Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Desputing Evolution or the bible



  • ok i’m an evolutionist, i’ve actully taken the time to read the origin of species by Darwin, so i know what i’m talking about. i don’t consider you a evolutionist if you have not read the book becase you only have information on hear say. like wise for creationists on the bible. and therefore i don’t think it’s posible to make a truly informed opinion unless youve read both books. ( dipite the fact that most crationists i’ve met refuse to even look at Darwins book), i admit that i have not read the bible honestly i don’t even have one in my house. so i will be relying on the creationists replys to this to form the bases of my arguments.

    the main reson i belive in evoution is the fact that i can see it hapaning around me. i can see farmers selectivly breeding animals to produce variations. how come all domestic dogs are the same species but they look so much diferent? if god made man in his own image, why are we divided into seperate races each with unique fetures.

    well that how i will start.
    and i’m ready to debate



  • I voted for evolution.

    However, I do think that there is a place in the books for both . It would be very narrow-minded to think that either theory is entirely correct.



  • You can’t have creation without evolution and vice versa. 🙂



  • wow
    i guess i must be a creationist as i have never read Darwin’s book.
    Weird.



  • ha, Darwin was wrong. :-?



  • i guess i must be a creationist as i have never read Darwin’s book

    ya but would you read it if you were givin the opertunity.



  • I guess I’m a creationist too since I didnt read Darwin’s book, though as I’m explaining to mini_phreek right now, I don’t beleive that evolution contraditcs the bible.



  • just becase you have not read Darwin does not mean your atamaticly a creationist just that you can’t have the total understanding of evolution.



  • evalotion all the way 😄



  • @EmuGod:

    I guess I’m a creationist too since I didnt read Darwin’s book, though as I’m explaining to mini_phreek right now, I don’t beleive that evolution contraditcs the bible.

    i agree w/ EmuGod
    also i understand that there were many inconsistancies w/ Darwin’s book, and there were also some lapses in scientific acumen.
    Having said that, i wouldn’t read the book - at this point it would be like looking at a picture of a person with little labels pointing to the arms and legs after studying human anatomy. I’d be surprised if many scientists outside of some biologists and anthropologists have, actually.



  • @mini_phreek:

    just becase you have not read Darwin does not mean your atamaticly a creationist just that you can’t have the total understanding of evolution.

    There is way more to the evolutionary “theory” than what Darwin contributed. If the only thing you know about evolution is Darwin’s interpretation, I think you are misinformed.



  • @mini_phreek:

    the main reson i belive in evoution is the fact that i can see it hapaning around me. i can see farmers selectivly breeding animals to produce variations. how come all domestic dogs are the same species but they look so much diferent? if god made man in his own image, why are we divided into seperate races each with unique fetures.

    All that this shows is speciation. Speciation is not evolution. Evolution requires the addition of new genetic information. In speciation, there is no new genetic information.



  • Darwin did not have all the tools for I to follow to his conclusions…



  • Keep in mind, Darwin wrote the Origin of Species over a hundred years ago.



  • yea, so was Marx’s Manifesto…



  • Can I be both an Evolutionist and a creationist? 🙂



  • No. :roll:



  • There is way more to the evolutionary “theory” than what Darwin contributed. If the only thing you know about evolution is Darwin’s interpretation, I think you are misinformed.

    Right ! Darwin’s explanation is out of date, science change, now we use different tools to understand evolution. You does not have a full understanding of evolution just by reading “the origin of species”… but anyway it’s an interesting book.

    I don’t beleive that evolution contraditcs the bible.

    The important is that the two does’nt go along in school, creationism “should” be taught in religion, evolutionism in biology.

    also i understand that there were many inconsistancies w/ Darwin’s book, and there were also some lapses in scientific acumen.

    Darwin was the second grand evolutionist, you cannot ask a theory to be perfect in the first time. It was still a lot better than Lamarck’s theory. And now our theory are far more advance than that.

    @TG:

    No. :roll:

    In fact yes. You can believe evolution exist, but with the guidance of an anthropomorphic being (some people really need that). It’s what we call “Old Earth Creationism”, but there is also “Yougn Earth Creationism”, it’s the belief that evolution does’nt exist, just creation, it’s base on Fixism.



  • Wow FinsterniS!!!
    i think that’s possibly the most objective post i’ve ever seen you present. Also i tended to agree with most of the statements you made (to some degree - at least those that i know something about.



  • @cystic:

    Wow FinsterniS!!!
    i think that’s possibly the most objective post i’ve ever seen you present. Also i tended to agree with most of the statements you made (to some degree - at least those that i know something about.

    It’s because we often speak of subject like God and thing i have a very firm position. But you will certainly not like the message i just write in “The end of the World” (or something like it).



  • @FinsterniS:

    Right ! Darwin’s explanation is out of date, ….it’s the belief that evolution does’nt exist, just creation, it’s base on Fixism.

    clap clap clap



  • @FinsterniS:

    Darwin was the second grand evolutionist, you cannot ask a theory to be perfect in the first time. It was still a lot better than Lamarck’s theory. And now our theory are far more advance than that.

    The reason Darwin’s version was considered better was because Lamarckian Evolution was proven to be false. The current “version” of evolution has not been proven to be false because it is unfalsifiable.

    One thing people miss about evolution is that the theory does not predict anything. All it does is take the data and tries to explain it using a naturalistic approach. However, the only explainations it has been able to provide thus far is not scientific. Many of the explainations contradict other explainations, are tautologies, or are metaphysical.

    Lamarckian Evolution in my opinion was science, because it made a hypothesis that was falsifiable. Evolution under this criteria of testability, is not.



  • The reason Darwin’s version was considered better was because Lamarckian Evolution was proven to be false. The current “version” of evolution has not been proven to be false because it is unfalsifiable.

    That is as falsiafiable as the theory of the big bang. If you are able to refute every supporting evidence you will be able to refute evolution.

    One thing people miss about evolution is that the theory does not predict anything. All it does is take the data and tries to explain it using a naturalistic approach.

    Sure it’s a naturalistic approach, we cannot go and ask every shaman or priest what they think about X or Y. And it does make prediction (whales with legs, Darwin’s Finches, et cetera…).

    However, the only explainations it has been able to provide thus far is not scientific. Many of the explainations contradict other explainations, are tautologies, or are metaphysical.

    Like what ? There is nothign metaphysical about evolution. It’s a scientific theory base on indirect proof, fossils, embryology, vestigial organs, comparative anatomy, genetic.

    Lamarckian Evolution in my opinion was science, because it made a hypothesis that was falsifiable. Evolution under this criteria of testability, is not.

    His theory was base more on intuition than science, he said that “the need create the organ”, not that he was not a brilliant man, but i simply cannot understand how you can say he was scientific.



  • I have Darwin’s Origin of Species, however, I’ve never finished reading it.
    I usually go crosseyed trying to follow it.

    What, I think, made his book so amazing is the time that it was written.
    Its first publication was on November 24, 1859! That’s pre the American Civil War!
    Ideas back then on the history of life were far different and the general population was very religious.
    All he offered was a new perspective. To suggested that maybe there was an alternative to how life came to be.
    Seventeenth-century churchmen had carefully formulated that all species of living creatures had been immutably porduced during the first six days after, God had, at precisely 9:00 A.M. on October 23 4004 BC, created the earth.
    This was the common belief of Darwin’s era.
    His book forever demolished that premise.

    Here is a quote from a Whewell character about Darwin’s book.

    “But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws”

    Hardcore. 😉



  • @FinsterniS:

    That is as falsiafiable as the theory of the big bang. If you are able to refute every supporting evidence you will be able to refute evolution.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the big bang theory is based on a single event - how everything started. It is at one point in time and thus the evidence required only needs to show that this event happened.

    Evolution is on a different level. It is a theory of many multiple events (species) and tries to tie these together. The evidence that evolutionists use is illusionary at best. And for a theory to be falsifiable, you should only have to refute one thing to make it false. Otherwise it is the theory is fluid - adapting to any situation provided (even if contradictory).

    @FinsterniS:

    And it does make prediction (whales with legs, Darwin’s Finches, et cetera…).

    Evolution does not predict whales with legs (please show me where). If there were no whales with “legs”; (they are not really legs), evolution would not be proven false. Instead, the evolutionist would just make up a story of why there were no whales with “legs.” Think about that for a moment. A prediction makes a theory falsifiable.

    Darwin’s finches is another example of speciation. This only shows variations within a single species. Once again, no new genetic information - just different beak sizes - and we still have finches. In order to show that evolution occurs, it must be shown that new genetic information has been created.

    @FinsterniS:

    Like what ? There is nothign metaphysical about evolution. It’s a scientific theory base on indirect proof, fossils, embryology, vestigial organs, comparative anatomy, genetic.

    The theory of evolution today has the same metaphysical characteristics as astrology. Astrology claims to predict human personalities and fortunes, yet no observations could conceivably refute it. This is the same for evolution. I think ReMine says it best when discussing the fitness of natural selection,

    “Fitness is large size for combat, but it is also small size for hiding. Fitness is high-speed for catching and escaping, but it is also slow-speed for energy conservation. Fitness is genes that replicate faster than other genes, but it is also genes that replicate only as needed, to conserve genetic material. Fitness is sending out millions of seeds, but it is also sending out only a few specialized seeds.”

    Indirect proofs of evolution?

    1. Fossils - some evolutionists claim the record is incomplete. How can anyone make scientific conclusions based on incomplete data? The actual fossil record shows large morphological gaps, long periods of stasis and convergence. This is all data that would say evolution did not occur in the small gradual steps “predicted” by Darwin. This is another example of the fluidity of evolution - if something is shown to be false - just change the explanation - and presto, the theory is no longer falsifiable. This is metaphysical.

    2. Embryology - This is hardly evidence for evolution. This is one of the huge enigmas of evolution. Maybe you can clarify why this is evidence.

    3. Vestigial organs - This is an argument created to dispute the theory of creation. Evolution does not predict these. They are instead another example of the fluidity of evolution. If a species has a vestigial organ, then natural selection never removed them. If a species does not have a vestigial organ, then natural selection removed them. See, both situations are covered - not falsifiable.

    Also, these organs are really defined as such due to the result of our ignorance. Each year more and more uses are found for these items and thus they are no longer considered “vestigial.” Evolutionists have tried to use the organs still considered vestigial as proof for evolution. In fact this evolutionary “proof” was at its height in the eighteenth century. At this time the German anatomist, Wiedersheim, listed about a hundred organs as vestigial. Today, that list is down to about three or four - which are debatable. Vestigial organs as a proof for evolution is a no longer used by evolutionists.

    1. Comparative anatomy - This is neutral evidence. It can just as easily be used to prove creation. All it shows is a common design. This is the exact proof that would be required to show that all of creation was made by a single designer. The funny thing is that even if an organism was shown not to have a common anatomy to other known organisms, evolution is so fluid that it would still use it as evidence.

    2. Genetics - A common misconception is that population genetics and natural selection (evolution) are interchangeable. The two theories are completely separate. The two can be discussed individually without ever needing to bring up the other.

    Population genetics is about the mechanisms of genetic change in populations. Its main focus in the evolutionary debate is survival differential. The main mechanism of natural selection is survival of the fittest which is not included in population genetics. Evolutionists try to use population genetics as support for evolution. But the two theories are different.

    @FinsterniS:

    His theory was base more on intuition than science, he said that “the need create the organ”, not that he was not a brilliant man, but i simply cannot understand how you can say he was scientific.

    I said that he was scientific because he stated a hypothesis that could be tested. Is it science today? No. Was it considered science in his day? Yes - it just had not been proven false yet.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

38
Online

13.2k
Users

33.4k
Topics

1.3m
Posts