Um >.> Gravity isn't a theory...Abengoshis said:
It has been a scientific law for a long time...
Is the debate between Creationism and Evolution serious in America?
- Thread starter heyheysg
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It has been a scientific law for a long time...
Genesis is merely a story on how things started, put in words so that an infant race could understand it.
Christians always seem to forget one of the main topics that one of our own historical figures, Paul, spoke on: the details. They don't matter, quit arguing about them. Why people think religion and science can't coexist is beyond me, especially considering the fact that many an archeologist has worked to uncover the history behind figures such as Moses, Jesus, and Abraham and have yet to prove that they didn't exist nor that they didn't do what they said they did.
While I'm on the subject, most New Testimant texts note that Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, ect, but they fail to note how it was done. There are no details on how it was done, save for once. My point? The details are left out, likely purposely.
More to the OT, I think someone noted that one simple thing that God could have done is executed a macro of sorts and set stuff in motion on each of the "days" that he was to get his job done. There's nothing to support that everything was made in six days, in fact, it's quite the opposite. Even farther along in the Old Testimant, it's depicted that a day to God is like a 1000 years to us, meaning that time just isn't the same to God as it is to us.
Faith and Science not only can coexist, but can do it with very little change in both. Let Science handle the physical, which is what it's intended to do anyways, and let faith handle the spiritual. No need to step on each others' toes, folks.
Christians always seem to forget one of the main topics that one of our own historical figures, Paul, spoke on: the details. They don't matter, quit arguing about them. Why people think religion and science can't coexist is beyond me, especially considering the fact that many an archeologist has worked to uncover the history behind figures such as Moses, Jesus, and Abraham and have yet to prove that they didn't exist nor that they didn't do what they said they did.
While I'm on the subject, most New Testimant texts note that Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, ect, but they fail to note how it was done. There are no details on how it was done, save for once. My point? The details are left out, likely purposely.
More to the OT, I think someone noted that one simple thing that God could have done is executed a macro of sorts and set stuff in motion on each of the "days" that he was to get his job done. There's nothing to support that everything was made in six days, in fact, it's quite the opposite. Even farther along in the Old Testimant, it's depicted that a day to God is like a 1000 years to us, meaning that time just isn't the same to God as it is to us.
Faith and Science not only can coexist, but can do it with very little change in both. Let Science handle the physical, which is what it's intended to do anyways, and let faith handle the spiritual. No need to step on each others' toes, folks.
I should get my cousin on here: he's more knowledgeable about the details of evolution than I am, but we've had plenty of conversations about this before.cobra_ky said:
From what I understand, natural selection is a genetic process by which a creature will evolve in a random way as its surroundings prompt. Basically, the mutations are random, but they happen as their environment stimulates this change.
Well then, there are many things that simply have no reason to have evolved. For one thing, why did life leave the ocean in the first place? If mutations happen based on environment, why would life gain the ability to leave their environment completely rather than simply changing to better live in it? Why would a creature have gained wings rather than simply evolving to better live on the ground? These are just a few things that simply have no reason to have evolved based on this theory.
For another thing, why would we have evolved to sexual reproduction? Asexual reproduction was displayed by "earlier" forms of life, so why would we choose the less efficient method of sexual reproduction? For that matter, why would we have evolved to have pleasure during sex? What kind of outside, environmental influence could stimulate the creation of an organ that exists solely to give pleasure during sex?
There's plenty more, but these are some things. Many things about humanity simply would not have evolved: given the current theory, it makes no sense. But of course, someone will no doubt find some way to explain it away: every time evidence is found against evolution, scientists are unwilling to accept that it may be untrue and they simply change the theory. Again.
I'm not entering the debate as such, just givin a quick theory for the above question. by the thory of evolution the most important thing for any animal is to breed, to expand the genes, so to say. Since the human race had to breed a hell of a lot more than competing species such as the neanderthal, it would seem logical that more than simple instinct drew the species to each other, to make mating more attractive as well as an essential need. Sexual pleasure is, the way I see it, an advantedge.Thaius said:
It can, it has we have been doing it for thousands of years, Evolution is iron clad there is no other theory with as much support, evidence amounted, or total number of peer reviews its beyond speculation. I'm willing to guess your one of the many who are confused and tie in abiogenesis with evolution which is still very debatable but they are completley different subject matters.Lorok said:
Well, but the first two points you're making don't refer to evolution. They might have something to do with abiogenesis, but this is a different matter altogether that evolution doesn't attempt or even feign to attempt to explain.Semitendon said:
As for your third point, while there are gaps in the fossil records (and there always will be simply because evolution is a constant process and there'd be an infinite amount of "steps" inbetween each step we have fossils of today), the genetic evidence is quite powerful nonetheless. First off, the DNA is a universal code (all life on this planet has it) with few variants (we know that some bacteria have different bases, as do mitochondria, one of the reasons for the endosymbiosis theory). Second, we can look at various animals' genomes and compare them. We can basically trace how related we are to animals (say, other mammals) and how related mammals are to insects or whatever else. We can also spot the various types of mutations that occur every single day (in somatic cells as well as germ cells - only the latter ones are important for evolution). Furthermore, we can look at bone structures and vestigial organs (tailbone, ear bones, appendix vermiformis) or widespread ailments (such as lumbago stemming from the fact that we aren't perfectly adapted to bipedal movement).
In conclusion, while I agree that there are gaps, I don't think that's reason enough to reject the theory as a whole to be replaced with something without any evidence whatsoever.
Point four, admittedly, that might be the case. But imagine how ecstatic a scientist would be if he found proof of something that doesn't fit. His or her name would become immortal in the scientific community if it actually resulted in the overthrowing of the current theory.
Point five I agree on wholeheartedly. Dogma is always bad, whether it's religious or scientific doesn't matter. I don't know this theory you speak of, but I know that sometimes the "old crowd" will discredit a new valid theory. Creationism, however, is not valid as it is irrefutable and unprovable at the same time while not providing any evidence. It's just random speculation devised to crowbar religion into science. If, however, somebody were to actually make a valid case for creationism (or any other unpopular theory), I'd be happy to listen and might even be swayed as the majority of scientists would be as well (admittedly, not all, as I pointed out).
)
If you'd want to see how micro-evolution becomes macro you can look at dog species. Micro-evolution can create different breeds. For example, pomeranians and great danes. However these results of micro-evolution can no longer breed with each other, (naturally of course, no artificial insemination) simply because their reproductive organs won't fit together. One is just WAY to huge for the other. So effectively what you have now are two separate species, that cannot mate, and will continue to drift further and further apart genetically.Lorok said:
YOu are thinking of the Law of Gravitational Attraction Between Bodies: Basically "What" happensdietpeachsnapple said:
Gravitational Theory is the "How" it happens.
If I remember correctly that is.
It was only in the second or third edition that Darwin included the "having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one" phrase to please religious readers. In a letter to a friend, he mentioned regretting the inclusion of that phrase. I personally think that saying things like that is pointless, as it adds nothing to the theory. It's justing tacking on God to please certain people. However, I completely agree that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.Superior Mind said:
No, they are completely random. The circumstances just decide who survives and gets to produce offspring with these traits.Thaius said:
There is no actual stimulation.
That's one of the main misconceptions about evolution, there's no reason, no ultimate goal. It's random. And if it works it survives. Even if it's of no advantage (but of no hinderance, either) a trait might survive.
Later on, such a "dormant trait" might even develop to be of an advantage, who knows?
This one is easy. Sexual reproduction allows for a greater mixing of genes and thus a greater variance of the gene pool. If a disease or some other disaster occurs, the chances that some members of a species survive are higher because of the greater variability. The cheetahs are pretty much fucked because of their lack of variability nowadays.
To prompt animals to mate and create as many varying descendants as possible.
Scientists are very willing to change the theory where necessary, it's what science is based upon. But many of the points you adressed have been explained already (probably in much better wording than I provided though).
Anyone participating in the creationism vs. evolution debate is stupid for not acknowledging that the two can easily co-exist.
/end thread
/end thread
they're just using the same tatic that big tabacco used and big oil is currently using. "If there is a scientific understanding that you don't agree with, hire a few "scientists" that are willing to say what you tell them to, and make the pubic believe there is a debate on the issue" the way our society is set up the opposing view has to get equil air time, which makes it seem like there are a lot of scientists that don't believe it, which in turn makes the public believe that the theory has a lot of holes in it, the general public dosent know enough about the topic to see through the opposing view and therefore some of them will believe the hired scientist which will stall goverment action (or in the case at hand make the goverment act).Xanadu84 said:
fun fact: some of the "scientists" that are against global climate change are the same "scientists" that were saying that smoking was harmless.
You do indeed, it was the same with Kepler's laws of planetary motion - they were empirical laws and he had no idea why they were correct.Lunar Shadow said:
Ah, USA. The rest of the world holds its breath during your election, covering for fear of death by nuclear holocaust as we nervously watch whether you elect the super-crazy-christian guy you would like to have a beer with, or the slightly-less-but-still-kinda-super-christian dude you would like to have a glass of wine with.
Less discussion about where we came from, and more focus on solving _real_ problems, would you kindly?
Less discussion about where we came from, and more focus on solving _real_ problems, would you kindly?
Er... no.Thaius said:
Firstly, mutations are random, yes. However, they are not promoted by environmental change, they just happen. Those mutations may, over time, be preferentially beneficial in different environments.
For instance, it's not that a fish flops onto land and magically develops lungs. What probably happened is that some early fish got washed up occasionally by the tide or something, and needed to wriggle back into the sea or die. That means random mutations that gave some fish stronger fins to push themselves back to the sea and breathing systems better adapted to air would give those fish a better chance of survival. Thus generations and generations of accumulated, random mutations that gave more leg-like fins and lung-like breathing organs eventually leaves an amphibian, and from there more development to a land-based creature.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationists like to mock evolution for theories changing, but really that's just incomprehension of scientific method. All scientific theories are in a state of "as far as we currently know". Obviously theories in evolution change. Theories change about what how the cerebellum processes motor commands, or what dark matter is, or how proteins fold. That doesn't mean these things don't happen or that the idea is inherently flawed.