Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by Solomons

 

So you agree with me. Great. Just in case you're trying to say that the theory of evolution as it's commonly conceived of, isn't random, you're wrong and you obviously don't understand how evolution is supposed to work. Look up the definition of evolution. No one (except creationists of which I am NOT one) disputes that there is some kind of evolution at work. The question is...are the changes as a result of random mutations or are they part of a deliberate design?

OMG! why the hell does everyone think Evolution is random! IT IS NOT RANDOM!

If it were in fact random then you would see a #load of mistakes and parts that have no need for the animal what so ever, because it randomly apeared there. Evolving fins is not a random mutation of a fish, it serves a purpose, and if it is ment to serve a perpose then there is a reason it evolved to have fins, and if there is a reason THEN IT IS NOT RADOM IS IT?!?!?!?!

All organisms have an amazing capability to adapt to environments. So, when there is a predator on the loose and you are 1 of 5 million in a school of fish, over a long period of time you will begin to adapt to your environment for the better. There are a number of possibilities that we see today that further prey animals to out challenge their charging predators. Like coloration to match toxic animals, and larger fins or muscles based around the tale to increase agility. THESE ARE NOT RANDOM MISTAKES THAT JUST SO HAPPEN TO ALWAYS BE FOR THE BETTER. They are evolving into a better species. Why is this so hard to understand?

EDIT: If you want to argue that the comet that brought life to this planet was random, then you can try arguing that. However, it was not random, nor was it planned, it was just an amount of time and chance that something could kick start our life sporting planet in some way.

Then you might argue that having a planet that just so happens to be able to support life on it is random. NO! it is NOT RANDOM! Generally the formation of a planet is caused by gravitation that (over a vast period of time) brings in cosmic dust. At this point of time the planet is not inhabitable. But! it is in the little clear zone distance from our sun that, in the future, would cool enough to be able to support life.

Now, that little comet hits earth, chemical reactions happen (this is the very short version of this), and the planet begins to boil (in a sense). After yet another set of vast numbers of years, the earth cools. It is now at a point where the core is still molten and the crust is now harder. This is not all random events, this is a process that would always occur.

More and more chemical reactions occur and we get water from a few of them.

and so on and so forth.

Your simple questions will continue to "well where did the sun come from" and "well how did the cosmic dust get their" and "Well then how did gravity come to be?" and so on. All of those questions can be answered. Then you will probably say "well we haven't witnessed these events take place". And the scientists will respond with "That doesn't mean something doesn't happen, We actually do see the stages of each event that you are questioning, we also can test many of these events ourselves through observation on other planets". The scientists may even REPOST like this "So to your logic, if we personally do not see it, it does not happen? That is a pretty close minded argument for someone who is accusing us of being close minded. According to your logistics all prisoners in all prisons should be released unless the Judge has seen them commit the crime? We cant trust other people in what they saw and experienced because thats the same thing as science, knowledge passed down to another. We also cant (to your logic) prove that that prisoner is guilty through Forensics because that really doesn't prove anything cause it is all based on science."

and the circle continues.

[edit on 20/12/08 by Ghost147]

Why is everything so delusional. When you have common sense!

Common sense is our reality check. Trust it.

So why would a creation be delusional. And science not.

Is creation a problem because it talks about a single source that started to create. A source called God.

Is it delusional because it talks about other dimensions or other lifeforms.

Is it delusional or is it denial!
I think that denial makes you delusional.

I think most people deny what is common sense.

When you think of creation you think of God and religion. If you deny God and religion, No wonder creation becomes delusional.
Because you dont know what a God is, because you dont really care. And if you dont know what a God is.You have no grounds to grasp religion. Because you have denied it.

So what is a God. To science God is a source.
And for a creationist! God is also a source. But it has been given a name.

To a creationist God is a Eternal and Infinite source. The problem now is that most people tend to focus more on "God",then that god is a source.A always existing source. It always is .

"It has no Beginning and it has no End".

This source is the bases for all creation. And evolution.

Because if you think about it. A Infinite and Eternal source must exist. Or nothing could ever be created. And you would never have any evolution to believe in.

Maybe its more right to say that we humans are delusional. Rather then Creation and evolution. Because they are both very real.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

For those who follow the evolutionist faith....I'm willing to accept that you and your ancestors are products of slime that evolved over time,

if you can except that me and my ancestors were created by a god that spoke us into existance.

Originally posted by John Matrix
For those who follow the evolutionist faith....I'm willing to accept that you and your ancestors are products of slime that evolved over time,

if you can except that me and my ancestors were created by a god that spoke us into existance.

Faith = Belief

Q: How do you know that God created man?
A: I believe it because of Faith.

"I believe it because of Faith."
=
"I believe it because I believe it based on no proof."

faith
   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
2. belief that is not based on proof

Science = Observation

Q: How do you know that evolution happens?
A: Through several developments in scientific research specifically in the field of DNA analyzing, molecular science, archeology, radio carbon dating, and most importantly observation.

sci⋅ence
   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uhns] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

[edit on 12/20/08 by Yoda411]

reply to post by Yoda411


So what about the spider-goat conundrum?

We evolved, but then we 'created' a new species use pre-existing templates...

Are we not now de facto creationists, having evolved to the point where we now create new species?

*Omitting God, as science has proven him to be unnecessary - especially in regards to the 'creation' of SpiderGoat and Round-up Ready Cotton.

Originally posted by Dreemer
reply to post by Yoda411

 

So what about the spider-goat conundrum?

We evolved, but then we 'created' a new species use pre-existing templates...

Are we not now de facto creationists, having evolved to the point where we now create new species?

*Omitting God, as science has proven him to be unnecessary - especially in regards to the 'creation' of SpiderGoat and Round-up Ready Cotton.

I actually do not see a conundrum at all .

They created the spider-goat by use of cloning and genetic engineering. There was no real creation at all, just manipulation and combination of preexisting genetic material.

reply to post by Yoda411


I just described a method of creationism that excludes god and you say there is no conundrum...

That would only be the case if we had evolved to genetically engineer new lifeforms. Are you saying that is our purpose? ...Or is creating new lifeforms just one of the many niches we fill?

*keep in mind I am of the opinion that life may not have evolved on earth, but may have arrived here in a manner described in my previous posts.







[edit on 20-12-2008 by Dreemer]

Originally posted by Dreemer
reply to post by Yoda411

 

I just described a method of creationism that excludes god and you say there is no conundrum...

That would only be the case if we had evolved to genetically engineer new lifeforms. Are you saying that is our purpose? ...Or is creating new lifeforms just one of the many niches we fill?

I don't believe that it is our purpose, or niche, to create new lifeforms. In fact when applied to the human being it alters the course of evolution, and could potentially wipe off all uniqueness/individuality from the human race with the growing desire to be 'perfect' within our culture. With no unique characteristics comes no unique immunity, thus our race is much more likely to be wiped off of the face of the earth via disease.

Nothing can stop this technology however, it's like the A-Bomb. Once it exists, it becomes a fuel which drives men mad with curiosity.

I would actually feel much safer if we just stick to adapting stem-cell research to everyday victims of tragedy.

[edit on 12/21/08 by Yoda411]

And here we go again. This argument is so old. The title of this post should just say "I hate Christians and all those that believe in God and here's why."
Last I checked it was still called the THEORY of evolution. (theory meaning it has yet to be proven.) I like how you skim over the whole where life first begain. It just 'appeared' as you put it. hmmmm. Sounds like solid science to me. Fact is it takes just about the same amount of faith to believe the THEORY of evolution is true as it does creation.
Here's the deal. Even if you could somehow prove evolution to be true(wich you can't) I would still believe evolution (life even in its simplest form) was started by a higher power ie. God. So your effort to shake my faith has failed. But you keep trying if thats what makes you feel better about yourself. The Lord loves you no matter what. Deal with it.

 


This is an attempt to disprove the literal interpretation and closed minded point of view in which creationists have cemented their own feet in.

Also [obviously enough] it is an attempt to prove evolution.

Edit: Removed disrespectful remark.

[edit on 12/21/08 by Yoda411]


..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 21-12-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by Yoda411



"You must be one of those delusional creationists I was referring to"

That is mean.

All he did was remind us that the 'theory' of evolution in just that - a theory.

It might be annoying as all hell, but it is a correct statement regardless of how completely unnecessary and redundant it is. :lol

By attacking him for stating an annoying fact, it only make us look bad. We must not descend into name-calling and ad hominem attacks. We must maintain both the intellectual AND moral high ground.

I certainly would never treat anyone in such a manner.
(Excluding Communists)

Last I checked it was still called the THEORY of evolution. (theory meaning it has yet to be proven.)

Oh good lord. Another creationist that doesn't know the difference between the usage of the word 'theory' in common language, and its usage in science. It is a really, really simple concept, and one that is so easilly looked up on google.

You know what, I've partaken in multiple debates about evolution and creationism on these boards, but I have actually come to realize something that I had missed for a long, long time.
Creationists are just either too stupid, or too scared to understand. I've been over-estimating them for a long time. Shame on me.

reply to post by cruzion


"Creationists are just either too stupid, or too scared to understand. I've been over-estimating them for a long time. Shame on me."

I'll repeat this as you clearly skipped over it;

By attacking him for stating an annoying fact, it only make us look bad. We must not descend into name-calling and ad hominem attacks. We must maintain both the intellectual AND moral high ground.

reply to post by Dreemer


No, it just makes me look bad.
I don't really care, to be honest. I'd rather speak the truth. A spades a spade, and a monkey is a relative.
I really don't see the point in arguing with them anymore. They are just pure brainwashed fantasists. It does not matter what evidence you have, or how well you present it, they are not ever going to get anything from it! They are already indoctrinated from childhood to believe the belief they have, and any attack on that system of belief that they rely on only serves, in the majority of cases, to bolster their convictions in that belief. It is utterly, utterly pointless, besides scoring you a bunch of ATS points.

reply to post by cruzion


I agree with your sentiments.

I feel for the agnostics - those who refuse to acknowledge either creationism or evolution. Especially when they voice their stance on ATS... too often they are attacked as being religious or creationists just because they refuse to acknowledge the 'accepted' origins of life - agnostics are still waiting for more proof.

Skyfloating is agnostic. He is still waiting. So am I.

But that doesn't stop us from using logic, which indicates Darwinian theory to be the most accurate thus far. The evidence also supports Darwin.

Unfortunately the true Origins of life will always be a mystery - until we invent time travel, or actually create a life form from base amino acids in the laboratory. This won't be far in the future either;

With nanotechnology, we are even developing the methods of manipulating the 'ingredients' into their proper places on the chromosomes. It is really just a matter of time until we crack this nut. Omnipotence not required.

'We are all made of star-stuff.'

[edit on 21-12-2008 by Dreemer]

Originally posted by JongFu
And here we go again. This argument is so old. The title of this post should just say "I hate Christians and all those that believe in God and here's why."

He didn't say that at all. It's a common misconception that evolution is contradictory to religion; in fact, the catholic church (among many others) specifically notes that evolution is compatible with Christian faith.

Last I checked it was still called the THEORY of evolution. (theory meaning it has yet to be proven.)

You're going by the popular definition of theory. In the scientific community, a "theory" is a broad explanation, supported by evidence, unifying a variety of observations. Ever hear of "gravitational theory?" As in, the "theory of gravity?"

I like how you skim over the whole where life first begain. It just 'appeared' as you put it. hmmmm. Sounds like solid science to me.

Evolutionary theory merely describes how biodiversity arose from the first unicellular life form. It does not deal with abiogenesis, or the emergence of the first living cell. That is a completely different (scientific) subject, around which are many conjectures. I believe there's a thread on it around here somewhere.

Fact is it takes just about the same amount of faith to believe the THEORY of evolution is true as it does creation.

No it doesn't. Humans share 96-99% of genes with other primates in the genus homo (depending on the species). Almost all mammals share skeletal similarities suggesting common ancestry. Whales bear vestigal hip bones (as well as snakes) from a time when their ancestors legs. We've even observed evolution under experimental conditions. This is only a minuscule amount of the huge amount of evidence (including intermediate forms) that supports evolution, whereas the separate creation of species is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

And, even if the theory of evolution was completely incorrect, saying "god did it" would still be a cop-out answer because it cannot be tested or falsified in any way.

Here's the deal. Even if you could somehow prove evolution to be true(wich you can't) I would still believe evolution (life even in its simplest form) was started by a higher power ie. God. So your effort to shake my faith has failed. But you keep trying if thats what makes you feel better about yourself. The Lord loves you no matter what. Deal with it.

There is no effort to shake your faith, as I (and I'm assuming Yoda) couldn't care less what you choose to believe in. Belief in evolution is fully compatible with belief in God (or would you call the Pope a liar?)

[edit on 21-12-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

reply to post by Yoda411


Whoa. Resorting to name calling.

First of I apologize. I realize my comments were sarcastic and I came off as a smart-ace. I guess I just get frustrated when I'm labeled stupid and delusional because I believe and know in my heart there is a God. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I can't give you an equation that proves there is a God. If I could it would render faith irrelevant.

It seems there is a sense of fear in most evolutionist. Its as though there is a desperation to prove there is no God. Like the idea that one day you will have to answer for your actions in this life is too overwhelming and terrifing a thought. So prove there is no God and the guilt might go away.

I just want an evolutionist to tell me where and when life started. To accept evolution is to have faith that something came from nothing. And who knows maybe God uses evolution to create. Who are we to say that can't be or try to say we know exactly how God works. It is insanely arrogant to think since we can't understand; it couldn't be.

Lets just say, If I'm wrong and there is no God you can be the first person to point in my face and say ha ha I told you so. And if I'm right and there is a God, I'll be the first to welcome you with open arms into the fold.

We will just have to wait and see.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by JongFu]

reply to post by JongFu


Scientists are not desperate to disprove God.
I have no idea where that paranoid statement arrises from.
If science could prove or disprove God, that would be wonderful.
Unlikely, as the hypothesis of 'God' is not testable in any way, shape, or form, and for something to be scientific, it has to be testable.
You test it - it works - you write a paper - other people test it - they either verify it or find flaws - if it's flawed, you make a new hypothesis then test it, etc etc.
That is how science progresses.
If you compare the process to religion, it would be the equivalent of scientists still only going by what Aristotle wrote.

Originally posted by centrifugal

Nice try.

Theistic evolution, intelligent design and progressive creationism are all forms of creationism. None of these creationist views contradict the theory of evolution.

The OP is attempting to disprove Young Earth Creationism.

creationism is a term that commonly descirbes YEC, it is at odds with evolution becasue creationism is the exact reading of the bible as the creation of life the universe and everything exactly as described in the bible, 24 hour periods man fully formed, each species of animal fully formed as is found today

thiestic evolution is just that evolution with a theistic twist, god created evolution and let it play out knowing where it would lead he didnt need to meddle

progressive creationism is theistic evolution but instead of sitting back and letting evolution do its thing he meddled and poked and prodded which is directed evolution rather then natural evolution

ID is a hybrid of thiestic evolution and progressive creationism but rather then let god set the whole thing in motion sit back and watch or directed it (it says both)they pull in points from creationism to try and show that god made some things with his very own hand directly, the way they are today with its irreducably complexity argument

so it wasnt infact a try at all, the way you were speaking lent your self towards theoistic evolution

Originally posted by Dreemer
reply to post by Yoda411

 

I just described a method of creationism that excludes god and you say there is no conundrum...

That would only be the case if we had evolved to genetically engineer new lifeforms. Are you saying that is our purpose? ...Or is creating new lifeforms just one of the many niches we fill?

*keep in mind I am of the opinion that life may not have evolved on earth, but may have arrived here in a manner described in my previous posts.
[edit on 20-12-2008 by Dreemer]

Actually, that spider-goat of yours is altered, not created. Just the same way selective breeding works. Take one type of dog, mate it with another type of dog and you may have a mixed look between the two depending on the recessive and domonant genes. You didnt just create a new thing, you merely altered the older version of it. In a sense, a speed up version of micro-evolution.