03-27-2011 at 2:21 AM

"Creation. That's all I have to say here."<br /> <br /> I don't mean to sound rude, but why?>.> This is a debate and I'm curious. I mean, not just because I'm a huge evolution follower and think creationism is just crazy and makes no sense, it's because most creationists I know can't actually back their theories up. So, I love to see new theories in debates, trying to find a theory that actually make creationism make sense.

03-27-2011 at 2:18 AM

I believe that the building blocks of the Earth was made by God (I'm a Christian). But I also believe later on everything evolved to how it is right now.

03-26-2011 at 11:20 PM

Creation. That's all I have to say here.

03-25-2011 at 3:11 AM

Ohh i get what you mean ;)

03-25-2011 at 2:58 AM

Just going to skip over the derail posts, and go back to you, Clayton.<br /> <br /> I didn't mean to imply I thought you didn't support evolution, I just wanted to better explain the point of "fact vs. theory" because those who think evolution is false might misunderstand and use "evolution isn't fact" as an argument. Was just nipping it in the bud. :}

03-25-2011 at 12:29 AM

Cervine, I LOL'D. xD

03-24-2011 at 9:08 AM

<b>This is a second warning to keep this debate on topic, this debate is about Creation vs Evolution not grammar or spelling.</b>

03-24-2011 at 5:07 AM

f their points were valid, possibly not. Considering most of yours aren't, yeah. Yeah, I would.<br /> <br /> My points are valid.

03-24-2011 at 4:56 AM

<b>Please keep this debate civil and on topic.</b>

03-24-2011 at 4:43 AM

If <b>their</b> points were valid, possibly not. Considering most of yours aren't, yeah. Yeah, I would.

03-24-2011 at 4:37 AM

I can't take someone seriously in a debate thread if they can't use the right "there".<br /> <br /> You would throw away a persons opinion because of spelling mistakes? Even IF there point is valad?

03-24-2011 at 4:34 AM

A few spelling mistakes? I'm sorry, but I kind of laughed out loud at that.<br /> <br /> And I have a friend who doesn't type well or spell well, but if she's in a serious debate or something, or writing a school paper, she will use the best spelling she can. Which is much better than this. I can't take someone seriously in a debate thread if they can't use the right "there".

03-24-2011 at 4:31 AM

and i am saying that people who can not spell well have just as much a right to state there opinions as you do and be taken sericley about those opinions. To say that someone is uneducated because of a few spelling mistakes is horrible, rude, and ofencive.

03-24-2011 at 4:29 AM

All I'm saying is that in my experience, it's generally true. Nothing more.

03-24-2011 at 4:21 AM

<br /> Actually, that's usually a pretty good indication...<br /> <br /> I think i will ancwer your statement with another statement you yourself made Nitrous.<br /> <br /> "Please drop the attitude, it's really not necessary."<br /> <br />

03-24-2011 at 4:07 AM

Nonono Carni, I believe in evolution too and I believe in everything you posted, I was just clearing up the "theory of evolution is fact".. because it don't make any sense..

03-24-2011 at 3:47 AM

"it does not in any way meen i or anyone ealce who cant is uneducated Nitrous"<br /> <br /> Actually, that's usually a pretty good indication...<br />

03-23-2011 at 9:29 PM

"Religion and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive, you can happily have both. There are many scientists who are christian and who believe in evolution. It is just the simple realization that god facilitated evolution himself."<br /> <br /> I Think ZJ said my point best.<br /> <br /> <br /> "Then how come nothing the bible predicted has come true? <br /> Also, maybe you don't know anything about evolution is because you can't spell it."<br /> <br /> Thats just plan rude, i know i cant spell but it does not in any way meen i or anyone ealce who cant is uneducated Nitrous, i know it was not directed at me, but i still find that offencive.

03-23-2011 at 8:34 PM

There is more evidence to support evolution than to debunk it, scientists have seen its effects in front of their own eyes. Just look at dogs and domesticated foxes. That's a form of controlled evolution.<br /> <br /> A theory is a theory because it is open to new information that can build upon itself to further support the theory or modify the knowledge we already have. Evolution is not in a league where it may be false, it's just a matter of not knowing absolutely everything there is to know. With the human genome project going on, we're building our knowledge every day, and it continues to support evolution.<br /> <br /> I'm going to copy/paste several supports rather than wind up with a novel in here as I try to explain it myself, so here you go...<br /> <br /> <i>"Asst Prof was correct in explaining that in science, nothing can ever be fully proved. Absolute proofs only exist in mathematics.<br /> <br /> A scientist collects facts by testing a hypothesis, and then tries to draw a conclusion from those facts. The conclusion is the theory, which explains any phenomenon seen amongst the facts. This theory makes predictions, that is, if the theory is correct, we would expect to find certain results in different experiments. Each result which agrees with the predictions of theory furthers our confidence in it. If even one fact does not agree with it, that calls the whole theory into question, and can render it disproven. However, usually, a fact which does not agree with a theory simply calls for a modification in the theory to account for it.<br /> <br /> Here are some facts which support the theory of evolution and are why we accept it.<br /> <br /> In order for evolution to have occurred, as we predict, requires a time span of billions of years. Since Einstein demonstrated that the speed of light is a constant, and we can measure the distance of far away galaxies, we can determine the age of the universe, roughly 15 billion years.<br /> <br /> Furthermore, thanks to all sorts of radiometric dating (not just carbon dating, but other types as well) we can date the age of the Earth, about 4.5 billion years old. Creationists call the results into question, but different radioactive decay methods all reinforce the same results, and no qualified chemist or geologist has ever demonstrated that radiometric dating functions differently from the way we know it to function.<br /> <br /> Using this same radioactive dating, we can date all the fossils we've found. The unmistakable pattern amongst them shows that we see less and less complex animals the older the fossils are. Fossils older than about a half a billion years ago are all microscopic. Fossils hundreds of millions of years old are all fish, then amphibians, then reptiles - exactly as the theory of evolution predicts. Then in younger fossils we begin to see reptiles which are beginning to look like birds and mammals, and then birds and mammals themselves. A single fossil found out of place would call everything into question. The traditional suggestion would be to find the fossils of bunnies dating back to the pre-Cambrian era, but any mammal or bird fossil found that old would work. We have never found any such thing.<br /> <br /> We can see specific evolutionary patterns. We can see how the base of our mammal brain looks exactly like the brain of a reptile. We can see the progression of how animals produce, from the soft eggs of fish to the harder eggs of reptiles and birds, and then with mammals the pregnancy taking place inside the body.<br /> <br /> We know humans are technically apes, and therefore, if evolution were true, we would see signs that we are related most closely to apes (everything is related to everything else, but the other apes are the closest). And we see definite signs that we do share a recent, common ancestor with the apes. We see that our DNA matches up with their's 99%, and we can look at our bodies and see a multitude of physiological similarities such as bone structure, organs, cell make up, reproductive process et. al.<br /> <br /> We can look in the fossil record and see our common ancestry with the apes. We've found hundreds of remains which clearly show this ancestry. Did you know the "missing link" is no longer missing?<br /> <br /> We can also see the mechanism of natural selection at play everywhere, not just in the biological record. Humans sought to travel, and so we invented faster and faster methods, first the locomotive, then the automobile. We wanted to fly so we invented the blimp. Then the airplane was invented and the blimp forgotten about, used mainly as an amusement. The early airplane designs were simple, then more complex, with the negative or less useful designs abandoned, until we've developed the high level of air craft we have today. <br /> <br /> There's tons more stuff, a lot of it specific to showing the relationships between organisms. I highly recommend this video series by AronRa:"</i><br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=7<br /> <br /> <i>"You asked for 5 facts. Here's 10 *categories* of facts:<br /> <br /> 1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:<br /> <br /> a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)<br /> <br /> b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).<br /> <br /> c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.<br /> <br /> d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.<br /> <br /> 2. Fossil evidence - (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.<br /> <br /> 3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).<br /> <br /> 4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).<br /> <br /> 5. Evidence from proteins - Proteins - E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus thing) which incidentally stands for 'rhesus monkey'); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly *different* proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.<br /> <br /> 6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).<br /> <br /> 7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.<br /> <br /> 8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.<br /> <br /> 9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.<br /> <br /> 10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides."<br /> <br /> <i>1. We have observed instances of speciation. (See first source.) This is macroevolution!<br /> 2. We have observed microevolution in many cases, and the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the scale. (If microevolutions keep happening, over a longer stretch of time, you get macroevolution.)<br /> 3. Fossil tell a very interesting tale, even with a very basic understanding: As we dig into undisturbed areas of the earth, we find fossils of creatures that no longer exist, but they closely resemble creatures that do exist still. The deeper you dig, the stranger the fossils get with respect to modern life. However, each layer of fossils contains creatures that are similar to other life, with the most similar being the layers directly above and below. This basic knowledge of fossils indicates that life changes with time, and that there is common descent amongst living organisms.<br /> 4. We have an understanding of genetics, which provides the mechanism (combined with selection, usually natural selection) to produce speciation. Aside from that, we can use genetic differences and similarities to produce a ‘tree of life’ that relates all organisms. Though this tree is not complete it is extensive. Even more interesting, it matches the ‘tree of life’ we create from the fossil record (using anatomy).<br /> 5. Using whales as a case study: Whales breathe air, they are mammals, and they even have hip bones even though they don’t have legs. Combine this with the fact that we’ve found fossils of creatures that no longer exist that appear very whale-like, but they had legs. Some (depending on the fossil and age) probably lived on the land and the water. This indicates that the ancestors of whales lived on the land (with some intermediate forms living on the land and water as well).<br /> <br /> I know you said 5, but I want to include a 6th one because it is an interesting thing to note.<br /> <br /> 6. We have used our understanding of evolution to produce positive benefits for mankind. Namely in agriculture (increased output) and our understanding of the evolution of germs (increasing our ability to combat them).<br /> At this point, evolution basically cannot be 100% wrong. It could be somewhat wrong, but there is only “so much” wrong it could be at this point because we’ve used our knowledge of evolution successfully to actually DO something.<br /> This is why the theory of evolution is “up there” on a pedestal with atomic theory. (Another theory which produces real-world results.) Both of these theories might be wrong, but they must be pretty close to the truth to produce working results.<br /> Source(s):"</i><br /> <br /> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html<br /> <br /> <br /> Long story short: No theory can ever be "proven" unless you're dealing with mathematics. But it becomes unreasonable to say that a theory is possibly wrong when all of the evidence points to support for that theory.<br />

03-23-2011 at 7:58 PM

"I think Jambers is just confused."<br /> <br /> no lawax im not confused, i know what i believe. but thank you for being consired about it and NOT calling me a troll.