A Misconception that should be rooted out

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

crazyhorse, why i share the same dislike for this administration( and bush in particular) this is a football site, first and foremost. its a turnoff to alot of us to high jack every thread and turn it into a bush should be in jail thread. if you are not interested in the football side of things, stick to the parking lot, and stay on topic

I didn't high jack this thread. I started it. Also, check it out. This is the parking lot.

[dmek25]

have you ever joined a thread about the redskins? i hate bush also. everyone around here knows it. i just don't have to preach it every chance i get

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Here's a link to a Scientific American article from 2002 addressing a range of complaints/arguments against the theory of evolution. Check it out:

Sci American answers the creationists


Welcome back, That Guy! Or is it Airman That Guy? That Air Guy?

yeah its airman whatever, but i don't really care too much about that I just want to stop running 4-5miles every other day in the mississippi heat. 95 with 95% humidity is harsh. I won't be here in august, but when the saints start playing you can get round trip bus fare and a game ticket etc for under 60$ through the base (keesler, in biloxi, 90minutes away from NO).

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't think it makes evolution impossible at all. It just doesn't explain how the first cell was "born." Do you reject evolution on scientific or religious grounds?

both

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Evolution has nothing to do first cause and doesn't address the issue. Evolution kicks in after first cause or tenth cause or whatever.

You still need a first cause for evolution to work.

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Evolution, however, had been scientifically shown to be operative for hundreds of thousands of years and still operative today.

There are so many holes in the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Creationism, on the other hand, is rendered ridiculous by arguments for first cause. If all things have to have a creator, who created the creator?

I hate when people say this. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or evolution, something had to always be there. All matter in the entire universe would have to have always been there if you don't believe in God.

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

There are hypotheses about first cause but no "scientic" Theories about first cause because no "hypothesis" of first cause meets the criteria of the scientific method.

If this gives you comfort by offering the possibility that God was the first clause by a means yet unknown to science, then be comforted. There are myriad possibilities and science is young.

By its nature, science refuses to rule out possibilities. It's not your enemy. It's a tool. To take it as an enemy shows a misunderstanding of its nature and its utility.

If it doesn't rule out possibilities, why are you ruling out God?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by steveo395

That is one reason why evolution is impossible.

evolution has nothing to do with first instance, and flying spaghetti monster can be argued to be just as valid as creationism since neither relies on science, making it a pretty hard debate to argue.

unless everyone's playing out of the same rulebook there's really nothing to say. But the implied "i'm right because i said so" thing that happens here so often doesn't really advance the conversation.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by steveo395

both


You still need a first cause for evolution to work.

says who? you? and why is your "theory" superior? why should we assume you're right until proven wrong without seeing any evidence for your opinion? what if we flip it and give you the burden of proof?

There are so many holes in the theory of evolution.

generic and vague. do you have any examples?

I hate when people say this. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or evolution, something had to always be there. All matter in the entire universe would have to have always been there.

says who? your "theory" of the world and everything in it? what research have you done to come to this conclusion, and why does is all the other work based on real science automatically get discounted just because you're not happy with their best guess?


hope that doesn't come off too harsh, it's not intended to, but they are fair questions to ask.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

I didn't high jack this thread. I started it. Also, check it out. This is the parking lot.

Well, first of all I blame myself as a mod for not locking this thread down right away. You had already started an anti-Bush thread with "Let's Impeach the President" then you started this one under the guise of it being about creationism vs. evolution (though I think that thread has been done before) yet really all you meant it to be was another Bush bashing/anti War in Iraq thread. And for the record, this has nothing to do with the fact that you started two separate threads about Bush, it has to do with the fact that you started two separate threads with the same theme.

Furthermore, on behalf or all the mods I'd like to make it clear to everyone that "This is the Parking Lot" "It's off topic" are increasingly tired excuses. The rules of this site apply to every forum, not just the locker room.

Would any mod care to expand?

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by That Guy

says who? you? and why is your "theory" superior? why should we assume you're right until proven wrong without seeing any evidence for your opinion? what if we flip it and give you the burden of proof?

So your saying that you don't need a first organism for evolution to work? It had to start somewhere. At some point, life had to start from non-life.

Originally Posted by That Guy

generic and vague. do you have any examples?

Many holes in the fossil record and natural selection has never been shown to create a different species

Originally Posted by That Guy

says who? your "theory" of the world and everything in it? what research have you done to come to this conclusion, and why does is all the other work based on real science automatically get discounted just because you're not happy with their best guess?

Ok, then I guess matter just appeared from nowhere, which goes against the laws of physics. Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. They can only change forms.

[steveo395]

And there has already been a thread about creationism vs. evolution and I really don't feel like going through the same thing over again. I'm going to bed.

[Hog1]

I hate when people say this. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or evolution, something had to always be there. All matter in the entire universe would have to have always been there if you don't believe in God.

This does not take into account, anti-matter............illogical
--Mr. Spock

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by steveo395

So your saying that you don't need a first organism for evolution to work? It had to start somewhere. At some point, life had to start from non-life.

and you've decide not to show any proof that you're opinion has any more merit than anyone else's. i'll respond to the rest in a bit, but why are you so convinced scientific study is clearly 100% wrong here?

Many holes in the fossil record and natural selection has never been shown to create a different species

wow, i asked for something that's not vague, and i get a vague and cryptic response. which holes in the fossil record are these? and who said anything about different species. Natural selection is more about adaptation, evolution is about separating species... but in the current issues of sciam (www.sciam.com), it talks about recovered collagen from a T-Rex being identical to that found in chickens, helping further aid the already widely accept thought that some species (not necessarily T-Rex) evolved along that path. That's just the most recent example, but there are thousands of others.

Ok, then I guess matter just appeared from nowhere, which goes against the laws of physics. Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. They can only change forms.

look, a hammer is a great tool, but it's not meant to be used with screws. evolution and origin are completely separate ideas. not only are you mixing up theories, you're arguing a point that no one ever made, unless you care to show me where anyone said anything about evolution breaking the laws of physics.

It seems like you're trying to debate theories you've never bothered to read, since the big bang, string theory, etc etc don't have matter coming from out of nowhere, so i have no idea what you're even trying to argue with that.

first origin is mainly thought to have occurred through somewhat random chance by either the replicator or membrane theory, both of which are fully explained, along with possible limitations in great depth on SciAm ( Science and technology information from Scientific American -- great magazine, btw) if you care to learn more about them.


"Popular, palatable views of the world and how it came to be do not constitute science or truth. But decent science education requires that we share the truth we find -- whether or not we like it." ---Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

[saden1]

Evolution is a simple and elegant. It's that simple. There are no holes in it and the reason it can't be proven without a doubt is because of the time scale it operates on. It most certainly makes more sense than, say, being created from mud.

If you take a bunch of mice into a lab for 25 years and intrude mutations to successive generation's gene pool you would almost certainly have a different breed of mice. And while these mutation might not drastically alter the mice to the extent that they become a different species they would most certainly be different from the mice that were not in the control group. Now if you do this over 1000 years they would most certainly be classified as different species. This is evolution, this is real and can not be dismissed so easily.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by That Guy

and you've decide not to show any proof that you're opinion has any more merit than anyone else's. i'll respond to the rest in a bit, but why are you so convinced scientific study is clearly 100% wrong here?

What are you talking about? Are you saying that evolution never had a start. It had to start somewhere. I know that how the first organism formed doesn't really have anything to do with with organisms evolving, but at some point, that first organism had to form where there was no life. That is not my opinion. That would have to be a fact for evolution to be true.

Originally Posted by That Guy

wow, i asked for something that's not vague, and i get a vague and cryptic response. which holes in the fossil record are these? and who said anything about different species. Natural selection is more about adaptation, evolution is about separating species... but in the current issues of sciam (www.sciam.com), it talks about recovered collagen from a T-Rex being identical to that found in chickens, helping further aid the already widely accept thought that some species (not necessarily T-Rex) evolved along that path. That's just the most recent example, but there are thousands of others.

I already debated all this crap here. I don't feel like doing it again.

Originally Posted by That Guy

look, a hammer is a great tool, but it's not meant to be used with screws. evolution and origin are completely separate ideas. not only are you mixing up theories, you're arguing a point that no one ever made, unless you care to show me where anyone said anything about evolution breaking the laws of physics.

It seems like you're trying to debate theories you've never bothered to read, since the big bang, string theory, etc etc don't have matter coming from out of nowhere, so i have no idea what you're even trying to argue with that.

first origin is mainly thought to have occurred through somewhat random chance by either the replicator or membrane theory, both of which are fully explained, along with possible limitations in great depth on SciAm ( Science and technology information from Scientific American -- great magazine, btw) if you care to learn more about them.


"Popular, palatable views of the world and how it came to be do not constitute science or truth. But decent science education requires that we share the truth we find -- whether or not we like it." ---Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

I never said evolution breaks the laws of physics. I said matter forming from no where breaks the laws of physics. You asked who created God. I said he has just always been there and that matter would have had to have always been there if God didn't exist. And if it hasn't always been there, which I guess is what your saying since you were disagreeing with me, then something had to have created it. Matter does not appear out of nothing. That breaks the laws of physics.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by steveo395

I never said evolution breaks the laws of physics. I said matter forming from no where breaks the laws of physics. You asked who created God. I said he has just always been there and that matter would have had to have always been there if God didn't exist. And if it hasn't always been there, which I guess is what your saying since you were disagreeing with me, then something had to have created it. Matter does not appear out of nothing. That breaks the laws of physics.

So you don't dispute the theory of evolution, you just think that God created the universe?

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

So you don't dispute the theory of evolution, you just think that God created the universe?

According to all the "laws" of physics I know, matter can spring from nothing as easily as God can spring from nothing. However, evolution doesn't address itself to the evolution of God (if there is such a thing as an evolving God) anymore than it has anything to say about how something evoluted from nothing.

Darwin didn't know how something sprang from nothing and never said he did. Nor do any of us know the answer to that question, for sure. Nor do we know or have any accepted theories about how evolution relates to first cause or not. Was first cause a sudden event or did first cause involve a process of what we now call "nothing" evolving into something?

To expect the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life or matter is asking way too much for a fairly modest theory that explains how species evolve, not how things come into existence. Creationists , being concerned with creation, tend to think evolutionists have the same concern. They don't.

Thus it appears to Creationists that there holes in the Theory. There aren't. The so called "holes" in evolution are only answers about God and Creation that they think should be there and aren't. Properly understood, there is absolutely nothing in evolution that indicates whether there's a God or not, or even speculates about how matter or life came into existence. The major problem is one of education. Creationists don't seem to know what they're talking about when they're talking about science.

The result of the above is one worth remarking on. For the most part, only Creationists who are looking for final answers have their faith tested by the Theory of Evolution. On the other hand, most people I know who accept evolution find enough room in it to accommodate God.