JILLIONS of Creation proof!

Dracil · Aug 17, 2004

Paul-martin said:
Well it dont give the big picture, and well I dont believe earth was created on 6 days, also about the evolution you must remember, that it is an theory which havent been proved, there is too many question marks The atmosphere we would need to for the building peaces (aminoacid), of life to be created have never existed on earth. And so on..

theory you say. Oh, like the Atomic Theory or the Theory of Gravity?

Ryal Kane · Aug 17, 2004

If the earth is 100 years old and there are jillions of proofs, that means nearly a zillion proofs every years or 24 bazzilion every day!

I'm sorry. Those figures just seem too improbably for me to believe.

Ryal Kane

pureone · Aug 17, 2004

Paul-martin said:
Well it dont give the big picture, and well I dont believe earth was created on 6 days, also about the evolution you must remember, that it is an theory which havent been proved, there is too many question marks The atmosphere we would need to for the building peaces (aminoacid), of life to be created have never existed on earth. And so on..

huh? Show me a scientific paper which brings into question any part of standard evolutionary theory-and BTW, The self assembly of ammino acids and then self assembly of proteins, and then self assembly of proteinoids and then self assembly of RNA- abiogenesis- is not a part of evolutionary theory. This is standard chemistry. Please show the paper that tells us that the atmosphere needed for these chemical reactions never existed.

Evolution is a FACT- the mechanisms of evolution are theories.

gluadys · Aug 17, 2004

peschitta_enthusiast said:
Evolution revolves around the random mutations, that supposedly are beneficial. That is very accidental. Natural selection is a different thing. When environmental factors etc come into play that is not fully accidental. But the very start of the theory is beneficial mutations, which are accidental.

Even beneficial mutations involve the environment.

You are forgetting to ask "beneficial in relation to what???"

The answer is "beneficial in relation to this environment".

How is it decided what is and is not beneficial in this environment?

Via natural selection.

You are also forgetting that a mutation that is neutral when it first appears can become beneficial when the environmental conditions change.

We cannot always know in advance if a mutation is beneficial or not.
Even a mutation which is slightly harmful (not enough to be fully weeded out of the gene pool) could become beneficial in a different environment.

iamshannon · Aug 17, 2004

I love this topic! I'm an editor and I work in the science department. I'm the only conservative around so I take a beating about it. But evolution is just the craziest idea. It takes more faith to believe it than it does to believe creation.

Wow. Scientists amaze me.

Ishmael Borg · Aug 17, 2004

iamshannon said:
I love this topic! I'm an editor and I work in the science department. I'm the only conservative around so I take a beating about it. But evolution is just the craziest idea. It takes more faith to believe it than it does to believe creation.

What brought you to this conclusion?

Physics_guy · Aug 17, 2004

What brought you to this conclusion?

Undoubtably the answer is ignorance.

pureone · Aug 17, 2004

iamshannon said:
I love this topic! I'm an editor and I work in the science department. I'm the only conservative around so I take a beating about it. But evolution is just the craziest idea. It takes more faith to believe it than it does to believe creation.

Wow. Scientists amaze me.

wow- a science editor who probably doesn't know about 10,000 + articles available at the NIH NCBI website which support evolution, not to mention all the other articles in other fields that support evolution. probably over 30,000 peer-reviewed articles which can be considered evidence and support for evolution.

there is no faith in science, only data and peer reviewed papers.
faith is for that with no evidence.

yes, it's amazing how much evidence actually exists, and how few people look at it.

What does conservative have to do with it? Haven't you ever met any conservative athiest evo's? We exist.

Data · Aug 17, 2004

Paul-martin said:
that it is an theory

Such as germ theory? That germs make you sick, not demons?

Because that one hasn't been 'proved' as yet either.

Logic · Aug 17, 2004

iamshannon said:
I love this topic! I'm an editor and I work in the science department. I'm the only conservative around so I take a beating about it. But evolution is just the craziest idea. It takes more faith to believe it than it does to believe creation.

Wow. Scientists amaze me.

I work in the spherical Earth department at the Smithsonian, some of the theories those nutballs come up with are just pure gold! Seriously, a round Earth, I've heard some whoppers, but this one takes the cake, all of the cake, takes it really far away. Then it brings the cake back and takes it again several times. Seriously, there's close to no cake left in these parts.l

Arikay · Aug 17, 2004

Of course, since you provided zero evidence to support your claim, it takes the most faith to believe your statement.

I always find this argument funny. It seems to be saying faith is a bad thing, all the while creationism claims that faith is a good thing. I guess contradictions are a common thing.
It seems like an attempt to drag evolution down to the level of creationism, since so far no one can back up the claim that creationism is science. Which again, I find it funny that the position of faith is considered to be lower than science, even by creationists.

iamshannon said:
I love this topic! I'm an editor and I work in the science department. I'm the only conservative around so I take a beating about it. But evolution is just the craziest idea. It takes more faith to believe it than it does to believe creation.

Wow. Scientists amaze me.

Ataradrac · Aug 17, 2004

peschitta_enthusiast said:
"I told you already, DNA wasn't the first replicator. stop being annoying."

What was oh easily annoyed one?

I didn't see this being answered (if it was and I missed it - sorry!), so I'll just pop in...

The first replicator was most probably RNA, not DNA. RNA can act as its own catalyst for replication.

Self Improvement · Aug 17, 2004

The acceptance of evolution is proportional to the degradation of society.

No, stupidity and ignorance are.

No creation, no God, no accountability for our actions.

Evolution says nothing about god or accountablity for our actions.

This is the reason why this most unscientific of unscientific theories is so accepted by a supposedly logical world.

The world is not very logical, or have you not noticed?

Physics_guy · Aug 18, 2004

The first replicator was most probably RNA, not DNA. RNA can act as its own catalyst for replication.

Actually it was probably a protein. Nucleic acids likely came later.

Paul-martin · Aug 18, 2004

Dracil said:
theory you say. Oh, like the Atomic Theory or the Theory of Gravity?

My point was the existents of good haven't been proved scientifically, and that the evolutions havent been proved scientifically.

Mistermystery · Aug 18, 2004

Paul-martin said:
My point was the existents of good haven't been proved scientifically, and that the evolutions havent been proved scientifically.

Evolution has been proven scientifically. Thanks for playing.

Aeschylus · Aug 18, 2004

Paul-martin said:
My point was the existents of good haven't been proved scientifically, and that the evolutions havent been proved scientifically.

Rubbish, by any reasonable standard of scientific proof, evolution has been proved.

Paul-martin · Aug 18, 2004

Aeschylus said:
Rubbish, by any reasonable standard of scientific proof, evolution has been proved.

No it haven't, after what we know today the building block could not apear on earth because of our atmosphere.

peschitta_enthusiast · Aug 18, 2004

And what replicated before RNA?

Also, that statement is true, evolution has never been proven. Even secular scientists oppose it. there is too much wrong with it, like the many many missing links. Also, with evolution, there is the added "benefit" that you want to believe it, to take away God, to take away accountability.

Do note that we are NOT dealing with infinite time

peschitta_enthusiast · Aug 18, 2004

As for aging of fossils etc, that is a joke. Present-day molluscs have been aged to be THOUSANDS of years old, showing how unreliable dating methods are.

JILLIONS of Creation proof!

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Evolution =/= atheism

Legend

Member

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Well-Known Member

Evolution =/= atheism

Veteran

Well-Known Member

HI

Now with 50% less irony!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Here's looking at you kid

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency