I don't understand - why are you asking questions about evolution in the religion forum?
Ah - you mean that it proves once and for all that your religion is wrong and a god did not create you?
I meant , I am asking to let you think with me and answer
have to admit ya lost me here
did any1 get what you mean ?
Most likely everyone except you
But I will explain it if you like:
You are asking questions about the scientific theory of evolution in the religion forum because you have realized that it proves your religion is wrong and you were not created by a god in your present form. You evolved........ Simple.
at least , I am open minded to your theory and you are not to mine because you want a God plays with your rules
Keep on questioning evolution when you have spent hours arguing that it does not happen because your bronze age religious book says something else doesn't exactly lead me to believe that you are open minded about it.
They are not my rules eng m - they are nature's.
Mark Know-less; Will you leave that man alone and get back over here! I'm still waiting for your response about Josephus. Sorry, Eng.M, but he's running from me. CIAO
The rules or laws of the Spirit realm gave birth to nature. PERIOD
Because the founder of evolution became Christian. Hence the connection
Are you talking about evolution of species?
It could either be the Blue Algae (Scientifically) or Because Adam and Eve had sex and gave birth to too many children. These children again had sex with each other (Maybe they forgot they are Brothers and Sisters) and gave birth to more children …….Continues till infinity.
Get thee to Wikipedia: Inception of Darwin’s evolutionary theory
Dear Mr. Atheist. You are alright with me. You give christians crap. You won't get any flack from me about that. However, I should inform you that the bible doesn't tell us exactly how every life form came about. Yeah, in simple King James language it appears that God instantaneously created everything, from land to beast to man. Not really though. Even if evolution were totally factual, it wouldn't go against anything scriptural. Look, it is obvious by the words of scripture that the 6 days of Genesis were not 24 hour periods. There is scriptural proof for this. It doesn't tell us exactly how long they were but I say they are very long periods of time. It doesn't even say that Adam was definatelly the first man. Mankind was created on day 6. It later says that there was no man to tend the garden and poof, came Adam. One instant creation in all of Genesis for sure. I can even show strong evidence for the creation of dinosaurs and why this is so, on day 5. When I was shown this it blew me away.
But as far as natural evolution? Couldn't happen. A cell is way too complex and several features of life could not have evolved. One protein couldn't even have evolved. I don't say this with scientific authority. I say this with common sense.
Dear Mr believer but different to the Christians.
Your common sense says "Evolution could not have happened naturally. Nothing happens naturally. There is always a god pushing the buttons." ?
Please tell me how you come to this conclusion, because this really tells me that you do not understand the mechanism of evolution.
If you jump to the conclusion that there is a god controlling the process and there was an ultimate goal in mind when the process was started, this basically makes the theory null and void.
It only stands as a theory because it is indeed a natural process whereby species change and adapt to changing conditions. The moment you add a goal or a "designer," it does not work as a viable theory.
"A cell is way too complex and several features of life could not have evolved."
We all started as one cell. A blastocyst. Then develop into extremely "complex" individuals.
What did you mean by this? Does that mean you think that statement is wrong?
My appologies. I have no idea what a blastocyst is. I believe we had a blast assist from God known as the Big Bang Theory but I'm unaware of that particular spelling.
Let's see. Blastocyst, blastocyst. Early embryo, something. Aaaahhh, so you're talking about all individuals 9 months before birth. Gotchya.
Sorry to butt in. I think this might actually be appropriate, to answer you question to me (Mark). Here is just a "simple" example (again) http://www.cellsalive.com/cells/cell_model.htm
Complex "unity" at life's simplest level. Take away any one (organelle) part of the cell, and it ceases to function (live). For every one of these parts to "naturally" (at random) come together is PROPOSTEROUS.
And even if I were to really stretch my imagination all the way to your side of believing it "did" happen. What on earth for? Purposeless, meaningless aimless chemicals.
And you accuse me of believing in "magic".
You have not answered the question.
I totally understand that you believe that it is not possible for anything to come into being naturally. I get it. Yes - I know you believe there must be a god making things happen. I know you think it is too complex to have come about naturally. I understand what you are saying. Yes, I get it that you think it is PROPOSTEROUS that life could arise for no purpose. I understand that you think life is meaningless unless there is a god in charge. I get it. You do not need to repeat that life is aimless and meaningless unless there is a god who needs to be worshiped and he sent his only one son down to save us from the sin we are born into. That was not the question. This is the question:
How did you come to this conclusion?
How did you come to this conclusion?[/b]
A personal encounter with Him.
Right - which brings me back to what you said was NOT true:
You already believe that a god created everything, therefore it is not possible that life arose naturally and a god created everything. No rationale. None.
And postulating the god is the first step.
I didn't want to NOT answer your quetion. I din't think you really wanted to know, other than to give the response you gave. I expected it.
But like I said before, (if you got it) I was NOT a believer at one time. I did NOT have a pre-existant bias. I took all that was taught me about evolution etc, at school. It did NOT answer my questions. It was an "accident" that I stumbled upon Him. He answeres all my questions (rational enough to me). Very subjective, I know, but I am responsible for my own life, (also very subjective).
My point is that you are trying to rationalize your belief by saying that you have some evidence that life cannot arise naturally which therefore means there is a god.
To be perfectly honest - what would make a damn sight more sense to me - if this so-called god did create life - is that what he did was throw a bunch of stuff into a primoridal soup and see what came out of it.
Which means no purpose other than curiosity
That's only becasue you don't know what the result would be. I think they call that the "suk it and see" method. He has one advantage in this area, He knew(and knows) the end from the beginning. There are NO surprises.
Mark, when did I ever say that such evolution should be considered theory? It's a failing hypothesis. The most simple protein couldn't put itself together by chance. The problem with evolution is that the entire hypothesis from slime to man is lumped into one impossible theory. Life goes through and has gone through many changes. But I know of know example where any cell gained new genetic information. If you know of one, let me know.
Ummm, do you think theory of evolution should explain how world was created, and how clouds are formed, and what is inside the Earth, and why I have a heartburn and did not have it yesterday?
To the best of my knowledge, it was never meant to explain how the first cell came into being, it's point always was and is how life forms were changing AFTER they started. What is so hard to grasp here?
Maybe not, but if you don't know that, how can you take the rest seriously? How can you go to a destination, when you don't know where you are (at the start)?There is no scientific evidence that information is added to DNA, which is critical for (upwards>to more complex)evolution. We do have evidence of mutation, which is always (in my knowledge) recessive, and NOT dominant. (IE loss of information).
More to the point - how can you get to a destination when you start from a make belief point?
So - are you saying now that we did not evolve ?
And seriously - you do not need to invent a destination either.
I have been saying that all along. What have you been reading? Did you have a play with the interactive cell website? Cool Huh? Any response to that yet? Oh,BTW, I posted that in the science forum, for further discussion.
Ah - well if you are prepared to ignore all the evidence for evolution and go back to your bronze age myth that we were created in our present form, I think I can take everything else you have said with a very large pinch of salt.
I mean - how do you expect anyone to take your theory of a magical super being in the sky seriously if you cannot accept a well established scientific theory with mountains of evidence for it?
Sorry? What are you not understanding about evolution? You think evolution explains the beginnings of life? Like I said earlier - clearly you do not understand evolution. Allow me to help you out. Some time ago, I started a thread explaining as clearly as I could evolution theory:
Ignorance is not an excuse
Have a read and see what you think. In the meantime - I will await the evidence that have collected that proteins cannot form naturally.
I am assuming that you have some evidence?
For your information, I know plenty about the Theory of Evolution. I see many problems with it. But what's important to remember is A first, then B and finally C. There are numerous problems with B. Most scientists wouldn't touch A(biogenesis) with a 10 foot poll. Here's a more recent problem with this unworkable hypothesis:
Problems with the evolution of proteins:
The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids and some contain thousands. If you change a single sequence of these AAs the protein becomes useless (in other words, not a protein at all). Each AA must be in the right order. There are 20 different types of amino acids making up proteins. Each of these 20 AAs is either right handed or left handed (something about their mirror symmetry of structure). Either of these types of AAs can bond with one another. However, all the proteins in plants and animals regardless of complexity are made up of left-handed amino acids. If a right-handed amino acid attaches to the structure of the protein, it becomes useless. This has been proven through experiments where bacteria was exposed to right-handed AAs and were destroyed immediately.
The opposite problem arises for the nucleotides making up the nucleic acids for DNA and RNA. Those nucleotides must always be right-handed or the DNA and RNA will be destroyed.
Next we can explore the impossiblity of amino acid evolution in in a primordial earth that they now know, contained oxidation.
Maybe you don't understand the Big Bang Theory. Or you hate it because it points to creation.
If you knew anything at all about the theory of evolution - you would not have mentioned abiogenesis.
Sorry you are unable to grasp this basic principal that evolution is not in any way attempting to explain the first spark of life.
Perhaps if I used smaller words? Break them up a little?
E - vo - lu - shum do not try to say how life start.
it ex-plane the diff-rent an- i- mals.
As to big bang pointing to creation? I have no idea. I do not understand what a quark is. Creation by a god? Who knows ? Oh yeah - you do
Oh and here is a simple picture for you explaining how different species evolve.
Hope that helps........
A bear, a duck and a platapus. Wow, see? I know as much as evolutionists know. Now, for problems with your e-v-0-l-u-t-i-o-n minus origins: (didn't you ask for proof that proteins can't evolve? Perhaps your memory didn't evolve with the rest of ours. Or there was a genetic loss in your personal gene sequencing for memory.)
Evolution of the eye (impossible, however the loss of sight may be feasable such as with cave fish)
Evolution of hearing (impossible, perhaps sonar is much more easily evolved )
evolution of immune system (see if you can find anything from a real scientist about that one)
Evolution of flight (Impossible, however, the loss of flight may be shown in the record)
scales to feathers? Not possible.
Arms to flippers? Who knows. Perhaps some resequencing of genes or a loss of info could cause this.
Arms to wings? Not possible. (besides, the process would cause such a disadvantage that every preditor would key in on the non functional limbed animals in transition.
Loss of limbs? Possible and maybe likely.
Evolution of sex? Weren't cells comfortable splitting? What's with the male and female thing? (ha ha, I said thing)
Evolution of instinct? (check out the honey bees)
Evolution of human intelligence and conciousness? No way!!
Evolutionairy trees based on homology are full of holes. Science has found several creatures of similar homology that have very dissimilar DNA (and there's more to it than DNA). I learned on a nature show a few years ago that there is a small rodent like creature more closly related to an elephant than a mouse. How bout the Tazmanian Devil? Is it of wolf lineage or marcupial. And on and on.
Punctuated equilibriam-an attempt to answer for the giant holes in the fossil record. Look it up.
Now for your scholarly 10 facts of evolution from your hub:
1. No crap!
2. No crap!
3. No crap!
4. No crap!
5. No crap!
6. No crap!
7. No crap!
8. No crap!
9. No crap!
10. Mostly speculation relying on some very weak science.
Keep giving them fundies hell though.
All you are doing is demonstrating an ignorance of evolution here. Merely saying things are impossible with no facts to back that up is not enough. But let's just take one of these impossibilities ratherthan trying to deal with all of them:
The eye cannot evolve? Why not?
As for the lack of 100% perfect fossil record.
As opposed to the 100% lack of evidence for a god?...........
Impossible. You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.
If God created your eye, then he's a pretty lame designer. Meanwhile, before you toss the word impossible around, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra … 11_01.html
Hearing's barely a chink in the evolutionary armor. You do realize that the ear is involved in things like balance and not just auditory perception. And that fish have auditory systems? Anyways, here's a paper. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11033242
There is more literature on the evolution of the immune system than you'd think. It's a very old and studied scientific subject dating back to the 1800s. In fact, most colleges and universities have undergrad courses on exactly this. http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BI … n%2005.htm
Here's a site that'll walk you through how and why flight evolved. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrate … volve.html
You've bandied that word impossible around like you know what it means.
Pay attention to the creation accounts and you may notice that the children of Adam and Eve never had to have sex with each other. Just don't ask christians about that because they haven't a clue.
You guys don't like the word impossible? Well let me change it to very unlikely. For instance, it is very unlikely that lottery numbers will come out the same thousands of times in a row. I do not want to belittle the work of scientists with evolution. They know way more than I do. But much of what they say does not require a rocket scientist to undermind. And I believe there is alot of blindness involved and often the facts of evolution are insisted to such a degree that the research is designed to show things that aren't really there. I don't believe there is a clear hypothesis on the evolution of the ammune system. As far as the human eye being a bad design? That oppinion would be refuted by several accredited scientists. I'm not impressed by the light sensetive spot happening on some Cambrian worm. That spot would take so many steps on it's own to have any effect. And I won't even mention the Cambrian Explosian. I don't need to.
By the way Mr. Knowle hypthesis, I don't need to prove God's existence. The scriptures pretty well do that for me. You wouldn't understand, so don't try. Spiritual things are invisible to the spiritually blind. That vision only comes from God. He'll show you when He's ready to.
So why exactly are you here spitting your "vision" to blind? God will take care of this, why do YOU bother?
Since we're discussing probability theory, you might be interested to know that the way you're using it to suggest impossibility does not satisfy the probability axioms. Comparisons to the lottery are inaccurate. As for the expectation that all gaps must be filled for the premise to work, you're only saying that because you wish that were the case. And accredited scientists disagree on a whole host of things. So what? Also, punctuated equilibrium, which is what I presume you're referencing is not a refutal of Darwinism. On the contrary, it is a point of view within evolutionary theory that for some inexplicable reason creationists like to pretend means something other than what it does.
You said Cambrian period. You realize that's over 1.5 million years ago? By Creationist young earth logic, that's before the dawn of time.
You have many ways of arguing for the existence of God and yet you choose the path of most idiocy. Your exact argument (discounting other methods of theist argument) is equivalent to me writing a book about imaginary X and then claiming the proof of imaginary X is that my book exists, not imaginary X. Hell, I could take this one step further and say to you "Acceptance of rational beliefs and facts are impossible for the rationally blind. It comes from using your brain. Someday you will when you're ready to be something other than an irrational twit." See how condescending that is? Yeah, that's what you just said.
Hey Einstein, the Cambrian period started about 540 million years ago, not 1.5 Billion (I know, you said million but assume you meant billion). Shall I write all of the zeros out so you won't mistake me for a YEC? Talk about condescending. Also slanderous. Need another example of your condescending slander? I wouldn't expect all gaps to be filled for evolution to be true. I wouldn't expect so many fossils to be relatively the same though. Darwin never suggested anything similar to punctuated equilibriam. This would be almost the opposite of uniformity. The problems with it are numerous. But what choice did they have when fossils were never in uniform transition?
I like how all the evidence was just ignored. I'm perfectly willing to accept I got the date wrong for the Cambrian period. I think it's hilarious the point you're trying to make by randomly assuming 1.5 billion though.
Umm you realize that Stephen Gould, the originator of punctuated equilibrium, believes that his theory lies within Darwinism's framework? It is accepted to be a model of Darwinism, as in it posits a different model of gradualism (which was never about evolution moving at a constant speed anyway). What you're doing is taking a dispute over the model for gradualism and using that to discredit the entire theory.
Gould himself was a Darwinist. Have you heard of Project Steve in his honor? It was a parody list involving all the scientists who support evolution whose first name happens to be Steve? Gould and his theory are in no way creationist. The list was meant to show how much more accepted evolution is as a scientific theory even when reducing all of one side to a single variable. There really isn't a scientific debate about the validity of evolution, so your repeated claims of impossible are misguided.
Besides, if you did think evolution was impossible, you wouldn't even cite punctuated equilibrium.
Well, using this condescending "If you were ready god would have shown himself to you," approach is not really very constructive. I understand you think that it gets you out of any sort of burden of proof, but that is not the case.
I do not really understand why you are choosing to attack scientific theories that you clearly do not understand though...
It is not like believing in a magical super being - you can actually read real information and learn. You don't have to just make up an interpretation of some old bronze age myth that conveniently fits your irrational belief.
Ok so you're denying things that have research and proof to back it up? Can I say that the existence of God is "impossible". No, of course not. But to say something that has substantial proof, evidence, research, mechanisms, pathways etc. doesn't occur is kinda strange.
"Evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." These changes can come about from genetic mutations (proven through karyotypes for human chromosomes, one example), new combinations of genes (humans), etc.
Do you think that a species always stays the same, throughout it's entire course on the planet?? Each generation is the same as the one previous?
The research is not designed "to show things that aren't really there" if a pregnant woman gets an amniocentesis and her baby's karyotype shows a mutation in a chromosome, did the doctor make that up? Did the scientist alter that fact? Is it "just kidding" and showing something that isn't really there?
Species change. There are negative adaptations, and positive ones. If you have a species of rabbit. And the rabbit is brown, and lives in the snow. One generation a mutation occurs and a rabbit is born white. That white rabbit would have an advantage over it's brown siblings because of camouflage . So that rabbit survives, and breeds to create more rabbits. That species has "evolved" to better adapt to it's environment. (That's an elementary school example).
As far as the "blastocyst" example I gave. That was to show that one cell eventually turns into a person. And that only takes 10 months (or less). (And full human gestation is 10 months (40 weeks), not 9.) So how is it not possible for a cell to become something much larger and complex over thousands of years??
Just making sure you realize my stance on evolution. I never argued that evolution doesn't take place. I'm saying the Darwinist idea that we evolved from a single cell is a dying hypothesis. The sort of evolution you describe in the previous paragraph is the same thing proven by breeders for hundreds of years (or thousands). I see all species as having a potential that cannot be surpassed. Darwin's finches are an example. These trends reversed once the drout ended. Human beings have grown taller over the last hundred plus years (about two inches, I think). Do you believe that this trend will continue until we are 30 feet tall? Again, read my comments thouroughly before you accuse me of denying something.
Yes you are saying evolution doesn't happen. You have listed a whole bunch of things that are "impossible" to evolve. You have merely decided to do a sort of half way BS theory based on the premis that we were designed much the way we are now and just got taller
If you understood evolution at all - you would know that eyes, flight and hearing can and do evolve.
Sorry - some stupid halfway house ID theory will not work. Keep on saying things are impossible when they are clearly possible is just silly.
We evolved. Probably from single cells. Deal with it.
"For your information, I know plenty about the Theory of Evolution. I see many problems with it. " Your quote. And in several other cases you bring about examples regarding your "issue" with evolution. Breeders? I'm not talking about breeders. My example included an animal in the wild and it's ability to adapt to it's environment in the wild. Breeders that use genetic variability to their advantage is fine with me, but that wasn't the point of my example.
If you acknowledge the fact that humans have gotten taller. Then isn't it possible other adaptations have occurred as well? Or we were just placed here and the only thing that has changed is we have gotten taller?
You can't really discuss your beliefs about the changes in the human body. Could the immune system evolve? Sure. You didn't even know what a blastocyst was. Wanna talk human anatomy, immunology or health, you got it.
"Impossible" or "very unlikely" sound like terms that deny the existence of evolution to me. I apologize for presenting the definition of the term "Evolution",
however, I thought that if you previously knew the definition, you wouldn't be denying it so. If you would like to changed your argument to: "Although evolution exists, how initially species were created, I do not know enough to state their origin" would be fair. Because that is my personal thought.
Initially the question was "Has evolution always occurred, where did it come from?"
People will always argue evolution vs. creation as the origin of life. That is the religion issue.
However, can we argue that evolution exists? Nope. Is it possible we evolved from a single cell. I'll entertain that possibility, but that is a personal belief. If you don't believe it fine. Just don't argue with science.
Bwahahahahhahahahahah! ...whew... wait bwahahahahhaha... thanks for the laughs. i thought I was a bit humorous...wow! ** wipes tears of bs from eyes*** No wonder I lean toward the atheist side. You christians are not doing a good job of it.
Better nutrition and better sanitaion is the reason we've gotten taller. I'm not arguing with adaptation. But in these times what is the advantage of being taller? Taller people can kick more ass? It can't be sexual advantage because everyone's having sex, even short people. At least in this country (USA) we don't usually have to fight to stay alive and breed. By the way, life comes from life of the same type. Your example of blasting assistance is lame and doesn't show evolution from a single cell. Besides, that first cell (billions of years ago) would have to contain all of the genes that would ever be found in life of today, yesterday and tommorow. Perhaps all of the genes were floatin around in the primordial soup. Do you have any examples of added information in our DNA? Or is gene loss the big reason for change over time?
Ah - Now you are just demonstrating a lack of understanding about DNA as well as evolution.
May I recommend "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins as good reading material.
Then perhaps you might understand why DNA is not "added to"
And maybe if I changed my persona to a 21 year old college girl you would be less obnoxious?
Oh. . . .My. .. . . .god!!! When did I ever come off as. . . . . .obnoxious? Don't think I will recover from such an accusation.
By the way, You aint gonna fool nobody with that mug shot. You look like you wanna knock someone out. Are you related to Hulk Hogan by any chance?
"Your example of blasting assistance is lame and doesn't show evolution from a single cell."
Can you please explain? Thank you.
It was a joke. I was pretending that I still didn't know the term blastocyst. Although I have been aware that we start as a single cell. That cell of course, contains all of the information needed to form a human baby. That cell was formed from DNA from the two parents who are already humans. Otherwise, no tellin what's coming out. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
When da #&%$# did I say Gould was a creationist? When da double #%&+!$#% did I say Punctuated Equilibriam was a creationist idea? I said it was an excuse for the lack of transition in the fossil record. I think I said that. What's your point about me assuming you meant 1.5 billion? We're not talking about the dawn of upright walking are we? Really I don't care that much about dogmatic evolutionists. My title will tell you why I joined hub pages.
by Phocas Vincent2 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by jacobkuttyta4 years ago
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution...
by SaiKit6 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of...
by pay2cEM5 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to...
by Baileybear6 years ago
Or do they find it too much of a threat to their beliefs?
by Debra Allen8 years ago
When god or the creator of the universe made humans, why was He a He? What happened to the other's that we were made into their image? Why doesn't the Bible ever speak of these things?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.