Where do people on ATS stand on this?

This is the problem with evolution vs creationism.

People who know evolution to be true ONLY believe so because it has been proven in many different ways through scientific application. These people have NO agenda to push accept to find the truth and there is indeed only one truth.

People who believe in creationism believe so because their faith dictates they must regardless of the evidence against it. Their agenda is to prove creationism is correct at all costs regardless of the truth. So once again, the actual truth is not the concern, only finding a way to make creationism right is.

So,
No matter what proof is put in front of a creationist, they will deny it because they must or their faith becomes meaningless thus their lives become meaningless.

If tomorrow evolution was PROVEN to be incorrect, I would say "COOL" we found out something extraodinary and exciting.

Methusela,
The questions you have brought up which supposedly disproves evolution, have answers that prove evolution, you are simply not researching in the right place. I must assume your information came from a creationist website which has an agenda to push creationism and against the truth.

Additionally, even if you were correct, you are making the assumption that since evolution is wrong, creationism must be automatically right. That is a horrible assumption to make since you are not using facts to prove creationism only supposed facts to disprove evolution.

As example,

If I say 2+2=5
You are saying,
I know 2+2=5 is not correct so you are wrong and I'm right. Well you may be correct that my answer isn't right but, that still doesn't give you the right answer, it just tells you what the right answer isn't.

id guess if adam and eve had 2 sons , one killed the other son , and they had one son left how did humanity as we know arise ,


or the folks who left soddom and gommorra , a man and his two daugthers started a tribe , ....


im not sugesting anything but the bible is quite .... discusting . ...

and in a way its debunking itself , ''

humanity would have died out from in breeding a long time ago , .....

A wonderful thing for who? People who like to believe in "Uncle Monkey"?
Of course Stalin was a big fan, too

Well I can answer the following way
1)It's a wonderful thing for anyone willing to accept the truth.

2)I don't understand why you're calling anyones uncle a monkey?

3)Was stalin a fan of monkeys who have uncles? I never read anything about that. I simply don't understand why monkey lineage would excite stalin especially since he seems so busy with other things.

4) what a well rounded argument you have devised as I cannot understand any of it.

Originally posted by Clearskies

Originally posted by jfj123

Evolution is a wonderous thing

A wonderful thing for who? People who like to believe in "Uncle Monkey"?
Of course Stalin was a big fan, too.

jfj123, do you not see that I was talking about evolution???

I mentioned in that other thread, clearskies, that Stalin was not a real fan of darwinian evolution. He actually had his own state-certified theory that was based on Lysenko's ideas, which were grounded in Lamarkism, not Darwinism.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by melatonin]

The only thing I saw was some type of sarcastic comment with no logical argument stating anything about your misinformed position. Not trying to be mean but I simply don't understand what you're implying other then to rag on evolution.

Thats like me calling you a big jerk.
You ask why and I say
"BECAUSE you're jerk like".

By the way, I'm not really calling you a jerk. I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to get at. Again I get the point it has something to do with evolution but....

Originally posted by Clearskies

A wonderful thing for who? People who like to believe in "Uncle Monkey"?
Of course Stalin was a big fan, too.

Ah the joys of fallacious arguments.....

You know who else believed in evolution? Einstein!!! He must have been a violent Stalin loving communist.

And as for Uncle Monkey, don't let ego get in the way of knowledge. It'll only hurt you in the long run.

Originally posted by melatonin
I mentioned in that other thread, clearskies, that Stalin was not a real fan of darwinian evolution. He actually had his own state-certified theory that was based on Lysenko's ideas, which were grounded in Lamarkism, not Darwinism.

[edit on 26-7-
2007 by melatonin]

Lamarkism is just another form of evolutionary belief. I guess now scholars are too sophisticated to be prejudised?

Originally posted by Clearskies
Lamarkism is just another form of evolutionary belief. I guess now scholars are too sophisticated to be prejudised?

It is, but it is not the theory we all know and love

Lamarkism is just another form of evolutionary belief. I guess now scholars are too sophisticated to be prejudised?

Is this just a belief like creationism or is it an actual THEORY?

If it's just a belief, why bring it up?

since every evolutionist likes to deny that the theory really starts the with big bang theory. explain this.

If matter can not be created or destroyed...

how did the world get here?
how did everything else get here?
how did the were stars created?
how did matter come into existence?
how did nothing explode and make everything?
how can something from nothing be the cause of its own existence?
according to the big bang theory, in the beginning there was nothing...
what?!?!

how does nothing turn into everything over billions of years?

id guess if adam and eve had 2 sons , one killed the other son , and they had one son left how did humanity as we know arise ,

adam had sons and daughters according to the bible. and within the first few generations what is there to mess up? everything was perfect and God created everything to begin with. why couldnt he enable the first generations to produce offspring in the only way there was? you have the same problem with the evolution theory.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by Methuselah]

since every evolutionist likes to deny that the theory really starts the with big bang theory.

Evolution and the big bang are 2 seperate things.
Big Bang Theory describes the creation of the universe.
Theory of evolution describes biological processes on earth.


[qoute]explain this.

If matter can not be created or destroyed...

how did the world get here?
Gases condenced/gravity.

how did everything else get here?
how did the were stars created?

Gases condenced/gravity.

how did matter come into existence?
how did nothing explode and make everything?

in the beginning there was something different, explosion happened made other stuff

how can something from nothing be the cause of its own existence?

There wasn't nothing, there was something, it was just different.

according to the big bang theory, in the beginning there was nothing...
what?!?!

According to the bible you mean.

how does nothing turn into everything over billions of years?

well the big bang happened on a universal scale. Locally, evolution happened on earth.

I have some questions for you?
Where did god come from. Who made god? When was god made? Who made god? another god? who made gods god? wait still another god? who made gods, gods, god? If you can't answer these questions with proof, you must be wrong and I'm right. This is your thought process.

You really seem to be stuck in this loop where you say, "if the BB and evolution are wrong then god did it". That simply is not a logical argument. Simply disproving one thing doesn't automatically prove god without scientific evidence. Now if you can provide scientific evidence that god created the universe or anything for that matter, please show it. It would probably be the most profound information ever conveyed since the beginning of time.

adam had sons and daughters according to the bible. and within the first few generations what is there to mess up? everything was perfect and God created everything to begin with. why couldnt he enable the first generations to produce offspring in the only way there was? you have the same problem with the evolution theory.

So god ok'ed the whole incest thing?
also, such a small breeding population wouldn't be able to sustain itself. It wouldn't have enough genetic diversity. This is a undisputable fact.

Gases condenced/gravity.

I already told you that boyles law goes against this theory. read it and understand it.

you need to stars to produce higher elements, but you cant get the stars unless you can compress hydrogen and helium without having constant mini explosions due to increase in temperature from the pressure caused by the little gravity there was.

and since the universe began in a giant explosion, why isnt their a big empty space in the center of the universe. just like when a grenade explodes in the air, their would be nothing left in the middle .5 seconds after the explosion. it would look like a bubble in a sense.

There wasn't nothing, there was something, it was just different.

well science should have a good explanation on how all the matter in the universe was packed into a little dot smaller than a period on a page. thats what text books teach, ive seen it as well. if its not true, why is it in there?

Theory of evolution describes biological processes on earth.

so the stars didnt evolve? the universe didnt evolve? evolution is not limited to the biological processes on earth. and no the big bang theory describes the evolution of the universe.

Where did God come from

ah the most awesome question because there is no answer to that. God is not trapped in time like we are. God is not limited to the three dimensions we live in. and if I could tell you where God came from, if I could explain him to you, he wouldnt be worth worshiping.

So god ok'ed the whole incest thing? It wouldn't have enough genetic diversity.

God ok'd a lot of things that dont make sense to some of us and probably didnt make sense to people of that time. but as it says in scripture "all things work together for good for those who love the Lord."

poor evolutionists think that the world has been growing and getting better over the past few thousand years when in fact its not. they think humans are getting smarter when we are getting dumber. why do you think there is a lot more crime these days, because people are stupid and lazy which is again stupidity. yes people are learning about the things we use today and technology, and being creative, but modern man is nothing compared to the intelligence of ancient man. proof for evolution would demand things to be getting better when they are not getting better. and the things that are require intelligence.

Originally posted by Methuselah
I already told you that boyles law goes against this theory. read it and understand it.

you need to stars to produce higher elements, but you cant get the stars unless you can compress hydrogen and helium without having constant mini explosions due to increase in temperature from the pressure caused by the little gravity there was.

OK. This is Boyle's law:

PV = k

where P = pressure, V = volume, k = constant.

Or in prose: for a fixed temperature, the product of volume and pressure and volume is a constant.

Which is not much use, so we would use the Ideal gas law:

PV = nkT (k = boltzman constant, n = density, T = temp)

Maybe you can explain using these terms why it is a problem.

But while you figure that out, Here's an explanation of why it isn't an issue:

zebu.uoregon.edu...

Also, just a correction, the big-bang is not an actual literal explosion. It is an expansion.



[edit on 26-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Methuselah
I already told you that boyles law goes against this theory. read it and understand it.

Oh for pete's sake, boyle's law states
Pressure * Volume = Constant * Temperature. (PV=K) There is no conflict between boyle's law and star formation.

you need to stars to produce higher elements, but you cant get the stars unless you can compress hydrogen and helium without having constant mini explosions due to increase in temperature from the pressure caused by the little gravity there was.

I can see you don't understand the basics of star formation. Here's a basic breakdown. First you star with a very large nebula, which has a mass thousands or millions of times greater than our sun. within that nebula you have dense pockets of gas, usually hydrogen, helium and oxygen. As those dense pockets break off their mass begins to collapse into itself causing an increase in pressure and temperature. This increase in temperature is constant, but doesn't reach fusion until it hits critical mass. Once that happens, there's a chain reaction that forms the star. No mini explosions, just a chain reaction.

and since the universe began in a giant explosion, why isnt their a big empty space in the center of the universe. just like when a grenade explodes in the air, their would be nothing left in the middle .5 seconds after the explosion. it would look like a bubble in a sense.

And I can see you don't understand the nature of the big bang either. The "Big Bang" wasn't an explosion, just a mass expansion of an incredibly dense object. All parts of that singularity expanded equally, so no big hole in the middle. And BTW, how do you know there isn't a big hole in the middle? Have you looked at the center of the universe recently?

well science should have a good explanation on how all the matter in the universe was packed into a little dot smaller than a period on a page. thats what text books teach, ive seen it as well. if its not true, why is it in there?

We know black holes exist right? They're nothing but huge amounts of matter packed into a tiny dot .

And BTW, I know you don't know what science is all about. It's not about having an answer for everything, it's about looking for the answer to things, and proving it logically. LOGIC

so the stars didnt evolve? the universe didnt evolve? evolution is not limited to the biological processes on earth. and no the big bang theory describes the evolution of the universe.

So anything that is defined as evolution is now going to be argued against? That's rediculous. The world evolve was around long before Darwin. As a matter of fact, your intellect evolved from a lesser one, or did you all of a sudden know everything you now know?

Where did God come from

ah the most awesome question because there is no answer to that. God is not trapped in time like we are. God is not limited to the three dimensions we live in. and if I could tell you where God came from, if I could explain him to you, he wouldnt be worth worshiping.

So you can use scientific theory to try to dispute stellar formation, but you just "know" that God is beyond time and space? How did you come to that conclusion? And why aren't you trying to figure him out? Did you give up? Did you ever really try?

poor evolutionists think that the world has been growing and getting better over the past few thousand years when in fact its not. they think humans are getting smarter when we are getting dumber.

So the sun revolves around the Earth, dancing in the dry season makes it rain, and thunderbolts are thrown from the hand of Zeus. I like to think we came a little ways.

but modern man is nothing compared to the intelligence of ancient man. proof for evolution would demand things to be getting better when they are not getting better. and the things that are require intelligence.

PROOOFFF!!!!!!

You keep stating a lot of BS but don't provide any evidence for one iota of it. How do you know ancient man was so much smarter than modern man? How do you know we're not smarter? How do you know we're not just as smart, but we happen to have more to work with?




[edit on 26-7-2007 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by Methuselah
since every evolutionist

There is NO SUCH THING as an "evolutionist." Evolution isn't an "ism." It's science.

When people use this term it just brings to light the fact that they don't understand evolution and therefore have no business arguing about it.

It's as if I walked into an auto manufacturing plant and started telling them how to install transmissions. I have no idea the proper method for installing the transmission, so I end up sounding ignorant. The engineers and line workers laugh at me.

That's not a situation I'd like to be in. I don't like to put myself out there to be laughed at by talking about things I don't understand. I ask questions instead.

An ism is:

a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

I know that creationists cannot understand that science is not a belief, but it is not. A belief is something relative to the believer. In other words, I can believe something different than you can, such as I believe milk chocolate is tastier and you believe dark chocolate is tastier. That is a subjective. Belief is subjective.

Science is objective. Evolution is a science. It is not an ism. You may not believe in it but it does not make it something you can believe in or not, it just makes you misguided. Scientists who study evolution all see the same framework and are looking to expand and improve the framework based on peer review of the findings of experiments and the reproduction of those experiments.

So, to put it in simple language, once again. There is no such thing as "evolutionism." It sounds more like something the monkey's uncle might "believe."

Also, just a correction, the big-bang is not an actual literal explosion. It is an expansion.

what do you think an explosion is? rapid expansion!

We know black holes exist right? They're nothing but huge amounts of matter packed into a tiny dot .

how can you see such a tiny little dot that appears to be black? you cant see anything emitting from it because the gravity would be so great that is pulls everything back onto itself. so how do you know they exist? do you know because we see black spots in space that emit nothing? or because you cant see them you know they exist? its not a bad theory, but we dont know if they exist or not.

and if the universe started with an expansion, what made it expand being that all the matter in the universe was packed together. if there are such a thing as a black whole how did the universe expand from all the matter being packed into one place? one black hole wont even let light escape so how is it that a black dot 20 billion years ago can explode or expand and make everything? how would everything escape that gravity? what caused it? where did the energy come from? was space always there? or was that folded on top of itself as well due to the gravity?

The world evolve was around long before Darwin.

I know that, and so was the theory, Darwin just made it popular somehow with only a degree from bible college. he wasnt even a scientist.

your link for star formation was based on assumptions and the experiments were in controlled environments (special, specific cases). plus no one has ever seen a star form.

How do you know ancient man was so much smarter than modern man?

watch tv and look at the things they find. gadgets and devices, things we cant even begin to understand. and how people moved huge rocks that modern technology cant even lift.

but you just "know" that God is beyond time and space? How did you come to that conclusion?

In the beginning (time just started) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter). God is outside of these three things because he was there to create all three.

"The First Law of Thermodynamics maintains that the universe and our world began in perfect completeness and quality."

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics reveals that it is decaying."

both of these laws go against the big bang theory and the evolution of the universe.

Evolution is a science. It is not an ism.

Creation is a science. because it too is not an ism. whats your point?

Originally posted by Methuselah
what do you think an explosion is? rapid expansion!

Only if an explosion involves the expansion of space itself can the big bang be an actual explosion.

"The First Law of Thermodynamics maintains that the universe and our world began in perfect completeness and quality."

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics reveals that it is decaying."

both of these laws go against the big bang theory and the evolution of the universe.

That's an interesting interpretation of the first law:-

The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.

Or more formally: dU = dQ - dW

where dU is the change in internal energy, dQ is the added heat to the system, and dW is the work done on the system.

The second law is not an issue for evolution at all. Basically it states that a closed system without added work, will increase in entropy. Where entropy can be considered disorder. Thus, if the universe is a closed system, it will tend to disorder over time, and, in fact, most theories do show some state of heat death sometime in the far distant future of the universe.

However, the second law does not restrict local decreases in entropy. That is, increases in order. Especially when there is energy available to enable such increases in order, for instance, the big firey ball of energy that rises every day.

Now if you want to claim that this explanation is wrong, the alternative is to accept the 2nd law is wrong, because increases in order (- entropy) happen all the time (e.g. a snowflake forming from water molecules, numerous chemical reactions etc etc).




[edit on 27-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Methuselah
what do you think an explosion is? rapid expansion!

Not exactly,

An explosion is a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in a violent manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion causes pressure waves in the local medium in which it occurs. Explosions are categorized as deflagrations if these waves are subsonic and detonations if they are supersonic (shock waves).

However expansion

the act of increasing (something) in size or volume or quantity or scope

how can you see such a tiny little dot that appears to be black? you cant see anything emitting from it because the gravity would be so great that is pulls everything back onto itself. so how do you know they exist? do you know because we see black spots in space that emit nothing? or because you cant see them you know they exist? its not a bad theory, but we dont know if they exist or not.

1. black holes actually do emit stuff that we can detect, like radio waves and X-rays. So they can be seen, nevertheless they are a singularity with massive amounts of matter compressed into a tiny dot.

2. We do know they exist. As a matter of fact, the concept was theorized years before actual evidence for them was found (This is how a theory works!!). Now we know they exist, and there are craploads of them throughout our galaxy alone.

and if the universe started with an expansion, what made it expand being that all the matter in the universe was packed together. if there are such a thing as a black whole how did the universe expand from all the matter being packed into one place? one black hole wont even let light escape so how is it that a black dot 20 billion years ago can explode or expand and make everything? how would everything escape that gravity? what caused it? where did the energy come from? was space always there? or was that folded on top of itself as well due to the gravity?

The singularity at the center of the big bang wasn't a black hole. I just used a black hole singularity as an example of a lot of stuff being packed into a dot. I don't know what made it expand. I bet no one right now knows. However, just because we don't know doesn't mean we stop trying to find out, or assume that the mighty hand of Zeus deemed it so.

I know that, and so was the theory, Darwin just made it popular somehow with only a degree from bible college. he wasnt even a scientist.

And Einstein worked in a patent office.

your link for star formation was based on assumptions and the experiments were in controlled environments (special, specific cases). plus no one has ever seen a star form.

sure they do. That's what hubble's been doing all these years.

but you just "know" that God is beyond time and space? How did you come to that conclusion?

In the beginning (time just started) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter). God is outside of these three things because he was there to create all three.

This is based on a book with no factual evidence. Sorry bro, but that doesn't cut it. Maye we were dreamed into existence like the aborigines believe, or maybe Zeus created the world by killing Cronos (I may be getting my mythology mixed up here, correct me if I'm wrong). What makes your book any more valid than theirs?

Creation is a science. because it too is not an ism. whats your point?

Science refers to either:* the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or* the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.

Creation does not follow empirical knowledge, but rather untested mythology. Just because people call it a science doesn't make it so.