Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

I believe in microevolution which has been proven over and over again. It is macroevolution that I know is false and have never been proven.

because 1+1+1 =3 but you could never add enough ones together to equal something like 62, right

I dont know what the hell that means but it is really freaking funny.

[Sociobiology]

What would stop it? Clearly one species can breed itself into two divergent paths to the point where they can no longer interbreed. From there, what prevents further divergence, say into Warblers and Gigglers?

Nothing that we know about, and thats where we get into the area of speculation without proof. There is no evidence to prove that given billions of years a warbler won't evolve into an Eagle and that the Eagle will not develop into a Crocodile but there is also no evidence that it will.

Archaeopteryx was a bird, as were the Theropods including Tyranosaurus Rex. Infact Tyranousaurs Rex and my pet chicken both share the same DNA and produce the same enzymes. This proves that Avians are theropods who have mutated to the point of loosing teeth and claws it doesn't show transition...

the highlighted is called transition, changes between living organism is a matter of changes in the genetic sequence including those changes.
How did you think change occurs in evolution?
A,G,T,C these contain the entire information of all life, all the difference between life are those letters in difference sequences.

[Sociobiology]

because 1+1+1 =3 but you could never add enough ones together to equal something like 62, right

I dont know what the hell that means but it is really freaking funny.

because the only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is how many times "micro"evolution occurs

1+1+1 micro evolution
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 macro evolution
the only differnece is the number of repetitions.

[Sociobiology]

Why are we dragging beliefs into a discussion where they don't belong? Evolution vs. Creationism is a matter of fact vs. fiction.

Uh right all religious teachings are fiction.

Yea, they are, but what does that have to do with the discussion?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

I dont know what the hell that means but it is really freaking funny.

because the only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is how many times "micro"evolution occurs

1+1+1 micro evolution
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 macro evolution

Oh alright, i guess macro evolution would be the more sensible one.

[Sociobiology]

Hey, hey, the man is right, to a point. We can't predict the exact changes that will occur in an enviorment overy millions (or even billions) of years, so we can't accuratly predict what one species will evolve into (or even die out). Most species, in a stable enviorment stay similar barring major seperation and geological change.

Yeah that

which is very different to Darwins Tree of Life

Um, I can see two major errors (the T-rex, and the jelly fish) but otherwise that is a accurate if brief representation.

[Laerod]

because the only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is how many times "micro"evolution occurs

1+1+1 micro evolution
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 macro evolution

Oh alright, i guess macro evolution would be the more sensible one.

No, they're both sensible. Micro evolution leads to macro evolution. Some creationists just pretend there's a sufficient difference between the two because micro evolution can be shown in experimentation much easier.

[Khadgar]

Yes, but we are not entitled to our own facts. There's only one set of those, and everyone has to share. And the fact is, YEC is hopeless bull.

What is the difference between YEC and OEC exactly?

OEC is, sort of defensible. If God, or gods, came along 4 billion years ago and spit in the ocean and seeded it with life and it evolved from there. Defensible. Not bloody likely, but hell, why not.

YEC is just bloody stupid. In defiance of everything we know about science they contend that the planet is only 6000 years old.

Here's a handy chart: http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1475/ ... eationists

That crams the known history of life on this planet into the 6000 year timescale, just for giggles.

[Bottle]

because the only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is how many times "micro"evolution occurs

1+1+1 micro evolution
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 macro evolution

Oh alright, i guess macro evolution would be the more sensible one.

No, see, there's actually NO DIFFERENCE. Those terms, "microevolution" and "macroevolution"? Yeah, no legit scientist uses them seriously. Because they're bullshit. They are sciencey-sounding words that Creationists use to make it sound like they have at least somewhat entered the 20th century (not the 21st yet though, give them time).

[Bottle]

Personally I believe that all the evidence points to biblical creationism. Specifically young earth creationism.

Yep, all evidence points to the Earth being created 6,000 years AFTER the domestication of the dog. Seems legit.

I suppose in a twisted way it does make sense to argue that the first two humans were being kicked out of the garden of Eden about 20,000 years after clothing was invented, because how else would they have been able to find snazzy duds to hide their suddenly-shameful nudity? And I guess it's sound to say that this must have been occurring some 350,000 years after humans began using controlled fires to cook food, because (after all) Adam and Eve had sons but no daughters and yet their sons still found wives. Of course one has to wonder where all those people were living and hunting with tools and creating art and building houses for hundreds of thousands of years before God created the universe. Maybe a Creationist will provide us with some evidence about that!

I'll be right over here holding my breath.

[Bottle]

Oh, and for bonus yucks:

Here's a timeline of the Earth, if you compress the geological record to fit the 6000 year time limit that the YECs insist upon.

http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1475/ ... eationists

[Erinkita]

Oh, and for bonus yucks:

Here's a timeline of the Earth, if you compress the geological record to fit the 6000 year time limit that the YECs insist upon.

http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1475/ ... eationists

Yuck-yuck!

[Araraukar]

Um, I can see two major errors (the T-rex, and the jelly fish) but otherwise that is a accurate if brief representation.

Look closer. The T-rex is on the righthand line, the jellyfish on the lefthand one. Seems pretty credible to me.

Except that that isn't "Darwin's tree of life". Unless people normally wore jeans in his time.

[Araraukar]

because (after all) Adam and Eve had sons but no daughters and yet their sons still found wives.

Don't forget Lilith.

Also, in the Old Testament there's this interesting bit (very short mention, can't quote chapter and verse, maybe someone else can) of the Judeo-Christian god being mentioned as one of a pantheon (or a meeting/congregation of gods, my Bible (yes, I posses one, shock, shock, horror, horror) isn't in English, so I don't know the exact term).

[Araraukar]

Oh, and for bonus yucks:

Here's a timeline of the Earth, if you compress the geological record to fit the 6000 year time limit that the YECs insist upon.

http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1475/ ... eationists

So I was born back in Oligocene? Cool.

[Khadgar]

Oh, and for bonus yucks:

Here's a timeline of the Earth, if you compress the geological record to fit the 6000 year time limit that the YECs insist upon.

http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1475/ ... eationists

Beat you to it.

[Bottle]

Oh, and for bonus yucks:

Here's a timeline of the Earth, if you compress the geological record to fit the 6000 year time limit that the YECs insist upon.

http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1475/ ... eationists

Beat you to it.

Oh yeah? Well...MINE'S LOUDER.

[Ifreann]

Blah blah blah, I won't accept evolution until it happens like POKEMON!

It pleases me that my words of wisdom are being repeated.

---

Not all Christians believe in God either; does that make that extreme minority any more qualified to speak about what orthodoxy is?

If so-called Christians do not believe in God, then they technically are not Christians. By evolutionists, I meant those who believe in evolutionism, not those who claim to be evolutionist but believe differently.

Let's see if I can strike gold again.
Evolutionism: The imaginary religion adhered to by those who disagree with Creationists.

[Neo Art]

Blah blah blah, I won't accept evolution until it happens like POKEMON!

It pleases me that my words of wisdom are being repeated.

---

If so-called Christians do not believe in God, then they technically are not Christians. By evolutionists, I meant those who believe in evolutionism, not those who claim to be evolutionist but believe differently.

Let's see if I can strike gold again.
Evolutionism: The imaginary religion adhered to by those who disagree with Creationists.

I wonder which one of us has been sigged more.

[The Congregationists]

If there was any sort of "smoking gun" evidence for God's existance, that rules out faith as a means of religious communing and experience, and I understand that faith is what religion is ultimately based on. As such, I think this pretty much rules out the need for God to explain any kind of natural phenomina, even as far as the religious are concerned. Personally, I think the jury's out on God's existance, though I think some ways of looking at or thinking of God are pretty damned unlikely. I don't think it is for this matter. Put me down for neo-darwinian.

[Salandriagado]

because (after all) Adam and Eve had sons but no daughters and yet their sons still found wives.

Don't forget Lilith.

Also, in the Old Testament there's this interesting bit (very short mention, can't quote chapter and verse, maybe someone else can) of the Judeo-Christian god being mentioned as one of a pantheon (or a meeting/congregation of gods, my Bible (yes, I posses one, shock, shock, horror, horror) isn't in English, so I don't know the exact term).

Throughout the old testament, the word used to refer to god is "Elohiym", which translates as "powers", in the plural, or "YHWH of Elohiym", which translates as "he is of the powers".

[Naval Guns]

what i think is that looking at how humans, plants, and animals progressed is that we did evolve over time naturally and not by intellegent design

but one thing that no one knows is how life actually started on this planet.

i do beileve in God because i am catholic but i dont necisarly beileve in some of christanities beliefs

Well at least in not believing in 'some Christian beliefs', you have not showed yourself as a non-believing Catholic.

hey thanx sometimes i do have hissy fits with my mom about the evolution or intelligent design thing we still beilieve but we have different views on the subject at hand

[Free Soviets]

If there was any sort of "smoking gun" evidence for God's existance, that rules out faith as a means of religious communing and experience, and I understand that faith is what religion is ultimately based on.

nah. there'd be nothing to have faith in without revelation, which means divine revelation is the basis of religion. the prominence of faith has only gone up as the gods stopped regularly revealing themselves to people except in pieces of toast.

[IshCong]

If there was any sort of "smoking gun" evidence for God's existance, that rules out faith as a means of religious communing and experience, and I understand that faith is what religion is ultimately based on.

nah. there'd be nothing to have faith in without revelation, which means divine revelation is the basis of religion. the prominence of faith has only gone up as the gods stopped regularly revealing themselves to people except in pieces of toast.

Uh, no, the rate of atheism has pretty much been increasing steadily in the West as of late.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =111885128

[ReVaQ]

So fellow NSer's which do you believe in? Personally I believe that all the evidence points to biblical creationism. Specifically young earth creationism. But what about you guys and girls?

EDIT: I do believe in microevolution which has been proven but NOT macroevolution which hasn't been proven at all.

Personally I believe that all the evidence points to biblical creationism.

And....................... What would that be for evidence?

You know, I have evidence for Spider-Man. All the comic books, you see they wrote it so it must be true right? I mean come on, no one is an atheist to Spider-man!