Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by Kapyong


What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations. Who/what else should know what the problem is and if there is a problem and what to want to resolve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection higher self (that what people call god...) both evolutiontheory and religion are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

what do you think about that

reply to post by weedwhacker


OK, we agree here. But: where did all of this come from? I'm not insinuating anything, I'm just trying to understand. I don't believe in miracles you know.

reply to post by turbohenk


I LOVE YOU, Turbohenk

reply to post by jd140


This is basically my theory. My deities of choice made the stew, stirred it with their fingers and got some popcorn and sat back to watch. Zapping a little entertainment into the story now and then.

S to the Op poster. Unfortunately I can't give a flag because, it only got to 3 posts before this became an evolution VS creation argument.

This thread is about the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific setting.

I have no clue why creationism is even being brought up, and not flagged removed by staff for violation the T+C. Those posts are obviously Off-Topic as it gets.

You couldn't try harder to "derail a thread", but yet this is allowed?

I really was looking forward to an interesting discussion about how much weight is given, and should be given to scientific theory. Many of the points In the videos i was unaware of, and really wanted to see how true they were, and have other members hammer it out.

But nope just another evolution vs creation argument. So no flag, because this thread has gone way off course, and unfortunately should fall off the front page. I guess it's another win for the creationists, who seem to be immune to the T+C, and posting rules.

Originally posted by Kapyong
B.A.C. - these are all PRATTS you copied from a creationist web site without checking the facts first.

Firstly, who said anything about me being a creationist? Whether you're right or not is irrelevant, you shouldn't assume anything about someone.

I didn't copy ANY of these from ANY website, these were all hand typed. Oh, how we assume. Have you read any of the other million posts I've responded to on this thread? Which website are those tailored responses from? LOL

This whole thread has been me (save a few supporters) against everyone.

Like I said earlier, a couple pages ago, after responding to this stuff ALL day, find someone else to pick on now. My hands are sore from typing.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees with the theories of Pythagoras, or theories concerning electrical engineering

As for evolution. Yes, evolution is possible. However, theories concerning evolution don't prove the dramatic difference between apes to homo sapien. Homo sapien has existed alongside earlier homonids, and some people claim that early homonids are still living in the wild.

The Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first of a new race, not the first people ever.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'l be one of the religious nuts to respond

In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation"

en.wikipedia.org...

Why don't I believe in evolution?

It is speculation.

Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.

The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none.

Even today, this world is filled with simple one-cell structured living organisms. Why didn't they evolve?

What about the written record? The cuneiform writing system originated perhaps around 2900 BC, if man has been here evolving for so long, why don't we see evidence of it?

Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?

Answer these questions for me.

God Bless

Evolution isnt something that can be seen in a lifetime. Or for that matter 1000 lifetimes

If evolution didnt exist then why arent human skeletons found in the same stratigraphic layers as a phylum skeletons 252 million years ago?

reply to post by B.A.C.



Carbon dating is not observable in a lab either, nor are estimates about the age of the Earth and the universe

reply to post by theufologist


Thanks, I just think it's the most logical explanation

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This doesn't mean that the Black wolves have evolved to protect themselves from the hunters.

No-one said the wolves did anything deliberately to avoid hunters - please pay attention.

The point is, as the easy-to-see wolves get killed off, the proportion of hard-to-see wolves increases in the population.

That is a perfect example of SELECTION.
And selection is part of evolution.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This is an example of forced selective Breeding. Follow me?

I follow you, but you are WRONG, again - because you don't follow what evolution actually says.

"Forced selective breeding" is a fancy way of saying "selection".
And selection IS part of evolution.

This example IS evolution happening - not the whole process from start to finish, but part of it.

Of course, creationists try to pretend that because it's only PART of evolution, so it's not really evolution at all.


Kapyong

reply to post by Nola213


I don't see how they may be violating the T&C. I don't agree with them (not completely), but aren't they called to share their opinion as anybody else? Would you prefer to only read pro-evolution comments? Just my curiosity.

reply to post by cowboys703


video.google.nl...

as michael cremo has shown, there are modern skelletons of 500 million years old, but does that mean they originated here on earth?

Here is all I have to say.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Creationism is a theory as well, but it isnt even scientific...

My opinion on which is true?

Some how, I tend to by a bit into both, if that makes since.

In other words, I think that mabye what really happened is somehow a combination of both.

Is it not possible that "god's" plan for creation WAS evolution?

I don't know, Im just thinking out loud here. Is it a crazy though? I don't think so, I would not be at all surprised to find out that what really happened is a combination of both theories....

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations. Who/what else should know what the problem is and if there is a problem and what to want to resolve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection to our higher self (that what people call god...) both evolutiontheory and religion are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

what do you think about that

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

Carbon dating is not observable in a lab either, nor are estimates about the age of the Earth and the universe

WHAT????

seriously.....get some education.

Carbon dating is well-established science, not EVEN theoritical!!!

Lots of established science out there, if you open your mind to it!!

Doppler....ever heard of him? Not only in sound, but light, did his work help to achieve better understanding of the Universe we live in. Doppler, and astronomy, came together to help guage the age of the Universe....look it up, if you dare!

reply to post by Kapyong


Again, you're saying I'm a "Creationist", lumping me in with some group. Again, it doesn't take a "Creationist" to disagree with a theory. I've already stated I agree with some parts of evolution. Certainly not all of it though. You make some good points, I admit, but not enough to convince me.

Now please read the post I wrote above this one.

I'm goin to eat.

Click here for more information.

The issue I personally have with Darminism or Evolution is that it reduces the existence of living beings, such as people for instance, to an absolutely random event.

On its face such a notion is preposterous - but, the manner in which such an absurdist rationalistic notion has been forced down everybody's throats, beginning with defenseless kids in early childhood, who are unable to even think for themselves, makes a whole lot of sense especially when looked at in the overall context of western culture itself ...

If living things are indeed random events then it follows immediately that such random events have no significance whatsoever. Thus it follows that the unspoken subtext underlying almost everything American, the mantra, 'survival of the fittest,' is completely justified in theory as well as practice ...

If living beings are indeed random events and thus, as a result of merely their own nature, posess in themselves no intrinsic value, then there can be no objection on any rational, ethical or procedural basis to the wholesale and wanton destruction of said living beings for what really boils down to no special reason whatsoever.

As long as there is profit in carrying out such destructive policies, then, by definition, that's all that matters - it doesn't matter how much destruction of living beings, or as is said, killing is involved.

Consider the consequences if people were actually allowed to engage freely in the debate as to what it is precisely that makes a living being a living being ...

Our sciences are so screwed up they are still looking for a basis of consciousness in inert matter, such a the brain, etc ... I've looked into all this. Actual scientific research into the nature of consciousness is shockingly inconclusive and unproductive ...

If I weren't such a devout coincidence theorist I would almost be thinking the establishment is very committed to hiding from us the true facts concerning our own essential nature. IMHO, it would be far too empowering for us all to finally discover just who and what we actually are -- to say the least, far, far more than mere random events living out meaningless lives, which, once expired might just as well have never even been ...

reply to post by weedwhacker


No need to be rude, mister. We're just talking.