where did we come from?

personally, i think religon brings lots of good things to this world....
makes this world a better place (most of time, sometimes makes it a worse place though)...
 
I'm one of those people who believe in both. There is no compelling argument that can be made against the theory that our existence was started on a higher plane and left to survival of the fittest. Life is much too complex to have been an accidental lightening strike in just the right primeval swamp at just the right instant in time to to produce even single cell life forms. In the same light, I don't believe man has the whole story from written and spoken history to fully explain creationism. There are huge gaps of information in both theories, by design, that we can't understand yet.
 
KC72 said:
Hey!! What happened to the stork?
Click to expand...

That, of course, is an urban legend. Anyone with any respectable amount of biological research knows that we were found under cabbage leaves.
 
jasonparker said:
The Ever-missing Links

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.25

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26

These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:

The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.27
Click to expand...

Try this website young fella!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Get away from those religious websites. You will learn very little science there. :lol:
 
Have those who oppose evolution actually _read_ Darwin? One only has to look at his observation of the finches of Galapagos to see evolution as indisputable. One species of mainland finch blown by storm or high winds to a remote island and then diverges into 17 different subspecies each of which with a beak adapted to find a niche in the limited foodchain.
 
i dont really believe in evolution, i think theres not nearly enought evidence for it, and ive seen alot against it.
 
I couldn't agree more Strongbow.

Some people on this topic need tutoring in the scientific method. They just haven't got a clue.

Evolution is very complicated and involved.

For those who are trying to get to grips with it for the first time please look at the following website.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

The Jason Parker's of this world need to be saved. :(
 
there are certain unproved things in Evolution yet..

but i believe the general direction is right...

like at least we got to believe we evolve and our society improve are because we work and we seek for better....not some sort of GOD created everything and we just enjoy
 
mrcool011 said:
Strongbow said:
mrcool011 said:
i dont really believe in evolution, i think theres not nearly enought evidence for it, and ive seen alot against it.
Click to expand...


Try reading more about it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Don't just read the rubbish from the religious websites such as "Answers in Genesis". :lol:
Click to expand...

ive read good scientific stuff about it and there not nearly enough evidence to convince me.
Click to expand...


Yet a single book is capable of convincing you?
 
r031Button said:
mrcool011 said:
Strongbow said:
mrcool011 said:
i dont really believe in evolution, i think theres not nearly enought evidence for it, and ive seen alot against it.
Click to expand...


Try reading more about it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Don't just read the rubbish from the religious websites such as "Answers in Genesis". :lol:
Click to expand...

ive read good scientific stuff about it and there not nearly enough evidence to convince me.
Click to expand...


Yet a single book is capable of convincing you?
Click to expand...

Quite a good query ;)
 
One of the biggest points of contention between Creationists and those who support evolution is the idea that Creationists think that God has somehow been taken out of the equation by evolution. I would argue the exact opposite. Evolution is as near to perfection in nature as you're ever going to see. The way an animal such as the finches of the Galapagos could adapt their beaks to find more food sources seems like a divine means of ensuring that life continues despite hardships. And most importantly of all, one of the main arguements of Creationists in fact, the divine spark - when enough amino acids and particulates came together to create life - that was God most assuredly. I think that you can very well believe in God and not be a Creationist. You're just not accepting that some shepard 4000 years ago was a better scientist than those today.
 
Charge_7 said:
Have those who oppose evolution actually _read_ Darwin? One only has to look at his observation of the finches of Galapagos to see evolution as indisputable. One species of mainland finch blown by storm or high winds to a remote island and then diverges into 17 different subspecies each of which with a beak adapted to find a niche in the limited foodchain.
Click to expand...

I found the vampire Finch most interesting. They developed longer beaks and prey on the blood of the Boobies (birds). The theory is that they adapted from a tick picking variety and found the blood of the Boobie easy to get and much higher in protein.
 
mrcool011 said:
Strongbow said:
mrcool011 said:
i dont really believe in evolution, i think theres not nearly enought evidence for it, and ive seen alot against it.
Click to expand...


Try reading more about it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Don't just read the rubbish from the religious websites such as "Answers in Genesis". :lol:
Click to expand...

ive read good scientific stuff about it and there not nearly enough evidence to convince me.
Click to expand...

Just keep reading my lad and ask plenty of questions. 8)
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Let me tell you a few other theories.
Gravity is a theory.
Math is a theory.
Physics is a bunch of theories.
It's not "Just" a theory. Theories are models that are practically as close to fact as you can get without exact, 100% proof simply because the scale in which it operates (whether temporal or size) makes it difficult or impossible for us to observe with current resources.
Theories are to be taken very seriously. The only reason why evolution remains a "theory" is because we never really got to observe Primeelephas start to die out like crazy and have 3 different designs, the Asian elephant, African elephant and the Mammoth come out of the womb (over many generations no doubt). Now there's plenty of evidence out there to back this up, but we cannot watch it unfold in front of our very own eyes with a camera rolling.
Gravity is also a theory. I doubt you'll be not taking that seriously.

gladius said:
Actualy evolution has not been proven.

It is only still a theory, but it is taught as fact.

Anyways I'm not here to get into a never-ending argument wethers its true or not, but simply to to point out that little know fact.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




well, you are right in one point. however, beyond this theory arguement, there is the reality on the table: there is no proof for evolutionary theory. Is there? Mechanisms of it are not valid, the origin of life cannot be explained ... so and so on......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top