This was the old evolution thread, go to the new thread to post

[harry]

Something else just came to my mind, that I would like to add to the discussion. As mentioned before, in order to have some kind of evolutionary process there has to be selection, i.e. individuals need some kind of edge to be able to reproduce. It seems to me that for humans (at least in the developed countries) there is no such pressure anymore - every individual is able to reach puberty and reproduce itself as long as there are no severe physical or psychological handicaps.

So my point is, I think that human evolution has stopped or that we are even regressing - consequently down to a level slightly above of being too dumb or too crippled to actually have sex and raise children. Any opinions?

[Simple_Min]

Originally posted by shadowmaster
[B]evolution is a theory that has many good ideas but it has far to many flaws so it should not be stated as truth.

First of all, Evolution is NOT a theory, it really happens. Want proof? Compare human and chimps, we are over 95% similar bone to bone. Coincidence? I don't think so because plants & trees also have the same nucleic acids and proteins our bodies have. There is nothing theoretical about Natural Selection or Artificial Selection.

But Science is the best thing we have to the truth. At least Science has a "self correction" built into the system whereas if you are using religion as an alternative you do not. Sorry for redundency if this has been mentioned already

[potifar]

it's interesting how christianity and some of it's closely related cousions are getting all the play time for religions argument in this thread, there are many much older, imo much wiser religions out there. i think the buddists are the closest to The Truth.

[ReggErving]

premordial pool of goo gets together...

[greytone]

Originally posted by Phoenix
I think he ignored that quote because it is but one man's 100 year old opinion. If you agree with it, fine by me.

I don't think any more evidence will ever satisfy you. The word religion cannot be used here. We're all trying to find out the truth, and the facts gathered up to now point in one direction. That's the direction we're taking for now while we keep gathering more info and if something comes up that changes everything then we'll go that way. That's all we can really do.

Exactly, one or two words from a man two hundred years ago about his opinion, and not facts, is not remotely relevent to the discussion at hand.

I have not stated that there are no holes in the theory of Evolution. There have been fairly large holes that have been addressed as Biology has advanced over the years. They have actually strengthened the theory because the answers could not have been anticipated in Darwin's time. The arguments by creationists are not holes in the theory, because they are either statements of faith or because they disprove an intentional misstatement of the theory in the first point.

I did not "change" the definition of theory. I simply pointed out what the word means in the current context. It is a theory, just like relativity theory, paticle theory, electromagnetic theory, and gravitational theory are theory. None of them are adequate alone to explain the universe as we see it. All of them are usefull in understanding the significance of observed facts.

[JCsreading]

I would be comfortable stating that evolution does happen and will continue to happen on a basic level. We as humans even evolve based on the things around us in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean evolution is the answer to where we came from. From a physics perspective notice that raw matter left to its own devices become disorganized, not the otherway around. That would make it really unusual for a single cell organism to join up with other non related single cell organisms and turn into this intellectual, self healing, self direct perfect machine called the human body. The only "evolving" we have in our lifespan is the suffering of the human body from all the toxins and pollutants we come in contact with, put into circulation by our own appetites and desires ( not that it is all bad, often even necessary for us to grow or "evolve")God created man and created nature and thus knows the laws of nature and how to work within them to his end. That "2000 year old fairy tale" some one previously referred to is a record of mans journey to find the reason for his existance and through its study one can find piece and understanding through the trials and tribulations of those that came before him. It is not an instruction manual or how to book.
We can can't even deal with what we know and have been shown up to now. Why would we be entitled to any additional knowledge of the things of heaven and earth we don't always do nice things with the knowledge we have. We use only a small percentage of our own brains capacity. Think what we might be capable of if we knew how to unlock the potential.
Search, ponder and pray and the things that are important will come to you. The secret to the whole thing is that there is no secret. We are here on a journey to learn as much as possible before we die. It is that constant search for knowledge and understanding that is important and with Gods help is the key to unlocking the remaining potential Creationism... Absolutly, evolution... yes, but only as a ever growing physical and spiritual entity with lots of potential. Keep0 searching!!

[Lebell]

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
That's exactly what I believe. Unless you subscribe to a more fundamentalist religion and interpret the Bible literally, there is nothing that says that Ged didn't/couldn't have created the universe through the "big bang" and humans through evolution.

Yup, that's where I'm at.

[Simple_Min]

Originally posted by greytone

I did not "change" the definition of theory. I simply pointed out what the word means in the current context. It is a theory, just like relativity theory, paticle theory, electromagnetic theory, and gravitational theory are theory. None of them are adequate alone to explain the universe as we see it. All of them are usefull in understanding the significance of observed facts.

Correct me if I am wrong to interpret your post. Are you arguing that relativity, electromagnetism and gravity is just "theory"? That those are just a bunch of speculations without concrete scientific experimentations?

I agree with your last statement, but Relativity (special and general) does explain the universe "as we see it." Electromagnetism and electric field theory do explain exactly how electrons and light behave. The universe “as we see it” behaves with the same gravitational forces that we feel here on Earth. Yes there are times when some concrete belief is contradictory with a new observation, but that’s the point, change. My problem is with people using the word “theory” incorrectly and that’s exactly what creationists cling onto for support. Yet “their” own belief system is based purely upon an imaginative theory that has not been proven or has any concrete evidence provided in its behalf.

[smarm]

I guess I have some issues with the idea that there needs to be a "vs." typed between the two. I know other have said this, but they don't seem to compare to me.

Evolution is a theory that can be "proven" or "disproven" through the application of the scientific method. Creationism is a religious belief so "proof" and the scientific method are irrelevant.

If I believe that a man rose from the dead a couple of thousand years ago, or was born from a virgin, I am discounting the scientific method. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. It just means I'm making a choice about what to believe. Now, if I try to apply science to my religion, or religion to my science... I don't think I get peanut butter cups, if you know what I mean.

[splck]

Thanks for the great link Macheath 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.
I've always gravitated towards evolution, creation is just too simple and handy, it's the best that people could come up with 2000 years ago. I'm sure 2000 years from now people will chuckle when creation gets mentioned.

[jujueye]

You know, the one that keeps me up at night is:

What if evolution were created?

[Simple_Min]

Originally posted by jujueye
You know, the one that keeps me up at night is:

What if evolution were created?

Then, ask yourself the next logical question:

What created that creator?

[Xiomar]

In all honesty, we cannot, nor will we ever know. So why bother. Believe whatever makes you sleep better at night. Me, I know I am here. I don't know where I am going. Most of all, I don't care. So lets all have a damned good time while we are here!
Crack open the Ceg's, turn up tha stereo and lets all get NEKKID!!!!

[riptide4070]

I'm a Christian. I think evolution is a lie taught to all of us through our school systems since the 60's. The theory of evolution has not one shred of true evidence of its existence.

Creationism and evolutionism are both beliefs. You have to believe in the truth God has given us to truly believe. I think evolution is false and those who choose to believe in it are believing a lie.

[duckznutz]

Everyone on here is so very clever, erudite and articulate. But I really have to laugh . . . . . . . . the millions of people who sink to their knees in subordinance every day or every week are NOT philosophers. They are the ignorant and the poor.

LeBell . . . if you accept evolution AND God then how can you explain that God let millions of years pass before permitting a creature to evolve that was capable of 'believing' in him. or perhaps the early Manta Rays (or should that be Mantra Rays?!) had there own little sea-creature church? You cannot be serious.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by duckznutz
LeBell . . . if you accept evolution AND God then how can you explain that God let millions of years pass before permitting a creature to evolve that was capable of 'believing' in him. or perhaps the early Manta Rays (or should that be Mantra Rays?!) had there own little sea-creature church? You cannot be serious.

What is time to God?

[duckznutz]

Originally posted by Ducknutz
Then what are WE to god?
Time = energy (for without energy it is impossible to measure time). We are mass/energy, therefore we are defined by time.

Are you suggesting therefore that God existed for hundreds of milions of years before man evolved.
A bit like if a tree falls in a forest . . etc etc

Time != energy because if it did, then by simple substitution Time would also equal Mass and that is nonsensical. Matter experiences time but is not the same as time.

As to the rest, I merely asked you what is time to God. But if you wish to project, perhaps I am suggesting that God is exterior what what we know as "time".

[Lebell]

Ah shoot.

My appologies, Ducknutz.

I thought I had hit the "Quote" when indeed, I hit the Edit.

You may laugh your ass off at me now.

(goes and hides)

[Killconey]

Forgive me for arguing an older point, but I keep coming back to when Oane said, "Evolution obviously. It's science. What's religion got to do with it?" Isn't science what the majority of religions are founded on? The Greeks saw a lightning bolt and were afraid. In learning about their fears, they formed a religion. Who's to say that in another thousand years people won't look back at the foolish Evolutionists and their silly religion?

Personally, I was raised Christian and cannot for the life of me escape the concept of God. This does not, however, mean that I shun evolution or science. The Hebrew word (damn that's the second time I've done this and I don't even speak fluent Hebrew) for day simply means period of time. Thus, God didn't necessarily create the world in six twenty-four hour periods, but rather in six specific segments. They could have taken a few minutes or a thousands of years depending on how long God felt like taking. I believe that if God wanted to use evolution, then he did and if he didn't he didn't. I'm a simple minded creature and that's all I need to know.

Just a side note, forgive me if I didn't quote Oane right. I'm a newbie who works first shift and it is way to late for me to be figuring this stuff out.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Killconey
Forgive me for arguing an older point, but I keep coming back to when Oane said, "Evolution obviously. It's science. What's religion got to do with it?" Isn't science what the majority of religions are founded on? The Greeks saw a lightning bolt and were afraid. In learning about their fears, they formed a religion. Who's to say that in another thousand years people won't look back at the foolish Evolutionists and their silly religion?

No, it is not correct to say that the majority of religions are founded on science.

To use your example, the Greeks saw (observed) a lightning bolt and postulated a person (Zeus) in the heavens who was throwing them.

A scientist observes an event (lighting bolt) and makes no such assumptions, but uses the scientific method to understand what it is and what causes it.

In other words, scientic method is what distinguishes science (observation followed by hypothesis followed by repeatable experimentation) from religion (postulation followed by faith).

[duckznutz]

BBtB, it sounds to me like you have given up thinking . . . . . . . surrendered your free-will . . . . . stopped trying. You need more resolve and determination. Dont think its all out of your control and that you dont matter. Dont just watch the 'spin of the wheel' . . . . . . . make your OWN mind up. And dont assume that others are 'deluded' just becuase you dont understand their life-choices . . . . . . . they might be cleverer than you!

[duckduck]

I, personally, don't think that they need to be mutually exclusive as people always make them. The whole conflict between the two seems to stem from the way Thomas Henry Huxley presented Evolution to the rest of the world. Let's just say he was rather combative and was an "all or nothing" kinda guy.

splck, you may also want to consider the possibility of what people will do when Evolution is mentioned. We think it ludricrous that the Greeks thought the world was composed of earth, water, wind, and fire. What will the people of the future think of our theories?

[queedo]

Humans didn't evolve, we adapted to our environment. The humans that could stand upright lived longer and reproduced more because they could carry more food. The humans with better thinking and comunication skills got the better shelters and outsmarted the game better so they reproduced more offspring. Adaptation to the environment has always helped species grow stronger and become dominant in Earth's history.

[bender]

I think that it can be a combo of both.
Why not.

[sngx1275]

Me I believe in evolution.

But thats not the only part of this thread - the title wants universe history too. So here is what I can provide you.

History of Universe:
1. Initially-Minkowski Space -pre big bang
Mass = 0
Temp = 0k
Volume = 0 *Laws of Physics do not apply*
2. Big Bang - Universe Created
-First appearence of Expanding Energy -something higher energy than plasma
3.1 Second into Existance
- 1st appearence of mass
- Exponential Expansion Phase
- Broken Symmetry (slight variations in texture)
- Hotter and "cooler" regions begin to form
- 1st Heterogeneties
4. Partical Creation Phase
- 1st particles - antiparticles created
- Expanding Sphere continues
5. Partical Production Ceases - subatomic particles
- Particles and antiparticles mutually anialate each other
- Attraction due to electormagnetic properties
6. 14 seconds after Big Bang
- Subatomic particles begin to organize into protons & neutrons
- Then organize into the nuclei of H and He
- 80% Hydrogen 20% Helium
- Temperature = 3 Billion K
- H & He concentrated in Hotter Regions
7. Time = 300,000 Years
- Temperature 3000K
- Temperature is cool enough for electorns to attract to H and He nucleui - atoms formed
- "Proto"star formation in hot dense regions
8. Time 1 Billion years
- Accumulation of enough H-He to allow 1st stars to ignite
- Proto galaxies begin to form - corresponding vacuum of space

Thats the history of the universe for you. Kind of placed it in this post for fun. I'm bored and been drinking a bit yet its too early to go out just yet.

In case you are interested into where formation of earth comes into play I'll help you out. All you high school students take note maybe you can use this in one of the science classes you take

Estimates range for universe age most being between 13-20 billion years. Based on the "Red Shift" (Hubble I think discovered this). And by Cephid Stars (they pulse at a high rate and somehow they determine this I could explain the best I can but it would take too much time).

Our Solar system can be very precisely be estimated to be 4.6 billion years old. Oldest dated earth rock - 4.2 Billion. Now time for earth history:
1. At least 1 supernova explosion before matter in Earth can be formed (remember H and He were the only elements that existed at formation of universe... We have more than H and He right?)
2. Planetesimals form in our solar system (masses of matter)
3. Heavy elements settle to inside of planets (now I'm just goign to do earth now).
4. After 100,000 years our sun enters a T-Tauri stage where it expels 25% of its mass in a proton/electron plasma.
5. This explosion blows a good portion of the gases from the inner planets out to the gaseous planets.
6. Fairly long planetary accretion process of how elemental seggregation happened (that I will not get into-Smith and Ringwood models if you care to look them up)
7. Then sometime in accretion process when earth is still molten a big meteor hits it and displaces some of the matter, making up the moon. Trust me this is a logical model - I could provide you with elemental percentages of matter in earth and moon and compare it to smith and ringwood models and it would make sense.

Well I think this is my longest post ever by about 4 fold. Hopefully the people that cared enough to read this learned some. I find it pretty interesting.

If you are curious as to how I know this stuff, well I learned it from about the 3rd and 4th lectures in Geochemistry at my school. (I'm a geology major).

[MacGnG]

if we are talking about the universe it's creationism (the seven days described in the bible) or the big bang theory.

the big bang occured when something started it, it didnt just happen (although it did but something had to start it).

i believe that something was God, hence science and religion. there is no reason for them to be separate in my mind, yet i feel they dont need to be together if u see it that way

[raeanna74]

Many of you receive your original information from Origin of Species and the other fathers of Evolutionary theory. I think it is only fair that you listen to the words of Darwins close companion and another champion of Evolutionary theory. He does not specifically say that Evolution is bogus or any such thing but he does say that you cannot discount Creation. No one was there to observe the creation of the universe whether it was a big bang or a divine act. Because of that and because we cannot reproduce that original creation we cannot prove what happened. Science must be repeatable and observable to be true fact. The actual origin of the Universe will always be left up to explanation. Thus we cannot discount any theory of it's creation. Huxley, Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission that follows.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).
Creation by means of a divine being is entiredly possible. Either way you imagine the universe being created inspires such wonder at the mechanisms of nature and/or of a higher power. Isn't science and nature exciting?!

[bahb463]

Originally posted by raeanna74
True evolution is a change in the structural or functioning ability of a creature to adapt to it's surroundings. The ability of humans to live longer is simply the building of technology to adapt to the surroundings. When I speak of evolution I'm not speaking of technological evolution but of the improvement in the physical body to adapt. You have to look at all the things involved. We have more diseases now than ever. The only reason they are lengthening the average lifespan is our technological means - antibiotics, vaccines, and sterile medical precedures. Also if you go back to early recorded history there were many who lived to a much older age than people currently do. It wasn't the average but there are fewer of those that reach that age now than before. We have not grown in any physical way to adapt. That is the basic evolution that must be observed.

you mention the best evolvers in your 'proof' that evelution doesn't exist. Ever notice the EVOLUTION of the virus' that infect the human body? They develope imunities to our attempts to kill them. They evolve, in an abservable way, to circumvent our attempts at ending their existance. (change, over time, to continue their existance)

[bahb463]

Originally posted by raeanna74
I said it once and I'll say it again. The theories of Evolution as well as creation do not hold to all the basic rules of true science. They are theories .................. Please accept the fact that they are BOTH theories not FACT. They each are supported by different facts.

There are no facts that prove creationism. Every one who tries to convince me there is a god uses the same 'catch all' illusion. FAITH, which by deffinition, is belief without factual backing.

[raeanna74]

If you believe Darwin and quote him you must listen to his collegue and champion as well.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

The only reason you deny creation is that if you admit there MIGHT be some supreme being than you can be judged for you actions and you REFUSE to be accountable to anyone. It is a completely selfish viewpoint and the reason so many people refuse to think about anyone else but themselves. You are incorrigible and so closed minded you mind has rusted shut. Forget you people. I am without any hope for you to ever think with your own mind, instead of parroting others and to think of anyone else besides yourself.

[THE MAC GOD]

This is actually a topic that has always interested me intensly... I have read a lot on it and have come to the following conclusion (simplified):

Evolution is a theory. BUT, it has a lot of credence. We can't just simply ignore millions of years of fossil records because we want to believe in God. If you look at evolution and the fossil record, it shows us that it has direction, not random mutations. Also, given a 15 billion year limit, even at a high mutation rate (and each mutation keeps its knowledge of previous mutuations to keep from mutating into its own death-most mutations are fatal), it's almost impossible to start from 1 unaware cell to what is there now. American Scientist, Popular Science, etc., have all discounted (I can find the dates of the articles) Evolution as a viable reason we are to the point we are at.

I believe that there is definitely a supreme being... call it God, Alien, or whatever... But it exists... (why not? Most people believe aliens HAVE to exist somewhere in the universe... what if one just exists outside of time?)

Now... the fun part... Christian faith and evolution.
If you look closely at the record of God creating the world in Genesis and the fossil record/scientific data, the steps they state coincide exactly... From what first was created, to man...

I can get some more info if you'd like... let me know.

[Darkblack]

Originally posted by Sun Tzu
I've always been curious about something. The Big Bang Theory has better solidarity now that findings show our galaxy is expanding out. If that’s the case and the Big Bang is causing our universe to expand outward; what is the space it has not yet expanded to?

I beleive the theory is that it is all dark matter.

----------------------------

One thing that drives me crazy about conversations on this subject is that people will say I don't buy into the theory of evolution because there are not enough facts. Then turn right around and say I believe in creation, something that is based on faith with no fact at all.

If you can have faith in religion and in a God that created everything without any fact or proof other than the your own faith, then why not believe something that has some proof to it.

Within the next 20 years they will find a planet like ours in a near by galaxy. That planet could possibly have life on it. I cannot wait to have this discussion again at that time.

[harry]

Originally posted by THE MAC GOD
I believe that there is definitely a supreme being... call it God, Alien, or whatever... But it exists... (why not? Most people believe aliens HAVE to exist somewhere in the universe... what if one just exists outside of time?)

Which reminds me of the popular theory, that religion and especially polytheist religions came into existence because of alien visits in a distant past. I didnt give it much thought until I read the biblical prophecies of Ezechiel, where he describes some sort of epyphany in great detail which can easily interpreted as a space age-aircraft .

You can read the text here or in the stolen hotel-bible of your choice.

Chapters 1 and 10 are especially recommended. In chapter 40 Ezechiel describes a vision where he is shown the exact blueprint and measures of the New Temple. Make up your own mind why God would go to such lenghts to have his "house" built according to exact technical specifications :]

[bahb463]

Of course the POSSIBILITY, of a creator is real. In that, there is not currently a logical explaination for what caused the begining of the Big Bang. I grant that a creator possibly exists/existed, but not the one/ones claimed in all the current religions. None of the current religions even account for the length of time earth has been in existance. Nore the length of time that man as we know him has been here.
When I consider that a mutation/change that makes an eagle see sharper, and thus a better hunter, makes him live when available food is scarce. I have to believe that, since he lives, and poor sighted eagles starve (and have no childrens) evolution is being proved.

[bahb463]

Along the same lines.

It is obvious that people can not live on Antarctica. There is not enough food, nor shelter from the extreme elements. So, people don't live there. Were it not for religion, PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE STARVING IN AFRICA. Since those regions in Africa do not produce enough food, the people dumb enough to stay there, die, and have no childrens. Religion, in the form of missionaries, bring them food. Which teaches them nothing about the oldest law on earth besides gravity. Natural Selection. If you can't servive in a place, you move or DIE.
I realize it's a streach but it's a case of Religion trying to thwart Evolution. (and failing I might add)

Charity vs Evolution?
Which is best for the future of earth/mankind?

[bahb463]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by harry

You can read the text here or in the stolen hotel-bible of your choice.

Amazing,
Some guy has a serious mushroom trip, writes it down, and the guys who created the bible add it to their story.
This truely could have been 'the word of god' or a visit from Aliens. by his discription, but, could also be a mushroom trip, or a sleep deprivation trip, or just a dream.
Unless I missunderstood the text. (which is possible since I only speak english)

[DEI37]

"None of the current religions even account for the length of time earth has been in existance. Nore the length of time that man as we know him has been here."

As to the length of time that the earth/universe has been here - We do not know for a fact what that length of time is. We can guess based on carbon dating but even that might be wrong at times. There have been times in order to test it's accuracy that things that we know are only hundreds of years old have tested out at millions. The way it works is it measures the amount of carbon remaining in a formerly living thing. There is carbon in any living form and as the creature/human remains deteriorate that carbon decreases. If there was a world wide flood as the Bible suggests then the pressure of that amount of water would increase the rate of deterioration in some things. Also there are other factors such as the type of soil or ground that the thing is buried in that affect that rate of deterioration. The rate will also slow as the remains become older. Inertia always decreases over time. This leaves us with a different rate then which the remains began to deteriorate at. Though carbon dating gives us a useful tool to guess the age of the earth and other things we do not really truely know because no one was there to observe the creation/formation of the universe or earth.

As to the validity of the Bible. You might find the book "The Bible Was My Treasure Map" an interesting read. The author (who's name I cannot remember at this time) is an athiest but he treats the Bible as a useful historical record. Using it's accounts of early civilizations he manages to make many successful archeological digs that bring him many objects intact and in good condition. He does not place any stake in the prophecies or words of any diety but he does show that the Bible wasn't written completely by crazies. Take a look at the book you might well enjoy it.

[raeanna74]

I apologize. Dear old Hubby Dei37 used my computer last night and I didn't realize that I was still logged in as dei37 not as myself. The above post was from me.

[Darkblack]

Can you post a link or something of an example of something carbon dating a million years old but only being a few hundred years old. Carbon dating to my understanding is accurate within 100 years or so.

[raeanna74]

That is a perfectly justified request. I will see what I can find. I don't know of any link on the web. This I got from my reading over the years and I am sorry to say I would have to go back through my books. I will give you the reference or link as soon as I find it.