Religion rant (if easily offended, should probably not enter)

[ChadMKIII]

No, no, no.

No matter what you call it, you can't combine them.
Natural Selection and Evolution are fundamentally different.

Think about the phrase you threw out there:
Darwins Theory of Evolution through natural selection

It doesn't even make sense. Something can't become through a process of selecting among things already present.

Natural Selection works by choosing TRAITS among a gene pool already present and established.
It does not change DNA or create anything new.

The Theory of Evolution says that things evolved from....what? How did the reptile get the DNA coding for fins? It can't swim, and fish can't walk, so obviously they weren't off having sex and sharing DNA, now were they?

A reptile CAN'T evolve into a fish via natural selection because, hey, there aren't any reptiles with fins to select from to begin with, now are there?

 

[Facime]

In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Through the course of time, this process results in the origin of new species from existing ones (speciation). All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is the source of the vast diversity of extant and extinct life on Earth.

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection) and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to succeeding generations, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the allele frequency within a population from one generation to the next.

The theory of evolution has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world. The modern evolutionary synthesis is broadly received as scientific consensus and has replaced earlier explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism, and is currently the most powerful theory explaining biology.



I will accept that theory above your man in the sky any day!

and with that Im done.

 

[Furball]

so whats your point? that "god" did it?

please....

Following logically, yes. To me the theory of evolution is just as far fetched as for you to believe that God made everything. Both are theoretically possible, right? So if it is impossible for macro evolution to happen (proven many times over), then it makes sense to follow the other course that the universe was created by intelligent design.

If I told you that I rolled a huge bin of car parts down a hill, and that in turn made my Supra, you would call me a liar, but if I told you it was made in a factory by Toyota you would think me completely sane. You give me the same senario backwards, and yet expect me to follow the more illogical. That doesn't make sense.

 

[Facime]

I dont know why I cant just let this go and leave it alone...I guess I am just weak

It is sometimes claimed that speciation – the origin of new species – has never been directly observed, and thus evolution cannot be called sound science. A variation of this assertion is that "microevolution" has been observed and "macroevolution" has not been observed. Some creationists redefine macroevolution as a change from one "kind" to another (see Created kind), though it is unclear what a "kind" in this context is intended to refer to. This is a misunderstanding of both science and evolution. First, scientific discovery does not occur solely through reproducible experiments; the principle of uniformitarianism allows natural scientists to infer causes through their empirical effects. Moreover, since the publication of On the Origin of Species scientists have confirmed Darwin's hypothesis by data gathered from sources that did not exist in his day, such as DNA similarity among species and new fossil discoveries. Finally, speciation has actually been directly observed.

and as far as you supra example...actually none of that made sence to me

 

[ChadMKIII]

In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Through the course of time, this process results in the origin of new species from existing ones (speciation). All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is the source of the vast diversity of extant and extinct life on Earth.

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection) and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to succeeding generations, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the allele frequency within a population from one generation to the next.

The theory of evolution has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world. The modern evolutionary synthesis is broadly received as scientific consensus and has replaced earlier explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism, and is currently the most powerful theory explaining biology.



I will accept that theory above your man in the sky any day!

and with that Im done.

Nope. You should be careful where you cut and paste from. Once again, these can only change within a species, and despite whatever this random page you copied says, it has NOT EVER caused speciation. There is no proof for it, its all speculatory, and based off some young guy's theory who was still in college, and not even for a scientific degree.

Sorry, but half of what was mentioned in your post is called microevolution, the other half is called the cause of extinction.

 

[Facime]

Following logically, yes. To me the theory of evolution is just as far fetched as for you to believe that God made everything. Both are theoretically possible, right?

no, they arent. because you have not one shred of proof that a god even exists, therefore even thoretically its not possible. Unless you want me to be able to say that aliens caused it...I guess thats theoretically possible too right? or maybe the world doesnt exist at all and we are all just some wierd dream by a "who" living on a dust speck...also theoretically possible in your world.

So if it is impossible for macro evolution to happen (proven many times over),

Not proven impossible...you can not prove the non-existence of something. and my previous post already covered this

then it makes sense to follow the other course that the universe was created by intelligent design.

two words: ockham's razor

 

[Facime]

Nope. You should be careful where you cut and paste from. Once again, these can only change within a species, and despite whatever this random page you copied says, it has NOT EVER caused speciation. There is no proof for it, its all speculatory, and based off some young guy's theory who was still in college, and not even for a scientific degree.

Sorry, but half of what was mentioned in your post is called microevolution, the other half is called the cause of extinction.

you need to read a bit more, try not only reading what your religous school teachers give you...there are more books in the library

 

[ChadMKIII]

It is sometimes claimed that speciation – the origin of new species – has never been directly observed, and thus evolution cannot be called sound science. A variation of this assertion is that "microevolution" has been observed and "macroevolution" has not been observed. Some creationists redefine macroevolution as a change from one "kind" to another (see Created kind), though it is unclear what a "kind" in this context is intended to refer to.

Duh. A species, as defined by science.

This is a misunderstanding of both science and evolution. First, scientific discovery does not occur solely through reproducible experiments; the principle of uniformitarianism allows natural scientists to infer causes through their empirical effects. Moreover, since the publication of On the Origin of Species scientists have confirmed Darwin's hypothesis by data gathered from sources that did not exist in his day, such as DNA similarity among species and new fossil discoveries.

No kidding, we know some species DNA is similar. That doesn't prove anything.

Finally, speciation has actually been directly observed.

Proof? Example? Anything to back this claim up?

 

[ChadMKIII]

you need to read a bit more, try not only reading what your religous school teachers give you...there are more books in the library

Perhaps you should try your own advice. I've actually looked into this quite a bit, looking at it from different perspectives. But the more you learn about it, the more you realize how impossible the chances of everything coming together randomly are.
Thanks WeezL, but I'm not 5. I'm quite capable of seeing things in my own way, I don't just automatically believe something someone tells me.

 

[Facime]

Perhaps you should try your own advice. I've actually looked into this quite a bit, looking at it from different perspectives. But the more you learn about it, the more you realize how impossible the chances of everything coming together randomly are.
Thanks WeezL, but I'm not 5. I'm quite capable of seeing things in my own way, I don't just automatically believe something someone tells me.

Ok, well thats a good thing, and I hope I didnt offend you. I think its a wonderful thing to be a free thinker. And your damn right not to believe everything someone tells you. I am mearly encouraging you to look for information outside your church thats all

 

[Facime]

Finally, speciation has actually been directly observed.

Proof? Example? Anything to back this claim up?


Boxhorn, Joseph. Observed Instances of Speciation. Talk Origins Archive.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

also:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

[Nick M]

"Evolutionism" is a term used by anti-evolutionists to further their religeous agenda of getting creationism taught in the public schools. "The Theory of Evolution through natural selection" is a scientific theory almost exclusively accepted among the scientific community.

Comparing "creationism", (a belief as defined: as a conviction to the truth of a proposition without its verification, therefore it is a subjective mental interpretation of the perception results) and the ToE is rediculous and without merit and the supreme court of this country agrees with this...for now at least.

Thanks for grooving one down the middle.

Creationism is a term the left invented. Instead of simply saying creation, they call it creationism, as it is some sort of belief set, like communism, fascism, nazism, socialism, and capitalism. So now, I will gladly do the same.

you need to read a bit more, try not only reading what your religous school teachers give you...there are more books in the library

You are basing 100% of your debate on one source. I went to public schools and was told we evolved from pools of slime also, but I have found, by looking, many scientists that show evolution to be false doctrine.

 

[Kai]

Okay - for those that still fail to get it - 'Creationism' is a RELIGIOUS belief that fits in with christian views, and is totally implausible & unprovable.

Evolution, while not 100% provable, is a SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED THEORY that is both plausible AND about 10 trillion times more likely to have occurred than just an all powerful being farting things into existence.

Those who advocate creationism are simply WRONG. It's not science, if shouldn't be taught in science classes and the sooner you get your heads out of the bible and into a book thats not a work of fiction such as a textbook, the better mankind will all be.

 

[Facime]

Thanks for grooving one down the middle.

Creationism is a term the left invented. Instead of simply saying creation, they call it creationism, as it is some sort of belief set, like communism, fascism, nazism, socialism, and capitalism. So now, I will gladly do the same.

No, creationism is an "ism" because its based from a religious belief set, and in NO way can it be proven by any form, convolution or stretch of scientific theory. By definition it is an "ism"

You are basing 100% of your debate on one source. I went to public schools and was told we evolved from pools of slime also, but I have found, by looking, many scientists that show evolution to be false doctrine.

No, Im mearly using only one source here because I feel thats all thats nessesary to make my point...if I wanted to use more sources I would simply point you to the science section at any local library. furthermore evolution is not a doctrine, its a theory, and the best one we have to date...when you can get some proof that creationism is anyting more than a religious belief let me know...I'll be glad to give it a read!

 

[ChadMKIII]

Ok, well thats a good thing, and I hope I didnt offend you. I think its a wonderful thing to be a free thinker. And your damn right not to believe everything someone tells you. I am mearly encouraging you to look for information outside your church thats all

Haha, if you haven't noticed yet it takes a lot to offend me. I really don't care what others say and I'm not easily daunted

But seriously, just because I have attended a religious school and don't agree with you does not mean I haven't researched it. (I have).

Yeah, so a guy in the sky creating things here and there does seem a lil out there, obviously. But when you look at the facts of what people try to pass off as proof for evolution, it just doesn't add up. And with every scientific breakthrough, the so called proof for evolutions is diminished, little by little. If you look into the breaking experiments, you'll see what I mean. Books are often outdated by the time they reach print, science evolves so quickly. Look at the online scientific journals and such, they all have a lot of interesting stuff.

I'll check out your link tomorrow, I have a project I have to finish up. Its 3:20a and I'm on Supramania with a major project i have to have done tomorrow. Man I hate this site! Lol...

 

[Furball]

two words: ockham's razor

And what are you trying to say with this?

As far as proof that God exists...I've seen proof, but you probably wouldn't believe me. Oh well, here goes anyway.

I have friends who are missionaries. There was a girl whos mother came up to them and asked them to pray over her daughter. Her daughter's hand was severly deformed since birth and was not functional. They prayed over the child and her hand. After praying the child began to rub her thumb, and they asked her why she was doing that. She replied that somebody was pulling on it. As she said this her hand straightened out and became functional.

My friends are by no means smoke and mirror so called "healers". They are people who go out, spread their faith, and pray for people in the name of God. I see more evidence for a loving creator everyday, than I see evidence of evolution.

Side note, one of the funniest things I see is when evolutionists talk about evolution as a creator. Example, I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel the other night and the voice over person literally said, "...but evolution had a design..." It made me laugh.

 

[Yellow 13]

There was a girl whos mother came up to them and asked them to pray over her daughter. Her daughter's hand was severly deformed since birth and was not functional. They prayed over the child and her hand. After praying the child began to rub her thumb, and they asked her why she was doing that. She replied that somebody was pulling on it. As she said this her hand straightened out and became functional.

That totally sounds like something I read in a Myspace bulletin...

 

[Kai]

Furball, praying for people in the name of god seems like a totally worthless job. If they really wanted to do something to benefit people, they should become doctors. Or does the fact that they place their ultimate faith in god and the holy voodoo crap that goes with it prevent them from doing so?

God DOES NOT and NEVER HAS existed - it's nothing more than a primitive belief structure put in place by people who fail to understand the basic fundamentals of life.

 

[Facime]

And what are you trying to say with this?

As far as proof that God exists...I've seen proof, but you probably wouldn't believe me. Oh well, here goes anyway.

I have friends who are missionaries. There was a girl whos mother came up to them and asked them to pray over her daughter. Her daughter's hand was severly deformed since birth and was not functional. They prayed over the child and her hand. After praying the child began to rub her thumb, and they asked her why she was doing that. She replied that somebody was pulling on it. As she said this her hand straightened out and became functional.

My friends are by no means smoke and mirror so called "healers". They are people who go out, spread their faith, and pray for people in the name of God. I see more evidence for a loving creator everyday, than I see evidence of evolution.

Side note, one of the funniest things I see is when evolutionists talk about evolution as a creator. Example, I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel the other night and the voice over person literally said, "...but evolution had a design..." It made me laugh.

but the thing is you make the leap from that to proof of god...do I believe that prayer works? yes as a matter of fact I do...but not for the same reasons you do. Its still not proof. Any number of possible explanations could be the cause of the "miracle cure". The reason its proof to you is that you have "faith" that it is god. No matter how you slice it it's still not proof.

 

[Furball]

Furball, praying for people in the name of god seems like a totally worthless job. If they really wanted to do something to benefit people, they should become doctors. Or does the fact that they place their ultimate faith in god and the holy voodoo crap that goes with it prevent them from doing so?

God DOES NOT and NEVER HAS existed - it's nothing more than a primitive belief structure put in place by people who fail to understand the basic fundamentals of life.

They do other things as well, prayer is one of thier ministries. My brother is traing to be a medical missonary as well. He has gone out and helped at clinics around the world. Christians don't go out and just pray for people, they do other things as well.

You say that God does not exist with such force, yet you have no way of knowing. I wonder what drives man to try and disprove the existance of something greater than himself. Man has built up a pride about himself only because there is no lifeform that he can physically see that is greater. So man, in his infinate wisdom, declares that he, and all other bodies in the universe were formed by chance, and thus reduces himself to insignificance. THAT sounds the more poopy to me.