Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Evolution is wrong, in my opinion.

LOL, would you mind telling us the basis for your opinion?

[SCWolf]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

lmao two people went boom, and popped out four kids then they ganged up and made whoopie and vwalla. humanity xD

[ltbby]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

LOL, would you mind telling us the basis for your opinion?

Sure. I'd love to.

I believe in creation, not evolution. For either to be a theory, they must be repeatable events, observable events. Creation as taught in the Bible was only observed by God and His angels. Evolution, by definition, happened when no one was around, and then continued so slowly that no one would be able to recognize that evolution occurred, therefore it is also a non-observable event.

I believe in God 100% and don't questions anything about him. He has gotten me where I am today and I'm very greatful for that and everything else He's done for me. I go by what the Bible says about creation and life.

I really hope that none of this offends anyone. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong. I'm simply stating my opinion. =]

[ltbby]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

lmao two people went boom, and popped out four kids then they ganged up and made whoopie and vwalla. humanity xD

That's beautiful.

[RandomPscho]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

therefore it is also a non-observable event.

You are different from your parents. Yes, that is evolution. Observable, I would say so.

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Itbby, having a belief is fine, but as long as it isn't based on empirical evidence (the events of creation have only been observed by beings that cannot be proven to exist), it cannot be anything more than a belief. That's why there really isn't a debate here. Having a belief and using the tools we have as humans to understand the world around us are entirely different realms of thought.

[Reach]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Sure. I'd love to.

I believe in creation, not evolution. For either to be a theory, they must be repeatable events, observable events. Creation as taught in the Bible was only observed by God and His angels. Evolution, by definition, happened when no one was around, and then continued so slowly that no one would be able to recognize that evolution occurred, therefore it is also a non-observable event.

I believe in God 100% and don't questions anything about him. He has gotten me where I am today and I'm very greatful for that and everything else He's done for me. I go by what the Bible says about creation and life.

I really hope that none of this offends anyone. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong. I'm simply stating my opinion. =]

There is no harm in an opinion. I would like to point out something, though.

Evolution, by definition, is always happening! Therefore, evolution is actually something we can observe.

You are a very trusting person. Do know that evolution does not throw out the idea of a God. It does throw out creation and design, but not God.

[RandomPscho]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

And by definition, it is not created by science. It is a description of events that have been observed.

[ltbby]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

There is no harm in an opinion. I would like to point out something, though.

Evolution, by definition, is always happening! Therefore, evolution is actually something we can observe.

You are a very trusting person. Do know that evolution does not throw out the idea of a God. It does throw out creation and design, but not God.

Thank you very much.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Define , complete, undeniable evidence/information. How is directly observing genetic evolution in action NOT absolutely correct information? It seems to me like you are suggesting that nothing can be shown to be correct, which is a dodge. It is quite convenient to use this if you wish to dodge the argument at hand...however, I don't buy it. The whole point really, is that the information and evidence here really is undeniable.

Who ever said i was talking about evolution? I was primarily talking about the big bang and the creation of the universe as a whole. All i was saying at that point that was regardless of how much pieces of information you have, you will never convince the other side that you are right unless you have all the information and prove them wrong. Its kind of like someone saying "you cant break a pencil", you can sit there for hours explaining to them that the structural integrity of the pencil is not enough to support a given amount of pressure but until you grab one and break it right in front of their face you will not convince them if they are stubborn enough. As thus, you cannot convince the other side that you are right unless you have "complete undeniable evidence" such as showing the person the broken pencil.

[Reach]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html

The details are on their website, including some stuff here: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

I would say it is a given that the universe is expanding, and that it had some sort of origin, since we can observe those. How did it happen? Why? Well, those really arn't the job of the Big bang theory to address, and I don't know the answers.

[NuclearShadow]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

You are different from your parents. Yes, that is evolution. Observable, I would say so.

For the most part I thought that was just simple variation. Like someone being taller than another or someone having "piano hands" persay.

[Squeek]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I know how little it matters, but Jewpy, he teaches intelligent design as well. It's a theory about how evolution took place, after all, so it has merit to be discussed.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I know how little it matters, but Jewpy, he teaches intelligent design as well. It's a theory about how evolution took place, after all, so it has merit to be discussed.

Sounds like a good teacher though.

I know it's just semantics, but still...it's fun to nit-pick.

Whatever, I'm so over the topic at hand.

[W_I_N_N_E_R]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

For the record, the chances of life arising from chemicals and atoms is not "so low that it is impossible due to the default of Borel's Law" because to reach that impossibility of even IMAGINING a number of 1 in 10^40,000 chance, you must make step by step assumptions on many things. (for the record, the assumption of zero chance due to Borel's Law is actually inapplicable, since it pertains to physical probabilities only, oops creationists!)

i implore you to tentatively read this page, and all of this site:

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

If you understand that page, you can come to the knowledge that considering the probability was calculated as if it were successive trials (such as coin flipping). The mathematician ignored the fact that all these chemicals were in seas upon seas of chemicals all reacting with eachother, more often near shores. Considering there was an estimation of a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres of water, its much easier to get your mind around how much more likely this must be (due to all that crazy surface area). And no there is no figure that takes into account the simultaneous reactions of seas of chemicals. Understanding that seas of chemicals are reacting with eachother for upwards of a billion years, it no longer seems so powerfully impossible.

Also, the video forgets that the calculations were done considering a MODERN protein, when the first would have been very ancient and simple. Again the site explains all this better than i can. But keep in mind that the chance is not even CLOSE to that ridiculously low!

BTW, the Watch and Watchmaker analogy is ONE OF the worst analogies i have ever seen.