Evolutionism vs. Creationism: Darwinism Dismantled

[flakko 5,000+ posts]

what came first..the chicken or the egg?

of course the chicken no matter which way you look at it, creationism or evolution, i dont think god would create the egg first, bible said he created the creatures. and for evolution, umm i dont any type of bacteria would evolve into an egg...when you think of it sounds kinda funny

EDIT: oh yea frracturred, hehe it is kinda long

 

[Bigrick31 10+ year member]

of course the chicken no matter which way you look at it, creationism or evolution, i dont think god would create the egg first, bible said he created the creatures. and for evolution, umm i dont any type of bacteria would evolve into an egg...when you think of it sounds kinda funny
EDIT: oh yea frracturred, hehe it is kinda long

maybe something had the egg and it evolved into a chicken while in that state.

 

[flakko 5,000+ posts]

maybe something had the egg and it evolved into a chicken while in that state.

oh yea...never thought bout it that way //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

I'll give you the justice you deserve and read your post fractured (it's easier to spell that way //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif ). Now, if you'll excuse me.....I'll be back in an hour //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eek.gif.771b7a90cf45cabdc554ff1121c21c4a.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Well, I read what I could and skimmed through most of it (had to get up every 2 minutes to take care of the kids.....), but I think I got the general idea you were trying to get across.

First, I'll say science isn't exact. First you have to form a hypothesis, then you need to test or find evidence for that hypothesis and either form a theory, law or realize you are wrong and start over with a new hypothesis. Obviously, not every scientific hypothesis has been correct. But, you can't take a few debunk hypothesis and dismiss the entire theory. And that is what appears to be happening.

Second, I'll ask; what evidence do you have to support creationism? Even if you were able to disprove evolution (which, I'm sorry, but if you were able to unequivocally disprove evolution, you should be doing more with your time than sitting on a car audio forum), that doesn't mean creationism wins by default. There has to be some sort of overwhelming evidence to support an intelligent design.

Last but not least; I saw a few references to Lee Strobel....who I hardly consider a credible source (see: http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/strobel.htm).

Maybe when I get more time I'll come up with more //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Bigrick31 10+ year member]

anyone watch pen and tellers BS on hbo? they showed a school where science teachers are now forced to teach both evolution and intelligent design. just dont seem right to me that children will have a religion forced upon them in school. after all the class is "Science" not science/what everyone in the comunity thinks.

 

[95RAM 10+ year member]

I read the post. I personally believe in the theory of evolution. Theory being the main word. I enjoyed reading and seeing other points of views.THank you frrakshurred for making a well put together and intelligible post. And not just saying im right your wrong naner nanrer poo poo.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Forgot to mention.......in my early college career, I took a class called "The First 6 Minutes". It was about what occured in the first 6 minutes after the "big bang". Unfortunately, it was in those years when I didn't really pay much attention in class (I took it simply to fulfill my physics requirements)....but I'll look tommorrow and see if I can find the book //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif Then we can go through a brief synopsis of what occured within the first minutes of the universe.

Also, anyone else learned up on "string threory"?? It has to do with a whole bunch of things.....but the part that is important to this discussion, is that part of the theory could explain what caused the "big bang".....basically, parallel dimensions colliding is what is currently theorized under that theory. But, the theory is still in it's infancy and it will be tens of years for the theory to be fully tested and scrutinized. The math portion of the theory works (but it calls for 11 dimensions), still needs to be fully tested though, and that will take time.

 

[CarlB 10+ year member]

To the original poster- You have done nothing to disprove evolution. You have simply pointed out that numerous numbers of experiments done to prove how something happened have. Just because these experiments have failed does nothing to disprove evolution. I am not an expert in anyway in this, nor well versed, but here are somethings:

1. I learned that Millers was first shot down when he was unable to recreate his experiment. Water Vapour contains Hydrogen as well by the way, and could probably be easily ionized and seperated from the oxygen in a chemical reaction.

2. There is a theory that says we will never discover what happened in the first 1.0x10^-13 or something seconds at the start of the universe. There is no explanation for this, but that doesn't mean we must have a god do it, or have any involvement at this time. My current thesis:

There was god, but it wasn't all that allpowerfully, and he was bored, so he created a tiny ball, and it accidentaly blew up, killing the god in the process, and then things went on from there. Or I don't care. It is unexplained, it doesn't mean that evolution doesn't occur.

3. Study the development of a human, and you will find many signs of something that came out of water. We start with 5 fingers, which grow webbing, which disappear later. And slits on our necks that look very much like gills. Some people are still born with these flaps exposed. The theory hasn't been totally taken apart, despite the fact that there were some problems with some scientists.

4. We still don't have a large amount of fossils of everything that came before us. If you at least believe that these animals are real, then the bible is wrong about the beginning of time? And come on, you really thing that we would survive what caused the dinosaurs to die? We can barely take any changes in temperature.

5. Though humans have changed so much in the last thousands of years, don't you agree? Much taller, and all that. Just add more hair to the short ones, and there you go, an ape (im kidding). The evolution of higher intelligence is a trick though.

 

[ss3079 5,000+ posts]

Also, anyone else learned up on "string threory"??

The Elegant Universe //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/ohsnap.gif.17c4c91be09a7a4a3995fb7145adac39.gif

- Steve

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

The Elegant Universe //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/ohsnap.gif.17c4c91be09a7a4a3995fb7145adac39.gif
- Steve

Good stuff. Very, very good stuff //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsupwink.gif.129404938effda6ad9cca39e7f4b58a3.gif Amazingly, PBS kicked *** with that series.

 

[Frraksurred 10+ year member]

Wow, take a 2 hour break and come back to 2 pages. I love it!

Thanks for your comments Steve.

I admit it was a painfully long post. I tried to condense as much as I could but obviously I bit off too big af a subject to start with. I will try to "contain myself in the future. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

First, I'll say science isn't exact. First you have to form a hypothesis, then you need to test or find evidence for that hypothesis and either form a theory, law or realize you are wrong and start over with a new hypothesis. Obviously, not every scientific hypothesis has been correct. But, you can't take a few debunk hypothesis and dismiss the entire theory. And that is what appears to be happening.

Valid point. I started with older, well known, "icons" because they were what was used to initially build the credibility given to evolution. I also attacked primarily Darwinism, which has lost considerable credibility in light of recent discoveries (recent meaning the last 50 years). I realize that paltry post is not going to debunk evolution all by itself, but I had to start some where. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif I get into more later.

Second, I'll ask; what evidence do you have to support creationism? Even if you were able to disprove evolution (which, I'm sorry, but if you were able to unequivocally disprove evolution, you should be doing more with your time than sitting on a car audio forum), that doesn't mean creationism wins by default. There has to be some sort of overwhelming evidence to support an intelligent design.

Agreed. Thankfully there has been a great deal of discovery that points to intelligent design in the last 5 decades. This is one of the reasons that so many school boards are under fire to teach the intelligent design theory next to the evolutionary theory. I will be getting into more of that as we go as well. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/veryhappy.gif.fec4fed33b4a1279cf10bdd45a039dae.gif BTW, I'm glad we have a physics grad(?) to add insight. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gif

Last but not least; I saw a few references to Lee Strobel....who I hardly consider a credible source (see: http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/strobel.htm).

Strobel is a collector of information, not a scientist himself. If you were reading closely you would have noticed I referenced the scientist, in this case Jonathan Wells, that Strobel was interviewing and whose research I was using/quoting. Nonetheless, I still felt responsible to list Strobel's book as the resouce.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Agreed. Thankfully there has been a great deal of discovery that points to intelligent design in the last 5 decades.

"Points to" as in unequivocal (or atleast overwhelming) evidence? Or "points to" as in unexplained findings? Huge difference //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

BTW, I'm glad we have a physics grad(?) to add insight. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gif

LOL....not a physics grad....it was simply a general education requirement //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif

Strobel is a collector of information, not a scientist himself. If you were reading closely you would have noticed I referenced the scientist, in this case Jonathan Wells, that Strobel was interviewing and whose research I was using/quoting. Nonetheless, I still felt responsible to list Strobel's book as the resouce.

Many have questioned the validity of his so called "experts" and "scientist" and their findings. I personally do not consider anything in his books/etc to hold much merit, and many agree.

 

[Frraksurred 10+ year member]

Squeak, in reference to the link you refered to relating to Lee Strobel, which leads to a review by Kush K.

In his opening statement he bashes Strobel for trying to use drama to make his case rather then cold hard facts, stating flatly that "Drama is not evidence." Then he spends his entire article doing exacltly what he claims to denounce. I found the article considerably heavier with drama then any real case against Strobel's crecibility. His concocting a conversation between Strobel and a Court Judge had me rolling. The eye witnesses left their records for the world to read after they were gone, much like how we've gotten much of anything we know about History. This seemed to be lost on Mr. K, or perhaps his agenda just got in the way.

He also attacks the experts Strobel uses, but then gives no reason why, just proceeds to treat them with disdain. What factual fault does he find with them? I couldn't see where he discreditied anyone outside of flinging his own opinions about them.

His last complaint was that Strobel and most the experts he interviewed were "predisposed," but even if that was the case, it doesn't negate the facts provided by them. It also made me laugh because Mr K. obviously has some "predisposition" of his own.

Thanks for the link.

 

[wErd 5,000+ posts]

this is the way I see it, you guys may not agree with me but here goes...

life is short, who the **** cares how the universe was created. i agree it would be quite interesting to know, but i really dont give a shit. personally i think there is a god that created this masterpiece and there is a reason we are all here. maybe its some sick reality tv show...where we are the lesser beings. for instance: what if WE make something up, like we are the actual cells and there is a whole world that we will never ever know about. or we are some experiment to see how we adapt and function. then one day this experiment will end and we'll all be toast...but what if its not what you think. what if we all just live in one huge *** box bigger than anyone could ever imagine with little styrofoam balls as planets, moons, suns etc. and someone just burned us or whatnot....its hard to explain how i see things. when im high i like to think about shit like this. but when im sober i dont.