Author Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion (Read 163370 times)

barrister · « **Reply #60 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 09:36 AM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Sep 14, 2011 at 08:34 PM

Show me evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being.

I believe in God and creation. But I admit that my belief is unprovable. So don't ask me for proof.

You believe in evolution. If you admit that evolution is unprovable, then I won't ask you for any proof either.

But if you believe that evolution is a provable fact, then go ahead and show us the evidence.

indie boi · « **Reply #61 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 09:59 AM »

"To teach young people things we know are not true, is tantamount to abuse of young people in a classroom situation."

A priest rejects creationism --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQuvwQ4y-k&feature=player_embedded

Tempter · « **Reply #62 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 10:09 AM »

I am neither pro creation nor pro evolution, I just keep an open mind with it.

I AM PRO ALIEN INTERVENTION!!!

So now the question is, who made the aliens?

Seriously though, if you really believe in creation, where do you think the creator came from? Or who made the creator? Or WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR? and WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR...

kenchix1 · « **Reply #63 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 10:18 AM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Sep 14, 2011 at 08:34 PM

Show me evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being.

just kidding.

Asking for evidence of existence of a Supreme Being is like asking if you really believe that your parents/gf/wife/kids really loves you. Their love for you doesn't have solid proof but still you believe and feel it.

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #64 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 11:31 AM »

Quote from: barrister on Sep 15, 2011 at 09:36 AM

You believe in evolution. If you admit that evolution is unprovable, then I won't ask you for any proof either.

But if you believe that evolution is a provable fact, then go ahead and show us the evidence.

Evolution is NOT "unprovable". It may not be a PERFECT theory or a perfect concept but it's an ever changing, ever EVOLVING theory that's extrapolated from evidence that's been observed and experimented through the SCIENTIFIC method.

tigkal · « **Reply #65 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM »

Quote from: Tempter on Sep 15, 2011 at 10:09 AM

I am neither pro creation nor pro evolution, I just keep an open mind with it.

I AM PRO ALIEN INTERVENTION!!!

So now the question is, who made the aliens?

Seriously though, if you really believe in creation, where do you think the creator came from? Or who made the creator? Or WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR? and WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR OF THE CREATOR...

Me too. The most logical explanation to date. As to who made the creator, maybe another alien intervention?

Tempter · « **Reply #66 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM »

Katulad na lang din to nga tanong na:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Kasi kahit sa evolution perspective malabo din, san nagumpisa yung pinagumpisahan ng umpisa?

alistair · « **Reply #67 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 12:38 PM »

Quote from: RU9 on Sep 14, 2011 at 11:41 PM

evolution is being explained by using physical data while creation takes a very big leap from physical to a spiritual realm exposition.

Exactly. Creationism is going backwards—I believe in God, therefore, somehow there must be an explanation on how God magically created the earth and its denizens.

Science didn't even have Evolution to begin with. Instead, Science saw the fossil record, Mendel experimented with genetics, Darwin pondered on speciation, Watson and Crick deduced the double helix structure of DNA, geology uncovered a billion-year old Earth, and so on. Put those all together, and it paints a picture of simple life-forms early in Earth's history, gradually progressing towards greater and greater variety and complexity. What's the more likely conclusion, then?

a) All these things just magically happened, with some supernatural cause?
b) There is a mechanism, which we call "natural selection", by which Life, through successive generations and mutations, 'grew' toward greater variety and complexity?

Quote

There no facts and truth in the spiritual domain. Faith is believing without reason.

Not entirely true, though. One of the things they taught us back in college was the whole "faith seeking understanding" and "understanding seeking faith" thing. Yes, there are spiritual truths (according to theologists, of course). Except, they're still restricted to matters spiritual.

Once you go all meta-physical, then you run into trouble.

dpogs · « **Reply #68 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 12:40 PM »

Quote from: Tempter on Sep 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Katulad na lang din to nga tanong na:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Kasi kahit sa evolution perspective malabo din, san nagumpisa yung pinagumpisahan ng umpisa?

that golf-ball-size matter that explode???

hmmm... scientifically speaking... they just came from nowhere....

alistair · « **Reply #69 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 15, 2011 at 12:40 PM

that golf-ball-size matter that explode???

hmmm... scientifically speaking... they just came from nowhere....

Wrong again. Science, specifically, the Big Bang cosmological theory, does not speculate on where the Universe came from or what came before it. That, for now, is metaphysics.

(May I suggest you read and read some more until you get the hang of reading and comprehension.)

Tempter · « **Reply #70 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 15, 2011 at 12:40 PM

that golf-ball-size matter that explode???

hmmm... scientifically speaking... they just came from nowhere....

is nowhere a place?

where did nowhere came from?

from nothing? what is nothing?

indie boi · « **Reply #71 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM »

The BBC discussion on whether creationism should be taught in schools. The post I made above is an excerpt from this lengthier video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2f_CZsXbyk&feature=related

bumblebee · « **Reply #72 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 01:02 PM »

I wonder how many pro-Creationism are good in Math.

dpogs · « **Reply #73 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 01:11 PM »

Quote from: Tempter on Sep 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM

is nowhere a place?

where did nowhere came from?

from nothing? what is nothing?

science cannot answer that I think... they still gathering information, datas, maybe 50-1K years from now... they can answer that... sa ngayon... let just be satisfied for this explanation...

basta... may sumabog na matter million/billion/trillion years ago... and through random luck of combination... universe now is perfectly set...

indie boi · « **Reply #74 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 01:28 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 15, 2011 at 01:11 PM

basta... may sumabog na matter million/billion/trillion years ago... and through random luck of combination... universe now is perfectly set...

You can read up on M Theory for the latest on what caused the Big Bang.

dpogs · « **Reply #75 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 01:29 PM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Sep 15, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Evolution is NOT "unprovable". It may not be a PERFECT theory or a perfect concept but it's an ever changing, ever EVOLVING theory that's extrapolated from evidence that's been observed and experimented through the SCIENTIFIC method.

LOL... really?

indie boi · « **Reply #76 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 01:35 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 15, 2011 at 01:29 PM

LOL... really?

Itatanong ko dito yung itinanong dun sa napanood ko --

Where did the chihuahua come from? Or to make it simpler, where did the domesticated dog come from?

alistair · « **Reply #77 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 02:27 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 15, 2011 at 01:11 PM

basta... may sumabog na matter million/billion/trillion years ago... and through random luck of combination... universe now is perfectly set...

Define 'perfectly set'?

I think you're exhibiting anthropic bias—where you think the Universe is perfectly suited for you or for Life. The inverse, in fact, is more logical—that extant Life is perfectly suited for the Universe.

It's entirely plausible (though, of course, untestable) that in an alternate Universe, with different physical constants or entirely different physical laws, that the hypothetical life that arises there would be just as 'perfectly fit' for whatever that Universe is like.

Put it another way: you see cacti in the dessert, and they thrive in the absence of water and harsh sunlight.

Which is the more rational worldview:

Some "random combination of luck" caused the dessert to form 'perfectly' so that cacti could live there?

Or—cacti evolved (from other, less-hardy plants), to be able to survive in the harsh dessert?

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #78 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 04:31 PM »

Quote from: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2011 at 01:02 PM

I wonder how many pro-Creationism are good in Math.

How many pro-Creationism would answer all their science quizzes as "GAWA NI GOD" or "GAWA YAN NI PAPA JESUS"?

barrister · « **Reply #79 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 06:01 PM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Sep 15, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Evolution is NOT "unprovable". It may not be a PERFECT theory or a perfect concept but it's an ever changing, ever EVOLVING theory that's extrapolated from evidence that's been observed and experimented through the SCIENTIFIC method.

I was asking for the evidece. You merely restated the conclusion.

Merely restating the conclusion is begging the question. That's not proof.

If you say evolution is provable, then go ahead and prove it. Start with the facts, then connect those facts to the conclusion.

I will show you that your so-called extrapolation is actually the same error Darwin made -- extrapolating far beyond the available evidence.

If the conclusion is too far removed from the evidence, that is not an acceptable extrapolation, that's speculation. Conclusions based on speculation are pure conjecture, not science.

indie boi · « **Reply #80 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 06:50 PM »

Wolves and chihuahuas.

dpogs · « **Reply #81 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 07:08 PM »

Quote from: indie boi on Sep 15, 2011 at 06:50 PM

Wolves and chihuahuas.

Chinese, Africans, Australians, Asians... different races... pero human pa rin...

wolves, chihuahuas, bulldog, ... different breed... pero aso pa rin...

siamese, persian, different breed... pero pusa pa rin...

cross breeding is not equal to evolution

bumblebee · « **Reply #82 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 07:25 PM »

Quote from: barrister on Sep 15, 2011 at 06:01 PM

I will show you that your so-called extrapolation is actually the same error Darwin made -- extrapolating far beyond the available evidence.

If the conclusion is too far removed from the evidence, that is not an acceptable extrapolation, that's speculation. Conclusions based on speculation are pure conjecture, not science.

Who's to say an extrapolation is too far beyond or just enough? Darwin simply didn't have enough science or evidences at the time to prove his claims but it doesn't mean he just speculated. If Darwin's over-extrapolation compromised his theory, then it would be easy to disprove him today. The thing is, the evolution theory is still very much alive.

dpogs · « **Reply #83 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 07:25 PM »

Second law of Thermodynamics...

Law of Biogenesis...

dpogs · « **Reply #84 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 07:27 PM »

Quote from: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2011 at 07:25 PM

Who's to say an extrapolation is too far beyond or just enough? Darwin simply didn't have enough science or evidences at the time to prove his claims but it doesn't mean he just speculated. If Darwin's over-extrapolation compromised his theory, then it would be easy to disprove him today. The thing is, the evolution theory is still very much alive.

Can you now prove that Human came from ape?

Can you now prove that living things came from non-living things?

animal kingdom is very diverse... millions of species recorded... yet no fossils found to prove macroevolution... yet no fossils found to prove that chihuahua came from wolf (vice versa)... no fossils found transition stage of ape-human...

sa dinami dami ng hayop sa mudno... bakit walang makitang fossils na nagpapatunay directly ng macroevolution...

bumblebee · « **Reply #85 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 07:49 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 15, 2011 at 07:27 PM

Can you now prove that Human came from ape?

Kaya nga theory pa lang e. Kumbaga, work in progress. Ikaw naman tanungin ko, merong bang proof na mali, or counter evidences?

Quote

Can you now prove that living things came from non-living things?

Carbon is non-living. Nuff said?

Quote

animal kingdom is very diverse... millions of species recorded... yet no fossils found to prove macroevolution... yet no fossils found to prove that chihuahua came from wolf (vice versa)... no fossils found transition stage of ape-human...

sa dinami dami ng hayop sa mudno... bakit walang makitang fossils na nagpapatunay directly ng macroevolution...

Bakit, madali bang maghanap ng fossils? Lahat ba ng nalilibing, nagfo-fossilize? Theory pa lang, dpogs, di pa proven. There are evidences for it. If you want it dismissed, pakita ka ng evidence against it.

alistair · « **Reply #86 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 08:06 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 15, 2011 at 07:08 PM

Chinese, Africans, Australians, Asians... different races... pero human pa rin...

wolves, chihuahuas, bulldog, ... different breed... pero aso pa rin...

siamese, persian, different breed... pero pusa pa rin...

cross breeding is not equal to evolution

Pero san nga sila galing? All from the original pair onboard Noah's Ark?

alistair · « **Reply #87 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 08:13 PM »

Quote

animal kingdom is very diverse... millions of species recorded... yet no fossils found to prove macroevolution...

Because not every step in the speciation has fossils. Yet somehow, everything magically appearing at once is more rational or likely?

Again—rather than just keeping on trying to 'disprove' Evolution. What's your theory? Magical thinking?

Quote

sa dinami dami ng hayop sa mudno... bakit walang makitang fossils na nagpapatunay directly ng macroevolution...

Because macroevolution happens on geologic time scales, and it doesn't matter that we have a feathered reptiles or neolithic humanoid because you're completely convinced those are hoaxes, or wrongly dated, and that they don't indicate small steps on a long process of evolution.

What's your theory, really, for the existence of the variety and complexity of Life as we know it? Not belief. Theory. Falsifiable. Observable/experimentable. Consistent with other scientific knowledge (genetics, micro-evolution/speciation, natural selection, etc.)

Meron nga ba?

dpogs · « **Reply #88 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 08:42 PM »

the bible said it very simple... "life begats life"... ang isang buhay ay nagsisimula sa isang buhay...

if you can prove that life started from nothing then i will consider evolution.

may tanong lang ako sa mga evolutionist... what are the odds na magkaroon ng life on earth?

alam natin ang odds ng six-sided dice...
alam natin ang odds ng 6-42 lotto...

or what are the odds that an explosion can create galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc...

indie boi · « **Reply #89 on:** Sep 15, 2011 at 09:44 PM »

You don't need to go to the fossil record to find the connection between wolves and dogs, it's in their DNA. Various studies have shown that wolves and dogs are related, with others saying that dogs evolved from wolves. Now, if you look at a wolf and a chihuahua -- do they look related? No, because speciation already happened. And speciation is one of the proofs of evolution.

But of course you won't believe this hard fact as well, so really what's the point.