Creation vs. Evolution

[H2Andy]

Furthermore it illustrates the difference of opinions that exist amongst the experts of evolution.

all "experts of evolution" agree that evolution is valid scientific theory. there are differences of opinion as to details, etc., but no one has ever been able to prove that evolution is not a valid scientific theory

wanna debunk evolution? it's real easy

find a rabbit fossil in a Cambrian fossil bed

poof goes evolution

the possibilities to prove evolution factually wrong are endless

i challenge critics of evolution to stop making philosophical arguments against evolution and instead disprove it with facts. given that evolution is a scientific theory, if the facts are out there, it will be disproven to the satisfaction of scientists

that is the nature of science. remember when we all thought the electron, proton, and neutron were the smallest units in the universe?

well, scientists were wrong, and they were proven wrong, and they changed the theory. it happens all the time in science. evolution is no different.

but please, disprove it scientifically. it is, after all, a scientific theory

 

[Rainer]

all experts of evolution agree that evolution is valid scientific theory. there are differences of opinion as to details, etc., but no one has ever been able to prove that evolution is not a valid scientific theory

wanna debunk evolution? it's real easy

find a rabbit fossil in a Cambrian fossil bed

poof goes evolution

You're late to the party.

We now have a number system.

That's CM-7.

 

[H2Andy]

damn i thought it was 9b

 

[gary-ramey]

2) Disproving evolution (or any other scientific principal) wouldn't magically make your religious beliefs correct. Scientific thoeries change all the time - its a central part of the scientific process. So, at absolute best, you may end up strengthening science by pointing out an incomplete problem which could then be solved. That gets you no closer to proving that creationism is correct - if anything, it'll add more evidence against creationism.

I don't think anyone is out to disprove evolution. For starters, we can't even get all the evolutionists to agree on what evolution really is. You have to have a defining reference point, and one is clearly lacking. You have some, like you, who believe that abiogenesis and evolution to be separate. A convenient version that allows you to leave room for the hidden creator. Other's, like Gould, clearly include them together, or at least doesn't mind linking them in a public forum.

 

[gary-ramey]

a LOT of very tiny changes over a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time

we know (for a fact) that populations change over time. we know, thanks to the fossil record, that populations change A LOT over a LONG time ... and DNA tells us that everything goes back to some very simple building blocks that become evolutions on a theme (no pun intended)

it's not hard to understand, and the evidence supports it. sorry for those who can't ideologically accept it without understanding it is a very, very simple process

and it is very possible that if there is a God, evolution is the mechanism he chose to arrive at a very thriving and varied spectrum of life

or are you saying that it is impossible for God to initiate evolution and let it do its thing?

The only problem you have is some changes aren't tiny. Even if we said they were tiny, you don't have near the fossil record to document all, or even most of, these tiny changes. Bacteria, despite its ability to adapt, is still bacteria without a major mutation. Mutations we witness today are almost always fatal to the animal that undergoes it.

 

[AXL72]

I think you know the Biblical answer to that one.

Thanks for that. It is all about communication, and I interpret this communication of yours to mean that God = Big Bang.

Thank you for clarifying that for me and being crystal clear on the matter.

 

[gary-ramey]

that is the nature of science. remember when we all thought the electron, proton, and neutron were the smallest units in the universe?

well, scientists were wrong, and they were proven wrong, and they changed the theory. it happens all the time in science. evolution is no different.

And before that you had Bohrs model. Here's what I don't like. Evolutionists are arrogant and egotistical in their belief. Its to the point that they make excuses, or spin, every inconsistency. Furthermore, they insult and belittle anyone that believes in a Biblical account of creation. As a matter of fact, Gould himelf went out of his way to thrash the Kansas Board of Education for allowing "intelligent design" in the Kansas School System. Why? According to what I read here, most of you leave room in abiogenesis for "God". If I walk into a church and find a pastor with "all the answers"...I never go back to that church. However, most evolutionists seem to revel in the belief that they have all the answers, or at least enough of them to conclude that any other belief is false.

 

[AXL72]

... Here's what I don't like. Evolutionists are arrogant and egotistical in their belief. .... most evolutionists seem to revel in the belief that they have all the answers, or at least enough of them to conclude that any other belief is false.

Ohhhhhhhhh Myyyyyyyyy Gaud!

Hey Pot, you can call me Kettle. That's Mr. Black if you nasty

Ohhh you nasty boy.

 

[Sas]

And before that you had Bohrs model. Here's what I don't like. Evolutionists are arrogant and egotistical in their belief. Its to the point that they make excuses, or spin, every inconsistency. Furthermore, they insult and belittle anyone that believes in a Biblical account of creation. As a matter of fact, Gould himelf went out of his way to thrash the Kansas Board of Education for allowing "intelligent design" in the Kansas School System. Why? According to what I read here, most of you leave room in abiogenesis for "God". If I walk into a church and find a pastor with "all the answers"...I never go back to that church. However, most evolutionists seem to revel in the belief that they have all the answers, or at least enough of them to conclude that any other belief is false.

*sigh* Well I don't blame evolutionists for being arrogant and egotistical in their belief, as well, they are COMPLETELY RIGHT to support evolution rather than creationism. Creationism, the kind that says the earth is 6000 years old and that there are no transitional fossils and so on, basically everything that has been disproven by science is absolutely ridiculous so no wonder people make fun of certain kinds of Creationists. It is like how people make fun of the idea that in the past some people thought the world was flat, or the centre of the universe, or that the sun revolved around the Earth. If people said that now, they would be laughed at.

Of course, I personally see no incompatibility between the idea that God exists as well as evolution. I don't believe in God myself but I can see how Christians can have no problems with evolution and a God - the Catholic church, for example, supports the theory of evolution saying it is best left for scientists to work out. That is much more palatable as it does not involve rejecting reality and rationality. As if you think that you are not bringing religion into something that is clearly science based.

"Intelligent design" is in no way scientific and I can see why Gould would be so critical that stuff like that would be allowed into a science class. It is NOT scientific and has NO place in a science class, especially as it requires a religious belief, something that should not be forced on the entire of the population at the whims of a few. That is the answer to your question 'why?'.

Finally, I don't think I have all the answers regarding evolution, far from it. However, I have enough answers to know beyond all doubt that evolution happens. In time the theory will be more and more refined.

 

[H2Andy]

you don't have near the fossil record to document all, or even most of, these tiny changes

the problem is you don't seem to understand what the fossil record DOES show .. what it DOES show, is 100% consistent with evolution ...

life forms started simple and they got progressively more complex ... the fossil record shows we went from sponges to chimps ... that's evolution, and the record is clear

Bacteria, despite its ability to adapt, is still bacteria without a major mutation. Mutations we witness today are almost always fatal to the animal that undergoes it.

ah .... mutations that would be harmful in a single pair of genes can be tolerated if those genes have first been duplicated. this is likely why organisms have survived mutations over and over as life on Earth has progressed from single-cell organisms to complex organisms (a fact well documented by the fossil record)

also, a mutation that would be lethal in the protein coding region of a gene will not necessarily be harmful at all if it occurs in non-coding region

again, we know this works because the fossil record shows a steady progression from simple to complex life forms. nothing except evolution can explain that right now ... if you can find FACTS that support a different explanation, you will get a Nobel prize and be rich for life

of course, God could come around every so often and create a whole new crop of more complex animals, and keep doing this for billions of years (the fossil record could probably support such a hypothesis)

... i find it unprovable and highly unlikely, not to mention totally uncessary, given the mechanisms we know are in place and how they work