This theory is no more or less plausible than the theory that certain molecules on our planet billions of years ago allowed prokaryotic cells to form. Actually, scientists have done tests with electricity and various other intruments and have created life inside labs. It was in my biology book, so I don't have a source. In my opinion, the theory of evolution holds far more water than the theory of creationism. Again, as has been repeated over and over, evolution is based on observations and many hypothesises that have been tested and proven to work. Not everything in evolution is for certain. That is why we are still learning.
I know scientists have not created life, ever on this planet. If they were to create life, the odds are it would not resemble our own life and it would be one of the most amazing scientific discoveries ever to happen in the history of the world. Man did not create life. Even if this is true the life was created by something intellegent. Evolution has not and can not be tested and proven to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-C
But, how many tests have you seen that prove some invisible entity created all life? How much physical proof can you come up with to prove the existance of a God? All I see are historical writings by Nomads thousands of years ago. I will take the word of a scientist from today over the word of an ignorant nomad from thousands of years ago.
Try the invisible something that holds the atom together, any theory there to explain what holds the atom together is just that, a theory with no supporting evidence. Try the existence of even anything, it had to have started at a point, and something out of this universe must have done so. That is the only logical answer to the beginning of the universe, is something must have created everything that has always existed.
The thing about scientists throw out the past 200 years is they have always been afraid to say 'i don't know.' They just through out a random theory, declare it as fact, shoot down any body who crosses his path, then eventually his theory has come and gone. Though the belief in god lives on, i chose the longest lasting, and uncontradictory 'theory' of creation.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22
Last edited by crassus; June 24th, 2005 at 09:22 PM.
Reason: spelling error
This theory is no more or less plausible than the theory that certain molecules on our planet billions of years ago allowed prokaryotic cells to form.
Then why choose evolution over creationism if it is no more or less plausible? This says nothing except that both are a possibility. The catch is that I don't think that life can be created from non-life: see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-C
Actually, scientists have done tests with electricity and various other intruments and have created life inside labs. It was in my biology book, so I don't have a source.
If you look at the tests that scientists have done to try and create life, it is detrimental to the theory of evolution. They have never once managed to create life from non-life, no matter how good the conditions were. They have all kinds of theories, but none of them have been proven correct in an experiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-C
In my opinion, the theory of evolution holds far more water than the theory of creationism.
Yet they can't even tell you how it all began.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-C
Again, as has been repeated over and over, evolution is based on observations and many hypothesises that have been tested and proven to work. Not everything in evolution is for certain. That is why we are still learning.
My discrepancy with evolution is not with the present evolution at work today. I have already said that that is verifiable and observable. My problem is that evolution can't explain how life began, and that has neither been observed nor proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-C
But, how many tests have you seen that prove some invisible entity created all life? How much physical proof can you come up with to prove the existance of a God? All I see are historical writings by Nomads thousands of years ago. I will take the word of a scientist from today over the word of an ignorant nomad from thousands of years ago.
Since evolution can't explain how life began, and no other scientific theory has been able to adequately explain either, I think the theory that God created the universe is perfectly plausible. Process of elimination at work, although that's certainly not the only reason I'm Christian. But this is not the thread to discuss those matters at length.
P.S. I still have yet to see a scientist disprove or even replace the "ignorant nomad's" theory of how the world began.
Yes, I do believe in God. Yes, I am a Bible thumper. No, I won't stop being any of the above, no matter how much bad rep you give me.
Then why choose evolution over creationism if it is no more or less plausible? This says nothing except that both are a possibility. The catch is that I don't think that life can be created from non-life: see below.
If you look at the tests that scientists have done to try and create life, it is detrimental to the theory of evolution. They have never once managed to create life from non-life, no matter how good the conditions were. They have all kinds of theories, but none of them have been proven correct in an experiment.
Yet they can't even tell you how it all began.
My discrepancy with evolution is not with the present evolution at work today. I have already said that that is verifiable and observable. My problem is that evolution can't explain how life began, and that has neither been observed nor proven.
Since evolution can't explain how life began, and no other scientific theory has been able to adequately explain either, I think the theory that God created the universe is perfectly plausible. Process of elimination at work, although that's certainly not the only reason I'm Christian. But this is not the thread to discuss those matters at length.
P.S. I still have yet to see a scientist disprove or even replace the "ignorant nomad's" theory of how the world began.
So because evolution doesnt explain how the world began, there is no scientific explanation. People believe in something that was made up in a sad attempt to explain the unexplainable... good one. Take the easy way out, i'd rather have something left unexplained than believe in some random/wild guess as to how something works which could be completley different from how it really works, on the flip side it is possible that the explanation is close to how it really works/happend, but we simply dont know, and the possibility of guessing it right like that from the amount of information we know about life and the univierse (which is very very little) is slim.
One death is a tragedy... One million deaths is a statistic.
So because evolution doesnt explain how the world began, there is no scientific explanation. People believe in something that was made up in a sad attempt to explain the unexplainable... good one.
Life on Earth began at some point. Therefore, something must explain why life began, due to the Theory of Sufficient Reason, I believe it is called. Evolution does not adequately explain this. Thus, some other thing must explain the beginning of life. Creationism or Intelligent Design is the best theory I see that can actually explain this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G.O.A.T.
Take the easy way out, i'd rather have something left unexplained than believe in some random/wild guess as to how something works which could be completley different from how it really works, on the flip side it is possible that the explanation is close to how it really works/happend, but we simply dont know, and the possibility of guessing it right like that from the amount of information we know about life and the univierse (which is very very little) is slim.
There has to be an explanation for the beginning of life. I think you are taking the easy way out by choosing a theory that doesn't just leave it unexplained, its explanation doesn't hold water. Everybody I've seen posting in favor of evolution seems to be big on documentable proof, so I'd like to see life created from non-life in an experiment.
Yes, I do believe in God. Yes, I am a Bible thumper. No, I won't stop being any of the above, no matter how much bad rep you give me.
Well, chimpanzes and human share about 97% of the same DNA, on average*, and I'm not sure about horses and zebras--they are part of the same genus.
Actually they did a study that shows mankind has closer relations to chinps than one woman to another. Guys stay pretty much the same from generation ton generation, as the Y chromosome doesn't change much, but since girls are XX, they have MUCH more variation
lol there is atleast a tiny bit of scientific evidence in favor of evolution , what is the evidence that makes you think that creationism is better than than evolution?
lol there is atleast a tiny bit of scientific evidence in favor of evolution , what is the evidence that makes you think that creationism is better than than evolution?
a little bit of scientific evidence ?
A tiny bit? The amount of evidence pointing to one side or the other is largely in favor of evolution as a plausible theory. Again, creationism is only a hypothesis. It has no scientific background to it whatsoever. Evolution has been observed, documented, tested, etc. It is much more than just a theory.
Creationism is nothing more than a cult if you ask me. Christianity, Islam, all really large cults.
Oh, one thing about creationists in general. ou get most of your info from le Bible, right? A big storybook? The people who used the bible as a science textbook told us that the world was flat and at the center of the universe, and gave us astrology and alchemy? I laugh, for they are fools in my mind. Plenty of offense, but your track record sucks!
A tiny bit? The amount of evidence pointing to one side or the other is largely in favor of evolution as a plausible theory. Again, creationism is only a hypothesis. It has no scientific background to it whatsoever. Evolution has been observed, documented, tested, etc. It is much more than just a theory.
Creationism is nothing more than a cult if you ask me. Christianity, Islam, all really large cults.
Quite correct, but does that mean they're wrong? Not necessarily. Yeah, religion doesn't have scientific evidence in favour of it... It's been explanied numerous times in this very thread why it doesn't, why it can't. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Having faith is about having faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf
Oh, one thing about creationists in general. ou get most of your info from le Bible, right? A big storybook? The people who used the bible as a science textbook told us that the world was flat and at the center of the universe, and gave us astrology and alchemy? I laugh, for they are fools in my mind. Plenty of offense, but your track record sucks!
Funny you should bring up alchemy as if it's a bad thing... I could be entirely misinformed, but if I'm not alchemy was the forefather of modern chemistry, which isn't an entirely insignificant part of science on the whole... And I'm not sure about this at all, but I don't think people got astrology from the Bible.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: Evolution 
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22
Linear Mode
