Creation vs Evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.






;D

---

CC
We make god in our own image.





















I hate to think what bilbos looks like :-X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. ??? Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

---

I agree with you Missy in your belief in evolutionism. I support it too, but it must be remembered that it is just a theory, as is creationism.

---

So is gravity but I don't jump out of a tree expecting to fly.

---

Newtons law of gravity holds perfectly fine here on earth. It is regarded as a law in relation to things here on earth and therefore you will never go flying out of that tree. Not unless you get some kind of super storm to neutralise the gravity pull upon you for a limited time..

But the main question is, why on earth are you in the tree Missy? :-\ ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.






;D

---

CC
We make god in our own image.





















I hate to think what bilbos looks like :-X

---

Probably gold and shaped like a magic ring! ;D

Right, Miles is out of the house!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. ??? Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

---

HI Missy,

Thanks for your interesting commentr but unfortunately you have only the vaguest notion about what evolution actually is and so confuse natural selection with macro evolution.

The changes you rightyl observe in humans and of course other animal and plant species are results of natural selection, and I completely and 100% agree that natural selection is clearly a demonstrable process, mankind has been using natural selction for thousands of years, the domestication of animals, crops etc.

However all of these changes that occur within a species can occur because the gentic information, the code if you like to allow for these changes is already present in the organism.

So for exampe when selectively breeding dogs, a breeder will pair one typr of dog with another, the male and female dog both contributing half of the chromosome's and genetic material each.

Thus you can isolate certain traits and characteristics within dog species by selective breeding to produce all kinds of weird and wonderful looking dogs.

Eventually however, and in complete contrast to evolutionary theory, if you isolate dog kind enough so that end up with for example a poodle, what happend is that there is now just not much information within that gene pool. The genes have been isolated to the degree that there is now not enough genetic informtation in the dog for it to 'evolve' any further.

AS you will well know, pure pedigree dogs such as this are usally far less healthy than mongrel dogs with a healthy mix of genes, they live shorter lives and in many cases can no longer breed.

In order to create any further change in this species it has to be mated to a completely different type of dog in order to reintroduce some genetic variety back into the species.

This of course runs in complete counter to evolutionary theory and simply makes it impossible for a dog to evolve into something that isn't a dog.

These are very basic laws of biology of which Darwin, writing in the 1800's obviously had no idea.

We know now for a fact that natural selection alone cannot account for macro evolution, that is the creation of new material and genetic information into an organism that wasn't already present.

Instead of just dismissing creationism as rubbish and saying evolution is clearly true I offer you the same challenge.

Go to an evolutionary wesbite and find a single example of macro evolution, that is new information being added to an organism that leads to it becoming a new species of animal.

As the whole of life on earth occurred this way you would expect for there to be many documented examples but strangely there are none whatosever.

I will say that again, and challenge you to prove me wrong, There is not a single example in the entire evolutionary literature of new information appearing in an organisms genetic code that was not already there.

This alone destroys evolutionary theory.

Instead of just saying evolution is true creationism is rubbish try and refute my arguements ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.

I used to share that EXACT sentiment. I understand where you are coming from. Just require the same burdon of proof for BOTH of the theories. There aren't any other viable options. Either someone or something made everything, or it happened on its own. Both ideas are ridiculous, one of them is just a lot more ridiculous than the other. Just examine the absurdities....

Everything, all the mass in the entire universe compressed itself into a dot.
Then it exploded and all of time, space, and matter appeared.
This explosion put things into perfect functioning order.
Then life appeared and began to transform from a single celled organism into more and more complex organisms.

Even if all of the pieces were present (which you would still have to explain where they came from) the process of an explosion creating order is absolutely ridiculous.

To put this into a simple context....
you take all of the parts needed to assemble a motorcycle, put them in a pile in your driveway.
use a stick of dynamite to cause an explosion. The motorcycle parts assemble themselves into a fully functional motorcycle.
Then without getting any new parts, the motorcycle begins to transform itself into a car. Absolutely amazing.....

Not to mention this motorcycle can fuel itself, repair itself, and reproduce itself.....

How many times would you have to repeat this experiment to get this explosion to create a perfectly functioning motorcycle? And only one minor error could ruin the whole thing. A living organism is at least a thousand times more complicated than a motorcycle. That is what you are believing with the "big bang" theory and evolution.

Creation simply says that because we observe an extremely complicated and well designed motorcycle we believe that someone had to have put alot of work into making it.




;D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.

I used to share that EXACT sentiment. I understand where you are coming from. Just require the same burdon of proof for BOTH of the theories. There aren't any other viable options. Either someone or something made everything, or it happened on its own. Both ideas are ridiculous, one of them is just a lot more ridiculous than the other. Just examine the absurdities....

Everything, all the mass in the entire universe compressed itself into a dot.
Then it exploded and all of time, space, and matter appeared.
This explosion put things into perfect functioning order.
Then life appeared and began to transform from a single celled organism into more and more complex organisms.

Even if all of the pieces were present (which you would still have to explain where they came from) the process of an explosion creating order is absolutely ridiculous.

To put this into a simple context....
you take all of the parts needed to assemble a motorcycle, put them in a pile in your driveway.
use a stick of dynamite to cause an explosion. The motorcycle parts assemble themselves into a fully functional motorcycle.
Then without getting any new parts, the motorcycle begins to transform itself into a car. Absolutely amazing.....

Not to mention this motorcycle can fuel itself, repair itself, and reproduce itself.....

How many times would you have to repeat this experiment to get this explosion to create a perfectly functioning motorcycle? And only one minor error could ruin the whole thing. A living organism is at least a thousand times more complicated than a motorcycle. That is what you are believing with the "big bang" theory and evolution.

Creation simply says that because we observe an extremely complicated and well designed motorcycle we believe that someone had to have put alot of work into making it.




;D

---

---

Actually this motorcycle example is heavily biased in favour of evolution.

To be completely fair the evolutionist would have to create the motorcycle components and the dynamite, plus the match, the driveway and the necessary atmospheric conditions out of completly nothing first of all before he could even begin to start the experiment proper.

Any scientist achieves this and hey I'll become a believer :o ;D

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Ive read the contents of this thread with some interest...

Admittedly both creation theory and evolution theory are both only theories. A theory being just an idea. The main point of a theory is to try and find as much evidence to try and back it up and thus continue the relevance of the said theory.

I dont hold much credence to creation theory. Why do I say this? Well, firstly I argue from a scientific basis, I am not religious nor do I feel any kin with any particular faith. It seems that creation theory comes from a neglect of scientific data and comes mainly from the interpretation of religious scriptures: the Bible being being the main source. I think the Bible is a wonderful piece of fiction and like good fiction you can learn things relevant to the world around you. But to hold this work as an explanation for the world today being as it is, is just not something that fits into any rational recorded hypotheses or scientific deductions. For anyone just to say evolution theory is just lies is just ignorance of observable data. We are now able to observe data in even more minute detail via DNA. To just call this lies is somewhat naive.

Now creation theory as ive stated before is just the interpretation of scripture, writings of a religious basis. There is little to suggest that man was here at the time of the dinosaurs. In fact with the help of DNA testing of fossils we see no traces of a human type fossil being as old as a dinosaur fossil. Its not even close by an insy wincy margin of 50 million years. Man has not been on this earth since day one. And neither were the dinosaurs!

We can see evidence of evolution in DNA, genetics and fossils. We share 95 percent of the same DNA with chimpanzees. We share a lot less DNA with that of the great white shark. Think about it. Are we really that different from our ape like friends? Is it such a burden to consider that the human race is not of such "mighty" heritage? Stone age man was not writing Shakespearean sonnets, painting the Mona lisa nor running a marathon in less than 2 hours. We have got to this stage through natural processes over one heck of a long time. We dont have observable data of a human skeleton as we are now from 5 million years ago. Why? Because there isnt one. We will be able to find variations on that form though and the genetic makeup would be mighty similar to what we are made of today.

Admittedly both Creation theory and evolution theory are just theories. But for me one theory has a lot more scientific data backing it up. The other theory is supported by mainly interpreting literature. As a man that likes to follow logic and probability I have to support the latter theory.

I respect anybody's point of view and im not trying to hammer my own view down anyones throat either. This thread has been informative and friendly lets hope we can keep it that way! :)

Interesting thread, Bilbo :coolclick:

---

Hey Miles :coolclick: back, finally got someone who disagrees and so somebody to fence intellectually with ;D

As regards to your claims that the evidence supports evolution I would refute that completely. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is merely to ask you to provide us with the evidence.

If you don't mind I'll ask you some simple questions that should obviously have clear and straight forward answers to and you can go and fetch the answers. I personally think you will be suprised.

1) The Fossil Record.

You seem to believe that the fossil record is supportive of evolution. I would really love to see you demonstrate this.

As evolution occurs at an incredibly slow rate over literally millions of years then the fossil record should clearly demonstrate the slow and gradual transition from one species into another.

So my first challenge is to find a transitional fossil, ie a a fossil that clearly and demonstrabley shows one kind of creature gradually evolving into another.

Now before you mention the Archaeopteryx, remember that all evolutionists classify it as 100% bird with some peculiar reptilian features, teeth for example and a three fingered wrist similiar to some of the later dinosoaurs such as belong to members of the raptor family. Nobody now believes this creature was half bird half reptile so despite it having peculiar features it does not qualify as a missing link.

Remember that a gradual theory of evolution should actually produce more transitional fossil than complete species as it such a gradual process with literally millions of years seperating a species from it's supposed ancestor. Why are there massive gaps, and for every single species of animal on the planet?

Actually many evolutionists have now recognised this problem, most prominantly Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge. Their puncuated equilibriam theory states that actually a species doesn't evolve gradually over millions of years but rather stays unchanged for millions of years then in some isolated population a series of rapid mutations take place and the resulting rapid evolution will result in new species very rapidly in the 10's of thousands rather than millions of years. As this happens in isolated populations then of course they will leave no fossils. A nice way to explain why the fossile record is completely non-supportive of evolution! ::**


This has led to criticisms from the other evolutionary branches who argue that such rapid change resulting from mutation is impossible, considering what we now know about DNA. The equilibruists likewise counter that gradual and continuous evolution, tiny incremental changes at a uniform rate throughout history is also impossible because the fossil record disproves this.


This leads on nicely to my second point. We know as you pointed exactly how we are made literally, through our DNA. We understand that for evolution to occur at all it must be at the molecular level, something not understood by Darwin, Huxley and others when Darwinism was introduced.

In order for example for a species such as a dog to grow wings, there has to be new information added to the DNA and genetic code. Without this information you simply cannot ever have a dog producing wings. It's like coding a video game and expecting to race cars when the game is actually a medival sword game. Now matter how many times you run the game, you will never come across a car unless somebody subsequently codes it into the game.

Now lets consider this in more detail. For evolution to work at all it HAS to work at the molecular level. This means that somehow new information must get into the genetic code.

According to evolutionists this method is achieved through random mutatations, literally copying errors. I will not bore you by citing the probability calculations that have been done which completely put this in the realms of the absolutely impossible, something a long the lines of winning the lottery several million times in a row, all that is irrelevent here.

As you seem to know that there is evidence to support that random mutations can lead to an INCREASE of information withing a species that is actually BENEFICIAL rather than LETHAL to that organism I challenge you to find a SINGLE example.

Just one observed mutation in a species that led to new information being added that subsequently benefitted that organism will convince me.

As evolution is clearly true and it occurs at the molecular level and ALL OF LIFE has evolved through random mutations alone, I would make that around an infinite number of mutatations that must have taken place!

Find one!


Finally to say there is little evidence to suggest man lived contempary with dinosuars, it depends what you regard as evidence. The fossil record is irrelevent here as what you are saying is that according to your evolutionary understanding of uniformitarianism different rock strata represent millions of years and dinosaurs are buried in rocks millions of years older. However if the principle of uniforitarianism is not in fact true then the rock strata's have nothing to do with geological age and so the fossil record becomes irrelevent.

So we need to put aside both of our world views for a moment and decide to look for independent evidence that is not subject to our own particular beliefs.


For me for there to be convincing evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together I would need to see evidence of the following.

1) Folklore and a collective consciousness of such animals that clearly resemble dinosaurs. This concsiousness would need to be evident in a diverse human population across time and amongst different races, and the descriptions of such creatures should all share many commonalities to increase the likelyhood that tales were based on a shared experience of seeing similar creatures.

2) Such creatures, when described in written detail should clearly resemble dinosaurs as reconstructed by modern paleontologists.

3) There should be paintings, drawings, carvings etc of these creatures and they should look like dinosaurs as we understand them.


I would say that all three of the proof's necessary for belief that man and dinosaurs co-existed are abundant and found in virtually all races.

We all know that dragon legends abound amongst every race and tribe that has virtually ever exisited and left any traces of their civilisation. The word dragon occurs 13 times in the bible. Of course the word dinosaur does not, seeing as the word was first coined in the early 1800's by Sir Richard Owen.

Below are a few examples I have found on the net illustrating clearly the similarity between 'dragons' and modern dinosaurs......


This 'Stegasaurus' like creature is carved into a stone pillar belonging to one of the ruined temples of Ankgor Wat, built over 900 years ago
http://www.s8int.com/images2/wat-stegosaurus.jpg

Here is a sauropod painted in a cave by anasazi indians between the fith and fourteenth centruries.

http://www.s8int.com/images/anasazi.jpg


This is a very famous Roman mosaic dating 200 AD

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/a...ic/muralsm.jpg

This brass depiction of sauropods is engrave upon the tomb of the Bishop of Carlise Richard Bell who died in 1496!

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/a...aphic/tomb.jpg

Considering no man ever saw any of these creatures or even knew of their existence I think you will agree that the ancients did a pretty good job of imagining them!

Every animal in each of these pictures is instantly and immediately recognisable to us a known species of dinosuar.

That each of these paintings, engravings are as old as claimed to be is not disputed by ayone even evolutionists.

I guess you need to make up your own mind, but to me this is more valuble evidence than looking at a layer of rock strata. ;)

---

:rasta: You convinced my country ass Bilbo :rasta: :shocking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

---

Actually I would like to add the tremendous amount of legends of men "slaying dragons". They are numerous and very very widespread legends and stories. These "dragon" tales range from the fire breathing kind to water dragons that lived in lakes.

here's a good site about "dinosaurs"

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video

click on "Dinosaurs and the Bible"

yes it is a Biblical account but it is very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

---

Actually I would like to add the tremendous amount of legends of men "slaying dragons". They are numerous and very very widespread legends and stories. These "dragon" tales range from the fire breathing kind to water dragons that lived in lakes.

here's a good site about "dinosaurs"

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video

click on "Dinosaurs and the Bible"

yes it is a Biblical account but it is very interesting.

---

I find the evidence that man and dinosaurs lived contemporary with each other to be compelling, I'm glad to see someone else who agrees.

There is such a wealth of documentary evidence to suggest this that you have to be practically walking around with your eyes closed not to see it.

With recent discoveries of unfossilised dinosaur bones discovered in America, and T Rex bone fragments that appear to even still contain traces of red blood cells, the idea of millions of years seperation just seems too hard to swallow.

Furthermore when you consider the huge lumbering beasts that Richard Owen imagined dinosaurs to be in the 1800's it is absoultely remarkable that ancient man, who quite cleary would have less anatomical knowledge than paleontologists in the late 1800's describe dinosaurs in ways that match our very modern understanding of them. Creatures are described with crests, and frills, being brightly and diversly coloured, descriptions that would have been balked at just 30 years ago.

Now evolutionists are redesigning dinosaurs and rexamining how they looked and behaved, and more and more the ancient descriptions of dragons seem to closely resemble actual dinosaurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

---

Actually I would like to add the tremendous amount of legends of men "slaying dragons". They are numerous and very very widespread legends and stories. These "dragon" tales range from the fire breathing kind to water dragons that lived in lakes.

here's a good site about "dinosaurs"

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video

click on "Dinosaurs and the Bible"

yes it is a Biblical account but it is very interesting.

---

I find the evidence that man and dinosaurs lived contemporary with each other to be compelling, I'm glad to see someone else who agrees.

There is such a wealth of documentary evidence to suggest this that you have to be practically walking around with your eyes closed not to see it.

With recent discoveries of unfossilised dinosaur bones discovered in America, and T Rex bone fragments that appear to even still contain traces of red blood cells, the idea of millions of years seperation just seems too hard to swallow.

Furthermore when you consider the huge lumbering beasts that Richard Owen imagined dinosaurs to be in the 1800's it is absoultely remarkable that ancient man, who quite cleary would have less anatomical knowledge than paleontologists in the late 1800's describe dinosaurs in ways that match our very modern understanding of them. Creatures are described with crests, and frills, being brightly and diversly coloured, descriptions that would have been balked at just 30 years ago.

Now evolutionists are redesigning dinosaurs and rexamining how they looked and behaved, and more and more the ancient descriptions of dragons seem to closely resemble actual dinosaurs.

---

:rasta: I am in Agreement ! the dinosaurs sure as hell din't draw them pictures ! ;)

what does carbon dating say about ancient man's and dinosaur's bones? Maybe I'm misinformed, but I was always of the opinion that they were way off.

They don't use carbon dating to test fossil bones as supposedly the bones are millions of years old.

Carbon dating is only accurate back to around 5000 years and can be used another 5000 or so years beyond that with caution.

When it comes calculating dates of millions of year they use other radiometric dating methods with the potassium/argon method being the most commonly used.

Of course the dates given by such methods can never be verified however when the dating methods are used on rocks that we know for certain how old they are they show themselves to be way off.

One example from Hawaai. Researchers tested a lava flow known to have taken place in 1800 using the potassium/argon method.

The rocks were dated using this method as being nearly 3,000 million years old, somewhat older than the actual 200 years.

Nowadays dinosaur bones are dated by the rocks that they are found in, and the rocks are dated by the animals that are found buried in them, a rather bizarre self perpetuating circular argument.

Furthermore actual research into geological processes in action today clearly falsify the evidence for evolution.

For example the Grand Canyon is supposed to be 2000 million years old, the result of erosion from the Colarado river.

Yet when Mt St Helens, a tiny little volcano erupted in 1980 it carved out a canyon over 100 ft deep and over 100 ft wide in a single afternoon. This is 1/40 th the size of the the Grand Canyon.

So if it took just a few hours to do that how hard is it to assume that similar catastrophic events could not have shaped the grand canyon itself in just a matter of thousands of years rather than the millions evolutionists imply?

Wow we got some think tanks on this board ! very very impressive guys ! i am truly amazed at the knowledge you guys have on all this shit ~ ! I love reading about this stuff. a round of Cool Clicks for everyone ! O0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

---

Well in Jurassic Park they had the dinosaurs contained within massive security fences, guns, drugs, and all of todays modern technology and yet the dinosaurs still kicked mans ass...

If you're right, ;D i feel sorry for the poor cunts taking them on with sticks and stones. God must of been pissing himself.