Author Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion (Read 164954 times)

sharkey360 · « **Reply #150 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 02:02 PM »

A friend of mine from Cebu texted me that their local parish priest preached in a mass that evolution is a lie created by the devil.

Rubbish!

alistair · « **Reply #151 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 04:35 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 18, 2011 at 01:21 PM

i think it is more valid reason than to wait billion of years of luck and randomization para magkaroon ng ship out from woods... hmmm... sound scientific huh?

Natural selection isn't random, nor does it involve luck. Try harder.

Quote

why not put it in experiment to be more scientific... let put woods in a close chamber (shipyard for example) ... and then lets wait billion years ago... let's see kung magkakaroon ng ship after billion of years... i thinks that how evolutionist describes evolution scientifically... waiting and hoping for that missing link... or ika nga ng iba... lets talk after 1000 years .

The difference is we know how ships are made.

How did the first bird come into existence?

An invisible being made them out of thin air?

What's your theory?

dpogs · « **Reply #152 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 05:26 PM »

Quote from: alistair on Sep 18, 2011 at 04:35 PM

Natural selection isn't random, nor does it involve luck. Try harder.

then... where is your proof??? where is your structural model (not just artist imagination or drawings of family tree)...

Quote from: alistair on Sep 18, 2011 at 04:35 PM

The difference is we know how ships are made.

Yup. That is the difference... now does evolutionist know how dna formed from that so called magic soup??? or did the evolutionist know how simple form of life become complex???

hmmm let me guess... macroevolution??? what macro??? that really happens??? where is the evidence???

Quote from: alistair on Sep 18, 2011 at 04:35 PM

How did the first bird come into existence?

Can you answer that... using scientific explanation??? paano nagkaroon ng simplest form of life??? or how did the simple form of life formed???

hindi lang iyong assumption na nanggaling sila sa magic soup... where's the model??? where is the evolutionist structural model on how chemicals become a dna???

let me guess again... the bird came from dinosaur... then saan galing ang dinosaur... so on and so forth... hanggang sa pumunta na nga sa tinatwag nila or assumed "magic soup" where all life forms begins... just what i think... all assumption... without even solid proof that it really happened... or any model na puwedeng ipresent ng mga evolutionist kung paano nagkaroon ng simplest form of life???

indie boi · « **Reply #153 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 05:28 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 17, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Dont ask me to prove it... because until now... evolutionist cannot prove that macroevolution really exist.

I think this is a cop-out, you're basically saying "unless you give proof to your theory, I won't give mine", which I also interpret as "I actually don't have a clue but thank you for giving me an excuse to hide this fact."

scifi-fan · « **Reply #154 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 05:54 PM »

In my parents house in a shelf sits a 1979 encyclopaedia britanica.

My parents bought it for us to help us educate ourselves.

At the time it's information was relevant.

If we turn to it now, we are bound to find the following;

- information that is lacking
- information that has been updated with progress done since 1979
- information that is now wrong.

Kinda summarizes my thinking about this topic. Ages ago creationist theory was accepted widely but in time was supplanted by scientific theory.

Wildfire™ · « **Reply #155 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 06:59 PM »

if i remember correctly what satan told eve on the garden of eden is that by eating the forbidden fruit she will be like god and will know good from evil.

evolution is basically proving satan was right that man will constantly evolve into god

so if you believe satan then evolution is a fact
but if you believe in god you know that will never ever happen

alistair · « **Reply #156 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 08:29 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 18, 2011 at 05:26 PM

then... where is your proof???

If Evolution was random, then we'd have organisms that breathe methane or are completely sensitive to UV here on Earth.

You know why we don't have them on Earth? Because Earth's atmosphere isn't methane and Earth's atmosphere lets significant amount of UV through.

You make the obvious, naive mistake of thinking that natural selection is purely random. Like I said, try (reading and understanding) harder, if you can, please.

Quote

or did the evolutionist know how simple form of life become complex???

hmmm let me guess... macroevolution??? what macro??? that really happens??? where is the evidence???

At the very least evolution is falsifiable or testable.

Just live a billion years.

OTOH, What's your Theory?

God created Man out of clay on day 6? How do you falsify or test that?

For all your fire and brimstone, do you even have anything substantial to say?

Quote

hindi lang iyong assumption na nanggaling sila sa magic soup... where's the model??? where is the evolutionist structural model on how chemicals become a dna???

Abiogenesis is just one among several theories on the origins of Life—all of which are orthogonal to Evolution per se.

Quote

let me guess again... the bird came from dinosaur... then saan galing ang dinosaur... so on and so forth... hanggang sa pumunta na nga sa tinatwag nila or assumed "magic soup" where all life forms begins... just what i think... all assumption... without even solid proof that it really happened... or any model na puwedeng ipresent ng mga evolutionist kung paano nagkaroon ng simplest form of life???

So, what's your alternative theory?

Where did the first bird come from?

Is all you can do is dodge the question?

dpogs · « **Reply #157 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 09:10 PM »

Quote from: alistair on Sep 18, 2011 at 08:29 PM

So, what's your alternative theory?

Where did the first bird come from?

Is all you can do is dodge the question?

ang kulit...

created nga...

alistair · « **Reply #158 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 09:17 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 18, 2011 at 09:10 PM

ang kulit...

created nga...

From thin air?

How about my pasta theory: Man was created from pasta by The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

What's wrong with that?

Tempter · « **Reply #159 on:** Sep 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM »

Why do I find this discussion funny now???

Maybe because you all seem so sure about your stands, but in fact, noone is right or wrong. Maybe the best ending to all these is for both parties to accept that if take a closer look maybe you are both right. Here is the question:

If you believe in Creation, where did the creator came from?

If you believe in evolution, wouldn't it be possible that at certain point we were genetically modified to produce a better being?

So if you really think about it, you're probably both right.

barrister · « **Reply #160 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM »

Quote from: Tempter on Sep 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM

If you believe in Creation, where did the creator came from?

That's any easy one.

I can answer in "The Religion Thread," but only if you're interested in studying the Bible. If you're not interested in the Bible, then my answer won't make much difference anyway.

===============================

Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
03/12/2009 • 4:45 PM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/

YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-4LkUCjbA

Verbl Kint · « **Reply #161 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 05:50 AM »

Quote from: Wildfire™ on Sep 18, 2011 at 06:59 PM

if i remember correctly what satan told eve on the garden of eden is that by eating the forbidden fruit she will be like god and will know good from evil.

evolution is basically proving satan was right that man will constantly evolve into god

so if you believe satan then evolution is a fact
but if you believe in god you know that will never ever happen

You got your scripture mixed up. A serpent tempted Eve and not Satan.

There is no direct quote from the book of Genesis about any "Satan".

alistair · « **Reply #162 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 09:11 AM »

Quote from: barrister on Sep 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
03/12/2009 • 4:45 PM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/

Yup. Exogenesis (whatever the means or mechanism) or Panspermia is another valid theory as to how life began on Earth. Of course, we also (currently) have no means of testing that—unless we encounter aliens or Life on other planets that share the same molecu-biological structures (e.g., DNA).

On the other hand—on a universal scale that just shifts the question: where did life elsewhere in the Universe come from?

barrister · « **Reply #163 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM »

Thanks for posting the terminology.

They're new to me.

Dilbert7 · « **Reply #164 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM »

Quote from: alistair on Sep 17, 2011 at 08:16 PM

Happens everyday in labs through IVF and cloning/genetics experiments.

In case you haven't noticed: DNA are just 'chemicals'.

Besides, what do any of these have to do with evolution?

Ah, yes!

man is "operating" as mini-god in that laboratory; directing and manipulating the chemicals - where the chemicals are not left alone to form the DNA - as the evolution THEORY suggested! Good proof then

It supports CREATION theory sir - where the resulting life / non-life is directed/manipulated by the designer in that lab!

they have the full DNA to start with - thus, doing a work on top of another's work (because they can not reproduce one by chance)!

Only now, they tried to reverse-engineer it (so they can produce the specific life's fore-runner specie)

, and see whether they can make new sub-DNA creature (and offer as proof of evolution THEORY). Carry on!

Dilbert7 · « **Reply #165 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 11:52 AM »

Quote from: Verbl Kint on Sep 18, 2011 at 04:18 AM

Reposting...

You missed the third cartoon frame

- the evolution THEORY
- the scientist carry the DARWIN book
- asking the same question

Both EVOLUTION & CREATION THEORIES' defenders are doing the same trick!

Denials!

alistair · « **Reply #166 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM »

Quote from: Dilbert7 on Sep 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM

man is "operating" as mini-god in that laboratory; directing and manipulating the chemicals - where the chemicals are not left alone to form the DNA - as the evolution THEORY suggested! Good proof then

Didn't say it was a 'proof' of evolution.

Do you also need an explanation as to what a counter-argument is?

Let me refresh. You said, "chemical meets chemical cannot form life".

I counter, "DNA is chemicals".

Try harder.

Quote

It supports CREATION theory sir - where the resulting life / non-life is directed/manipulated by the designer in that lab!

Really?

Can we test your theory? I mean—can we observe God designing life, as you suggest?

No?

What's your theory?

Wildfire™ · « **Reply #167 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 12:04 PM »

Quote from: Verbl Kint on Sep 19, 2011 at 05:50 AM

You got your scripture mixed up. A serpent tempted Eve and not Satan.

There is no direct quote from the book of Genesis about any "Satan".

Satan disguised itself as a serpent to trick Eve

Dilbert7 · « **Reply #168 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 18, 2011 at 01:21 PM

why not put it in experiment to be more scientific... let put woods in a close chamber (shipyard for example) ... and then lets wait billion years ago... let's see kung magkakaroon ng ship after billion of years... i thinks that how evolutionist describes evolution scientifically... waiting and hoping for that missing link... or ika nga ng iba... lets talk after 1000 years .

you dont even need a wood to begin with

just any chemicals - carbon, oxygen, any - I wonder where they came from!

but for sure, per DARWIN and believers (by faith), it will become a ship (not the one that we know)

But the most amazing part of their THEORY is that, it (the unusual ship) will start to BREATH!

it will have a DNA (a programming of sort how it should start developing, and how it would end up as a live system) of its own, so that it can reproduce more on its own (now more easily) without repeating the difficult million years of chances it tried to develop itself!

Nice story line, isn't it!

Dilbert7 · « **Reply #169 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM »

Quote from: barrister on Sep 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
03/12/2009 • 4:45 PM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/

YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-4LkUCjbA

This is bound to happen since evolution THEORY got so many problems - from the very FOUNDATION - "where did it all start?". To solve it - another THEORY should be added to complete the picture.

Changing story line, that is!

He even addressed the Creator some other name - ALIEN - just so he could somehow subscribe to Science "methodological naturalism", and yet difficult to prove such another THEORY.

He sounded like a creationist, isn't he? Something seeded the earth!

Dilbert7 · « **Reply #170 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 01:03 PM »

Quote from: alistair on Sep 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Didn't say it was a 'proof' of evolution.

Do you also need an explanation as to what a counter-argument is?

Let me refresh. You said, "chemical meets chemical cannot form life".

I counter, "DNA is chemicals".

Try harder.
Really?

Can we test your theory? I mean—can we observe God designing life, as you suggest?

No?

What's your theory?

You can not test even if I hold the THEORY of creation - it is already in the realm of belief system. Even if I told you less than 6,000 years ago how we came into being, I will not be able to prove it - since both of us can not go back 6000 years ago when "possibly" our life began.

In the same token, even if you hold evolution THEORY - it is in the realm of your belief system, because it is not yet proven, and all talks of evidences are "mere articulation" of "questionable evidences". However, you may invite me to jump to faith much harder to believe Dario by having faith on million/billion of years of events - which for both of us are x times more impossible than the 6000 years.

Anyway, I did not intend the thread to prove both THEORIES. Just provide scientific facts to discuss and lets dissect whether it reinforced creation or evolution.

alistair · « **Reply #171 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 01:38 PM »

Quote from: Dilbert7 on Sep 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM

you dont even need a wood to begin with

just any chemicals - carbon, oxygen, any

After billions of years, yes, then Life will likely emerge. After all, it's already happened once.

Quote

I wonder where they came from!

That's a different debate altogether. Care to start a new topic?

Quote

but for sure, per DARWIN and believers (by faith), it will become a ship (not the one that we know)

Not faith. Observation. You and I are alive, aren't we? The Earth (and the rest of the Universe) is calculated to be billions of years old (scientifically, and this theory is falsifiable). And so on and so forth.

alistair · « **Reply #172 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 01:40 PM »

Quote from: Dilbert7 on Sep 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Changing story line, that is!

In case you've forgotten your history—Science is all about newer discoveries and better models or theories supplanting earlier, flawed ones.

From aether to electromagnetism and radio waves. From evil spirits causing illness to micro-organisms and modern pathology. From a geocentric model of the solar system, to Kepler's laws, to Newton's law of universal gravity, to Einstein's theories on general & special relativity (which predicts/fits Mercury's orbit better than the Newtonian model). From spontaneous generation to Evolution.

Verbl Kint · « **Reply #173 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 01:41 PM »

Quote from: Wildfire™ on Sep 19, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Satan disguised itself as a serpent to trick Eve

That is your interpretation. The book of Genesis does not contain your version of the events.

Therefore, your conclusion is suspect.

alistair · « **Reply #174 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 02:56 PM »

Quote from: Dilbert7 on Sep 19, 2011 at 01:03 PM

You can not test even if I hold the THEORY of creation - it is already in the realm of belief system.

It's not testable or falsifiable. Therefore, it's not a proper theory. It's just a belief or an opinion.

Quote

Even if I told you less than 6,000 years ago how we came into being, I will not be able to prove it

Except you can't tell me because, let's be honest, you have no idea, do you? You just believe that living beings suddenly appeared fully formed out of nowhere. That's your belief, and you're entitled to it. Just don't go around feeling like Science and the Theory of Evolution are personally attacking your beliefs.

Quote

In the same token, even if you hold evolution THEORY - it is in the realm of your belief system, because it is not yet proven, and all talks of evidences are "mere articulation" of "questionable evidences".

At least Evolution has evidence pointing to it, whether or not you believe it. We have indicators like a gradual progression from simpler to more complex and more abundant fossils, a billions of years old Earth, and so on.

Also, Evolution is falsifiable: if every species existed alongside each other, then the fossil record should show fossils of modern dogs alongside fossils of ancient trilobites in the same Cambrian-age strata.

If every extant species magically came unto being in the first 6 days after the Earth was formed, then why do we have fossils of simpler organisms in deeper and older strata, and more complex fossils in shallower, younger strata?

Quote

However, you may invite me to jump to faith much harder to believe Dario by having faith on million/billion of years of events - which for both of us are x times more impossible than the 6000 years.

On the contrary. Evolution to current diversity taking place over only 6,000 years is less likely because that's hardly enough time even for a single species to emerge. Over billions of years it's more likely.

It's simple math. If the probability of something occurring once a day is 1/x, then it's more likely to occur or have occurred over 10 years than in 10 days. Tanong mo kay dpogs statistics graduate 'yan.

Quote

Anyway, I did not intend the thread to prove both THEORIES. Just provide scientific facts to discuss and lets dissect whether it reinforced creation or evolution.

What facts have you put forth to support species suddenly appearing out of thin air 6,000 years ago?

Dilbert7 · « **Reply #175 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 04:14 PM »

Quote from: alistair on Sep 19, 2011 at 02:56 PM

What facts have you put forth to support species suddenly appearing out of thin air 6,000 years ago?

ikaw talaga alistair! e ano pa, e di ALIEN!

Quote from: barrister on Sep 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
03/12/2009 • 4:45 PM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/richard-dawkins-thinks-that-aliens-may-have-caused-the-origin-of-life/

YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-4LkUCjbA

But Dawkins is not the original - he just plagiarized!

In 1960s, a molecular biologist named Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA in 1953, became concerned with the origins of life. He (who has more credibility than people saying DNA is JUST a "CHEMICAL") believed the DNA molecule was too complex to have evolved by Dario, and must have been "designed". Along with Leslie Orgel, he proposed the theory of "directed panspermia" which is the ALIEN design and SEEDING of earthly life.

Isn't it wonderful!

Dilbert7 · « **Reply #176 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 04:24 PM »

Quote from: alistair on Sep 19, 2011 at 01:40 PM

In case you've forgotten your history—Science is all about newer discoveries and better models or theories supplanting earlier, flawed ones.

From spontaneous generation to Evolution.

I do not have a bit of problem in Science.

But evolution THEORY got so much problems!

Quote from: alistair on Sep 19, 2011 at 01:38 PM

Not faith. Observation. You and I are alive, aren't we? The Earth (and the rest of the Universe) is calculated to be billions of years old (scientifically, and this theory is falsifiable). And so on and so forth.

I observed that my mom & pop are humans like me.
I observed that my mom's mom & pop & my pop's mom & pop are of same DNA like mine.
They also showed me the family tree and I observed all of us are pretty much the same (not blackish hairy)
Nobody told me that we have more before the family tree that resembles something else!

Yeah - sorry! can not fathom the billion of years story telling. If it is a history of events, where are the missing links proving that those histories took place, as you said!

Don't worry - I still agree with you evolution is still a THEORY, though not yet a fact - it can still be correct, provided it can be proven. So bring out the proof.

dpogs · « **Reply #177 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 04:32 PM »

Quote from: alistair on Sep 19, 2011 at 02:56 PM

On the contrary. Evolution to current diversity taking place over only 6,000 years is less likely because that's hardly enough time even for a single species to emerge. Over billions of years it's more likely.

It's simple math. If the probability of something occurring once a day is 1/x, then it's more likely to occur or have occurred over 10 years than in 10 days. Tanong mo kay dpogs statistics graduate 'yan.
What facts have you put forth to support species suddenly appearing out of thin air 6,000 years ago?[

i can say... 100% kaya nga buhay tayo ngayon eh...

hmmm... honestly... statistically speaking the probability is NA... error... since creationist cannot provide the denominator factor...

1 divided by what possible outcomes?

unfortunately for evolutionist... they dont have also... since the outcome still unknown...

1 divided by what possible outcome? (for evolutionist) - in other words what are the possible outcome (or combination of chemicals) in order those chemical in magic soup results to simpler form??? can evolutionist enumerate them so that we can get the exact probability that an species (or simple form of life) will appear ...

alistair · « **Reply #178 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 05:16 PM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 19, 2011 at 04:32 PM

1 divided by what possible outcomes?

Does it matter?

We're only talking about whether something is less likely to happen after a longer time period.

Dilbert7 makes the erroneous statement that the longer the time frame, the less likely something will occur.

Moving on... What's the possibility that a bird will appear out thin air?

dpogs · « **Reply #179 on:** Sep 19, 2011 at 05:25 PM »

Quote from: alistair on Sep 19, 2011 at 05:16 PM

Does it matter?

We're only talking about whether something is less likely to happen after a longer time period.

Dilbert7 makes the erroneous statement that the longer the time frame, the less likely something will occur.

Moving on... What's the possibility that a bird will appear out thin air?

100% percent.

proof: look around you... birds everywhere...

anyway... you can olny say that an event will less likely to happen if possible outcomes are given... we cannot conclude that number 7 will appear in a 6 sided dice... even in billion of years rolling the 6-sided dice... we wont get seven (7) - promise...

papaano ginawa ng mga evolutinist scientist na sabihing that an event (like chimecal process) results to simpler form if they dont know the correct/exact combination of DNA/whatsover... statistically speaking... evolution is NA. no probability only assumption...