Interesting anti Evolutionary website, Darwinismrefuted.com

[Von Milash]

the big bang theory didn't happen. it's like a building collapsing to form new ones. you can't randomly form life.

[Sharla]

As I said before evolution is not the big bang theory. Also saying you dislike the theory is not enough to disprove it. You need proof you can't randomly form new life to say you can't randomly form new life. I've never seen a million dollars but that doesn't mean it's not out there! Really the odds of any of us ever being that rich are pretty low but sometimes the improbable happens.

I like to think a higher power of some kind had something to do with it but I can't say for a fact that it couldn't be random either.

[Von Milash]

you haven't read my posts, hun. evolution may have happened, but since it violates all the laws of science, someone up there had a hand in it. and if the bbt did happen to form life, that same someone saw to that, too.

based on the same simple laws of sicence, it's easier to disprove the bb as the start of life than to prove it.

[Sharla]

You haven't read my posts at all hun - the big bang theory is not what we're really discussing here. We're not even discussing whether or not a higher power exists - and I think something does although I won't say it is exactly nailed down by any religion - we're discussing macro evolution.

The simple principles of science are you can either 100 % prove or disprove something or it remains as a theory which can be backed up x amount. Scientists are not supposed to be subjective in their final conclusions without proof Von.

That's the conundrum here - people think scientists favour an outcome. We'd be much happier if we could disprove a hypothesis rather than have a Q remaining and have to call the idea that best fits what we observe a theory. if it was possible to prove a god created life at this point in time you'd have a few very happy scientists.

[Kev]

As I said before evolution is not the big bang theory. Also saying you dislike the theory is not enough to disprove it. You need proof you can't randomly form new life to say you can't randomly form new life. I've never seen a million dollars but that doesn't mean it's not out there! Really the odds of any of us ever being that rich are pretty low but sometimes the improbable happens.

I like to think a higher power of some kind had something to do with it but I can't say for a fact that it couldn't be random either.

Hey Sharla, glad to see you are still alive on this thread. Please don't take any of this personally I never meant to imply that scientists in general or you specifically were evil or that you are a liar

You post was interesting, to be honest your knowledge of biological processes far exceeds mine as I have no biological qualifications. My interest resides purely within the creation evolution debate and so I think we are both debating each other with only a limited understanding of the other's area of knowledge.

You are absolutely right in that I am not a fan of Richard Dawkins but you are wrong to think that creation and evolution are even remotely compatible. Ironically the ones who understand this best are not religious leaders and Christians in general but evolutionists like Dawkins.

Even the most casual glance at the fundamental beliefs of Christianity shows that it is simply not compatible at all with evolution in the molecule to man sense.

The bible say sin (and therefore death) entered into the world as a result of Adam's transgression. If we evolved then death was not only present long before Adam, but was also the necessary means by which God brought us into being, the seemingly mindless deaths of millions upon millions of organisms over hundreds of millions of years culminated in man being brought into the world.

I also disagree with your statement that the Big Bang and evolution are seperate. They are not. According to evolutionary theory life emerged from non life. We are the product of a purely material universe and ultimately come from star dust. The two theories are intertwined and cannot be seperated.

If the Big Bang theory is not true (in as much as it was an unguided purely materialistic event) then evolution cannot be true either. The whole purpose of evolution is to attempt to find a solution to how life could have formed by purely chemical and physical processes without design and intervention from any intelligent designer.

If the early earth enviroment as predited by the Big Bang theory is not correct then evolution fails at the first hurdle.

It seems to me that the source of disagreement between you and myself is that you always equate natural selection, adaptation etc with macro evolution and they are not the same thing.

Everything you have put in your posts I have agreed with. I do not disagree with a single one of your points, what I am arguing is that none of those points constitute macro evolution in a molecule to man sense.

I certainly don't dispute that organisms can change over time, it is an observable fact, completely undisputed. In fact a proper understanding of Christianty necessitates this kind of change, if creatures couldn't adapt the world would have long ceased to be habitable for us as everything would just die out the moment their enviroments changed.

In order for life to continue to exist organisms NEED to be able to change.

Where I disgaree, as I have said many times is that this adaptation to enviroment by natural selection is NOT the catalyst for the development and evolution of all life on earth.

In other words I believe that each animal and plant kind were created seperately and did not evolve from each other. They can change and adapt to their enviroment but subject to certain restrictions and limitations.
They cannot, no matter how much time or how many generations are allowed can ever develop into a seperate kind of organism, I don't mean species ( I believe dogs and wolves share the same ancestor, as do horses, donkeys and maybe zebra's etc).

Moreover I don't believe this because of religious bias, I believe this in the light of the scientific evidence that we have available. My belief in God came AFTER my disbelief in evolution.

[Sharla]

Interesting Bilbo - but this is the definition of evolution in Wilkipedia and as it has always been taught to me - distinct from the big bang theory.

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


As for macro evolution you can check all the definitions in the following google search result - none mention the big bang theory:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...ition&ct=title

In some specific parts of the bible you could argue that the theory of evolution goes against religion but it doesn't mean it can't be interpreted metaphorically or in the sense that there was more to the story than could be put into words. Even if evolution was proven correct it would not disprove religion just how literally it is interpreted.

Why do you insist the big bang theory must be true for evolution to be real? That to me makes no sense at all. Even if the first life forms were formed by a higher power there's no reason why they couldn't be influenced by the environment and natural selection can't take place.

Really where can you conclusively say that the environment is not at some higher level controlled by a higher power. What is to say that evolution could not be a tool used by god to shape the earth.

I am not an expert on the bible but I would think all things written can mean different things and be taken in different ways as explained in the last thread by Andre.

I'm not sure that death is mindless although I'm not in a hurry to die. You could say that organic matter is recycled into the organisms which subsist from the last. Death is recycled into life. I know it's not a Christian thing to believe in reincarnation but you would believe souls go somewhere after death so why would that be mindless? Why would it not just be a part of a journey?

Perhaps because you don't believe any organism has a soul except for humans? Perhaps we come to disagree again at the very first point we disagreed on. I feel - in a totally unprovable way - that animals and perhaps plants too have souls - of some kind although perhaps my definition of a soul is not identical to a Christian one.

What if all the organisms before the time of humans were to 'die' and have one soul existing both in the physical and spiritual world for all that time evolving with a particular purpose and that was god? Evolution could still occur and a higher power would have still created life.

I don't know that there would be only one original life form but I don't see any proof that there wasn't either as many organisms are able to reproduce asexually - without a mate.

I guess I object to the idea that people can say something IS or IS NOT correct without proof and our feelings/beliefs are not proof. Seriously as a race can we ever expect to fully understand something as big as the creation of life. I think people are foolish saying that something definitely happened in a particular way and there's no more to the story. Humans just don't have the mental capacity to fully understand or know everything and we're being silly thinking it can be summarized by any text book or bible. There will always be plenty we don't know. I think scientists know that. We just form a hypothesis and hope someone can either prove or disprove them to advance our knowledge.

[Kev]

Interesting Bilbo - but this is the definition of evolution in Wilkipedia and as it has always been taught to me - distinct from the big bang theory.

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


As for macro evolution you can check all the definitions in the following google search result - none mention the big bang theory:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...ition&ct=title

In some specific parts of the bible you could argue that the theory of evolution goes against religion but it doesn't mean it can't be interpreted metaphorically or in the sense that there was more to the story than could be put into words. Even if evolution was proven correct it would not disprove religion just how literally it is interpreted.

Why do you insist the big bang theory must be true for evolution to be real? That to me makes no sense at all. Even if the first life forms were formed by a higher power there's no reason why they couldn't be influenced by the environment and natural selection can't take place.

Really where can you conclusively say that the environment is not at some higher level controlled by a higher power. What is to say that evolution could not be a tool used by god to shape the earth.

I am not an expert on the bible but I would think all things written can mean different things and be taken in different ways as explained in the last thread by Andre.

I'm not sure that death is mindless although I'm not in a hurry to die. You could say that organic matter is recycled into the organisms which subsist from the last. Death is recycled into life. I know it's not a Christian thing to believe in reincarnation but you would believe souls go somewhere after death so why would that be mindless? Why would it not just be a part of a journey?

Perhaps because you don't believe any organism has a soul except for humans? Perhaps we come to disagree again at the very first point we disagreed on. I feel - in a totally unprovable way - that animals and perhaps plants too have souls - of some kind although perhaps my definition of a soul is not identical to a Christian one.

What if all the organisms before the time of humans were to 'die' and have one soul existing both in the physical and spiritual world for all that time evolving with a particular purpose and that was god? Evolution could still occur and a higher power would have still created life.

I don't know that there would be only one original life form but I don't see any proof that there wasn't either as many organisms are able to reproduce asexually - without a mate.

I guess I object to the idea that people can say something IS or IS NOT correct without proof and our feelings/beliefs are not proof. Seriously as a race can we ever expect to fully understand something as big as the creation of life. I think people are foolish saying that something definitely happened in a particular way and there's no more to the story. Humans just don't have the mental capacity to fully understand or know everything and we're being silly thinking it can be summarized by any text book or bible. There will always be plenty we don't know. I think scientists know that. We just form a hypothesis and hope someone can either prove or disprove them to advance our knowledge.

Hey Sharla for your continuing participation in this debate.

I think it's fair to say we will always disagree but I don't understand how you seem to think I'm being dogmatic but that you are not?

You see I do agree with your own point below

I think people are foolish saying that something definitely happened in a particular way and there's no more to the story.

but as I see it, I'm not violating this point any more than you are. My belief is that all creatures and plants on this earth were created seperately from each other, your belief is that they all evolved ultimately from one single organism and so all of life is descended ultimately from one single cell.

You object to me saying that I don't believe your view of macro evolution is correct and you see that as dogmatic and foolish, yet you don't see your objection to my belief as dogmatic and foolish.

You say i should accept that life may not have occured the way I see it, but you seem to believe that life definitely occured the way you see it.

That's just totally inconsistant. If I sound dogmatic or forceful at times it is because I am conscious of the fact that the scientific establishment allows only for their own particular view to be considered.

In America humanists are constantly going through the law courts to get any mention of intelligent design removed from the classroom altogether. In places such as Kansas the legal ruling flip flops in favour of either side every few months it seems.

If science is to be as you put it unbiased and to allow for debate where a hypothesis can be put forward and tested then all interperations need to be put on the table.

I am not against the teaching of evolution at all, I just believe that the alternative intelligent design should also be taught and both thories subject to critical analysis.

The present situation is tantamount to an indoctrination whereby macro evolution alone can be taught as the answer to the question 'where did we come from?'.

[Sharla]

I'm not saying that it definitely occurred in any particular way - just that no one can say that it didn't and there are things we find in nature and molecular biology which DO support it. Theres a difference

All of this began because you called BS to everyone who claimed to have a supernatural experience or witness something they believed to be of extra-terrestrial origin. I don't go up to my Christian friends and tell than they have no right to believe what they do but you were very quick to give a lot of forum members a good lecture about what they experienced not being what they thought it was. If you want to dish it out like that you should be able to take it back.

As for what you teach in the classroom i think it's easier to say we should teach science because scientific theories do not originate from one country or race.

Wouldn't it be racist to say we are going to teach Christianity but not other religions? In multicultural societies with so many different cultures it would be impossible to teach a religion in school without leaving out some. We'd alienate people based on religion which I think is not something we really want to do.

At least evolution is a theory and when correctly taught it is put foreward as one. It is introduced as a fluid concept that is still being researched. Religion however just seems to say "THIS HAPPENED.".

I guess that's why it's left to parents to choose how much and which religion they bring their children up with. Or for adults like yourself to decide as they get older what they believe in.

[Kev]

I'm not saying that it definitely occurred in any particular way - just that no one can say that it didn't and there are things we find in nature and molecular biology which DO support it. Theres a difference

All of this began because you called BS to everyone who claimed to have a supernatural experience or witness something they believed to be of extra-terrestrial origin. I don't go up to my Christian friends and tell than they have no right to believe what they do but you were very quick to give a lot of forum members a good lecture about what they experienced not being what they thought it was. If you want to dish it out like that you should be able to take it back.

As for what you teach in the classroom i think it's easier to say we should teach science because scientific theories do not originate from one country or race.

Wouldn't it be racist to say we are going to teach Christianity but not other religions? In multicultural societies with so many different cultures it would be impossible to teach a religion in school without leaving out some. We'd alienate people based on religion which I think is not something we really want to do.

At least evolution is a theory and when correctly taught it is put foreward as one. It is introduced as a fluid concept that is still being researched. Religion however just seems to say "THIS HAPPENED.".

I guess that's why it's left to parents to choose how much and which religion they bring their children up with. Or for adults like yourself to decide as they get older what they believe in.

Ah fair enough I didn't realise this was related to an earlier thread, can't remember what I said now but if I said something to offend you I apologise. I completely and 100% agree that you should not teach Christianity in a science class but intelligent design is at least as sperate from Christianity as the Big Bang theory is from evolution

I don't see how one theory (yours) is testable and subject to investigation but that the other theory (mine) is not. Both sides have exactly the same evidence to play with, we both have the same rocks, the same fossils, the same organisms, the same biology etc just the interperation of the evidence is different.

I don't see why belief in intelligent design is any more a belief in something that 'just happened' than is a belief in evolution?

I think as much as you criticise me for what you see as my dogmatic and preachy views, you yourself view the proposition of intelligent design with precisely the same degree of loathing and contempt making us more alike than you'd probably care to admit

Anyway I think it's pointless for this debate to continue further as we are only going around in circles, as well as probably boring the pants of the rest of the Saddo members who just want to use this board to post funny youtube vids!

I hope you don't see us as rivals on the board, I have complete respect for you and what you do. No two people agree on everything and usually when two people disagree on a subject it's actually because they both share the same interest and so actually have more in common than with a third member who knows or cares nothing for that particular subject.

Good luck with your studies, and I hope your knee recovers soon as well

[Sharla]

Good luck with your studies, and I hope your knee recovers soon as well

Thanks Bilbo CC

I'd just like to reiterate that I'm not against intelligent design - I just don't think you can disprove macro evolution and I'm not sure how you could teach intelligent design without religion.

I'm just not against macro evolution either.

I still think if macroevolution was proven it wouldn't necessarily disprove intelligent design either.

I agree though we could debate this for eons so I'll drop it if you do

[Munkymagic]

I wish i'd studied harder at school

[Sharla]

I wish I'd learnt a trade. Practical skills are so handy!

I really wish I'd spent more time doing first aid courses too. I have my first aid certificate but absolutely no confidence in my ability to remember anything i was taught over that 3 day course when it comes to the crunch!

I'm hoping I'll have time to catch up on a few of those skills at some stage. Maybe I'll be one of those people people who has several career changes over the course of their lifetime.

Basically what I'm trying to say Munky is don't worry - I'm sure you have learnt stuff and it's never too late to learn more about whatever takes your interest!

At least that's what I'm counting on!