Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

evolution, is it possibly wrong?

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 7:46:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think I misspelled evolution.

I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.

So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!
This is a repeat of my other post in the science section, but this one has more people so I decided to post one here as well.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
cameronl35
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 8:06:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:46:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think I misspelled evolution.
You spelled it correct :)
I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

We have established through countless experimenting that the Earth is indeed billions of years old.
So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

It is definitely not 6,000 years old.
The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

We actually do not know for sure that it happened. Many scientists today actually do not believe in the Big Bang. Some believe that this universe came from another universe that completely shrunk down and expanded again. Others believe in inflation.
Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.

So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!
This is a repeat of my other post in the science section, but this one has more people so I decided to post one here as well.

As far as evolution goes I'm not very competent but it has been argued for very well and the evidence all seems to point that we did evolve from a similar ancestor as other species.
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
-George Carlin (R.I.P.)

"MLK day is simply racism against whites."
-Lordknukle, only a nuance away from Stalin
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 8:28:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:46:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think I misspelled evolution.

I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

Simply because you can state two isolated instances, does not mean the procedure is "often wrong." Obviously, when the results are incongruous, the test is redone.
Actually, I can't find a single scholarly article supporting the 8000-year-old-penguin story... just a bunch of creationist websites that lack citations. Closest thing I found was this : http://news.bbc.co.uk....

Same goes for the claim of the seal... though both claims do seem to point back to Kent Hovind... who we all know is hardly a reliable source.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

They are dated by both. That said, the original dates for the layers were established by scientific means. There's really no need to re-date the same layers.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

Considering that there is recorded human history prior to 4000 BCE, it seems to be a, quite frankly, stupid conclusion to suppose that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Well part of the problem here is your fundamental misconception that the BBT is creation from nothing. The matter was THERE, it was just very densely packed.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Essentially, it went supernova. It's not that there were "a few" H and He atoms - the amount of matter/energy in the universe is constant. The BBT does not state that the BB created new matter. Basically, in a star (or collection of matter like existed at T=0), the energy released by fusion prevents the rest of the matter from falling in. If that energy ceases to be sufficient, the matter implodes and then explodes.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Mutations do in fact introduce new information. The difference between mutated and non-mutated organisms is generally very little. Furthermore, the mutations do not occur en masse - they change little by little. A mutation changes one piece of information to a new piece. If you want to use your word example, it would go something like this - it's a letter replacement, not an anagram:

Apple
Paper (l to r)
raper (p to r)
terra (p to t)
stare (r to s)
trams (e to m)
etc...

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.

This is simply incorrect.

Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

This is also incorrect. Furthermore, the evidence is pretty obvious that if there was in fact a designer, he is an idiot. Take, for example, the design of humans. We are exceedingly poorly designed.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.

So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!
This is a repeat of my other post in the science section, but this one has more people so I decided to post one here as well.

Actually, Haeckel's embryonic drawings have been confirmed to be correct. His theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been proven incorrect - the theory is where the claim concerning humans having gills comes from. Modern biology has shown his embryonic drawings to be remarkably good for the information he had available at the time.

Examples of modern imaging that confirms the embryonic drawings: http://metroblog.blogspot.com... - about 75-80% down the page. It's pretty hard to find side-by-side comparisons...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 8:35:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
short answer- everything is POSSIBLY wrong.

Long answer- Evolution is really, VERY probably not wrong. We cure diseases and make vaccinations based on our knowledge of evolution. We can see it happen in insect species in our lifetime. Everything that we know about biology is based on evolution. If there is anything in the world that it is o.k. to accept as fact: it is a scientific fact. Evolution is a scientific fact. We have heaps and heaps of evidence for it.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 9:12:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am not against evolution, but I wanted to see peoples responses, so just wanted to point that out. I believe in evolution, but i believe that a deity created evolution. Catholics have accepted this theory.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 9:14:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 8:35:10 PM, Oryus wrote:
short answer- everything is POSSIBLY wrong.



Long answer- Evolution is really, VERY probably not wrong. We cure diseases and make vaccinations based on our knowledge of evolution. We can see it happen in insect species in our lifetime. Everything that we know about biology is based on evolution. If there is anything in the world that it is o.k. to accept as fact: it is a scientific fact. Evolution is a scientific fact. We have heaps and heaps of evidence for it.

Even though I believe in the theory of evolution they still consider it a theory, so you used the wrong words, a really really really really really really good theory is what you should have said.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 9:39:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So even though evolution is probably right I am just going to be my skeptic self again to see more of peoples reaction:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:25:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
fair enough
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:30:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 9:14:08 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Even though I believe in the theory of evolution they still consider it a theory, so you used the wrong words, a really really really really really really good theory is what you should have said.

No. Evolution IS a scientific fact just as gravity is a fact.
We have observed change-over-time in a number of species.
There is very, very good evidence to support the Earth being billions of years old. So, with those two variables... fill in the blanks.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:49:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 9:14:08 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/4/2011 8:35:10 PM, Oryus wrote:
short answer- everything is POSSIBLY wrong.



Long answer- Evolution is really, VERY probably not wrong. We cure diseases and make vaccinations based on our knowledge of evolution. We can see it happen in insect species in our lifetime. Everything that we know about biology is based on evolution. If there is anything in the world that it is o.k. to accept as fact: it is a scientific fact. Evolution is a scientific fact. We have heaps and heaps of evidence for it.

Even though I believe in the theory of evolution they still consider it a theory, so you used the wrong words, a really really really really really really good theory is what you should have said.

woah, woah. Don't commit the fallacy of equivocation here. Scientific theory is different than a regular old theory. And scientists (if they are good scientists) admit that we don't 100% know one single thing. The only things we truly know, one could say, are mathematical proofs. To be a scientific theory is to have heaps and heaps of testable, irrefutable evidence up to this moment in time. Right now, evolution, for all intents and purposes, is a scientific fact. So unless you find it reasonable to doubt the theory of relativity without any real evidence to the contrary, or a will to test the theory and prove it wrong, I just don't see the point of arguing over evidence which, again, for all intents and purposes, proves indefinitely that something (i.e. evolution, gravity, etc.) is real.

Just realize the gravity of what you're being skeptical of..... no pun intended. Evolution is complicated. But we use the same method to learn about evolution as we do to learn everything else about the world- the scientific method.

It is curious to me that there is a constant questioning of evolution and global warming and little to no questioning of our scientific convictions regarding, say, precipitation or gravity or chemistry, etc. We have mountains of evidence regarding our theories of all of these things- it is the things which have moral implications, by not fitting in with our un-scientific and/or traditional worldviews, that we argue about incessantly. I find that suspicious and not useful.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:56:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, the first video you posted is reeeeallllly questionable. The very first sentence the man says shows a basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not about the origin of life- it is about the origin of species. Very different.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 3:11:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:46:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think I misspelled evolution.

I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.

So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!
This is a repeat of my other post in the science section, but this one has more people so I decided to post one here as well.

Simple answer, no. Darwin put forth an ea that had its points, it seems he mad a mistake though. A recent study involving famine h shown that genetic change may happen in just two generations, not the thousands of years believed.

We know that we evolve. Take antibiotics and the body adjusts so they no longer work. The Africa study found that when male children, prepubescent, who experienced famine showed a change in DNA present in the sperm of their male grandchildren. This is the first time for results like this so much more research needs to be done.

All in all though, creationists seem disingenuous to me, an all or nothing sort. God may have created evolution as a test of faith, to separate those who really trusted God from those who preferred God in their image.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 3:48:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 3:11:45 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/4/2011 7:46:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think I misspelled evolution.

I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.

So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!
This is a repeat of my other post in the science section, but this one has more people so I decided to post one here as well.

Simple answer, no. Darwin put forth an ea that had its points, it seems he mad a mistake though. A recent study involving famine h shown that genetic change may happen in just two generations, not the thousands of years believed.

We know that we evolve. Take antibiotics and the body adjusts so they no longer work. The Africa study found that when male children, prepubescent, who experienced famine showed a change in DNA present in the sperm of their male grandchildren. This is the first time for results like this so much more research needs to be done.

All in all though, creationists seem disingenuous to me, an all or nothing sort. God may have created evolution as a test of faith, to separate those who really trusted God from those who preferred God in their image.

I believe what you're speaking about here isn't really in conflict with much. The debate exists already: punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 4:49:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago

I believe what you're speaking about here isn't really in conflict with much. The debate exists already: punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism.

I think your belief may be inaccurate. Science isn't a debate, it is a discipline. When fact conflicts with belief only the fool attempts to change the facts.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 12:17:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Before getting into a point-by-point I'll answer the subject question. Yes. Evolution is most certainly wrong. It is "wrong" in the same way that all scientific theories are "wrong." They're mostly right, but still a bit wrong. Relativity is wrong. Quantum mechanics is wrong. Chemistry is wrong. They're all wrong. In fact, that our scientific theories are inherently wrong is why the field of science even exists: to constantly make our theories less wrong. Basic science.

At 12/4/2011 7:46:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think I misspelled evolution.

I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

Carbdon dating is always unreliable when not used in the manner it was intended. It has a scope and a threshold. Using outside of that threshold does not invalidate it.
Tools have an intended purpose. I can show you that a hammer is bad for putting screws in wood. Does that mean a hammer is an objectively bad tool that can't ever be useful? No.

Also, this has nothing to do with evolution.


ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

What is faulty is this overly simplistic explanation of how we date rocks and stratification layers. This is an issue of geology and geochronology, not evolution.


So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Cosmology, not evolution.


Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

No. Scientists don't propose that at all. Hydrogen and Helium came after the Big Bang, transitioning first through a quark-gluon plasma.


Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Simply put, mutations can add, delete, or rearrange information. ALL DNA is composed of the same pairs of bases. So by rearrangeing, copying, or deleting them, you can come up with all sorts of possibilities.


Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.

Complaints like this are always based on a faulty conception of what it means to be "fit"

Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

If we were designed, then our designer was a fvcking retard.


Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.

Yeah, a lot of what we thought we know in the 1800's was faulty. Are you suggesting we haven't learned since then?


So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!
This is a repeat of my other post in the science section, but this one has more people so I decided to post one here as well.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 12:58:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 4:49:26 AM, logicrules wrote:

I believe what you're speaking about here isn't really in conflict with much. The debate exists already: punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism.

I think your belief may be inaccurate. Science isn't a debate, it is a discipline. When fact conflicts with belief only the fool attempts to change the facts.

I'm aware. You misunderstood what I meant. Look up punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism. Both are scientific. There is a nature vs nurture debate as well. Framing it in that way may be misleading, because they are interdependent, but that's how it is whether we like it or not.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 2:04:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 10:56:16 PM, Oryus wrote:
Also, the first video you posted is reeeeallllly questionable. The very first sentence the man says shows a basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not about the origin of life- it is about the origin of species. Very different.

I know but evolution is what came after, they think that lightning hit water and became life, then kept going from there. So that point totally disrupts our theory. I am odd, I believe in a little of both.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 2:19:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 2:04:38 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/4/2011 10:56:16 PM, Oryus wrote:
Also, the first video you posted is reeeeallllly questionable. The very first sentence the man says shows a basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not about the origin of life- it is about the origin of species. Very different.

I know but evolution is what came after, they think that lightning hit water and became life, then kept going from there. So that point totally disrupts our theory. I am odd, I believe in a little of both.

I'm not sure that the lightning-primordial soup theory is held anymore. I think current theory on the beginning of life is that geothermal energy kept areas of water (either pools or areas deep in the ocean) warm enough to support organic molecules that independently form, and independently do not function as life, but when they join together, are capable of life-sustaining processes.

Creationists love to strawman evolution as holding that lightning zapped a pool of muck and out popped a monkey-man. That's simply not the case.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 2:44:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 2:19:02 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 12/5/2011 2:04:38 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/4/2011 10:56:16 PM, Oryus wrote:
Also, the first video you posted is reeeeallllly questionable. The very first sentence the man says shows a basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not about the origin of life- it is about the origin of species. Very different.

I know but evolution is what came after, they think that lightning hit water and became life, then kept going from there. So that point totally disrupts our theory. I am odd, I believe in a little of both.

I'm not sure that the lightning-primordial soup theory is held anymore. I think current theory on the beginning of life is that geothermal energy kept areas of water (either pools or areas deep in the ocean) warm enough to support organic molecules that independently form, and independently do not function as life, but when they join together, are capable of life-sustaining processes.

Creationists love to strawman evolution as holding that lightning zapped a pool of muck and out popped a monkey-man. That's simply not the case.

Yeah, that.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 2:47:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 2:04:38 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/4/2011 10:56:16 PM, Oryus wrote:
Also, the first video you posted is reeeeallllly questionable. The very first sentence the man says shows a basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not about the origin of life- it is about the origin of species. Very different.

I know but evolution is what came after, they think that lightning hit water and became life, then kept going from there. So that point totally disrupts our theory. I am odd, I believe in a little of both.

I've heard of people believing in a little bit of both. I don't see why it would be bad to believe that there is a god that had a hand in evolution. It's just denying the existence of evolution which bothers me. Also, discrediting evolution because it can't explain everything- that annoys me. If we knew everything, then we wouldn't need science or philosophy. And what a boring world that would be to live in.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 4:17:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 12:58:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 4:49:26 AM, logicrules wrote:

I believe what you're speaking about here isn't really in conflict with much. The debate exists already: punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism.

I think your belief may be inaccurate. Science isn't a debate, it is a discipline. When fact conflicts with belief only the fool attempts to change the facts.

I'm aware. You misunderstood what I meant. Look up punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism. Both are scientific. There is a nature vs nurture debate as well. Framing it in that way may be misleading, because they are interdependent, but that's how it is whether we like it or not.

thats nice...has nothing to do with my post. I'll simplify for ya, evolution is a fact, its exact nature is still being learned (science). For all the creationists....God created things to evolve.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:17:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 4:17:11 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/5/2011 12:58:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 4:49:26 AM, logicrules wrote:

I believe what you're speaking about here isn't really in conflict with much. The debate exists already: punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism.

I think your belief may be inaccurate. Science isn't a debate, it is a discipline. When fact conflicts with belief only the fool attempts to change the facts.

I'm aware. You misunderstood what I meant. Look up punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism. Both are scientific. There is a nature vs nurture debate as well. Framing it in that way may be misleading, because they are interdependent, but that's how it is whether we like it or not.

thats nice...has nothing to do with my post. I'll simplify for ya, evolution is a fact, its exact nature is still being learned (science). For all the creationists....God created things to evolve.

Thanks for being so condescending...? Again, you've told me nothing new here nor have you said anything I disagreed with.

You're saying that there is more evidence now for punctuated equilibrium. What I said had exactly to do with something that you said. It was "hey, that's not a new idea. It exists and it's called punctuated equilibrium"

Neither punctuated equilibrium nor gradualism have a single thing to do with creationism and I'm well aware that evolution is a fact. Not sure why that was necessary to say at all.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:08:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I plan on doing a series of debates on the topic, one at a time. Currently occupied but if anybody wants to start forming another debate with me, that's cool.