Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The ridiculous choice to stop at the "most ancient of writings" is part of your problem.I do not agree with the evolving man analogy since man has had the same appearance since the first documentation of man in the most ancient of writings and drawings. Tall, short, bald, hairy. Take away our grooming tools& posture training and everyone will look like Cavemen.
Since there were no land plants, were these animals carnivores for nearly 200 million years? I'm sure there is evidence of a diet.
Since there were no land plants, were these animals carnivores for nearly 200 million years? I'm sure there is evidence of a diet.
I do not agree with the evolving man analogy since man has had the same appearance since the first documentation of man in the most ancient of writings and drawings. Tall, short, bald, hairy. Take away our grooming tools& posture training and everyone will look like Cavemen.
My criticism is how schools teach that non-life begat simple cells
When Darwin took the voyage he made observations based on the knowledge at the time. He made observations and came to conclusions. He had no idea about the complexity of cells or DNA. If he only new the components it takes to begin life he might have came to different conclusions.
Even years of trying to synthesis life we have failed. It shouldn't be that hard if it was random (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and sulphide gases = failed experiments).
Maybe if he knew how life would be impossible without proteins and yet it must assemble itself from amino acids.
Proteins are useless if they can't replicate so DNA has the blueprints. DNA doesn't happen nor can it evolve from something lesser.
A scientist finds one barely preserved bone and draws conclusions cause he wants his name in the history books (Piltdown anyone).
The problem is that everything proves evolution.
But until the holes are plugged, I can't accept it as the explanation of life.
Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law. Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" without the ACLU suing the school district?
The point is we should allow students to learn and debate evolution and its criticism.
They're advocating allowing students to come to their own conclusion.
According to CIA.gov, 78.5% of Americans are Christians (this includes Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and others). All of those groups believe in creationism.
If 78.5% of American's believe in a creationism, and only 4% believe in evolution, how is it even arguable that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools?
I'm not saying to do away with evolution all together, simply teach creationism, the most widely believed explanation for how life began, alongside evolution.
The argument against creationism that I'm hearing the most is "Creationism = religion, Evolution = science". What makes creationism not religion, and not science?
Many creationists will argue that just as it takes faith to believe in creation by God, it also takes faith to believe that life happened by chance.
Evolutionists claim to have proof to back up evolution, just as creationists claim to have proof for creationism.
Yet, the fossil record shows our ancestors were morphologically different from us. Analysis of DNA from Neanderthal Man shows that they were a separate species.I do not agree with the evolving man analogy since man has had the same appearance since the first documentation of man in the most ancient of writings and drawings. Tall, short, bald, hairy. Take away our grooming tools& posture training and everyone will look like Cavemen.
That is the current scientific understanding (if you replace dinosaurs with vertebrates). What else should be taught in science classes?You ask me for my definition of evolution. When I criticize it I am criticizing organic and macro evolution. My criticism is how schools teach that non-life begat simple cells; begat fishes; begat dinosaurs; begat apes; begat us.
That experiment was to create organic molecules in a reducing atmosphere similar to early earth. Not to create life.When Darwin took the voyage he made observations based on the knowledge at the time. He made observations and came to conclusions. He had no idea about the complexity of cells or DNA. If he only new the components it takes to begin life he might have came to different conclusions. Even years of trying to synthesis life we have failed. It shouldn't be that hard if it was random (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and sulphide gases = failed experiments).
It makes itself? Huh?Maybe if he knew how life would be impossible without proteins and yet it must assemble itself from amino acids. To make collagen you would have to line up 1055 amino's in the right sequence. The odds of that happening are 1 in 10 to the power of 260 (thats 1 followed by 260 zeros). Here's the crazy part it doesn't get made. It makes itself.
It did not happen randomly. In any case, you are back to abiogenesis again. How about sticking to one topic at a time... like biological evolution?Proteins are useless if they can't replicate so DNA has the blueprints. DNA doesn't happen nor can it evolve from something lesser. It's like a kid who only reads the Far Side and then one day he programs Halo 3. DNA is stuctured, organized and complex. Meaning impossible to randomly happen.
Read a better book then.I admit that I am not a scientist nor do I play one on television but I get my information from books. I try to put things in simple examples and then try to use logic. This info came from Bill Bryson "A Short History of Nearly Everything." He supports evolution but his research can't explain it. He uses "however it happens" alot.
Many are nearly complete. Most fossils are incomplete, including dinosaurs. Science is not based on yelling louder.Concerning all your examples of missing links they came to be because some researcher yells louder than another one. Everyones looking for the missing link and when someone finds a bone or a small ape (is it possible that there are midget apes) they proclaim it's the missing link. We have multiple examples of T-REX from different areas, some fully preserved. But all these other homos are incomplete. A scientist finds one barely preserved bone and draws conclusions cause he wants his name in the history books (Piltdown anyone). Here's a poorly diagrammed example:
cairnarvon.rotahall.org/pics/chickfail.png
"The problem is that everything proves evolution?" Yes, this is certainly a terrible flaw in the theory.The problem is that everything proves evolution. A new species found, moths changing color, monkeys using tools. Evolution proponents argue the case is closed. You can't argue with that because they will find something else to proclaim as proof. But until the holes are plugged, I can't accept it as the explanation of life.
Where is evolution "taught as law?" Why don't you want to put stickers on textbooks for gravity and germ theory? You don't care about "discussion." You want the teaching of evolution watered down because you don't like it. Tough.Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law. Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" without the ACLU suing the school district?
The truth has nothing to do with this "debate." Creationists don't want to hash out the truth as you claim. Creationists are only interested in winning their war on science. By Hook or by Crook.The point is we should allow students to learn and debate evolution and its criticism. Yet people are in an uproar whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. They're not necessarily advocating creationism. They're advocating allowing students to come to their own conclusion. They want to teach the truth.
This is all wrong. Most Christian sects have no issue with evolution.According to CIA.gov, 78.5% of Americans are Christians (this includes Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and others). All of those groups believe in creationism. In addition to that, there's other religions that believe in creationism, but don't fall in to the Christian category. On the other hand, only 4% of the US is no religion, meaning that they're atheists.
Your statistics are all wrong. You are also making an argument from popularity. Science is not a popularity contest. Science is about what scientists do. That is what should be taught, regardless of what Creationists like you want to hear.If 78.5% of American's believe in a creationism, and only 4% believe in evolution, how is it even arguable that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools? I'm not saying to do away with evolution all together, simply teach creationism, the most widely believed explanation for how life began, alongside evolution.
Science is not about faith, it is about natural explanations about natural phenomenom that make predictions that we can test. Creationism fails on all counts as science. Therefore, it should not be taught in science classes.The argument against creationism that I'm hearing the most is "Creationism = religion, Evolution = science". What makes creationism not religion, and not science? Is it lack of proof? Creationists have just as much proof for creationism as evolutionists have for evolution. No, it's because creationism requires a god to create, and they don't like that. Many creationists will argue that just as it takes faith to believe in creation by God, it also takes faith to believe that life happened by chance. And if evolution requires faith, doesn't that mean that it's a religion, though it's one that does not believe in a god?
Wow. So many falsehoods in one paragraph.Evolutionists claim to have proof to back up evolution, just as creationists claim to have proof for creationism. Both require some believing without seeing, since no one alive today witnessed Earth's creation. And if they're both theories, why can't they both be taught in schools? If only evolution is taught, the schools are promoting one religion other all others, the religion of atheism.
Is there some particular argument you wish to discuss from AIG? I am not going to spend the time refutting every falsehood they have there... especially since yoiu have so many of your own to refute.Someone had asked for some proof of creation:
answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
evolution is change in species over time. evolution is not origin of life, that is abiogenesis. abiogenesis is its own theory with its own evidence. All life is chemical in nature so why couldnt a chemical process or a series of them be responsible? especially when we are able to create copias yield of the building blocks in the lab with relative ease.Vene-
You ask me for my definition of evolution. When I criticize it I am criticizing organic and macro evolution. My criticism is how schools teach that non-life begat simple cells; begat fishes; begat dinosaurs; begat apes; begat us.
He had no idea about DNA but DNA has confirmed his ideas about inheritence of traits. we know about complexity of cells and DNA and yet biologists are unanimously in favor of evolution. evolution is the basis upon which modern biology rests. if you learn nothing else, then this at least.When Darwin took the voyage he made observations based on the knowledge at the time. He made observations and came to conclusions. He had no idea about the complexity of cells or DNA. If he only new the components it takes to begin life he might have came to different conclusions. Even years of trying to synthesis life we have failed. It shouldn't be that hard if it was random (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and sulphide gases = failed experiments).
RNA can make proteins and RNA can self replicate.Maybe if he knew how life would be impossible without proteins and yet it must assemble itself from amino acids. To make collagen you would have to line up 1055 amino's in the right sequence. The odds of that happening are 1 in 10 to the power of 260 (thats 1 followed by 260 zeros). Here's the crazy part it doesn't get made. It makes itself.
Proteins are useless if they can't replicate so DNA has the blueprints. DNA doesn't happen nor can it evolve from something lesser. It's like a kid who only reads the Far Side and then one day he programs Halo 3. DNA is stuctured, organized and complex. Meaning impossible to randomly happen.
yet you are confident enough in your opinion to disagree with 99.9% of biologists on a topic that is fundimental to their field.I admit that I am not a scientist nor do I play one on television but I get my information from books.
there are holes in every theory. we do not know what causes gravity, yet gravity is among the oldest theories in modern science, and evolution is up there. it has withstood a century and a half of new discovery and scientific scrutiny and remains one of the most important ideas in science. If there were no gaps in knowlege, scientists would be out of a job and we clearly arent slowing down. and most of the holes you cite are tired PRATTs. little more than gross misunderstandings of evolution, how it works, and what it claims. Even if genuinely held, your concerns are NOT enough to overturn the mountains of genetic, fossil, and other biological evidence. Look up ERVs. Look up the amino acid code and realize that two organisms could be identical in evry way but have an entirely different genetic code.The problem is that everything proves evolution. A new species found, moths changing color, monkeys using tools. Evolution proponents argue the case is closed. You can't argue with that because they will find something else to proclaim as proof. But until the holes are plugged, I can't accept it as the explanation of life.
Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" without the ACLU suing the school district?
In reference to Creationism v Evolution, I define evolution to include all it's periferal theories let it be Big Bag or Extra Terrestrial Intelligence.
Oh. So you do know that evolution isn't actually how you've defined it above (to include cosmology, abiogenesis, etc), but you still insist on using that wrong definition in your argument. That doesn't seem like a terribly honest thing to do, quite frankly.The term Creationism v. Evolution itself is a misnomer since apparently Creationism discusses the origin of life and Evolution discusses the changes life has made since is arrival, whenever you may believe that may have occured.
The theory of evolution is concerned with the change in allele frequencies within a population over time. That's all.If you want a functional definiton for evolution in its barest sense it would mean change. It could be genetic, phenotypal, social, behavioral, fashion. Whatever. Evolution to me in is most basic is change.
I say I'm not an evolutionist, because I'm not sure how it is you're defining that particular word.You say you're not an evolutionist but you defend it.
In the context of this discussion, I would say that I view the theory of evolution by natural selection as being the most strongly-evidenced explanation for the diversity of life on earth.What would you classify yourself as?
These are two separate questions, and only one of them has relevance when it comes to a discussion of evolution. Guess which of those questions it is?For that matter, how do you see life as having come about and how do you account for the wide variety of animal families and genuses (not species)?
You'll excuse me for asking you to clarify what you mean by this, I hope.Do you not believe in the common amoeba ancestor like many others?
You seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by theory. In science, a theory is of higher status than a law. Laws and theories must both be vetted against the evidence; theories are just more comprehensive descriptions while laws are simple statements. Unlike in general parlance, the word theory in science does not mean, "wild guess," but instead is an explanation for set of disparate phenomena. The theory of evolution is the explanation for how life diversifies, and it is a superb theory that explains a tremendous amount about life, and has been tested extremely thoroughly, perhaps more than any other scientific theory (whether it has or not depends upon how you measure). But either way, the Theory of Evolution is so strongly evidenced today that there are only a few possible reasons for not believing in it:Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law. Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" without the ACLU suing the school district?
Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law.
Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
According to CIA.gov, 78.5% of Americans are Christians (this includes Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and others). All of those groups believe in creationism.
In addition to that, there's other religions that believe in creationism, but don't fall in to the Christian category. On the other hand, only 4% of the US is no religion, meaning that they're atheists.
If 78.5% of American's believe in a creationism, and only 4% believe in evolution, how is it even arguable that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools?
I'm not saying to do away with evolution all together, simply teach creationism, the most widely believed explanation for how life began, alongside evolution.
. Many creationists will argue that just as it takes faith to believe in creation by God, it also takes faith to believe that life happened by chance.
And if evolution requires faith, doesn't that mean that it's a religion, though it's one that does not believe in a god?
Evolutionists claim to have proof to back up evolution, just as creationists claim to have proof for creationism.
Both require some believing without seeing, since no one alive today witnessed Earth's creation.
And if they're both theories, why can't they both be taught in schools?
If only evolution is taught, the schools are promoting one religion other all others, the religion of atheism.
I beg to differ:What is more, whatever Richard lost the plot a bit Dawkins claims, science is not atheistic, it is agnostic.
He doesn't even have to look it up, I posted it on the very first page. This is part of the reason I'm done here. Even after being shown how genetics works, he still thinks that the formation of various proteins is some big mystery. I bet he doesn't even know that evolutionary relationships have been determined using protein analysis and that they match up with the fossil record.Look up the amino acid code and realize that two organisms could be identical in evry way but have an entirely different genetic code.
Wow, that's some pretty spectacular point-missing there, chief. Still, I shouldn't expect someone who believes the world was created complete in 6 "days" to be an expert in figurative language usage.I do not agree with the evolving man analogy since man has had the same appearance since the first documentation of man in the most ancient of writings and drawings. Tall, short, bald, hairy. Take away our grooming tools& posture training and everyone will look like Cavemen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?