a religious book some centuries ago, doesn't that make us look like fundamental Islamists who want to keep the knowledge of the world at 1400AD?
I don't know, but I always thought God taking a rib from Adam to make Eve was like a cheap Vegas entertainer
I think the intelligence of God is best shown by the way evolution plays out. Kind of like the old keep it simple stupid (kiss) phrase. Is this theory 100% correct, I doubt it, but it does explain a lot.
BTW if our country goes toward accepting creationism as science just because someone wrote about it in a religious book some centuries ago, doesn't that make us look like fundamental Islamists who want to keep the knowledge of the world at 1400AD?
Ironic you mention that - a recent survey found consistently around the globe that the poorer the nation, the more important religion is to its people. The two notable exceptions to this were the US and Muslim Kuwait.
Ok, now they are saying you didn't come from a dirty puddle of water that after trillions of years turned into a monkey than you.
Now the new thing is you are a MARTIAN (from Mars) who was formed from bacterial who formed a puddle of dirty water, who formed the monkey and then you.
The nonesense gets bigger and bigger. Why can't athiests just accept the fact that there is no way all this is a mere coincidence, a result of a mistake. God is 100% behind it. That is why pagan and atheist scientists are being forced to seriously considering "Intelligent Design" because they see how ridiculous and flawed the un-proven THEORY of Evolution is.
Here is the scope:
Life on Earth May Have Come From Mars
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
H.G. Wells might not have been that far off when he wrote about aliens from Mars coming to Earth.
"It may not be likely," NASA researcher David Morrison told National Geographic News, "but we cannot exclude the possibility that we are, in effect, all Martians."
Panspermia, or the idea that Earth was "seeded" by life from outer space, is centuries old but until lately has not had much scientific evidence to support it.
I am expecting that next week someone will come with a new THEORY (like the un-proven, highly disregarded concept of the THEORY of Evolution) that says people came from Pluto, but they were slimy feces from a mutant monster that lives in Pluto, but came to Pluto from planet X2525Z.
Evolution.... LOL... how silly can people really be!!? ?
Last edited by Nirvana-Guy; 11-14-2007 at 05:06 PM..
No I think evolution is a misunderstood blanket of adaptation. I think every living organism has the ability to adapt and change drastically overtime due to specifics in its genes that can be interchanged. Evolution has never proved a new species was evolved from one on Earth. You're either talking macro, or micro evolution. Micro evolution would be one species evolving in to another completely different species. That's never happened, and never will. Macro on the other hand is just adaptation.
There is enough flexibility in DNA, for any species to appear different overtime. teeth can grow longer sharper, exct. There may even be some possibilities for drastic change in DNA sequencing. But it will never make a completely new species. A mountain lion would never make a deer and so on. No matter if a billion years went by. And when scientists talk up millions and billions of years, it just shows how pin headed they're. They have no concept of reality and time, that's obvious. Millions and billions of years, heh, well that's beyond mans wildest imagination. But since they start out with flawed dating techniques, and build on it, everything they add to it is going to be flawed. They aren't willing to accept alternatives.
Using starlight to date the Universe is a joke. if there was a big bang, the light coming from the stars would have been visible because it started so close by. From the center point as it moved outward. However I don't think there was a big bang either. I think humans are slow, and current science trying to explain our origins and the universe, is so horribly out of whack and rudimentary in its attempt to understand. It makes me think of spontaneous generation.
When people say forty thousand years and such, im skeptical, when they start talking millions, I just ignore them. I don't think they actually have a CLUE how long of a timespan that really is. Humans in just five thousand or so have went from out doorsmen, and beginner craftsmen, to the moon. if they were around a lot longer, we wouldn't be talking about the moon right now, we would be talking about other planets that were colonized. There is no proof whatsoever humans were ever any less intelligent. That's because they never were. Less educated, yes. But definitely not less intelligent.
There is contrary proof though that humans did live longer. Bigger molars, more worn down, even bigger cranial cavities for their brains, and overall skull size. That's where their cavemen crap comes from. When in fact it tells me "scientifically" they lived longer and had larger proportions for their facial features.
Giants contradict evolution also since evolution says that humans started as little pygmy type hobbit people. Then stood up right and all that nonsense. So despite finding giant tools, graves, and other things relating to giants, that is blacklisted by the media. The Smithsonian is great at portraying a completely inaccurate representation of history.
No I don't support it. I think its flawed, and much of it its laughing stock drivel that's not scientific in anyway. Just misleading. But since they keep adding inaccuracies upon other inaccuracies, its completely blinded people to reality. I don't expect National Geographic to tell the truth very much, I just like their pictures. I'm no scientist by any means, but I cant help but think most any person with average intelligence can find many faults in their hypothesis.
They portray a very misleading and inaccurate representation of history. I have come to the conclusion its purposely misleading, for what reason I do not know. However, I think they farther they press on, the more they dig themselves their own graves. So I have no problem with them continuing to stupify themselves as they add impossibility, upon unreason, assumption, and ultimately more broken pieces to their warped collage of time past.
They will find out shortly, that seven years can seem like a million on Earth.
Last edited by the_pines; 11-14-2007 at 05:23 PM..
1. contemplation or speculation.
2. guess or conjecture.
________________________________________
[Origin: 1590–1600]
—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
the•o•ry n. pl. the•o•ries
1. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
It means that the THEORY of Evolution has not been proven and it never will because it did not happne this way. A ton of scientists now believe in "Intelligent Design" because they realize this theory (this concept, this wild guess of Drawin's imagination) is a bunch of bull.
Does everyone realize the THEORY of Evolution is mere fiction, not based on facts at all?? It is a mere wild guess!
Isn't "Intelligent Design" a theory? A ton of scientists... everytime I see the list I see about 40-50 scientists.. worldwide that believe in it. Compared to .. countless other scientists.. worldwide that don't. So a "ton" is giving it a bit much.
I believe in biblical creationism. <shocking, isn't it > But I also want to clarify a few things regarding these issues. First, I personally do not want creationism taught in public schools. Any rational creationist would not want that, IMO. I also do not believe in ID. It is not the same as biblical creationism, IMO. I also do not want ID taught in public schools. What I do want taught in science class is that the ToE isn't as rock solid as it is purported to be. I would want discussion about the flaws in the ToE (which many on this thread have admitted exist). I don't think supporters of the ToE should be threatened by this, for as they believe, the ToE is correct; right?
Second, I do believe in adaptation/speciation, natural selection and mutations. These are observable, testable, repeatable. I do not believe these actions are sufficient to support the ToE - or microbe-to-man evolution. Further, I do believe in science. Yes, it's true. Science has brought us many fantastic advances from computers to automobiles to airplanes to space. I make the distinction that the ToE is not operational or empirical science... it is forensics. It deals with the past that no one witnessed (except the Creator God of the Bible). The ToE tries to explain the past to show how we arrived at the present. It uses many assuptions and presuppositions to interpret the evidence of the past. It is not the same as the science that brought us the space shuttle or the internet.
Third, just to touch on a post I read on this thread regarding vestigial organs, i.e. the appendix and tail bone. To get everyone up to speed, it is now the concensus of the medical community that the appendix does perform a necessary, specific function within the human body and it's not a left-over from anything. Yes, we can do without it (same as your spleen) but that doesn't mean it's not useful.
The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system. -- Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, p. 916, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995.
And your tail bone, or coccyx, is an important feature for muscle attachment that allows us to walk upright and plays a role in defecation (I'll say no more on that ).
Last edited by mams1559; 11-14-2007 at 07:59 PM..
Reason: formatting
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Papal blessing
You are not a monkey anymore, you are a Martian!!
> But I also want to clarify a few things regarding these issues. First, I personally do not want creationism taught in public schools. Any rational creationist would not want that, IMO. I also do not believe in ID. It is not the same as biblical creationism, IMO. I also do not want ID taught in public schools. What I do want taught in science class is that the ToE isn't as rock solid as it is purported to be. I would want discussion about the flaws in the ToE (which many on this thread have admitted exist). I don't think supporters of the ToE should be threatened by this, for as they believe, the ToE is correct; right?