Re: Darwinism (Evolution) vs. Intelligent Design

by **The Unnamed** Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:09 pm

God made evolution. ^_____^

by Castigo Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:18 pm

I can't argue with that theory M. All arguments against it can be debated with "God did it"

by **Skate6566** Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:41 pm

But you can't prove goddidit.

I agree, though. You can't argue faith; for or against it. That's why I find it illogical and tossed it years ago. If god can be proven I'll believe it; if not then I'll stick with my atheism.

But this is an Evolution topic, so I'll pass on the religious debate for now.

by Guest Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:25 pm

Skate6566 wrote:
Dark_of_the_Night wrote:ok time for me to join in with my suprisingly short rebuttle

point one- darwinism is the beleif that a God created us and we evolved to fit our surroundings
point two- evolutionism is a religios beleif BY DICTIONARY DEFINIATION because noone was there to see it we have no document of it and we have no proof of it, there for you are beleiving in something you cannot see here or touch thereby needing faith thereby being classified as religion
point three- there was a bunch of rocks that collided and we came into existance. by scientific LAW (law's higher then theory haha ^^) nothing can come from nothing, everything has to have an origination or something that it was created from. So where did that debree come from? and that debree? and that debree? ect ect ect, somewhere along the line a being that defied science had to butt in and create something or another. otherwise, there would be nothing =D

Point one: Darwinism doesn't exist. It's a creationist slur used to attempt to downplay Darwin's scientific discoveries. It has nothing to do with a God.

Point two: Read my previous post for just a single example of observed evolution. There are plenty more, as well as evidence in the fossil record.

Point 3: Gravity is a scientific law, but is also "just a theory". Also, you talking about something coming from nothing is off topic; that's abiogenesis, not evolution. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

check out darwins official manuscript stating the theory of evolution, last page, states that a creator made us. what. now.

actually it is very on topic, how did that debree that created us come to be? and where did whatever that come from come from? ect ect. your trying to pass off my point as off topic but its a valid point, its a scientific law that nothing can come from nothing. so somewhere along the line SOMETHING that defies science had to intervene.

by **Skate6566** Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:22 pm

Yes, he does say that, however he does not say evolution is wrong. I'm literally looking at the origin of species right now.

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependant upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth and Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved

Keeping in mind that Darwin was unable to publish what he actually thought because of persecution, as well as his reluctance to come to a conclusion that left out a creator.

But note what he thought; a creator created a single or few life-forms and they then evolved. This is what M was getting at, I believe.

So, no, Darwin did not "denounce" evolution or what have you at page 529, only that it's an interesting concept to think that all of these lifeforms had originated via natural laws.

Finally, as I said, it deals with the creation of the universe, not the origin of life. I'm not denouncing it as a point, I'm denouncing it as being on topic.

by **The Unnamed** Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:28 pm

[This was supposed to go after Sammy's last post, but Josh got to replying first.]

Dark_of_the_Night wrote:your trying to pass off my point as off topic but its a valid point, its a scientific law that nothing can come from nothing. so somewhere along the line SOMETHING that defies science had to intervene.

How about something that defies evolution, not science. After all, science/logical reasoning is a part of this world, and thus a part of God's creation. You kind of need to use science/logic in a debate anyway, unless you're purely discussing matters of faith with someone else who is also faithful. Obviously, you can't really throw faith at someone who only understands scientific reason if you want him to come to terms with your views. They just won't see anything in it. So fight fire with fire! {Personal opinion.)

(YAR, RIGHT. BACK ON TOPIC.)

Josh - Yeah, scientifically proving that evolution is God's doing is pretty hard to prove. At the same time, it's admittedly hard to answer the question, "so where and how did evolution all start?" Sure, there's the Big Bang and all that, and the absolute right conditions on earth, and the little spark that caused life to form (my guess is that it all started with something you'd hardly recognize as living; the idea on this page is interesting). Still, even with all of those billions of years going by, it's pretty hard to imagine the universe and life creating itself. The evidence behind the theories are just too thin. But: imagine a (possibly scientifically explainable!) outside source, beyond just the universe. Call it God if you want, whatever. Who knows what it is, what form it takes, how to even form it into an idea! Maybe science will find out when your great-grandchildren are dying! That would make the whole thing a little more believable. It's plausible by science, isn't it? Ever consider that we're a speck on a banana that's being experimented on in some unimaginably colossal alien chemistry class?

Sammy - I don't think that whatever Darwin said about his evolution theory matters much to the evolution theory itself. Whether or not he said or believed that there is God and he created everything, evolution can still stand alone without it, unharmed. It's like if I found a new mathematical idea: x + 1 = 2, so x = 1. Then I say, well actually, it's wrong. I lied. Yet, whether I believe I lied or not doesn't matter--people can still go in and check to make sure it's true.

by Guest Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:26 am

i never said darwin denounced evolution in his manuscript, although he DID denounce it later because evolution is based on the fact that there is nothing smaller then a blood cell in a human body, DNA is smaller then a blood cell, therefor his equations collapse and it is impossible, he recognized this at a later date, i said that darwin state a god created the universe and then we evolved, and josh, you are GUESSING that darwin didn't publish what he thought, you have no proof on it, and actually it is relovent, since most tie in the big bang with the theory of evolution and since we're talking about creationism that is the CREATION of the universe, therefore we must speak of the beginning of the universe, so if anyone can tell me scientifically where the universe came from and where every single material was created i will give them a victory. until then i still use it as a valid point.

by **Skate6566** Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:39 pm

Dark_of_the_Night wrote:i never said darwin denounced evolution in his manuscript, although he DID denounce it later because evolution is based on the fact that there is nothing smaller then a blood cell in a human body, DNA is smaller then a blood cell, therefor his equations collapse and it is impossible, he recognized this at a later date, i said that darwin state a god created the universe and then we evolved, and josh, you are GUESSING that darwin didn't publish what he thought, you have no proof on it, and actually it is relovent, since most tie in the big bang with the theory of evolution and since we're talking about creationism that is the CREATION of the universe, therefore we must speak of the beginning of the universe, so if anyone can tell me scientifically where the universe came from and where every single material was created i will give them a victory. until then i still use it as a valid point.

No, evolution is based on the idea that
A. Genes are passed along to offspring
and
B. Mutations occur

I'm simply saying that it could have happened that way; he was suppressed by the Catholic Church from letting his findings out.

Finally, I have two points to make. It is not on topic. We are dealing with creationism and ID in the sense of organisms, not the universe. I refuse to make this point again. Also, just because we don't know how something happened, doesn't mean we can fill in the gaps with an even less understood idea.

by Castigo Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:56 pm

Just reminding you all, the debate is about Intelligent Design, not Creationism. These things are different.

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

by **Skate6566** Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:31 pm

Sammy has been saying creationism, I'm simply replying to her points. And it says creationism in the OP.

by EliKri Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:44 pm

Castigo, u r right tthat most of this topic is made of theorys, but u are wrong about symbiosis proving natural selection and survival of the fittest as wrong. in fact some symbiotes are parisitic, thus supporing darwins theroys. in fact creationism and darwinisim could both be right, as they could easily coexist. darwinism does not say we eloved from monkeys if you read his theroy. it simply states survival of the fittest, and natural selection help bring about changes in species of animals and this required for a creature to adapt to their enviornment

by surrenderforever Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:11 pm

I know this topic is extremely old, and therefore nobody will reply to my thinking, but I agree with creationism. After all, as many people have already mentioned, both sides of the "equation" are made of opinions, and theories. Unless you are a Christian, you probably won't agree with Creationism, since you have to believe in God in order to fully understand and trust in it. And, if you are a Christian, you definetly won't agree with Darwin's Theory.

That being said, it seems as if the world is biased toward Darwin's Theory. Instead of talking about multiple theories, they only say one. None of the textbooks have anything about Creationism. It's as if they truly believe that Darwin's Theory is correct, and instead of looking at another theory when problems occur, they instead change the whole idea of Darwin's Theory in order to have it be how they like it; so that all the problems have solutions that they made up.

'Course, that was extremely biased by me, but you probably get my point. :]

by EliKri Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:28 am

surrenderforever;

Beliving in Darwins actuall theory doesnt mean u cant belive in creationism. Darwins original theory has been manipulated over the yrs by scientists who are trying to prove creationism wrong with the wrong motivation. in fact, if u didnt know, Darwin himself was a christian, and he belived that a higher power contributed to animals adapting the way they do. his theory is basically just saying that all creatures slowly evolve (change) to better meet their needs in a surrounding, and god is the reason they evolve

by Guest Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:29 pm

Ohhboy.
I think people's take on evolution depends on how much they actually KNOW about evolution. Also...I think you need to know a lot about both "theories" to argue credibly against either.

First of all...There is NO scientific evidence to prove the theory of evolution that we came from primates. Example: In order to have proved that theory of evolution correct, the earth would have to have been around for more than 10,000 years. It hasn't been. If the earth was over 10,000 years old, we would have no comets. And that's just the beginning.

Secondly, Darwin HIMSELF admitted that his theory could easily be disproved. If you want to know where I found this, I'll find it again and give you the link so you could check it out yourself. (:

I could debate about this all day, but it all comes down to how open-minded people are. A highly intelligent person once told me that, "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence." We were, of course, talking about the existence of God. I think it takes someone who is willing to be open-minded to believe in God, simply because it requires faith. There are a lot of people out there who are, "too smart for their own good." What I mean by that is, people who are that intelligent question the existence of God because you can't see, hear, smell, touch Him. I'm not saying only those with a high intelligence question His existence. Just that the majority of those who do, are. I hope that makes sense... I could go on and on, but I think I've typed enough for now, sooo... Smile

by **Skate6566** Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:49 pm

It's almost like nobody here payed attention during biology...
----------
No proof of common ancestor? It really isn't hard to use Google. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Proof+of+common+descent.
-
Here's another good link about common ancestry (with fossils) that we used in school. http://www.dnai.org/d/index.html?m=4,1.
-
And again, about the age of the earth, you can just google and get a good answer. Like here, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold.
-
Though I'm intrigued; how does the age of the earth have any bearing on the age of the cosmos and comets? I didn't realize comets directly developed on the face of the Earth, and not in space! How stupid of me!
-
--
About Darwin, though, I must ask: Since when is a theory's stability based upon who believes in it? Reality is not a democracy - it doesn't change, no matter who believes in it. So what's it matter if Darwin denounced evolution on his deathbed, or whatever nonsense you're trying to peddle now? The idea's existence doesn't require anybody believe it.
--
And of course we need to be open-minded. Just not so open-minded that our heads fall out now Wink

by befan09 Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:40 pm

no offence but this is a really stupid topic because people are going to post what they beleive in its basically a post with who beleives in God and who doesn't

by Guest Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:37 pm

@Chris: If you actually knew ANYTHING about what we're talking about, you would know what you just said (when applied to people who are in it for the debate and not to hit people over the head with a Bible or shove evolution down people's throats) is stupidity in and of itself. And who cares IF people post whether or not they believe in God? If you don't like it, don't debate. (:

@Josh: It is VERY simple to Google stuff like that. However, to disprove micro-evolution in one sentence: There have been no fossils or anything otherwise in the Precambrian layer of the earth. Secondly, in reference to your comment about the age of the earth having anything to do with comets and such, if the earth were over 10,000 years old, we would have no comets because: Every time a comet circles the Earth, a layer of it is burned off by the sun. The sun would have completely destroyed all of the comets.
Thirdly: A theory's validity is not based on who believes in it. However...Don't you think that if the man who CREATED the theory realized that science could not and WOULD NOT ever prove the theory of evolution, (I'm talking micro-evolution here,) shouldn't that be of some consequence? (: Just a thought.

by **Skate6566** Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:23 pm

There most certainly are fossils and other stuffs in the Precambrian layer of the earth. I didn't preform much research on it aside from Googling "Precambrian fossils", but it seems to give us a pretty informative website: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm
--
Isn't that assuming that it's always happened? If there was no Earth present for them to circle, I suppose they'd be preserved, eh?
--
And finally, definitely not. People's brains deteriorate over time. Not to say that just because you don't believe in evolution means your brain is sub par, just saying that people's beliefs can get less and less rational as their lives progress, especially when it comes to deathbed conversions and the like

by Guest Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:35 pm

Point taken, Josh. I find it difficult to debate with you...You always make me feel stupid. HAHAHA

by **Skate6566** Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:30 pm

Aw I certainly don't mean to.

by EliKri Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:16 pm

Skate6566 wrote:First mistake: Connecting evolution with the origin of the universe. That's the big bang and/or abiogenesis. This topic is about evolution. Perhaps we should stay on topic?

Though I should point out - Even if you disprove all of science, it doesn't make Creationism or ID true. That's like proving dogs are the best animals ever by putting down cats; you're assuming it's black or white. Just pointing that out, no specific reason.

yes ur are right on this, and hes gotta point. the 2 are competly diffrent areas of science, so lets stay on topic lol and actually, the concept of evolution is NOT a theory, it is scientific fact, however the means of which are theories. just pointing it out

by **Skate6566** Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:17 pm

its a scientific law that nothing can come from nothing.

Nobody suggests that a fully developed cell came from nothing. As far as evolution is concerned, the following is completely off-topic, but I figure it can't hurt to toss it in here.

There is a sort of gap between evolution and the origin of Earth, and this gap is the origin of life. Now, evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life, and shouldn't even be mentioned here, but again, I don't see how it could hurt.

An experiment done in 1952 (1952, that's before most of our parents were born) simulated the theoretical conditions in the primordial earth, what would have been in that gap between things started evolving and when the earth came to be. This experiment, called the Miller--Urey experiment, showed that, under the theoretical conditions of the primordial earth (lightning, methane, ammonia, etc.), amino acids could show up. 5 different ones were confirmed to be seen when the experiment was originally conducted, and in 2008 we reexamined Miller's vials from the original experiment and saw 22 different amino acids.

Amino acids, being the main part of DNA and RNA and thus life, came from basic, lifeless chemicals.

Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307

/walloftext

by EliKri Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:49 pm

[quote="Skate6566"]

its a scientific law that nothing can come from nothing.

Nobody suggests that a fully developed cell came from nothing. As far as evolution is concerned, the following is completely off-topic, but I figure it can't hurt to toss it in here.

There is a sort of gap between evolution and the origin of Earth, and this gap is the origin of life. Now, evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life, and shouldn't even be mentioned here, but again, I don't see how it could hurt.

An experiment done in 1952 (1952, that's before most of our parents were born) simulated the theoretical conditions in the primordial earth, what would have been in that gap between things started evolving and when the earth came to be. This experiment, called the Miller--Urey experiment, showed that, under the theoretical conditions of the primordial earth (lightning, methane, ammonia, etc.), amino acids could show up. 5 different ones were confirmed to be seen when the experiment was originally conducted, and in 2008 we reexamined Miller's vials from the original experiment and saw 22 different amino acids.

Amino acids, being the main part of DNA and RNA and thus life, came from basic, lifeless chemicals.

my friend, you are misinterpreting the reason for the experiment i think. yes, while it is true that the miller -urey experiment was reveiwed in 2008, and found such amino acids, if you take a closer look, you will see that technically amino acids can in fact be considered alive in a sense. not to mention, and i stress, the fact that this primodial earth is purly theortic. evolution does not really occur untill AFTER biogenesis and after life occuered on the planet. as for the reason for reveiw, i think it had more to do with genetics then evolution, and this is not a debate topic for genetics. PLEASE lets stay on topic?

by **Skate6566** Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:13 pm

As far as evolution is concerned, the following is completely off-topic, but I figure it can't hurt to toss it in here.

by Sponsored content