• Log in or sign up for an account here: https://www.sythe.org/login

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

hows evolution sure fire? you act like scientists know wveryting about evolution and how it happend, they're not even sure how the world was started, thats why they have different theories like the bing bang. they might have what you call "proof" but its not sure-fire.
and if you do believe in evolution, then how did everything start. i mean how did the plantes and stars and the universe start out? there has to have been something before, and if there was, what made that thing?
 
You're right, scientists don't know everything, and they don't claim to know everything. They tell you what they know and tell you how they think the stuff they don't know might work. Right now we know evolution is real, but we don't know how the universe started.

Religious people on the other hand, they don't know at all. Not a single guy in here can say that you know that the universe was created by a greater being, or that you know that humans were created in God's image.

There's the difference. Science gives you the facts it has and makes theories about the rest. Religion gives you theories and tell it's facts.



Cruel__Machine said:
True. But you apparently know very little about religion and/or Intelligent design (implying that it's just a book). So your opinion is meaningless.
Click to expand...
It is a book, it might be the most powerful book in the world, but it's a book.
 
im gonna have to go with evolution.. we have tons of evidence of our species rising through history from monkey to caveman to homo-erectus. And none whatso-ever of a god that created everyone. thats just theology. Evolution definitly happend... end of story
 
umm, maybe i'm slow, but who said evolution is real? wheres your proof?
and no scientist can say for sure that they know the world wasn't created by a greater being.
and what proof is that that people evolved from monkeys and all that?
and science just gives you facts based on human knowledge, which isn't much,
 
darwin proposed that people adapt to their environment and that the strongest species survives while the weaker ones die out. where do you see evolution in that?
genetic similarity? so what, our genes are similar, that doesn't prove we came from the same thing.
 
freecw said:
darwin proposed that people adapt to their environment and that the strongest species survives while the weaker ones die out. where do you see evolution in that?
genetic similarity? so what, our genes are similar, that doesn't prove we came from the same thing.
Click to expand...

That basically IS evolution, on a small scale.

We share 90% of our genes with single-celled organisms. We share 99.8% of our genes with chimpanzees.
 
well .2% makes a lot of difference. i mean, just 1 extra chromosome can make someone mentally retarded. you say we share 99.8% of oure genes with chimpanzees, how does this prove evolution? it has nothing to do with evolution, scientist just grasp at straws to try to prove something.
and darwin proposed adaptation, not evolution. he went to galapagos (don't know how to spell it) island, and saw that there were 4 kinds of birds on 4 island. the birds on each island had beaks that makes it eaisier for it to get food. so birds on a perticular island have flat beaks making it eaisier for them to eat. some have long skinny beaks so they can reach seeds inside something. he said the birds all addapted to the island that they were on.
if this is true then how come when whatever started evolving to be human started evolving everything else didn't evolve the same way? where did the split come when some became human like and others became chimpanzee like.
 
freecw said:
well .2% makes a lot of difference. i mean, just 1 extra chromosome can make someone mentally retarded. you say we share 99.8% of oure genes with chimpanzees, how does this prove evolution? it has nothing to do with evolution, scientist just grasp at straws to try to prove something.
and darwin proposed adaptation, not evolution. he went to galapagos (don't know how to spell it) island, and saw that there were 4 kinds of birds on 4 island. the birds on each island had beaks that makes it eaisier for it to get food. so birds on a perticular island have flat beaks making it eaisier for them to eat. some have long skinny beaks so they can reach seeds inside something. he said the birds all addapted to the island that they were on.
if this is true then how come when whatever started evolving to be human started evolving everything else didn't evolve the same way? where did the split come when some became human like and others became chimpanzee like.
Click to expand...

Here's what it has to do with evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics

Adaptation is the basis of evolution. Some mutations make an individual more likely to survive to reproduce, and said mutation spreads throughout the population.

Humanity's common ancestor lived in trees. Some of them went onto the ground, and began to walk on two legs, thus exploiting a niche. The others didn't do this, and they continued to exploit their niche in the trees.
 
freecw said:
he went to galapagos (don't know how to spell it) island, and saw that there were 4 kinds of birds on 4 island. the birds on each island had beaks that makes it eaisier for it to get food. so birds on a perticular island have flat beaks making it eaisier for them to eat. some have long skinny beaks so they can reach seeds inside something. he said the birds all addapted to the island that they were on.
Click to expand...
Well that's evolution. There were probably just one kind of bird to begin with, but since the 4 islands had different conditions the birds adapted to the island they were on.

Of course you could say that God thought it was boring and unoriginal to have just one kind of bird, but I doubt that's how it happened.
 
Schnell said:
It is a book, it might be the most powerful book in the world, but it's a book.
Click to expand...
I know that... -_-
Reread what I said. I said you don't know much about religion because you think it's just a book. Religion is more than a book.

And to make evolution even close to sure-fire, you have to prove the Earth is billions of years old. Therefore, carbon dating has to be sure-fire, which it isn't (already talked about that a couple times on this site).
 
Cruel__Machine said:
And to make evolution even close to sure-fire, you have to prove the Earth is billions of years old. Therefore, carbon dating has to be sure-fire, which it isn't (already talked about that a couple times on this site).
Click to expand...

Radiometric dating of zircons proves the age of the Earth to be at least 4.4 billion years old. The generally accepted age is 4.57 billion years.

Can you explain why Carbon-14 isn't sure-fire? I haven't seen your posts on it.
 
My most recent post was in that dinosaur thread:
http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=1580893&postcount=25

Here's a quote that encompasses the basic idea:
It would take 30,000 to 50,000 years to go from zero C-14 until equilibrium is reached. Since scientists accept the concept of evolution, they conclude that the atmosphere is millions of years old. Since C-14 equilibrium would certainly have been reached in the first 50,000 years, it is assumed to have already happened millions of years ago.
Click to expand...
Not sure who wrote about this, I just googled it (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=726), but I've read more about it from others elsewhere.

Here's a rebuttal:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Variable_C14/C12_ratio_invalidates_C14_dating

But it only says that calibrations can be made by using the carbon levels of specimens with known ages. Making yet another assumption about the rate of change.

Plus, if there is in fact no equilibrium, that proves the Earth is younger than ~35,000 years old.
 
wow..

so you think it was just by chance that us humans were made with two eyes, two ears, one mouth and various other complexities?

rofl, if you think that's the truth you should reconsider your mindstate.
 
Cruel__Machine said:
http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=1580893&postcount=25 Here's a quote that encompasses the basic idea:

Not sure who wrote about this, I just googled it (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=726), but I've read more about it from others elsewhere.

Here's a rebuttal:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Variable_C14/C12_ratio_invalidates_C14_dating

But it only says that calibrations can be made by using the carbon levels of specimens with known ages. Making yet another assumption about the rate of change.
Click to expand...

Clearly, Carbon-14 is not perfectly accurate. The first article made some good points, yet the rebuttal, I feel, deals with it satisfactorily.

Air pockets in the polar regions can be dated accurately by counting the layers of ice/snow between the surface and the pocket, much like the rings on a tree.

Also, if the amount of Carbon-14 being produced is changing, I don't think that it would have changed very drastically in 100,000 years. After all, when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the oxygen content of the air was 30%, 65 million years ago. It is now 23%...

SlaveOfTheBeast said:
Plus, if there is in fact no equilibrium, that proves the Earth is younger than ~35,000 years old.
Click to expand...

I suppose. I'll have to do more research on this tomorrow.
 
I have 3 topics about religion to keep up with. Sorry, i believe in intelligent design until someone convinces me otherwise. I won't be posting anymore in this thread.
 
Evolution for sure, no person named god just snapped his fingers and made life appear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Runescape Gamblingrunescape gambling
Back
Top