Evolution or Creationism

[Farnhamia]

Oh yeah? Then why are there still monkeys? I thought so.

if theories are so good, why does no one believe my conspiracy theories about how ronald reagan was secretly kenyan?

Reagan a Kenyan? Kenyan didn't exist when he was born. Hell, India was still attached to Africa when Reagan was born!

[Free Soviets]

if theories are so good, why does no one believe my conspiracy theories about how ronald reagan was secretly kenyan?

Reagan a Kenyan? Kenyan didn't exist when he was born. Hell, India was still attached to Africa when Reagan was born!

or so the geographers would have you believe...

listen, if plate tectonics is true, why is there still alabama?

[Khyrta]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

I sense that you think "theory" means "unproved." It does not. And could you explain how both creationism plays a part in the world?

No, I don't mean unproved. I mean "idea" and "partially, if not completely" proved.


And sorry about that, it double posted. I hit the back button on my browser on accident and it reposted it. Blasted browser.

And simply put, I believe that because both may or may not have a butt load of loopholes (i have tried to look into it, but I get easily bored. I have the attention span of a chipmunk on drugs), then both may play a part in the world. I've met a lot of people who have tried to say that the two can't be combined (like science and religion, ya know), but I think in ways they can be anyway. Well anyway, I'm going to get to some loopholes I HAVE found. I haven't studied either very intently, but enough to get the jist. Anyway, if there's anything I leave out or need corrected on, let me know

Loophole number 1:
I have heard that with Evolution, we were put on this Earth by particles, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, correct? Well, maybe particles can create life, but what about emotions, or sight? No, not color. That's the refraction of light. But i mean the abilities we have, such as to think and to breath, things like that?

Loophole number 2:
If the Earth was off by a miniscule fraction of an inch from where it is today, life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to. So I feel this could go either way. We could have been here just coincidently, or maybe we were put here on purpose.

Loophole number 3:
Since the Bible and all that was created, there have been so many copies, it could have been very easy for some wisecrack to manipulate what they say.

Loophole number 4:
If there is a God and Creation is true, well answer this: How did GOD come into existence???????? I myself have no answer.



So these I guess are just some of the ones I thought of, and they're just my opinion people, so don't get all defensive and overreactive and stuff......Plz...

[The Alma Mater]

I sense that you think "theory" means "unproved." It does not. And could you explain how both creationism plays a part in the world?

No, I don't mean unproved. I mean "idea" and "partially, if not completely" proved.

That is not what the word "theory" means when used in a scientific context. It is like how a bow can be something you shoot arrows with, but also part of a ship. Similar shape, same word, yet very different things.

As mentioned and explained several dozen times in this very topic. And hopefully also in schools. I know I was taught the difference back when I was 12...

[Khyrta]

Evolution is a theory and there is no step above theory in science it is the highest tier of knowledge.

Creationism is at best a hypothesis, and barely that in most of the ways it is presented.

Oh yeah? Then why are there still monkeys? I thought so.

lol

I told my dad the same thing when he told me neanderthal disappeared from Earth a long time ago and he blamed it on Galactic Alignment. Only instead of monkeys, it was neanderthal.

[Khyrta]

No, I don't mean unproved. I mean "idea" and "partially, if not completely" proved.

That is not what the word "theory" means when used in a scientific context. It is like how a bow can be something you shoot arrows with, but also part of a ship. Similar shape, same word, yet very different things.

As mentioned and explained several dozen times in this very topic. And hopefully also in schools. I know I was taught the difference back when I was 12...

Well.....you get what I mean...

[The Alma Mater]

That is not what the word "theory" means when used in a scientific context. It is like how a bow can be something you shoot arrows with, but also part of a ship. Similar shape, same word, yet very different things.

As mentioned and explained several dozen times in this very topic. And hopefully also in schools. I know I was taught the difference back when I was 12...

Well.....you get what I mean...

Yes. And my point it that the comparison is rather.. invalid.
At best, it is like saying a bit of fly droppings and mount Everest both deserve to be in an atlas, since "they are both hills".

[Khyrta]

Well.....you get what I mean...

Yes. And my point it that the comparison is rather.. invalid.
At best, it is like saying a bit of fly droppings and mount Everest both deserve to be in an atlas, since "they are both hills".

lol. I see my mistake...

[Free Soviets]

Loophole number 1:
I have heard that with Evolution, we were put on this Earth by particles, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, correct? Well, maybe particles can create life, but what about emotions, or sight? No, not color. That's the refraction of light. But i mean the abilities we have, such as to think and to breath, things like that?

emotions are easy - we can fuck with them by the direct application of chemicals. and as for sight, well, funny you should mention that, since we have actually existing life forms that display basically all the steps you'd need to go through to get it via evolution.

Loophole number 2:
If the Earth was off by a miniscule fraction of an inch from where it is today, life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to. So I feel this could go either way. We could have been here just coincidently, or maybe we were put here on purpose.

um, the earth varies in its orbit by 6 million kilometers over the course of every year...

[Khyrta]

Loophole number 1:
I have heard that with Evolution, we were put on this Earth by particles, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, correct? Well, maybe particles can create life, but what about emotions, or sight? No, not color. That's the refraction of light. But i mean the abilities we have, such as to think and to breath, things like that?

emotions are easy - we can fuck with them by the direct application of chemicals. and as for sight, well, funny you should mention that, since we have actually existing life forms that display basically all the steps you'd need to go through to get it via evolution.

Loophole number 2:
If the Earth was off by a miniscule fraction of an inch from where it is today, life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to. So I feel this could go either way. We could have been here just coincidently, or maybe we were put here on purpose.

um, the earth varies in its orbit by 6 million kilometers over the course of every year...

Do you mean like, around the sun or the distance away from the sun?

[Farnhamia]

I sense that you think "theory" means "unproved." It does not. And could you explain how both creationism plays a part in the world?

No, I don't mean unproved. I mean "idea" and "partially, if not completely" proved.


And sorry about that, it double posted. I hit the back button on my browser on accident and it reposted it. Blasted browser.

And simply put, I believe that because both may or may not have a butt load of loopholes (i have tried to look into it, but I get easily bored. I have the attention span of a chipmunk on drugs), then both may play a part in the world. I've met a lot of people who have tried to say that the two can't be combined (like science and religion, ya know), but I think in ways they can be anyway. Well anyway, I'm going to get to some loopholes I HAVE found. I haven't studied either very intently, but enough to get the jist. Anyway, if there's anything I leave out or need corrected on, let me know

Loophole number 1:
I have heard that with Evolution, we were put on this Earth by particles, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, correct? Well, maybe particles can create life, but what about emotions, or sight? No, not color. That's the refraction of light. But i mean the abilities we have, such as to think and to breath, things like that?

Loophole number 2:
If the Earth was off by a miniscule fraction of an inch from where it is today, life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to. So I feel this could go either way. We could have been here just coincidently, or maybe we were put here on purpose.

Loophole number 3:
Since the Bible and all that was created, there have been so many copies, it could have been very easy for some wisecrack to manipulate what they say.

Loophole number 4:
If there is a God and Creation is true, well answer this: How did GOD come into existence???????? I myself have no answer.



So these I guess are just some of the ones I thought of, and they're just my opinion people, so don't get all defensive and overreactive and stuff......Plz...

First, a scientific "theory" is an explanation. We know that evolution happens, we see it in the fossil record, we see it in living things. The "theory" of evolution is the explanation of what we see.

Loophole number 1:
I have heard that with Evolution, we were put on this Earth by particles, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, correct? Well, maybe particles can create life, but what about emotions, or sight? No, not color. That's the refraction of light. But i mean the abilities we have, such as to think and to breath, things like that?

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, or even the origins of life. It explains how life developed after it appeared. I suppose that by "particles" you mean atoms and molecules. True, everything do and are is the result of atoms and molecules interacting. I won't attempt to explain biology and the current theories of consciousness here, but the fact that they are difficult to explain and understand doesn't make this a "loophole."

Loophole number 2:
If the Earth was off by a miniscule fraction of an inch from where it is today, life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to. So I feel this could go either way. We could have been here just coincidently, or maybe we were put here on purpose.

Ah, the Goldilocks Problem. The secret to solving this is in your own post: "life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to." People think that life as we know it is the only kind of life there is or can be. If the Earth were in the orbit of Mars and was able, somehow, to sustain life, we would think that the third orbit out from the sun would be a terrible place, so hot, and life is impossible there. Just because we exist where we do doesn't mean we were put here.

As for #3 and #4, those are problems for believers to explain to you.

[Farnhamia]

Oh yeah? Then why are there still monkeys? I thought so.

lol

I told my dad the same thing when he told me neanderthal disappeared from Earth a long time ago and he blamed it on Galactic Alignment. Only instead of monkeys, it was neanderthal.

Galactic Alignment? Hmm ... no. And we aren't descended from the Neanderthals, they were our cousins, we existed together. It's quite possible that modern humans had a hand in helping them become extinct, too.

[Khyrta]

No, I don't mean unproved. I mean "idea" and "partially, if not completely" proved.


And sorry about that, it double posted. I hit the back button on my browser on accident and it reposted it. Blasted browser.

And simply put, I believe that because both may or may not have a butt load of loopholes (i have tried to look into it, but I get easily bored. I have the attention span of a chipmunk on drugs), then both may play a part in the world. I've met a lot of people who have tried to say that the two can't be combined (like science and religion, ya know), but I think in ways they can be anyway. Well anyway, I'm going to get to some loopholes I HAVE found. I haven't studied either very intently, but enough to get the jist. Anyway, if there's anything I leave out or need corrected on, let me know

Loophole number 1:
I have heard that with Evolution, we were put on this Earth by particles, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, correct? Well, maybe particles can create life, but what about emotions, or sight? No, not color. That's the refraction of light. But i mean the abilities we have, such as to think and to breath, things like that?

Loophole number 2:
If the Earth was off by a miniscule fraction of an inch from where it is today, life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to. So I feel this could go either way. We could have been here just coincidently, or maybe we were put here on purpose.

Loophole number 3:
Since the Bible and all that was created, there have been so many copies, it could have been very easy for some wisecrack to manipulate what they say.

Loophole number 4:
If there is a God and Creation is true, well answer this: How did GOD come into existence???????? I myself have no answer.



So these I guess are just some of the ones I thought of, and they're just my opinion people, so don't get all defensive and overreactive and stuff......Plz...

First, a scientific "theory" is an explanation. We know that evolution happens, we see it in the fossil record, we see it in living things. The "theory" of evolution is the explanation of what we see.

Loophole number 1:
I have heard that with Evolution, we were put on this Earth by particles, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, correct? Well, maybe particles can create life, but what about emotions, or sight? No, not color. That's the refraction of light. But i mean the abilities we have, such as to think and to breath, things like that?

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, or even the origins of life. It explains how life developed after it appeared. I suppose that by "particles" you mean atoms and molecules. True, everything do and are is the result of atoms and molecules interacting. I won't attempt to explain biology and the current theories of consciousness here, but the fact that they are difficult to explain and understand doesn't make this a "loophole."

Loophole number 2:
If the Earth was off by a miniscule fraction of an inch from where it is today, life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to. So I feel this could go either way. We could have been here just coincidently, or maybe we were put here on purpose.

Ah, the Goldilocks Problem. The secret to solving this is in your own post: "life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to." People think that life as we know it is the only kind of life there is or can be. If the Earth were in the orbit of Mars and was able, somehow, to sustain life, we would think that the third orbit out from the sun would be a terrible place, so hot, and life is impossible there. Just because we exist where we do doesn't mean we were put here.

As for #3 and #4, those are problems for believers to explain to you.

I answered my own post and didn't even realize it..I'm so retarded.


Anyhow, as for the rest of what you say, good answers.

Now I have something to do this weekend.

[Khyrta]

lol

I told my dad the same thing when he told me neanderthal disappeared from Earth a long time ago and he blamed it on Galactic Alignment. Only instead of monkeys, it was neanderthal.

Galactic Alignment? Hmm ... no. And we aren't descended from the Neanderthals, they were our cousins, we existed together. It's quite possible that modern humans had a hand in helping them become extinct, too.

Yeah, that's possible, considering all the other stuff we're seemingly helping to go extinct.

[Jedi8246]

I believe in Creavoltuion. In other words:

Evolution by God's hand.

[Free Soviets]

um, the earth varies in its orbit by 6 million kilometers over the course of every year...

Do you mean like, around the sun or the distance away from the sun?

distance away from the sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit
at the beginning of january we're about 147 million km away, and at the start of july its closer to 152 million km

(ok, so its closer to 5 rather than 6 million km in variance)

[Free Soviets]

And we aren't descended from the Neanderthals, they were our cousins, we existed together. It's quite possible that modern humans had a hand in helping them become extinct, too.

well, those of us outside of africa seem to have at least one neandertal ancestor back there somewhere - we've got a couple percent of our genes that almost certainly came into the population via those stocky cousins of ours

[Farnhamia]

Galactic Alignment? Hmm ... no. And we aren't descended from the Neanderthals, they were our cousins, we existed together. It's quite possible that modern humans had a hand in helping them become extinct, too.

Yeah, that's possible, considering all the other stuff we're seemingly helping to go extinct.

Which is too bad, considering they were actually people. You might find Robert Sawyer's Neanderthal Parallax series interesting, it's about the interaction of our world with a parallel one in which Neanderthals remained dominant and we were extinct. The first volume in the series is called Hominid.

[Farnhamia]

And we aren't descended from the Neanderthals, they were our cousins, we existed together. It's quite possible that modern humans had a hand in helping them become extinct, too.

well, those of us outside of africa seem to have at least one neandertal ancestor back there somewhere - we've got a couple percent of our genes that almost certainly came into the population via those stocky cousins of ours

That's not been shown to be certain, it's still just a hypothesis. That 1 to 4 percent of our genome is non-modern and is shared (apparently) with Neanderthals doesn't make it a given that the reason is interbreeding. It could be from our shared ancestor.

[Khyrta]

Yeah, that's possible, considering all the other stuff we're seemingly helping to go extinct.

Which is too bad, considering they were actually people. You might find Robert Sawyer's Neanderthal Parallax series interesting, it's about the interaction of our world with a parallel one in which Neanderthals remained dominant and we were extinct. The first volume in the series is called Hominid.

Sounds interesting. I'll see if I can find it

[Whole Conviction]

This explanation has always puzzled me. It's based on the similarity that 'reed' and 'red' have in English... but most mistranslations depend on words being similar in the SOURCE language, not the DESTINATION language. Furthermore, the Jews I know say that they were taught in Yeshiva that Moses part the Red Sea, not any Sea of Reeds.

I don't buy this explanation one bit.

It's not based on the similarity that "reed" and "red" have in English. It's based on "yam suph" translating as "sea of reeds". Red Sea comes from Erytha Thalassa, the Greek name for the Red Sea, which is how "yam suph" was translated in the Septuagint. Why, no one knows, possibly because he wanted to identify a specific body of water and that was the closest one he knew about. The similarity in English between "red" and "reed" is nothing more than a freak coincidence.

The whole thing strikes me as terribly convenient. For centuries it was understood to be the Red Sea, then suddenly, when that story gets undermined, it switches around? Too damn convenient for coincidence, if you ask me.

In any case, EVEN IF it was wrong... what does that say for biblical understanding in other areas? Christians for 2000 years were evidently confused over that passage. What about others?

It's all very, very, very weak.

[Whole Conviction]

I don't buy this explanation one bit.

Do you buy the "it never happened" explanation ?

That explanation at least has nothing contradicting it, and it has the advantage of simplicity. It requires only one element to explain it -- that the written bible was based on oral tradition rather than an accurate depiction of history.

[Coccygia]

Do you buy the "it never happened" explanation ?

That explanation at least has nothing contradicting it, and it has the advantage of simplicity. It requires only one element to explain it -- that the written bible was based on oral tradition rather than an accurate depiction of history.

But...but...teh Bibel iz teh WURD of GOD!

[Dyakovo]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

One problem there mate...

One is a scientific theory the other is not... I'll let you guess as to which is which.

[Dyakovo]

I sense that you think "theory" means "unproved." It does not. And could you explain how both creationism plays a part in the world?

No, I don't mean unproved. I mean "idea" and "partially, if not completely" proved.


And sorry about that, it double posted. I hit the back button on my browser on accident and it reposted it. Blasted browser.

And simply put, I believe that because both may or may not have a butt load of loopholes (i have tried to look into it, but I get easily bored. I have the attention span of a chipmunk on drugs), then both may play a part in the world. I've met a lot of people who have tried to say that the two can't be combined (like science and religion, ya know), but I think in ways they can be anyway. Well anyway, I'm going to get to some loopholes I HAVE found. I haven't studied either very intently, but enough to get the jist. Anyway, if there's anything I leave out or need corrected on, let me know

Loophole number 1:
I have heard that with Evolution, we were put on this Earth by particles, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, correct? Well, maybe particles can create life, but what about emotions, or sight? No, not color. That's the refraction of light. But i mean the abilities we have, such as to think and to breath, things like that?

Loophole number 2:
If the Earth was off by a miniscule fraction of an inch from where it is today, life would not be sustained on the planet, or at least not the kind of life we are used to. So I feel this could go either way. We could have been here just coincidently, or maybe we were put here on purpose.

Loophole number 3:
Since the Bible and all that was created, there have been so many copies, it could have been very easy for some wisecrack to manipulate what they say.

Loophole number 4:
If there is a God and Creation is true, well answer this: How did GOD come into existence???????? I myself have no answer.



So these I guess are just some of the ones I thought of, and they're just my opinion people, so don't get all defensive and overreactive and stuff......Plz...

1: The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection says nothing about how we got on earth, nor anything about the Big Bang (They're two separate theories).
2: The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection says nothing about the position of our planet in its orbit.