creationists, please explain fossils?
lol fossils can be easily explained, but explaining God is the main thing that keeps the theory of creation of being universally and scientificly acceptable
mrstickball said:
Yes they can. The diversification of a subspieces (such as various breeds of dogs) is observable, and rather easy. However, it's a little bit tougher to observe evolution at the species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. The further you go back, the fewer records we have. The issue is that many Darwinists/Evolutionists take is that 'well, since we can see evolution between subspecies of dogs, it must mean that we evolved from inorganic matter!' - despite the fact that such a claim is very, very implausible. Oh, hey, Akuma, if ID is such a waste of time, mind telling me how the universe began? And exactly what theory should we teach in classrooms, then? |
That is a philosophical question. Science doesn't try to answer how the universe began. It will try to explain how the universe (at least as we know it) reached its current form by using the Big Bang Theory, but any scientist who tries to tell you how the universe is created is full of it, because there isn't any strong evidence out there that could let him make that assertion. If you don't understand the distinction I just made, then you should learn more about the Big Bang Theory.
Speculation on something for which there is no empirical evidence to make a determination on is better left to theology and philosophy. It has no place in a science class room. Sure, its an interesting question, but until there is some evidence to work with science has no answer to that question. Science is the interpretation of observable fact.
Your definition of "observable" is overly narrow. Not to mention you are looking at things simply based on the fossil record. The distinction between micro and macroevolution is muddled at best. A perfect example is comparing the human chromosome sets with those of the different primates. Its really pretty fascinating stuff. You will see when you align where the gene sequences match up that humans essentially have a few hybrid chromosomes caused by a chromosomal translocation (grafting of one chromosome onto another). Quite a few genes and a set of degenerate chromosomes formed because of this transloaction were lost in the process. Thus, we have 46 chromosomes with almost perfect sequences on some of them from those "lost" chromosomes that you can find in primates.
Honestly, the DNA record is as rich or richer than the fossil record. You are looking at evolution from the perspective of the 1950's, before genetics and DNA theories started dominating the field.
Don't even get me started on things like the endosymbiont hypothesis. If that doesn't convince you that organisms share a common ancestry, nothing will. Not to mention it is pretty impressive how much of our genome is still identical to the average plant's genome.
But honestly I can't even tell you if some of these things are macroevolution or microevolution, because in actuality they are sort of both. The distinction between macroevolution and microevoltion is only becoming more and more convoluted with how driven the field has become on genes and DNA. One simple bout of "microevolution" can give rise to an entirely different taxonomic kingdom. Take something like the repositioning of HOX genes. Man, BIOLOGY IS SO COOL! WHY DID I GO TO LAW SCHOOL!
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
akuma587 said:
That is a philosophical question. Science doesn't try to answer how the universe began. It will try to explain how the universe (at least as we know it) reached its current form by using the Big Bang Theory, but any scientist who tries to tell you how the universe is created is full of it, because there isn't any strong evidence out there that could let him make that assertion. If you don't understand the distinction I just made, then you should learn more about the Big Bang Theory. Speculation on something for which there is no empirical evidence to make a determination on is better left to theology and philosophy. It has no place in a science class room. Sure, its an interesting question, but until there is some evidence to work with science has no answer to that question. Science is the interpretation of observable fact. Your definition of "observable" is overly narrow. Not to mention you are looking at things simply based on the fossil record. The distinction between micro and macroevolution is muddled at best. A perfect example is comparing the human chromosome sets with those of the different primates. Its really pretty fascinating stuff. You will see when you align where the gene sequences match up that humans essentially have a few hybrid chromosomes caused by a chromosomal translocation (grafting of one chromosome onto another). Quite a few genes and a set of degenerate chromosomes formed because of this transloaction were lost in the process. Thus, we have 46 chromosomes with almost perfect sequences on some of them from those "lost" chromosomes that you can find in primates. Honestly, the DNA record is as rich or richer than the fossil record. You are looking at evolution from the perspective of the 1950's, before genetics and DNA theories started dominating the field. Don't even get me started on things like the endosymbiont hypothesis. If that doesn't convince you that organisms share a common ancestry, nothing will. Not to mention it is pretty impressive how much of our genome is still identical to the average plant's genome. But honestly I can't even tell you if some of these things are macroevolution or microevolution, because in actuality they are sort of both. The distinction between macroevolution and microevoltion is only becoming more and more convoluted with how driven the field has become on genes and DNA. One simple bout of "microevolution" can give rise to an entirely different taxonomic kingdom. Take something like the repositioning of HOX genes. Man, BIOLOGY IS SO COOL! WHY DID I GO TO LAW SCHOOL!
|
you know scientists "know" what happened 10(exponent 10, sorry i can't insert symbols) before the big bang, you should read more about physics and worry less about theology, when talking about the universe and its creation we can't leave physics behind and yes science(physics) try to answer how the universe began after all thats the ultimate question.
Yes. I see all of his 'theories' as fact as most have been proven. What the question should be is did God create evolution?
Hmm, pie.
emilie autumn said:
you know scientists "know" what happened 10(exponent 10, sorry i can't insert symbols) before the big bang, you should read more about physics and worry less about theology, when talking about the universe and its creation we can't leave physics behind and yes science(physics) try to answer how the universe began after all thats the ultimate question. |
I think you misunderstood Akuma's post.
The origin of the universe (and everything else not included in the scientific definition of the word) is not currently known.
What was there before the big bang (at the peak of the contraction isn't the origin), it's what was before the expansion.
----
The question is, "where did the matter and energy come from?" When they find the answer to that, the question becomes "where did that come from?" As long as we don't know, some people will always use religion to fill the gaps and make themselves feel better. When the answers conflict with those beliefs they go crazy with anger, after 10 or 15 generations the anger wears off.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
Hence why some people call God the god of the gaps.
emilie autumn said:
microorganisms have indeed evolve thats why we are here, altough not all of them have or haven't done it since before other life forms existed. a good example of an ancestral multicellular organism that hasn't evolved through ages is the crocodile, they have remainded the same since hundred thounsands of years, does that mean that they have reached the pinnacle of their existance and have become perfect in their own function? |
I think you misunderstood my point. You stated in the bolded section above, I was simply questioning this. I know there is no proof of you claims.
I know that they would have needed to evolve to create all life we see today, but is most likely a 99% chance that every unicellular organism living over 2 Billion years ago is extinct today.
| akuma587 said: That is a philosophical question. Science doesn't try to answer how the universe began. It will try to explain how the universe (at least as we know it) reached its current form by using the Big Bang Theory, but any scientist who tries to tell you how the universe is created is full of it, because there isn't any strong evidence out there that could let him make that assertion. If you don't understand the distinction I just made, then you should learn more about the Big Bang Theory. Speculation on something for which there is no empirical evidence to make a determination on is better left to theology and philosophy. It has no place in a science class room. Sure, its an interesting question, but until there is some evidence to work with science has no answer to that question. Science is the interpretation of observable fact. Your definition of "observable" is overly narrow. Not to mention you are looking at things simply based on the fossil record. The distinction between micro and macroevolution is muddled at best. A perfect example is comparing the human chromosome sets with those of the different primates. Its really pretty fascinating stuff. You will see when you align where the gene sequences match up that humans essentially have a few hybrid chromosomes caused by a chromosomal translocation (grafting of one chromosome onto another). Quite a few genes and a set of degenerate chromosomes formed because of this transloaction were lost in the process. Thus, we have 46 chromosomes with almost perfect sequences on some of them from those "lost" chromosomes that you can find in primates. Honestly, the DNA record is as rich or richer than the fossil record. You are looking at evolution from the perspective of the 1950's, before genetics and DNA theories started dominating the field. Don't even get me started on things like the endosymbiont hypothesis. If that doesn't convince you that organisms share a common ancestry, nothing will. Not to mention it is pretty impressive how much of our genome is still identical to the average plant's genome. But honestly I can't even tell you if some of these things are macroevolution or microevolution, because in actuality they are sort of both. The distinction between macroevolution and microevoltion is only becoming more and more convoluted with how driven the field has become on genes and DNA. One simple bout of "microevolution" can give rise to an entirely different taxonomic kingdom. Take something like the repositioning of HOX genes. Man, BIOLOGY IS SO COOL! WHY DID I GO TO LAW SCHOOL! |
Mind telling me then, if BB is true, how the matter compressed itself into a singularity? Or how it was even there in the first place? The root of the issue with BB is that no matter how easy it is to say that it happened based on the universe expanding, it fails to answer the root of the problem: How the matter became a singularity, and how it naturally decided to react with an explosion to expand the singularity into the universe we have today.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
Ok, I've only skimmed through the topic, but there are a couple of things that really really really need to be pointed out.
Intelligent Design IS a religious belief and not a scientific one. It was proven in court and is the reason it isn't taught in school. It was created by the Discovery institute who's purpose is to reinstitute christian values in America because they feel Evolution has destroyed the moral and cultural fiber of what should be a christian nation. This is not in any way uncertain or heresay. Watch this Nova Special, it's very very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQPFPOQHuK4
Number 2. Who in their right mind would bring up "Expelled" in any legitimate sense? That movie was hammered by everyone except religious zealouts as being a propagandist film. They lied to the people they interviewed, many of the "victims" they interviewed lied, they edited conversations in ways that made "evolutionists" look bad, and tried to Link evolution to Nazis which had nothing even to do with the films point, it was just propogandist mud slinging. It was through and through a propoganda film linked to the Discovery Institute.
The discovery institute is one of the worst things to happen to reason and science and this country. They prey on the ignorance of the masses to push a religious agenda trying to interfere with legitimate science and reason every step of the way. They lie, decieve, are corrupt and morally bankrupt and these are the people trying to push Jesus teachings on a country that is supposed to be a religiously free country. They are disgusting.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
