| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
20th December 2003, 03:58 PM
| | Member
27    
| | Join Date: 4th December 2003
Posts: 95
Blessings: 108,862
Reps: 13 (power: 0) | | | Couple questions
1. Big bang - where did the bang come from
2. Law of therodynamics - Evolution conflicts with this idea. I WANT to be educated.
3. Perfection - look around, so it is by good chance and the survival of the fittest trees, the fittest planets and the fittest sun that we live on this earth - our eyes are so complex that what we do in a second cannot be comprehended by any of the super computers that are built.
What about bats - they are blind, how many bats did it take to smash into walls before they started using their nautilus?
What about the earth, if the earth was 440 miles closer to the sun, everything would be destroyed by the heat. If it were 440 miles further away, everything would die because it would be too cold. How many times did the planet have to be frozen then thawed before it got it right? |
20th December 2003, 04:18 PM
| | Veteran
| | Join Date: 19th September 2003
Posts: 1,726
Blessings: 108,776
Reps: 207 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by doclkk 1. Big bang - where did the bang come from
The best answer is this: we're not sure. The earliest moments of the universe have defied a precise theoretical formulation. At the heart of the problem is incompatibility between General Relativity and Qantum theory on microscopic scales.
However there are several theories on the table: (a quantum fluctuation, God, brane intersection (M- theory), etc) Originally Posted by doclkk 2. Law of therodynamics - Evolution conflicts with this idea. I WANT to be educated.
Ice cubes form in you refrigerator, right? The crystals are more organized than they were when they were water. It works because the fridge has an input of energy that comes from outside the system (electricity). Similarly, complex molecules can form on the earth, thanks to the continuous supply of energy from the sun. IOW, the earth is a closed system (fixed mass) with a continuous influx of energy from the sun. Underthese conditions, it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics to get complex molecules out of simpler ones. Originally Posted by doclkk 3. Perfection - look around, so it is by good chance and the survival of the fittest trees, the fittest planets and the fittest sun that we live on this earth - our eyes are so complex that what we do in a second cannot be comprehended by any of the super computers that are built.
Actually, the world is far from 'perfect'. Even the bible will tell you that. You have to boil it down to the molecular level. A child is complex, but the single cell that was once the child is much simpler. Yet we can measure all of the chemical reactions and processes that make the child from the cell. Can complex molecules that form the basis of cells form naturally? Apparently, the answer is yes. Originally Posted by doclkk What about bats - they are blind, how many bats did it take to smash into walls before they started using their nautilus?
You are assuming their were once bats that lived in an environment that required SONAR, but they did not have it. This is not a valid assumption. I will let the biologists handle this one. Originally Posted by doclkk What about the earth, if the earth was 440 miles closer to the sun, everything would be destroyed by the heat. If it were 440 miles further away, everything would die because it would be too cold.
Mercury is closer to the sun...has it been destroyed. I believe you mean to say that life may not have formed if the earth were closer or farther away. Of course, I am not sure how this point is meaningful. In addition, I am suspicious about this claim of yours. Can you tell us the source of it? Originally Posted by doclkk How many times did the planet have to be frozen then thawed before it got it right?
Huh?   |
20th December 2003, 04:53 PM
|  | PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
35 
| | Join Date: 30th June 2002
Posts: 8,425
Blessings: 2,111,885
Reps: 9,311,669,886,675,212 (power: 9,311,669,886,694) | | Originally Posted by doclkk What about the earth, if the earth was 440 miles closer to the sun, everything would be destroyed by the heat. If it were 440 miles further away, everything would die because it would be too cold. How many times did the planet have to be frozen then thawed before it got it right?
The Earth varies its distance to the Sun by about 3 million miles each year. Look up "perihelion" and "aphelion". So, no, 440 miles closer or farther away doesn't seem to be having the effect you want.
__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution |
20th December 2003, 05:03 PM
|  | Member
43
| | Join Date: 18th December 2003 Location: Illinois
Posts: 57
Blessings: 108,874
Reps: 39 (power: 0) | | | Captain I know what Evolution is.....
It is the only widely accepted alternative to Creation for the origin of man or any other species. Regardless of how silly evolution is it cannot be abandoned until something besides believing in the bible and accepting the truth of Genesis can be conjectured.
Evolution is a religion. It has ever changing doctrine. It is certainly not science in that it approaches the species issue from a completely opposite direction than that of science which examines the facts to form conclusions. They are still trying to piece together enough facts to support the theory. It takes more faith to believe the monkey story than it does to believe the bible. There are no intermediate species. There will always be missing links and species will continue to reproduce after their own kind.
And you thought no Christian understood Evolution..... |
20th December 2003, 05:16 PM
|  | Legend
43 
| | Join Date: 31st May 2002
Posts: 11,095
Blessings: 73,284
Reps: 33,621 (power: 55) | | Originally Posted by PreacherJoe It is certainly not science in that it approaches the species issue from a completely opposite direction than that of science which examines the facts to form conclusions.
Have you read any of Darwins work? What you describe here is the absolute opposite of how Darwin approached species.
He examined facts, gathered data, and formed his conclusion, just as any good scientist would do.
what you have described is creationism as can be evidenced by the 'Statements of Faith' and 'Tenents of Belief' that can be found on any creationist website which state the conclusion as unchangable and only present facts that support it while ignoring the large amounts of evidence that falsify it. This is the opposite of science. |
20th December 2003, 05:22 PM
| | PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
35
| | Join Date: 30th June 2002
Posts: 8,425
Blessings: 2,111,885
Reps: 9,311,669,886,675,212 (power: 9,311,669,886,694) | | Originally Posted by PreacherJoe Evolution is a religion. It has ever changing doctrine.
It is certainly not science in that it approaches the species issue from a completely opposite direction than that of science which examines the facts to form conclusions. They are still trying to piece together enough facts to support the theory. It takes more faith to believe the monkey story than it does to believe the bible. There are no intermediate species. There will always be missing links and species will continue to reproduce after their own kind.
And you thought no Christian understood Evolution.....
You obviously don't.
The theory of evolution is no more a religion than the theory of gravity (and bevets, I've already addressed those Michael Ruse quotes you are so fond of, so you can keep them to yourself). It was orginally conceived out of observations made about the physical world: exactly how science works. Evolution has been studied for over 150 years now, with mountains of supporting evidence.
And there are plenty of intermediate or transitional species (see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html). The only ones who think there aren't are badly misinformed.
__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution |
20th December 2003, 05:31 PM
|  | Veteran
26  
| | Join Date: 15th September 2003 Location: Auckland
Posts: 1,433
Blessings: 108,746
Reps: 887 (power: 0) | | our eyes are so complex that what we do in a second cannot be comprehended by any of the super computers that are built.
Wrong. It's even done by my digital camera, which has much better resolution than my blurry eyes. |
20th December 2003, 05:36 PM
|  | Agnostic Atheist
27
| | Join Date: 16th November 2003 Location: TX
Posts: 4,001
Blessings: 84,283
Reps: 3,975 (power: 17) | |
What about bats - they are blind, how many bats did it take to smash into walls before they started using their nautilus?
A better question is how many bats did it take to relize that using their advanceing ability of sonar is better then relying on sight while hunting at night(hunting at night to avoid preditors)? Having a useless sense is a waste of energy. |
20th December 2003, 08:04 PM
|  | Prism Ranger
25 
| | Join Date: 25th February 2003 Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,813
Blessings: 112,794
Reps: 382 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by PreacherJoe Captain I know what Evolution is.....
It is the only widely accepted alternative to Creation for the origin of man or any other species.
Correction: It is the only widely accepted explanation for the origin of man or any other species.
Just so you know, creationism is not widely accepted anywhere outside of America, even among Christians.
Regardless of how silly evolution is it cannot be abandoned until something besides believing in the bible and accepting the truth of Genesis can be conjectured.
Evolution will be abandoned if and only if it is found to be wrong. The writings of the Bible or any other religious text have no bearing on the descision process.
Evolution is a religion. It has ever changing doctrine.
Evolution is not a religion by any commonly accepted definition of the word. You will need to show how one of the most secure and respected theories in science is a religion before making that kind of claim.
And change is good. If it did not change in the light of evidence it would be bad science and erroneous.
Scientist: We think XYZ as it is the most likely given present evidence, so we'll do some tests to check.
*tests falsify XYZ but support XYA*
Scientist: We think XYA, so we'll do some tests to check.
*tests still support XYA*
There, 'changing doctrine' led to a more accurate theory.
It is certainly not science in that it approaches the species issue from a completely opposite direction than that of science which examines the facts to form conclusions.
And that is what evolution was born from: A man studied the facts and drew his conclusions. Creationism on the other hand is based on taking a conclusion (a literal interpretation of Genesis) and twisting, ignoring and making up the facts to fit it.
They are still trying to piece together enough facts to support the theory.
Where did you get this falsehood from? Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science. There is more disagreement over the theory of gravity than evolution.
It takes more faith to believe the monkey story than it does to believe the bible.
Evolution requires no faith to believe, as it is based on evidence and scientific inquiry.
There are no intermediate species.
Thats a rather bold statement. What about homo erectus, intermediate between homo habilis and homo sapiens?
There will always be missing links
Well, duh. Not everything fossilises so we cannot expect a perfect picture.
and species will continue to reproduce after their own kind.
Actually there are a huge number of observed instances of speciation. Ask Lucaspa for a list.
And you thought no Christian understood Evolution..... You have done little to dispel that impression.
__________________
Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world." |
20th December 2003, 08:29 PM
|  | Senior Member
28   
 | | Join Date: 19th November 2003 Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 583
Blessings: 66,510 My Mood 
Reps: 40,026,136,508,235 (power: 40,026,136,518) | | No offense, but WHAT ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT
?? A few people said there wasn't really a difference between micro and macro, so I was showing that there is a difference. Who is your teacher-Kent Hovind????
His name was Jason Walker and he was also a college professor. My biology class was an actual college course. We were getting college credit for taking that class. It was a very hard class. My teacher was a christian, so naturally he believed in creationism. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
