FileFront Forums - Evolution

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Evolution (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/201115-evolution.html)

noone at my school think were related to apes.the girls mostly *cougidotsh

Quote:

Originally Posted by crassus

The reason this theory first came to be is the reason that most scientists simply view earth as incapable of producing life by chance. To these scientists they believe another planet has had alot more stable environment to randomly produce life. Which ultimately still follows the theory of evolution. Evolution is the belief in chance basically, that we are lucky to be here. Creation is the belief in reason, or purpose. No other theory can fit in to be reasonably acceptable.

If scientists finally prove evolution wrong, the only other option is creationism. In other words, if created by chance is impossible, created by purpose is the only answer.

Evolution has nothing to do with the question of how life began, or the reason (or lack of reason) for our existence. Evolution explains the development and diversity of life (and does so quite well), not how life initially began. Evolution, unlike creationism, agrees with observations made, such as the age of the earth, microevolution, and a fossil record that demonstrates a trend of increasing complexity in life. Evolution is much more reasonable.

If evolution is ever disproved, it will likely be a theory that has yet to be devised.

Has anyone here read von Daniken's ideas on life coming from out of space? Very interesting stuff. I personally believe that Creationism is BS if you claim that all species alive today were exactly the same at the beginning of the world, or even the beginning of human culture. I'm not sure about you, but I am not 2 hairs away from being a moose, or with the average intelligence of a pigeon with a concussion. I also do not intend to die of old age at 24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuyasha1

noone at my school think were related to apes.the girls mostly *cougidotsh

You're not 29, are you?

And crassus, you believe everything the bible says?

Quote:

Originally Posted by crassus

1. Yod@ was joking (at least I hope so, correct me if I'm wrong). Basically you can propose anything if you don't use scientific methods. I could say that I AM GOD AND I CREATED YOU and you couldn't prove me wrong. But I wouldn't go so far http://forums.filefront.com/images/smilies/smilie.gif.

2. What you mean is the "panspermia hypothesis". It doesn't say that an alien seeded the life on earth but that seeds of life are prevalent throughout the Universe and furthermore that life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating.

The idea was first proposed in its modern form by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1879, based on the ancient ideas of the greek philospher Anaxagoras.

Nevertheless, most serious scientists reject this idea because there is simply no (or not enough) evidence. Although it may sound intriguing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crassus

Here is why i believe in full creation (6 days.) I firmly believe in believing in the bible word for word. Otherwise if u take one part out, you might as well throw the whole bible out. If God meant eons instead of days, he would have said eons, not days. I'm sure they had a word that meant longer than a day.

Whatever inspired them - HUMANS without any scientific knowledge wrote the ancient scrolls for people who didn't know better.

Following generations of verbal deliverance by nomads. And rewritten and translated by following generations, always with possible alterations in the meaning. With stories left away by the Holy Church because they were possibly regarded as "dangerous".

Study theology and you may have a clue how many scrolls had actually existed before you got a hand-picked collection called "the Bible".

Quote:

Originally Posted by crassus

If scientists finally prove evolution wrong, the only other option is creationism. In other words, if created by chance is impossible, created by purpose is the only answer.

Again, evolution theory doesn't explain how life began, only how it developed. So it leaves space for a creator if you want to believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PB2AU

Has anyone here read von Daniken's ideas on life coming from out of space? Very interesting stuff.

He is at least charismatic an entertaining. And found guilty of having faked some of his "evidence".

Take some facts, some intruiging ideas, put it into a giant cauldron, stir it well et voilà: you have his view of the world.

of course i was joking

when you believe in something firmly no amount of scientific evidence can convince you that you are wrong ,

of course it can.. Only you'll have to be deaf/blind and stupid not to accept it.

Like creationists? :P And as stated before, religion doesn't have to clash with science, Darwin was a devout religious man and it took him many years ton reconcile his fasith with his theory(but he did!)

1. Note that it's the "panspermia hypothesis", not the "panspermia theory". There is no evidence for this.

2. crassus, all you have to do is think of the Bible as a guide to living a Christian life rather than a textbook. The Bible is the ultimate source of God's wisdom, and through the Bible he reveals the Gospel. To assign anything else to it is to make it less than it is.

3. Evolution is irreconcilable with creationism, because creationism demands that all creatures were created in six days, by God's command. This is an unscientific "theory", and does not qualify for serious discussion anywhere except in a religious forum. It requires that the vast evidence in favor of evolution be discounted in favor of an unproven hypothesis. This is a matter of faith, and therefore is essentially a religious doctrine.

4. How about this for a hypothesis? God created the Earth billions of years ago. As He is eternal, time is irrelevant for Him. Therefore, any time references regarding the Lord are irrational. After He created the Earth, he let it develop. Eventually, man emerged. God infused man with a spiritual being, represented by the Holy Spirit, which is what was meant by the phrase "made in God's own image".

Oh wait, that's religious, not scientific. Any integration of God into this thing is a matter of religious faith, not scientific evidence.

If you can proof that "God" is real.. then it becomes scientific... Lets face it as soon that words get out there will be alot of scientists all of a sudden..