GOD ? or Evolution?

Sorry

 

Peace

 

You want us to study? How about you study first.

For the umpteenth time, how evolution and entropy fit together (or don't): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

Please elaborate on how mitochondrial DNA in any way supports creation over evolution? Seems to me it's more plausible that mitochondria were originally their own little prokaryotic "wee beasties" that became embroiled in what is now an integral plus-plus symbiotic relationship.

Your claim that "every missing link has been proven to be a fraud" is patently false. Yes, Nebraska man was proven to be a fraud. It was not, as you may claim, generally accepted by the scientific community even before it was proven to be false. Yes, Archaeorapter was a hoax.

But Archaeopteryx, homo habilis, homo erectus, the australopithecines, hippocampus, and countless other branches on the tree of evolution are (or rather, 'were') real, and far outweigh the faux fossils created by individuals trying to cheat their way into the history books. Go on a dig sometime.

And, once MORE, we did not come from monkeys. The primary fallacy in your statement is that humans and monkeys (and apes, which are not to be confused with monkeys) are most closely related, meaning that our common ancestor existed much more recently than, say, the common ancestor of humans and cats. The other fallacy of your statement is lumping all primates into the category of monkey and excluding only humans. Why not ask, if there are orangutans, why are there still howler monkeys? As has been pointed out before, members of a species do not all instantly evolve at the same time. That would be a sign of divine intervention. Take, for example, the famous case of Darwin's finches (or the Canadian geese that got stranded on a volcanic island) - they adapted to their new circumstances and eventually became so differentiated from their mainland counterparts that they were, in fact, a new species. But the type of finch which lived on the mainland, and from which the island finches originally came, had no need to adapt to eat harder seeds and find water from new sources, and so remained essentially the same. Thus you have the 'original' finch and the new 'island' finch coexisting. If every member of a species suddenly changed in a generation, there would only be one type of organism on this planet.

Furthermore, if you had taken a simple high school biology class, you ought to be aware that we have made significant strides toward creating life in a lab. We have created amino acids and cell membranes from nothing - in labs on earth as well as in space. The fact that amino acids have been found in meteorites would only serve to have sped up the process of the initial creation of life here, and fully supports evolution.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319

And yes, Scopes "lost" - Darrow asked the jury to return a verdict of guilty in order that the case might be appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Read your law history before you make a further fool of yourself.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

The presence of a world-wide flood would not discount evolution. As I have said before, it is entirely possible that God exists, and initiated life or even still today directs the process, but evolution does occur.

Show me these scientific studies that you claim prove that evolution could not have happened. You can't, can you? Because they don't exist. What a shame. It would have been such a crushing blow for you and your Bible-thumping cohorts.

 

This is an important point. Evolutionists are not out to destroy religion, or to disprove God (same goes for all scientists in their respective fields). There is no automatic competition between science and religion. It CAN be interpreted or seen that way, but they are not inherently opposed, and can work together.

I suppose there is an opposition between science and literalist religion. But scripture was never intended as literal, these are metaphorical and alegorical writings written to make points about morals. That, or they were "guesses". No one expects bronze age shepherds to have the definitive explanation on the origins of the universe (most of which they didn't even know existed), it's asking to much of them to think they must have known. To reject the scientific understanding we have today (by no means complete, but pretty impressive nonetheless) based on spiritual writings of ignorant shepherds is bordering on insanity. Why can't people understand this?

 

Trippin

Well said.

Evolution and science is in no way opposed to religion.
BECAUSE IT IS OPPOSED TO NOTHING.
It is INDIFFERENT.
Thats the differernce
[that makes ALL the difference]
----------------------------------
Because the ignorant shepherds are still trying to tell everyone that
they know the origin of everything.
And they have no idea what metaphor and alegory is.
Or that they are ignorant.
----------------------------------
Your comments on the 'book' as metaphor and alegory are
cool.
But occam has found far greater wisdom in other books.
How do you explain this.?
WHo wrote the bible. man or god.?

Cause if it was god...he's not the sharpest tool in the shed..

Occam

 

Man came from germany the rest from a cesspool of bacteria.

 

De rekening

 

Nyet Tovarich...

Superior man is a product of the political dialectic..
All hail soviet communism.....

What...waht do you mean ' its dead'...
How could it......
The ussr turned balkan/gangsta?

You kiddin....

Oh well..

It was a good idea at the time.

Occam

 

is still a good idea.

 

SpliffVortex

Fundamentally yes.
If human beings acted rationally...it's an excellent idea.

But the human world as it exists now...
is 95% Ego/emotion.
That weilds the 5%, human reason, to it's own ends.

Thus..Stalin.

Occam

PS.. And stalin is an example of amoral existentialism.
[quote "1 death is a tragedy, a million a statistic"]

 

God or evolution?

I believe in both.

And yes..it is possible.

 

and maybe is neither.

 

Molly

It certainly is.

Occam has asked hundreds the question.

"Why do so many hold this preconception that evolution
[of both the universe and life]
is NOT exactly what was 'intended'.

Occam

 

One problem with "proving" (or "disproving") God is that you first have to apply a definition to God...and there are as many definitions as there are people. I prefer my own (evolving) definition to someone else's, and I also think that everyone has to work that one out for themselves.

As for Physical Reality, I'm all for being on the hard-headed and skeptical side, but I'm also aware that many people regard Physical Reality as being itself an illusion of sorts. This isn't just the mystical mumbo-jumbo types either; a recent article in Scientific American (!) postulated that our three-dimensional Universe is possibly a hologram projection from a two-dimensional Reality.

Mind blowing, isn't it? We really opened up a can of worms on this whole topic.

 

animals evolve

humans dont

no animal will ever become smarter than a human


even if they do they would not try to find out about a god because humans have a need to know "the spirtual things"

thats what makes us speical

K who made the universe?How can somthing non living allways exsit?

You cant disprove god You cant prove god


But god makes sense to me.

 

A VIRUS BY THE NAME OF "HIV" seems to be smarter than we are.

 

even so I dont beleve we were once monkeys or apes or whatever.

 

something has been mentioned over and over: where did DNA come from?

As someone pointed out earlier, simulating an early earth atmosphere and shooting electricity through it created proteins.

From there, it's two steps.

Proteins, when combined together, make amino acids.

Amino Acids, when combined, make DNA

there you go

 

We never were monkeys. We still are primates .Over a few million years and thousands of generations, we gradually evolved and became more advanced.

 

Close, but not quite. amino acids combine to form proteins, and I think they (amino acids) combine with other stuff to form DNA. It might be proteins that combine with other stuff to form DNA, I can't remember. But I know amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, not the other way around.