|
|
|
Yes
No
In my world history class we where discussing the theory of evolution when my teacher asks our class how many people believe in evolution. To my surprise about 50% of the class did not believe in evolution. I though that with more and more evidence of evolution popping up there would be 75% or more of the class that believes in evolution.
what i want to know if this holds true all over or just in my class
#2
Evolution's not something you believe in (if we assume for the moment that the world we percieve through our senses is real, of course...), it's a scientific fact.
*waits for SquidDNA to pounce*
still some people do not believe evolution to be a fact and believe something else such as creationism to be a fact instead
with his current record hell catch up with this thread in about 3 weeks.
thats in reply to ion. i wont make any comment on the thread, because its a deathtrap.
:P how many times has this disscusion been on the forums?
Yeah, 50% is supposed to be about right... recently I saw the results from a survey that stated about 45% of the people who took it beleved that humans had been created at their present state approx. 10,000 years ago. Other than that, I'm out of here like walker...
#7
I voted yes, but as ion pointed out, it's not a question of 'belief' IMHO.
Also, bear in mind this board isn't exactly a typical cross-section of the world's population should be trying to use this study for any real use....
#8
I hate to nitpick, but evolution isn't "scientific fact", either. It's a theory, goofballs.
And yes, I don't think evolution is true. Too many holes.
TheGeneral
[The Guide] says that the effect of a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster is like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick.
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Yes, we all started as puddle of blood.
#10
General relativity is a theory, but I don't see too many people disputing it. Yes, evolution is a theory, but it's a very strong one. Just like relativity. :hmm:
#11
Man if evolution is a theory then what the heck is the bible? A bunch of holy jibberish? C'mon, how can you go around believing that god created the world in 7 days? Oh its a free country and you can believe in whatever crap you wanna but in this day and age... I think all the religions of the world have exponetially huge gaps in there teachings. (Don't get me wrong, many religions have good teachings too)
#12
Everything has holes. even Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics have holes. so do my socks.
One shouldn't disbelieve in something because of holes. There is no evidence to refute the existence of evolution, and almost insurmountable piles of evidence to believe in.
Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidence whatsoever to believe in, and all of evolution's evidence to refute it. har.
uh... it comes down to faith in the end I guess.
But it's almost such a no-brainer that you'd have to be Ned Flanders to disagree with Big Charlie Dee.
Last edited by oneredpanther; 2nd Sep 02 at 3:57 PM.
#13
#14
Pimpster: it's perfectly possible to reconcile the Christian faith with a scientific understanding of the world (including evolution). The trick is not to interpret everything in the Bible absolutely literally; the people who do this are generally either ignorant, crazy fundamentalists, or detractors of Christianity looking for a way to attack the religion or its followers.
#15
Oh gawd, not this again.
It's rather sloppy to describe 'Evolution' (usually meaning macroevolution) as a fact. Microevolution is a fact, whereas macroevolution is merely a theory based on those facts (albeit a very strong one). The Big Bang isn't a fact either, but it the most likely possibility based on current observations of the universe. The theory of relativity (or parts of it) has been successfully tested (present observations are consistent with its predictions); therefore, it may as well be considered fact for the time being (ditto for gravity).
I am aware (before Squid steps in) that macroevolution are microevolution are the same process; macroevolution has no unique properties. However, we have only seen an acorn sprout shoots; we can only make informed guesses as how an acorn turns into a 100 foot tree!
The historical sciences can only produce theories about the past that are consistent with present observations (practical science); they cannot establish the absolute truth about the past. This is is why it is sloppy to describe 'Evolution' as a fact.
Creationism is completely non-scientific and contradicts almost everything we know about how the current universe works; it's an interesting idea (like ID, or exogenesis, or elephants on the back or turtles), but it ain't science.
I agree with the philosophical assumptions that form the basis of the historical sciences (i.e. that the past and present are governed by the same laws/constants), so I guess I do 'believe' in 'Evolution' and any other theory based on such principles.
Mind you, the universe could have been created 15 seconds ago by some bored child and we are wandering around with false memories. It's a quantum universe, and anything is possible. However, some possibilites are less likely than others.
There endeth my rant... bleh.
#16
Whoops, obviously I miscommunicated here. Sorry about that.
I don't 'believe' in evolution, there's no change to that, but I also should have explained that I don't believe in Creationism, either. Like Ion, I believ taking the Bible literally isn't the right way to do it.
Taking the Bible literally is bad, you'll get all kinds of unfounded assumptions. God could have created the universe via evolution, that's fine by me, it's just that everyone tends to replace God with evolution. I think the real answer is a combination of both, whatever that may be.
TheGeneral
#17
It's all phlogiston.
#18
What I don't understand is how you can be christain, and a scientist. Becuase if you belive that the world was created in 7 days, how can you belive in evolution? And if you only belive in the bits of christianity and the bits of science that suit you, then your not really a christian, or a true scientist.
If anyone can solve this problem for me I would be grateful
Has anyone ever thought of evolution as one of God's tools?
I know TheGeneral touched on this but i just wanted to put this idea out there.
BTW, the whole 7 days thing doesn't mean God necessarily created the whole world in 7 days. If you believe in God, He existed before time, therefore he is not bound by it.
A day to Him may be years to us. Or it could be seconds.
Also, there is no way to really take the Bible literally. A lot of it is open to interpretation so everyone sees different subjects in a different light.
Whatever floats your boat.
#20
So how do people know which bits of the bible to take literally, and which bits not?. Sorry if this strays from the topic a bit.
#21
Ionfish: I agree with you on the part that you can believe in both in the sense that you agree with the 10 comandments and that the story of Noah's arc shouldn't be taken literaly. I'm just talking about the 7 days crap. Who knows? god might be some alien from another universe that looks like a giant pimple and created this universe from his space craft. He might control fate or then again might be dead from eating too much cheeseburgers
So basically what I mean is you can take the morals of religion just don't take the stories literally. So it is possible to be a scientist and be a christian or muslim or buddist.
Who is this squid person your talking about?
(im derailing my own post oh no!)
Interesting that comment about Relativity Theory. Ever been through the real equations? I have. All rests on the assumption that the speed of light is contsant, and couldn't be, I dunno, slowed down...
Evolution is becoming less and less a theory, and more and more a dogma. I don't take dogma. Sorry.
The part-time resident biologist of RN. Very informed...someone may need to PM him about the call of duty.
Wow, you're lucky dj, I was one of three people in my 27-member biology class last year that considered evolution possible at the end of the year. Damn the south... Their argument was, holding up a pencil-- and I quote --"Do you think in 50 years this pencil will become a pen? Well then."
I think that microevolution (which has been observed) logically leads up to long-term macroevolution, but that it doesn't happen evenly and regularly. Changes in an individual's DNA is really up to chance.
Yes, it is a theory so it can and should be changed. The current model has holes, of course, but the idea is to get from --another southern baptist quote--"having as many holes as a sponge" to something with as few holes as possible. (Sponges still hold water, unlike some other things you could tell me, Jesus freak.)
[Dangerously Off Topic] Well, if God meant "600 million years" instead of "a day", he should have friggin' said 600 million years.
This place is a big crappy piece of abstract art. A bunch of 3-dimensional splatters of paint lying in the corner of some manic-depressive crackhead's apartment.
I hope we don't get into the metaphysics and stick with the biology...although we seem to scare off more fundies with every vb armageddon so it shouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, the equation works everywhere except in an outrageously complex, semi-translucent, completely uniform suspension of huge molecules. Einstein was an idiot.[the theory of relativity] All rests on the assumption that the speed of light is contsant, and couldn't be, I dunno, slowed down...
Last edited by Tygre; 2nd Sep 02 at 7:29 PM.
That sums up my position, as a Christian and a Scientist. "Genesis-as-allegory" clarifies it.Has anyone ever thought of evolution as one of God's tools?
But given the nature of science, I refuse to say that I "believe" in evolution as it isn't a matter of faith in the same sense that faith in, say, God, is. And that's where this is always headed.
This is, like, the seven-trillionth time this has been posted, but I like it; it reminds me why I became an active member of this community.
If anyone wants to present a better scientific model than evolution to explain the current state of the world, they're welcome to it. I invite them to provide their evidence.
However, I want to point out that is not a challenge to the notion of Divine Creation, because it is far from me to tell someone what they should or shouldn't believe as a matter of faith. Faith is a very personal, emotional thing, it isn't for anyone to say what the right or wrong faith is. But science is progress towards the nature of the universe that goes in carefully controlled, reproducible steps. Science is all about arguing whether an idea is fit or not, but it is based entirely upon evidence. It is not personal and comforting: it is a harsh and brutal environment for unsupported ideas, no matter how they make you feel.
Faith and science are fundamentally separate issues, even if some people find they have synergistic effects. I do not sneer at the creation stories of any sincere faith; while there may be "holes" it's the best there is for those people. I ask that nobody sneer at evolution; although there may be "holes" it's still (in science) the best idea there is. I would not come into your place of worship and decry your dogma, don't come into my institutions of learning and decry mine. They're separate realms, and we'd each be out of place. I won't take evolution as a matter of faith if you don't take creationism as a matter of science, and we'll get along just fine.
--
Ion, I appreciate the Squid-signal.
Walker, "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
Echo, it helps to look at it like literature at times. You can try to fish out the message this way. Of course you don't know if you've done it right; it's still a matter of faith.
DeeJay, nice to meet you. I presume you're not kin the other Oz here, CeeJay?
Edit for Tygre and Commodore:
RN! You flatter me.
Relativity is based on the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The speed of light does vary in different media, a fact which is used to predict / explain refraction of light at inter-media boundaries. (Air/glass, water/oil, etc.) It's also a fact which helps explain the eerie blue glow from fuel-rod storage pools, but that's another story.
Of course, some people are of the school that the speed of light in a vacuum isn't constant, that it used to be a whole lot faster. This has something to do with observations of exotic astronomical phenomena and I won't pretend to understand it, but they didn't just wander in off the street; the editors of "Nature" thought the idea had some merit.
Tygre, the whole topic was more or less taboo in my high school; on the one day when the teacher felt obligated to mention it, this one guy started yelling "Why don't they just get over it! It's stupid! If people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? They just need to get over it." Everyone was more or less silent, even I, who wanted to leap and kill.
Last edited by SquidDNA; 2nd Sep 02 at 7:48 PM.
I have one question for creationists... if god created man in his own image, are all extraterrestrials inferior?
The closest I could come to believing in god is some superior race that has controlled the destiny of our planet for some time in ways we cannot fathom.
As for relativity, it has been proven to some extent. On supersonic rockets, they did experiments with synchronizing clocks, and they did turn out to be different.
Some people also recently found evidence that the laws of physics change over time. Barely, but they do. How weird is that :dolt:.
As for god, again, they have absolutely no evidence. Their only evidence is the yet unexplained parts of evolution.
Evolution for me...
#27
Lol, I had a similiar experience in my bio-chem class:
Teacher: Now, looking at all this complexity, you have to start to wonder, how did all this come to be? Evolution? God? Some other process?
Kid Next to me (Loud) : Pfft. Evolution is so stupid. Theres absolutly no proof for it.
Me: Uh.. There's a lot of proof...
Kid: No there's not! Right, like we all came from monkeys! Why are there monkeys?!
Me: We didn't evolve from mon-
Kid: Oh sure, YOU know what you're talking about!
Another Kid: Dude, shut up.
And that was that, until the next time the teacher made the opening statement. Then it got repeated until the Creationist kid started talking about intelligent design, at which point the teacher told him that this discussion might be a violation of church and state.
#28
genesis was the tabloid interview with god from which he/she/it was heavily misquoted and misrepresented.
evolution should be a law but it takes quite a while to prove it. hence, it's current theory status. would someone please point out the holes in it?
yeah skywalker, they sent one synchronous clock half way across the world in a tanker and the other in a jet. they were out, but only by milliseconds, but by enough to prove that increasing speed slows time.
Last edited by El Russo; 2nd Sep 02 at 8:32 PM.
Until you can provide me with cold hard facts that this God you speak of exists, then I will have to side with eveolution being a natural occruance (i.e. survivng through adaptation to the environment) and nothing more.Has anyone ever thought of evolution as one of God's tools?
#30
I like this thread.
I don't believe in the Bible or Koran's god. He's too... 'small'.
#31
Considering that something like 65% of Americans believe humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time (too much "Flintstones", I guess) I'd say the 50% ratio is a pretty encouraging sign for our school.
First, I didn't read all replies so if this is repeated, sorry.
Evolution exists, whether it is the basis for the development of the human race or not is what you are really asking.
Whether a creationist (I am) or an evolutionist, the fact is mutations are happening all the time AS life goes on. Whether it was the origin of homosapien or not is really the question, so your poll should have had more selections.
I'd say the following is good:
1. Evolution is how homosapiens came into existance
2. Creation is how homosapiens came into existance
3. Creation is how homosapiens came into existance BUT evolution does occur on a much slower scale than evolutionism states.
4. I don't want to get involved
Hehehe, just my $0.02.
#33
65% believe in that? wow, :argh:,
, this world is pretty messed up if you ask me. Then again people in my neighborhood are hardcore bible thumpers so you get used to it :insane:.
I try not to deal with ignorant people, I'll let them die off; and just hope they don't affect the next generation.
I have a question, what are the holes in the theory of evolution?
the way i see it is i beleive in evoluion since yes we do know it exists through natural selection however at 1 point this planet would have been but a sterile hunk of rockwith little water. so the question that hits me is where did the life origionaly come from. this is where the creationists come out of no where and say "Oh that was god". so i would ask can u prove to me in any small matter that god exists and that jesus wasnt just some loony that fooled many ppl into folowing him???? (ok here come the religious nuts screemin Blasfeemer
However there is the theory that earth was formed from 1 large hunk of rock and that it was masses of collisions via astriods and comets which caused the earth to gain the shape that it did + leaft stealer matter (such as micro bacterea, ice and durt). This 1 is my current beleife since it fits what we know todate.
Then there is the theory that i think may have been mentioned already that earth was seeded by an outside power. and that we r here simply because some other race wanted something to whatch over.
Epi 1 of the holes is as in my post where did life actally start. the creationists have that sorted god created the plannet and it was he that made us. however their r many other theories to this.Originally posted by Epi
I have a question, what are the holes in the theory of evolution?
in aintiont babylonian texts they mapped out the planets in the solarsystem all of them without the aid of a teliscope. they said that earth was seeded from an outside race. if u want proof of this it can kinda get a bit weird here.
in their maps of the solar system they placed 13 planets in their corect orbits to the sun. they say that a species that evolved on a rouge planet that landed in our solar system (the 13th planet) from another far away and got cought in the earths gravity seeded earth. now hears the hard part we know of only 9 planets. BUT we know there was at least 1-2 others in our solar system simply because or the astroid belt. they even state that these 2 planets colided. that leaves us wiht the 9 that we can se and a 1 that is theoriesed that if it realy did exist then it would have an orbit of something like 5000 years to make 1 orbit arount the sun wich means if u beleive in this sort of thing we r about ready for another return soon.
I remember having this argument with sno bout 3 years back on ICQ. Never figured him to be pro-church
#38
MY personal approach to this is to ask myself whether a theory has a more credible explanation.
In the case of creation it strikes me that both Divine Creation and Alien Creation are both based on the idea of some more powerful force, it also strikes me that the people who believe this always claim that they are in some way able to contact the force and that they have some way of influencing its great power.
It seems more likely to me that this mystery can be resolved by understanding a human's nature as a heirarchical social being, that we tend to seek out social power and if we cannot get it for ourselves then we will ally ourselves with it i.e. toady a lot.
The idea of a great power then is a mental construct which represents our hope for the most powerful ally we could ever have. Often in Human politics, due to our ability to think abstractly, the idea of an ally can have as desirable effect (for some) as the presence of the ally themself (eg "My big brother will bash you if you nick my sweeties" works - even if there is no BB) hence the bluff persists, but in the case of God and Aliens it seems more probable to me that it is a bluff.
However at its most developed level, religion becomes a skill in dealing with the machinations of the human instincts for social power and this is a good skill to develope. The "greatest power" may be fictional but heirarchical human power is not, nor is the need to treat it with great respect, caution, care & even reverence imaginary either.
For this reason I feel comfortable in viewing relgious doctrine as an artform which deals with power 'just-as-it-is' but which has no explanation as to the real reasons that this form of social behaviour came into existence in the first place.
I feel evolution explains that much better and does not need to involve toadying up to imaginary things. However if you want to get on in life you may need to toady up to real people, I think it happens quite a lot, but there is a good evolutionary explanation for it even if most people are not able or willing to change much because of that.
Last edited by boolybooly; 3rd Sep 02 at 3:10 AM.
boolybooly i have a question for u. All life on this planet evolved from something. however what was it. i was mearly pointing out b4 several examples as i have heard them that go for evolution. some beleive that we all came from some primordial soup. that we at 1 point where mearly a puddle of amino acids and that we evolved from that to bacteria and so forth to the point we r at now where we r at now as multi sell organisms of mass complexity. the question is where did the amino acids origionaly come from??? i personaly beleive in the idea that comits and astroids would of droped the bacteria and amino acids as stella dabree.
well neays my question is if evolution did happen where do u beleive that the origional genetic structures came from???
Oh no... Please God not another one of these discussions!
The real question is this: Why do people insist on replacing God with evolution, or the other way around? Evolution is just another scientific theory, like relativity, etc. It should NOT be a topic of religious debate!
God and evolution can perfectly co-exist. "Genesis-as-allegory" is the way I see it. This allegory was absolutely essential, because there's no way you're gonna make 5th Century BC shepards believe that their ancestors were apes!
Why is there no science in the Bible? Because science constantly changes as our understanding of the world grows! The Bible was meant to last forever. So which science shall we use for it? Roman science, modern-day science or future science? Either way, you end up with a very narrow timeframe in which that science is "valid".
How do I tell which parts of the Bible are methaphors (or allegories, etc.) and which parts are facts? Simple: Everything than can be understood by people in every century is fact (e.g. Jesus went there and did that). But "sensitive" scientific subjects (like Creation) are not facts, because the actual facts cannot be understood by all the people throughout history!
Just imagine if the Bible used the scientific knowledge of the year 5000. It would look like complete jibberish to us.
here is my problem with using "god" as the explenation to why im here. that would mean i wold have to beleive in something i can see no proof of. i look around me can i see god??? the answer is no however i can see sience in action. I am an atheist hence asking me to beleive that god created the world goes everything i believe in
Kalus, that's the nature of faith. You believe without proof. It's insensible and irrational, but you do. I do. (shrug.) It's just how it works.
As for the origin of life, the theory is primary abiogenesis. While the extraterrestrial seeding folks have amassed some data to suggest that Earth's upper atmosphere contains bacteria which did not originate from its surface, thus indicating that life may be extraterrestrial in origin, most folks of a scientific bent lean towards the notion that tens or hundreds of millions of years of random chemical reactions in a highly favorable environment produced a few different sets of self-replicating protobiological structures that eventually began to cooperate as cells.
There's no direct evidence for this except what geologists have been able to tell us about primordial Earth, which I'm not personally familiar with. However I can say that there has been a great deal of hypothetical work regarding the ways in which these replicating components began to evolve. It all seems quite plausible from a "molecular standpoint", and while there's not a great deal of factual support for the idea, there aren't better supported ideas, excepting extraterrestrial seeding, but then you've got to figure that it started somewhere.
EdricO, shame! Plagarism! Spit my arguments back into the thread as if they're your own! Bah! [
Edric, the reason people tend to polarise evolution and creationalism is because they are the only two theories that can answer the question of where we came from...which is kinda a question fundamental to our existence. It doesn't matter that evolution and creationalism are compatible, because what people really mean is spontaneous evolution. That is, evolution that isn't just a product of creationalism.
This is a completely binary situation to all intents and purposes. Either spontaneous evolution is fact, or creationalism of one form or another (and possibly incorporating evolution itself) is a fact. This is why I really don't understand Kalus' comments regarding other alternatives. If we were seeded by aliens, or evolved from micro-organisms deposited on Earth from space, these are still organic lifeforms that must, at some stage, either have evolved or been created. Take it far enough back, and you're only left with the two options. I'm also skeptical that the asteroid belt is considered by astronomers to be proof of the previous existence of other planets in the solar system. In fact, to the best of my knowledge the prevailing theory is that the asteroid belt is merely debris left over from the formation of the solar system. I'm hardly knowledgeable in this area, but I'm forced to wonder if two planets colliding in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter wouldn't have severely altered the balance of gravitational forces in the entire solar system, and rendered Earth uninhabitable in the process.
Regarding general relativity and the speed of light: once again something I'm not an expert on, but to the best of my knowledge "speed of light in a vacuum" is a misnomer. The speed of light itself is always constant (299,792,458 m/s). When light passes through a substance like glass, however, the photons are absorbed by the atoms and almost instantaneously re-emitted. It is this re-emission that lends the illusion of light slowing down.
I have heard of the theory that the speed of light is, in fact, slowing, but I have read absolutely nothing on the topic and don't have time to at the moment. Off the top of my head, however, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable if it can be related to thermodynamics. General relativity doesn't "break" if the speed of light isn't constant, though (at least, I wouldn't think), since the slowing down effect is neglible over any reasonably measureable period of time. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that general relativity has its limitations...it's a closer model of the universe than Newtonian mechanics, but is still only an approximation. That's why quantum physics, M-theory etc exist.
Sorry for the off-topicness.
Daniika, two points. First, Creation isn't a theory.
Second, I always heard that light was being slowed down as it passed through a medium because as an electromagnetic phenomenon, it encountered resistance from matter which has an electromagnetic component. The absorption / re-emission thing is nifty, except re-emission tends to happen on a few specific wavelengths, depending on the material.
#45
Its a really interesting question and it puzzles me greatly. To be honest I have not got a clue for sure but I did have to study it once and I think its fair to say noone knows for sure. Even science has its mysteries.Originally posted by Kalus_uk
boolybooly i have a question for u. All life on this planet evolved from something. however what was it. i was mearly pointing out b4 several examples as i have heard them that go for evolution. some beleive that we all came from some primordial soup. that we at 1 point where mearly a puddle of amino acids and that we evolved from that to bacteria and so forth to the point we r at now where we r at now as multi sell organisms of mass complexity. the question is where did the amino acids origionaly come from??? i personaly beleive in the idea that comits and astroids would of droped the bacteria and amino acids as stella dabree.
well neays my question is if evolution did happen where do u beleive that the origional genetic structures came from???
But the two ideas of dropping from space and evolving in a pool are really one and the same. Since if bacterial spores or equivalent exist in space then they must have evolved somewhere else ither in spce or another planet.
The question is where did life originate and noone knows.
The main issue is that life is made of chemicals which are the same stuff planets and intersteller dust are made of and there has been a lot of time for these chemicals to produce life, over 13 billion years in the universe as a whole and over 4 billion years on Earth that we can be fairly sure of, maybe more. SO it very likely happened somewhere. Probably not in space as the temperatures are very low and the faster chemistry of a sun warmed planet would be much more rapid and likely to make life.
On Earth the development of multicellularity happened after about 2 billion years of basic single celled organism evolution, so it took a very long time. Longer it would seem than the evolution of single celled life, which took about 1.5 billion years to start up.
Its odd that life started so quickly and it makes me wonder if spores came here from another planet blown on a solar wind whose sun is probably dead by now.
I do suspect life has always been associated with water but it must have started as something far more simple than a bacteria.
My feeling is that on another planet a mixture of organic substances such as is found on some of the gas giants moons eg Titans tholin, and oceans of water produced a mixture, but as you know oil and water dont mix, they form bubbles with double skins called micelles. I suspect that on the shores of this ocean under a different sun, the wave actions caused by the atmospheric winds just like here pounded the surf and produced quadzillions of micelles over billions of years by mechanical action. In time the micelles with a certain membrane chemistry may have grown by absorbing more chemicals faster than an average micelle and on expanding broke up and divided hence reproducing after a fashion without any DNA or RNA or Amino Acids.
These complex organics IMHO probably became concentrated in these micelles as they may have been absorbed by the membrane like structures which make up a micelle. Since they naturally polymerise their presence may naturally have increased the stability of the micelle due to their mechanical properties and not due to their information carrying properties, ie they make long chain molecules which would act a bit like fibreglass mat prolonging the life of the micelle and helping it to break up without disintegrating.
There must have been some kind of naturally produced molecule which once sat in a micelle membrane helps drag other molecules into the membrane.
It would take a long time but eventually I suspect that very simple bubble life form like this driven by forces outside it would eventually become a cell capable of repairing its own membrane and synthesising certain molecules using the DNA template due to a lengthy process of natural selection of the fastest reproducing micelles.
IMHO !
#46
i have several dumb things to say, that was one of them, that was the second and third:
roar to meow
scrrreaaach to bwaak
and uhaeeahahaha to welcome to evolution you dopes!
Squid: acknowledged. Creationalism isn't a theory...I just didn't know what else to call it.
You could be right on the light transmission speed aspect too. We both heard different things, and both explanations seem to have problems given my limited knowledge of physics. I wonder if anyone else couldn't clear it up, but I don't think it's too important to this thread...
maybe one day I'll understand what the fuss is about... as a protestant one of the first things I was teached in sunday school was that the statement that God created the earth in 7 days is not neccessarily exactly 7 days. We just don't know how long one of God's days are. So I fail to see how you can believe in just one theory of either creationism or evolusion when both can exist together.
Just a bit of light on why fundimentalists tend to hold very strongly to a literal seven days...it has been going on for a very long time, whether to totally believe the Bible as true, or to take it as a base point for developing dogma. One just needs to look at the Spanish Inquisition to see the dangers of a church long on dogma, yet short on any real source material. However, even the most rabid Baptist will agree, there are some parts that are allegory. They just don't want to start out with it...and this is a question at the very start, for us anyway. That's why, but it's hard, because the language IS different. Anyway, just a quick FYI.
And, I must say, from what I've seen, evolution NEEDS outside help to be valid. But then, I really can't impress my own personal convictions upon anyone here...again, I won't try and convert the far more fanatical...
Last edited by Commodore-SLS; 3rd Sep 02 at 8:10 AM.
Before anyone starts debating the interpretation of the Bible again, please read my previous post of a few hours ago (which is one page back - this topic moves fast!)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
