Creationism: Is there anyone here that subscribes wholesale to this?

[Toz]

Just out of curiosity. And why do you, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution, natural selection, and the things that abiogenesis have found out so far?

[chickenonsteroids]

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Creationism is so bad it's unbelievable. Rational people (including Christians) dismiss it on the basis of better evidence and quite frankly it's absurd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprB...feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntEE9...feature=relmfu

[Of Mike and Men]

I believe what the Bible teaches of creation. Though, to the degree of interpretation I agree with what "creationists" say, varies. I.E. the bible doesn't teach the earth is 6,000 years old. And the theory they used to arrive at this number is flawed, at best.

I also believe I could be wrong. And I'm fine with that. I don't really see why it matters. To me, Christianity is about Love, mercy, peace, justice, gentleness, purity, and forgiveness. Not about theology, doctrines, and senseless debates about the age of the Earth. It's about taking care of others. Nor is it about being right. If any of us are right.

I wouldn't claim my view is right, because of the relativeness of interpretations. It's also not a hill to die over. Did we evolve? Great. No? Great. Evolution, the big bang, string theory, the big crunch, old Earth theories, none of them impact the existence of G-D. Nor do they alter it.

As for being rational, our existence and cause of our existence is irrational. It makes no sense. So, to me, there is no rational reason to believe anything. Believing in existence is irrational. Yet, here we are.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

As for being rational, our existence and cause of our existence is irrational. It makes no sense. So, to me, there is no rational reason to believe anything. Believing in existence is irrational. Yet, here we are.

...What...?

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

As for being rational, our existence and cause of our existence is irrational. It makes no sense. So, to me, there is no rational reason to believe anything. Believing in existence is irrational. Yet, here we are.

What on earth are you talking about?

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

What on earth are you talking about?

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

...What...?

Seriously though, I'm sick of pretending that I'm accepting of creationists. I'm not. I don't want to interact with anyone that's mind-numbingly ignorant enough to believe in it. Thankfully it's no longer legal to teach it in Science in UK Schools, and I think this is a big step forwards towards leaving archaic and ridiculous religious shackles behind us.

For future reference: the fact that Evolution is a 'theory' means that a hypothesis has been posed and overwhelming evidence has been found to support the hypothesis. Creationism is not a theory as it has no evidence, atmost it's a hypothesis, and probably not even that seeing as it has no basis in science and reality.

[Megan1]

I beleive in creationism as in I beleive that God created everything on his own in 6 straight 24 hour days, that humans never evolved from a non-human ancestor, and humans were here from the very first week that the Earth existed. I do beleive that humans probably looked different in the beginning and maybe even looked like other animals- but they were still humans. I've also never done the count myself to say that the Earth is 6,000 years old; I've only trusted other people's counting methods, so I guess it's possible that they counted wrong and it's actually older or younger.


There's "evidence" of every theory (macro evolution, creationism, etc.), but there isn't exactly proof of any of it- so no matter what you belief about the beginning, you are believing by faith to some degree. Why do I choose to believe that God created everything in 6 straight days without the help of "the big bang" or evolution? Basically because God has given me the faith to believe. Plus, when I look at something like how a baby is created and born, it seems so far fetched that that was an accident or natural selection. This next part is slightly graphic, so read with caution, but I feel like I need to say it to get my point across: The fact that humans (and most animals) have two kinds, male and female....and that if you get one male and one female, they have body parts that fit together perfectly and can form a child inside of the woman.....and then after 9 months her body knows exactly how to make it come out....it's just way too far fetched for me to believe that something like that was an accident and natural selection. There are lots of other examples like that.

I know that's not an answer that will satisfy anyone here, but it's the only truthful answer that I can give. Faith is basically my answer, although I also look around and see God's creations every day and think about how they couldn't have been an accident.

[Baxter]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Seriously though, I'm sick of pretending that I'm accepting of creationists. I'm not. I don't want to interact with anyone that's mind-numbingly ignorant enough to believe in it. Thankfully it's no longer legal to teach it in Science in UK Schools, and I think this is a big step forwards towards leaving archaic and ridiculous religious shackles behind us.

You don't even want to talk to anybody that believes in it? I think it's mind numbingly stupid, but as long as they shut their mouths and keep their farfetched ideas to their self, I could care less. Not everyone who believes in ridiculous things to justify their literal interpretation of the bible wants to push it on other people. Ron Paul is a creationist, and I could give a shit if he thinks Jesus rode a dinosaur, he can fuck my mother if he wants to, as long as he's a good president and lets people be.

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I beleive in creationism as in I beleive that God created everything on his own in 6 straight 24 hour days, that humans never evolved from a non-human ancestor, and humans were here from the very first week that the Earth existed. I do beleive that humans probably looked different in the beginning and maybe even looked like other animals- but they were still humans. I've also never done the count myself to say that the Earth is 6,000 years old; I've only trusted other people's counting methods, so I guess it's possible that they counted wrong and it's actually older or younger.


There's "evidence" of every theory (macro evolution, creationism, etc.), but there isn't exactly proof of any of it- so no matter what you belief about the beginning, you are believing by faith to some degree. Why do I choose to believe that God created everything in 6 straight days without the help of "the big bang" or evolution? Basically because God has given me the faith to believe. Plus, when I look at something like how a baby is created and born, it seems so far fetched that that was an accident or natural selection. This next part is slightly graphic, so read with caution, but I feel like I need to say it to get my point across: The fact that humans (and most animals) have two kinds, male and female....and that if you get one male and one female, they have body parts that fit together perfectly and can form a child inside of the woman.....and then after 9 months her body knows exactly how to make it come out....it's just way too far fetched for me to believe that something like that was an accident and natural selection. There are lots of other examples like that.

I know that's not an answer that will satisfy anyone here, but it's the only truthful answer that I can give. Faith is basically my answer, although I also look around and see God's creations every day and think about how they couldn't have been an accident.

I'm all for respecting people's believes and everything but creationism is something I've grown to despise. It's ignorance and rejection of something that challenges you. You can still believe in god and the bible while accepting the theory of evolution.

Plus don't try to bring faith in science down to the faith in a religion. The two are not the same. Unless you're completely blind to the world.

You can think the world is beautiful and how it 'couldn't have been by chance' but the world is poorly "created" if you think about it. So are humans. Why would he create a world with such poor tectonic plates? or why is childbirth so deadly for mothers?

Maybe it's annoying because it's rather saddening to see someone so enthralled by their faith they reject evidence based fact. It isn't commendable by any means.

Whether you would or not, I'd like you to step out of your comfort zone a little bit. Learn about the theory first. I'm not here asking you to abandon your faith,that'd be silly. I'm asking you to think instead of just accepting. If your priest or whatever says don't do it then he's doing you more harm than good. The ability to think for ourselves is one of the greatest abilities we have and refusing to use that because of the bible is disappointing.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I beleive in creationism as in I beleive that God created everything on his own in 6 straight 24 hour days, that humans never evolved from a non-human ancestor, and humans were here from the very first week that the Earth existed. I do beleive that humans probably looked different in the beginning and maybe even looked like other animals- but they were still humans. I've also never done the count myself to say that the Earth is 6,000 years old; I've only trusted other people's counting methods, so I guess it's possible that they counted wrong and it's actually older or younger.


There's "evidence" of every theory (macro evolution, creationism, etc.), but there isn't exactly proof of any of it- so no matter what you belief about the beginning, you are believing by faith to some degree. Why do I choose to believe that God created everything in 6 straight days without the help of "the big bang" or evolution? Basically because God has given me the faith to believe. Plus, when I look at something like how a baby is created and born, it seems so far fetched that that was an accident or natural selection. This next part is slightly graphic, so read with caution, but I feel like I need to say it to get my point across: The fact that humans (and most animals) have two kinds, male and female....and that if you get one male and one female, they have body parts that fit together perfectly and can form a child inside of the woman.....and then after 9 months her body knows exactly how to make it come out....it's just way too far fetched for me to believe that something like that was an accident and natural selection. There are lots of other examples like that.

I know that's not an answer that will satisfy anyone here, but it's the only truthful answer that I can give. Faith is basically my answer, although I also look around and see God's creations every day and think about how they couldn't have been an accident.

Watch this then come back.

In essence:

• Nobody is saying it's all an 'accident'
• The fact that many things on Earth work properly is not proof of the Christian God
• If it hypothetically does, then does not the fact that there is a parasite that buries itself in children's eyes and devours it over a long period of time, with it's entire purpose of existence being to do this,then does this also reflect upon God in the same way?
• How the hell is it too 'far fetched' to believe that species gradually gained favourable traits as the ones who failed to adapt died off until we are left with us, and yet the idea that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th is somehow totally logical?

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

I'm all for respecting people's believes and everything but creationism is something I've grown to despise. It's ignorance and rejection of something that challenges you. You can still believe in god and the bible while accepting the theory of evolution.

Plus don't try to bring faith in science down to the faith in a religion. The two are not the same. Unless you're completely blind to the world.

You can think the world is beautiful and how it 'couldn't have been by chance' but the world is poorly "created" if you think about it. So are humans. Why would he create a world with such poor tectonic plates? or why is childbirth so deadly for mothers?

Maybe it's annoying because it's rather saddening to see someone so enthralled by their faith they reject evidence based fact. It isn't commendable by any means.

Whether you would or not, I'd like you to step out of your comfort zone a little bit. Learn about the theory first. I'm not here asking you to abandon your faith,that'd be silly. I'm asking you to think instead of just accepting. If your priest or whatever says don't do it then he's doing you more harm than good. The ability to think for ourselves is one of the greatest abilities we have and refusing to use that because of the bible is disappointing.

Faith is believing in what you can't see. Whether that's believing in science that isn't completely proven or believing in a God who isn't completely proven, both are faith.

The bible specifically talks about pain/death in child birth and why it happens. It didn't originally, but it was one of the downfalls when sin entered our bodies. The book of Genesis clearly talks about that. And the thing about the tectonic plates isn't specifically mentioned, but there was a curse put on the Earth (also in the book of Genesis), so it's probably a result of that. I'm not sure though.

I have "learned a little bit". No I'm not an expert on evolution, but I do know the basics about what people believe about it.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Watch this then come back.

In essence:

• Nobody is saying it's all an 'accident'
• The fact that many things on Earth work properly is not proof of the Christian God
• If it hypothetically does, then does not the fact that there is a parasite that buries itself in children's eyes and devours it over a long period of time, with it's entire purpose of existence being to do this,then does this also reflect upon God in the same way?
• How the hell is it too 'far fetched' to believe that species gradually gained favourable traits as the ones who failed to adapt died off until we are left with us, and yet the idea that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th is somehow totally logical?

• Maybe you don't personally say it's all an accident, but many people do (not meaning just in this thread, but on this website in general).
• It's not proof of God, but it is evidence of God.
• I'm kind of confused about what you mean here. Are you asking why there are things in our bodies that don't work properly for our benefit if God really did create us? If so, the answer is that the bible clearly says sin has taken a major toll on us- body, mind, and soul....that includes the health of our bodies and the bad things that are in them. It wasn't like that originally.
• I'm not talking about humans/animals "adapting traits". I was talking about things like child birth....that's clearly something that wasn't adapted and had to have been around since the beginning (reguardless of what you believe the beginning is) or else every human and animal would have had to have become extinct a long time ago. Things like that existed from the start, there's no denying that- and that's just too big of a coincidence to say that it happened any other way.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

As for being rational, our existence and cause of our existence is irrational. It makes no sense. So, to me, there is no rational reason to believe anything. Believing in existence is irrational. Yet, here we are.

Could you explain this because I am lost.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I beleive in creationism as in I beleive that God created everything on his own in 6 straight 24 hour days, that humans never evolved from a non-human ancestor, and humans were here from the very first week that the Earth existed. I do beleive that humans probably looked different in the beginning and maybe even looked like other animals- but they were still humans. I've also never done the count myself to say that the Earth is 6,000 years old; I've only trusted other people's counting methods, so I guess it's possible that they counted wrong and it's actually older or younger.

For the sake of argument, let's say humans were always human and they didn't evolve from non-human ancestors. How do you explain the enormous body of evidence indicating similar evolutionary and anatomical patterns between humans and non-humans? Furthermore, how do you explain the evolution of non-human animals into humans?

Originally Posted by Megan1

There's "evidence" of every theory (macro evolution, creationism, etc.), but there isn't exactly proof of any of it- so no matter what you belief about the beginning, you are believing by faith to some degree.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, so you're trying to formulate an argument by distorting concepts in your favour. A central premise to theories is they are falsifiable, hence, they are defined by no proof. The fact you are stating "there is no proof" as an argument shows you have an extremely limited understanding of science in general.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Why do I choose to believe that God created everything in 6 straight days without the help of "the big bang" or evolution? Basically because God has given me the faith to believe. Plus, when I look at something like how a baby is created and born, it seems so far fetched that that was an accident or natural selection.

There is much more to evolution than mutations and natural selection, again you have an extremely limited understanding and it would benefit you to read up on what it is you're trying to argue against. I'm sure that is why it seems so far-fetched to you.

Originally Posted by Megan1

This next part is slightly graphic, so read with caution, but I feel like I need to say it to get my point across: The fact that humans (and most animals) have two kinds, male and female....and that if you get one male and one female, they have body parts that fit together perfectly and can form a child inside of the woman.....and then after 9 months her body knows exactly how to make it come out....it's just way too far fetched for me to believe that something like that was an accident and natural selection.

Her body doesn't magically "know" and the baby pops out. There is communication between the fetus to the mother and the mother to the fetus. Although approx. 9 months is the average, it is not the case in every woman, indicating it is far more complex than you make it to be.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Faith is believing in what you can't see. Whether that's believing in science that isn't completely proven or believing in a God who isn't completely proven, both are faith.

Science will never have concepts that are truly proven because that requires complete knowledge of everything that exists. Even in 1,000 years, I seriously doubt humans will know everything about everything, so while there would be newer scientific theories, none would be truly proven true.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I have "learned a little bit". No I'm not an expert on evolution, but I do know the basics about what people believe about it.

In previous threads where you commented on evolution, you stated you knew a little bit yet you have trouble understanding what science is in the first place. You view evolutionary mechanisms as either mutations or natural selection, yet even a high-school course would teach you more (i.e. sexual selection). In the past I gave links to you demonstrating the theorized linkage between apes and humans, yet you openly refused to accept it, which is fine we're all entitled to opinions but it suggests to me you have no intent on learning what it is you're trying to argue against. You're stabbing in the dark because you have really not much of an idea of evolution.

Originally Posted by Megan1

• Maybe you don't personally say it's all an accident, but many people do (not meaning just in this thread, but on this website in general).

From the scientific community, there certainly are contributions from mutations. On this website there are not a lot of people who have a great deal of education in sciences beyond a Bachelor's degree so they don't have the credibility that a researcher or scientific research article would have.

Originally Posted by Megan1

• I'm kind of confused about what you mean here. Are you asking why there are things in our bodies that don't work properly for our benefit if God really did create us? If so, the answer is that the bible clearly says sin has taken a major toll on us- body, mind, and soul....that includes the health of our bodies and the bad things that are in them. It wasn't like that originally.

How do you explain the presence of vestigial structures, such as the human appendix? It can rupture causing pain and require surgery, yet its function in modern times is significantly reduced. Those who have their appendix removed can function just as well as they could before it was removed, so it isn't as crucial of an organ as, say, the heart.

Originally Posted by Megan1

• I'm not talking about humans/animals "adapting traits". I was talking about things like child birth....that's clearly something that wasn't adapted and had to have been around since the beginning (reguardless of what you believe the beginning is) or else every human and animal would have had to have become extinct a long time ago.

I'm not sure if you're aware but you've contradicted yourself because previously you stated you subscribed to the idea humans evolved but never from non-human ancestors. This means the birthing process and required tissues would also have undergone adaptation, unless you have an argument stating otherwise. You're going to make a fool of yourself, not because you know very little of science or evolution, but you seem unwilling to learn more of it so you'll keep grasping at straws and shooting yourself in the foot.

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

For the sake of argument, let's say humans were always human and they didn't evolve from non-human ancestors. How do you explain the enormous body of evidence indicating similar evolutionary and anatomical patterns between humans and non-humans? Furthermore, how do you explain the evolution of non-human animals into humans?

I never claimed that humans and other animals weren't similar and didn't evolve similarly- I only claimed that humans didn't evolve from non-humans. And as for the non-human ancestors, I believe that all of those were either human and just looked different, or not human and never did become human (even if they looked similar to humans).

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Creationism is not a scientific theory, so you're trying to formulate an argument by distorting concepts in your favour. A central premise to theories is they are falsifiable, hence, they are defined by no proof. The fact you are stating "there is no proof" as an argument shows you have an extremely limited understanding of science in general.

I know that Creationism isn't a scientific theory, because the evidence is mainly circumstancial and not scientific....which isn't enough for scientists, but it's enough for me.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

There is much more to evolution than mutations and natural selection, again you have an extremely limited understanding and it would benefit you to read up on what it is you're trying to argue against. I'm sure that is why it seems so far-fetched to you.

Absolutely everything happens either on purpose or by accident. When I say "accident", I don't mean that something went wrong that caused it to happen...I just mean that nobody/nothing planned it, it just happened through natural (sometimes scientific) events. I don't know if I'm making sense, but everything was either planned by someone or happened by accident/coincidence.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Her body doesn't magically "know" and the baby pops out. There is communication between the fetus to the mother and the mother to the fetus. Although approx. 9 months is the average, it is not the case in every woman, indicating it is far more complex than you make it to be.

Yeah, that's what I meant, the body sends signals and makes it all happen. I didn't mean to say that it just magically happened. I just meant that it's all wired so perfectly that it's hard to believe it just adapted to do that all by itself. And when it not approx. 9 months (give or take, it obviously doesn't have to be to the day), it's usually because something goes wrong, not because that's how it's meant to be. Like I said, there is sin in the world so it isn't perfect any more.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Science will never have concepts that are truly proven because that requires complete knowledge of everything that exists. Even in 1,000 years, I seriously doubt humans will know everything about everything, so while there would be newer scientific theories, none would be truly proven true.

I agree.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

In previous threads where you commented on evolution, you stated you knew a little bit yet you have trouble understanding what science is in the first place. You view evolutionary mechanisms as either mutations or natural selection, yet even a high-school course would teach you more (i.e. sexual selection). In the past I gave links to you demonstrating the theorized linkage between apes and humans, yet you openly refused to accept it, which is fine we're all entitled to opinions but it suggests to me you have no intent on learning what it is you're trying to argue against. You're stabbing in the dark because you have really not much of an idea of evolution.

That was quite a long time ago that I said that. I have researched since. I'm still no expert, but I know the basics about what others believe on the subject as well as what I believe. Also, I understand the "link" that people see in humans and apes...but I believe that those "links" are all either humans that just looked different, apes that just looked different, or another extinct animal that never became human. I'm sure humans may look and adapt similarly to them, but that doesn't mean that humans once started as something else.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

From the scientific community, there certainly are contributions from mutations. On this website there are not a lot of people who have a great deal of education in sciences beyond a Bachelor's degree so they don't have the credibility that a researcher or scientific research article would have.

I'm saying that SOME people simply believe that everything was just an accident. I wasn't saying that's what scientists say or that's what you guys say, but SOME people definitely do believe that.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

How do you explain the presence of vestigial structures, such as the human appendix? It can rupture causing pain and require surgery, yet its function in modern times is significantly reduced. Those who have their appendix removed can function just as well as they could before it was removed, so it isn't as crucial of an organ as, say, the heart.

I can't tell you for sure why we have an appendix, but here is my guess. When humans were first created, we probably did function differently (after all, there wasn't even sin or sickness in the world at the time), so we probably needed an apendix back then. God chose for the rest of the world to be created through child birth instead of making each person individually out of dust like He did with Adam and Eve...so naturally (and yes, scientifically!), when we are forming, we are going to for the most part have the same parts that our parents have- even though we may not need all of them. There was a purpose for it originally. This would be true whether Creationism or Evolution were right, so this isn't really a valid arguement on either side.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I'm not sure if you're aware but you've contradicted yourself because previously you stated you subscribed to the idea humans evolved but never from non-human ancestors. This means the birthing process and required tissues would also have undergone adaptation, unless you have an argument stating otherwise. You're going to make a fool of yourself, not because you know very little of science or evolution, but you seem unwilling to learn more of it so you'll keep grasping at straws and shooting yourself in the foot.

The birthing process may have changed a little, I don't know...but there always was a birthing process from the beginning, even if it was a little different. There had to be, or else people and animals wouldn't have kept existing. That's what I'm saying, the birthing process couldn't have just adapted into existance. Whether you believe in macro evolution or creationism, everyone pretty much has to agree that the birthing process had to have been around (even if it was slightly different) since the first creatures were created or else no one would exist today.

[Toz]

Megan1: I hate to break it to you, but you are operating under misconception after misconception. First off, regardless of what you believe, genetic ancestors are not humans. Of course you are free to believe whatever you'd like, but why delude yourself in the face of established, verified science? Furthermore, what is this about everything happening as an accident? That implies that everything occurs with some sense of intent. The world does not operate that way. Things happen simply because they can, and to the best of their abilities.
I also found this pretty frightening:

I know that Creationism isn't a scientific theory, because the evidence is mainly circumstancial and not scientific....which isn't enough for scientists, but it's enough for me.

Are you serious? How on earth do you allow yourself to stand upon a faulty premise? Look at it this way: you're standing on a path that meets a chasm. It diverges into to two bridges- one that is built with engineering in mind and has been structurally tested, and one that has been built by the local townspeople, and on faulty "circumstantial" logic. Which would you trust?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I never claimed that humans and other animals weren't similar and didn't evolve similarly- I only claimed that humans didn't evolve from non-humans. And as for the non-human ancestors, I believe that all of those were either human and just looked different, or not human and never did become human (even if they looked similar to humans).

Perhaps there was misunderstanding on my part, however, why do you believe a) humans never evolved from non-humans and b) why non-humans evolved but remained as non-humans?

Originally Posted by Megan1

I know that Creationism isn't a scientific theory, because the evidence is mainly circumstancial and not scientific....which isn't enough for scientists, but it's enough for me.

Creationism is something you cannot scientifically test so it doesn't entire the realm of science, which is why any evidence of it is not accepted by scientists.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Absolutely everything happens either on purpose or by accident. When I say "accident", I don't mean that something went wrong that caused it to happen...I just mean that nobody/nothing planned it, it just happened through natural (sometimes scientific) events. I don't know if I'm making sense, but everything was either planned by someone or happened by accident/coincidence.

If we're to talk about evolution, you must understand it is in no way planned because that implies it is conscious. Instead, you have mutations (accidents) or responses to the environment or stimuli (neither accidental nor planned). When god comes into the equation, you can then say something is planned but the way you're wording it, you're jumbling ideas together, which is why I said and continue to say you have an extremely limited understanding of evolution.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Yeah, that's what I meant, the body sends signals and makes it all happen. I didn't mean to say that it just magically happened. I just meant that it's all wired so perfectly that it's hard to believe it just adapted to do that all by itself. And when it not approx. 9 months (give or take, it obviously doesn't have to be to the day), it's usually because something goes wrong, not because that's how it's meant to be. Like I said, there is sin in the world so it isn't perfect any more.

I'm not going to hold this part against you since you may have not covered it in your high-school science class. The body is nowhere near as perfect as you suggest it is. There are constant mutations, genetic errors, polymorphisms and so forth but many go unnoticed because you cannot see them from looking at the person or fetus. In a sense, it goes wrong all the time but more often than not, the body (mother or fetus) is able to compensate for it. For example, morning sickness, at first glance seems "wrong" but there are a multitude of studies indicating absence of morning sickness, especially in the first trimester is an indicator something is wrong.

Originally Posted by Megan1

That was quite a long time ago that I said that. I have researched since. I'm still no expert, but I know the basics about what others believe on the subject as well as what I believe. Also, I understand the "link" that people see in humans and apes...but I believe that those "links" are all either humans that just looked different, apes that just looked different, or another extinct animal that never became human. I'm sure humans may look and adapt similarly to them, but that doesn't mean that humans once started as something else.

In a sense you're somewhat correct. From a biological evolutionary perspective, there is a family called Hominidae, which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, orangatangs and humans. There are thought to be two sub-families derived from this: Ponginae (leading to modern-day orangatangs) and Homininae (leading to modern-day gorillas, chimpanzees and humans). In the latter group, each animal evolved alongside one another and not from one another. Additionally, this latter group is part of human evolution and is defined as including human/human-like organisms. Obviously those humans looked different than modern-day Homo sapiens sapiens, which is why I say you're somewhat correct. I don't say you're completely correct because you still maintain the view apes stayed as apes and never evolved to humans.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I'm saying that SOME people simply believe that everything was just an accident. I wasn't saying that's what scientists say or that's what you guys say, but SOME people definitely do believe that.

Some people believed Y2K would've been the end of the world, your point?

Originally Posted by Megan1

I can't tell you for sure why we have an appendix, but here is my guess. When humans were first created, we probably did function differently (after all, there wasn't even sin or sickness in the world at the time), so we probably needed an apendix back then. God chose for the rest of the world to be created through child birth instead of making each person individually out of dust like He did with Adam and Eve...so naturally (and yes, scientifically!), when we are forming, we are going to for the most part have the same parts that our parents have- even though we may not need all of them. There was a purpose for it originally. This would be true whether Creationism or Evolution were right, so this isn't really a valid arguement on either side.

Actually there is a valid argument from the evolutionary side. The appendix was thought to be primarily used for digestion of cellulose from plant material, as revealed through modern studies of herbivorous animals. In humans, it is implicated in the immune system as revealed through fetal studies. I don't see the scientific aspect you allude to, can you explain it?

Originally Posted by Megan1

The birthing process may have changed a little, I don't know...but there always was a birthing process from the beginning, even if it was a little different. There had to be, or else people and animals wouldn't have kept existing. That's what I'm saying, the birthing process couldn't have just adapted into existance. Whether you believe in macro evolution or creationism, everyone pretty much has to agree that the birthing process had to have been around (even if it was slightly different) since the first creatures were created or else no one would exist today.

Your idea doesn't apply universally to all modern-day organisms. There is a phenomenon called parthenogenesis, meaning asexual reproduction and embyronic development without fertilization. For example, the Komodo dragon, New Mexican whiptail lizard, boa constrictors, Hawaiian blind snake, certain hammerhead and other sharks, certain flatworms, South African honey bees, marbled crayfish, and possibly birds. And yes, humans as well (although the embryos are often discarded by the body), in 2007, a group of scientists in South Korea made fraudulent claims. To everyone's surprise, after a few years of investigating the claims, it was found that the team actually did produce parthenogenetic human eggs. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08...rthenogenesis/

With everything considered, your views have no scientific merit and you can ignore the scientific evidence so you can continue to delude yourself but at the very least, look into what you claim to be against. If I were to challenge something about Islamic practices, I would first look it up in detail because I know very little about it. I'm not sure why you openly refuse to follow the same common-sense.

[I'm-moving-on]

I subscribe completely to it. It's based on a relationship that I believe in. The only way I can explain why I do is that I have faith in God and that He created me.

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Perhaps there was misunderstanding on my part, however, why do you believe a) humans never evolved from non-humans and b) why non-humans evolved but remained as non-humans?

Because they are the only answers that are both not disproven and not going against the bible.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Creationism is something you cannot scientifically test so it doesn't entire the realm of science, which is why any evidence of it is not accepted by scientists.

I agree.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

If we're to talk about evolution, you must understand it is in no way planned because that implies it is conscious. Instead, you have mutations (accidents) or responses to the environment or stimuli (neither accidental nor planned). When god comes into the equation, you can then say something is planned but the way you're wording it, you're jumbling ideas together, which is why I said and continue to say you have an extremely limited understanding of evolution.

I understand everything that you are saying; I was just giving a different definition of "accident" than you were, so our ideas on if evolution is an accident were different.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I'm not going to hold this part against you since you may have not covered it in your high-school science class. The body is nowhere near as perfect as you suggest it is. There are constant mutations, genetic errors, polymorphisms and so forth but many go unnoticed because you cannot see them from looking at the person or fetus. In a sense, it goes wrong all the time but more often than not, the body (mother or fetus) is able to compensate for it. For example, morning sickness, at first glance seems "wrong" but there are a multitude of studies indicating absence of morning sickness, especially in the first trimester is an indicator something is wrong.

I never suggested that the body is perfect. In fact, I said several times in this thread that sin has caused many imperfectons in our bodies. I only said that it can do some really amazing things that makes evolution hard for me to beleive.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

In a sense you're somewhat correct. From a biological evolutionary perspective, there is a family called Hominidae, which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, orangatangs and humans. There are thought to be two sub-families derived from this: Ponginae (leading to modern-day orangatangs) and Homininae (leading to modern-day gorillas, chimpanzees and humans). In the latter group, each animal evolved alongside one another and not from one another. Additionally, this latter group is part of human evolution and is defined as including human/human-like organisms. Obviously those humans looked different than modern-day Homo sapiens sapiens, which is why I say you're somewhat correct. I don't say you're completely correct because you still maintain the view apes stayed as apes and never evolved to humans.

I understand what you believe, but I don't agree.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Some people believed Y2K would've been the end of the world, your point?

My point is simply that the people who believe that are wrong.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Actually there is a valid argument from the evolutionary side. The appendix was thought to be primarily used for digestion of cellulose from plant material, as revealed through modern studies of herbivorous animals. In humans, it is implicated in the immune system as revealed through fetal studies. I don't see the scientific aspect you allude to, can you explain it?

This is just a thought and I also may have understood you wrong, so take this comment with a grain of salt...but it's possible that humans were once herivors and it was used then. I'm not sure though, there are lots of different theories about that that could support either evolution or creationism.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Your idea doesn't apply universally to all modern-day organisms. There is a phenomenon called parthenogenesis, meaning asexual reproduction and embyronic development without fertilization. For example, the Komodo dragon, New Mexican whiptail lizard, boa constrictors, Hawaiian blind snake, certain hammerhead and other sharks, certain flatworms, South African honey bees, marbled crayfish, and possibly birds. And yes, humans as well (although the embryos are often discarded by the body), in 2007, a group of scientists in South Korea made fraudulent claims. To everyone's surprise, after a few years of investigating the claims, it was found that the team actually did produce parthenogenetic human eggs. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08...rthenogenesis/

With everything considered, your views have no scientific merit and you can ignore the scientific evidence so you can continue to delude yourself but at the very least, look into what you claim to be against. If I were to challenge something about Islamic practices, I would first look it up in detail because I know very little about it. I'm not sure why you openly refuse to follow the same common-sense.

I didn't know about those animals, but I did know that human eggs could produce asexually. However, that's eggs, not babies. Full term human babies are never created without sex. My whole original point (before we got off topic, which happens a lot), is that a male has something that is the only thing that can fertilize a female egg to create a baby....and I don't understand how that could be something that adapted when it's 2 different parts (males and females) that create it.

I never claimed that my beliefs could be proven scientifically, although I have said that there are some scientific things that make it hard to believe that God didn't create them....I know that's not scientific evidence- just circumstancial. And I don't understand why you say that I need to do more research when I understand everything that you are saying (although I disagree with a lot of it).

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by butterfly2014

I subscribe completely to it. It's based on a relationship that I believe in. The only way I can explain why I do is that I have faith in God and that He created me.

As long as you keep that belief to yourself and don't teach it to anyone, It's ok

Originally Posted by Megan1

x

You keep on spelling 'believe' wrong.

Anyway that isn't my main issue, stop looking at life through rose tinted glasses. Just because something is at that stage it is now it doesn't mean that we haven't developed. You're falling into the realm of irreducible complexity, which when you look into it, isn't correct. it ignores all the other species that are less complicated than ourselves.

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

You keep on spelling 'believe' wrong.

Anyway that isn't my main issue, stop looking at life through rose tinted glasses. Just because something is at that stage it is now it doesn't mean that we haven't developed. You're falling into the realm of irreducible complexity, which when you look into it, isn't correct. it ignores all the other species that are less complicated than ourselves.

Which has nothing to do with anything. But for the record, I do know how to spell "believe", I just type too fast without proper typing skills and hit the keys out of order.

I can't really say anything except "I disagree" here. I never said that humans/animals can't become more/less complex....just that humans didn't develope from non-humans (though they may have been more/less complex in the past).

[Toz]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I can't really say anything except "I disagree" here. I never said that humans/animals can't become more/less complex....just that humans didn't develope from non-humans (though they may have been more/less complex in the past).

I just need to ask: you know you are denying bonafide, testable, hard truth here, right? You do know that you are willingly deluding yourself?

[Megan1]

I'm not denying truth, I'm denying evidence- there is a big difference. And I'm not just flat out denying the evidence anyways; I'm just saying that there are other less-popular explanations to those things. I know that my theories on how those things happen don't make as much sense in the eyes of science, and I never claimed that they did...but that doesn't make them impossible and it doesn't automatically make macro evolution the truth.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I'm not denying truth, I'm denying evidence- there is a big difference. And I'm not just flat out denying the evidence anyways; I'm just saying that there are other less-popular explanations to those things. I know that my theories on how those things happen don't make as much sense in the eyes of science, and I never claimed that they did...but that doesn't make them impossible and it doesn't automatically make macro evolution the truth.

I think the problem is that scientists much more intelligent than any of us here and knowledgeable on the subject have unanimously decided that Evolution is correct and that the evidence is overwhelming. It isn't really your, or any of our, place to say "Actually, all you scientists are wrong".

For instance, we have multiple skeletons from the different stage of human evolution. Actual preserved skeletons. We can actually point to a general point in time and say "About here is when humans began to walk on two legs" because we have found skeletons where we didn't and ones where we did in a very primitive way, and so we can work from that to get a more accurate date on it. The very existence of these skeletons that give us an actual physical look into how humans evolved is absolutely irrefutable evidence.

I think, Megan, that when you are much older and wiser you will look back upon this part of your life and wonder how you ever denied all of this, because the truth is so much more beautiful than any "answer" supposedly given by God. The fact that we can actually see how we evolved, the behaviours we exhibited, the outside stimuli that forced to adapt by evolving.. the fact that when in Africa we had to run to catch prey and so we now have a special muscle in the back our neck to keep our head straight, and muscles in our backside to keep our legs straight called the Glutus Maximus, and that we, unlike any other animal, sweat because of our lack of fur which means we can run long distances... the truth of all these adaptations and evolutionary changes is that they're real, and they're beautiful. You just have to be willing to actually understand it.

[Megan1]

You can say that a lot of scientists believe evolution, and that would be true...but NOT all do. There are many scientists that don't. I know there are more who believe in evolution, but not all of them. I do know about all of the different skeletons, but I believe that either they are humans who just looked different, or they are non-humans that never became human. And I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not my mind is going to change when I get older- I'll just have to wait and show you that it doesn't.

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by Megan1

You can say that a lot of scientists believe evolution, and that would be true...but NOT all do. There are many scientists that don't. I know there are more who believe in evolution, but not all of them. I do know about all of the different skeletons, but I believe that either they are humans who just looked different, or they are non-humans that never became human. And I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not my mind is going to change when I get older- I'll just have to wait and show you that it doesn't.

This is what is pissing me off. You aren't giving your self the ability to change. It's the very definition of close-mindedness.

Just a heads up, there are less scientists that do not believe in the theory of evolution than there are scientists named steve.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ - people who don't (roughly 800-900)
http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves - scientists named Steve. (roughly 1100)

Hopefully, I'll stop replying to you as I'd probably offend you in someway and I wouldn't want to do that.

Stop covering your ears and screaming to block out the truth.

[Climber]

You can still believe in God and Jesus and Christianity and still believe in evolution...I don't understand the people who take the bible word for word on some parts, and then can comprehend that others are metaphors to enhance your life (jesus' parables). It's not consistent.

[I'm-moving-on]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

As long as you keep that belief to yourself and don't teach it to anyone, It's ok

If other people spread their beliefs and legitimately wonder about it, I see no problem sharing mine at all. I will explain/teach my view to anyone who wants to listen, and then they can choose whether or not they agree or disagree.

[Toz]

Originally Posted by butterfly2014

If other people spread their beliefs and legitimately wonder about it, I see no problem sharing mine at all. I will explain/teach my view to anyone who wants to listen, and then they can choose whether or not they agree or disagree.

Not when you're presenting it as misinformed pseudo-fact.

[I'm-moving-on]

I don't understand. I'm not representing it as a pseudo-fact. I said clearly in my first post that it is based on a relationship that I believe in, not that I'm right or it's definitely a fact, but that it is my belief. I'm not trying to tell other people they are wrong about it, just stating my choice of belief. And I also don't understand how an opinion can be seen as wrong for not matching up with another opinion, but that's just my view of it.

[Composure]

This thread needs trolling. It seems that some people in here subscribe to the notion that it's okay to believe in what you want, as long as you don't smother other people with it; and yet, here you are, smothering other people with beliefs that're different to theirs. Granted, the opening post in this thread sort of implied that all creationists were going to get stomped, but it just seems a little hypocritical.

That being said, how people keep a faith in creationism in today's society is beyond me - however, I live in Australia, where the only time you'll hear about a higher power in a public school is when someone mentions Chuck Norris.

[Toz]

Originally Posted by butterfly2014

I don't understand. I'm not representing it as a pseudo-fact. I said clearly in my first post that it is based on a relationship that I believe in, not that I'm right or it's definitely a fact, but that it is my belief. I'm not trying to tell other people they are wrong about it, just stating my choice of belief. And I also don't understand how an opinion can be seen as wrong for not matching up with another opinion, but that's just my view of it.

Evolution isn't a belief. There's no real room for subjectivity in science. Either you accept a truth, or you challenge it and come up with a veritable alternative, or you delude yourself. Opinion has nothing to do with it.

[Digilodger]

Originally Posted by Composure

This thread needs trolling. It seems that some people in here subscribe to the notion that it's okay to believe in what you want, as long as you don't smother other people with it; and yet, here you are, smothering other people with beliefs that're different to theirs. Granted, the opening post in this thread sort of implied that all creationists were going to get stomped, but it just seems a little hypocritical.

That being said, how people keep a faith in creationism in today's society is beyond me - however, I live in Australia, where the only time you'll hear about a higher power in a public school is when someone mentions Chuck Norris.

Well, this thread is meant for a debate anyway. Everyone who posted here are in agreement and completely understand that their position will be challenge. The responses here are pretty peaceful, too; nobody is calling other names or stuffs like that. It's amusing and I like to read these sometimes.

(Though I won't participate because I don't like to enter a war with zero chance of victory. I mean, a theist won't change his/her opinion because of an atheist; an atheist won't change his/her opinion because of a theist. One is faith-based and the other is logic-based; you can't use logic to defeat a person's faith.)


And I never know that the fame of Chuck Norris spread all the way to Australia. Now this is news!

[Composure]

Originally Posted by Digilodger

And I never know that the fame of Chuck Norris spread all over to Australia. Now this is new.

Yes, he is a God in his own right.

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

This is what is pissing me off. You aren't giving your self the ability to change. It's the very definition of close-mindedness.

Just a heads up, there are less scientists that do not believe in the theory of evolution than there are scientists named steve.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ - people who don't (roughly 800-900)
http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves - scientists named Steve. (roughly 1100)

Hopefully, I'll stop replying to you as I'd probably offend you in someway and I wouldn't want to do that.

Stop covering your ears and screaming to block out the truth.

I already said that there were many many more who believed in evolution- I know. My comment was to the person who said that every scientist in this one study believed in evolution. That was just one study, and there are scientists who believe both ways.

And I also don't know how doing hours of research and reading/replying to everything said here about evolution counts as "covering my ears". I HAVE done research, and came up with a different answer than you did. You call me close minded, and yet you are the one saying that I'm wrong simply because I view evidence differently than you do. I mean, yes I believe in the bible by faith alone, but I also know about science behind things too.

Originally Posted by Climber

You can still believe in God and Jesus and Christianity and still believe in evolution...I don't understand the people who take the bible word for word on some parts, and then can comprehend that others are metaphors to enhance your life (jesus' parables). It's not consistent.

You can believe in God/Jesus and beleive in evolution, but you can't believe in the whole bible as being literal and still believe in macro evolution- because the bible makes it very clear that humans were on Earth since the the very first week, which gives them no time to evolve.

As far as why we can say that Jesus' parables are symbolic, it's because He straight up says in the bible that they are. He flat out tells the people that He is explaining things in analogy form to make it easier to understand.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Megan1

You can believe in God/Jesus and beleive in evolution, but you can't believe in the whole bible as being literal and still believe in macro evolution- because the bible makes it very clear that humans were on Earth since the the very first week, which gives them no time to evolve..

So...you believe everything the bible says, saying nothing may be have just from the lack of man's knowledge of the times? Doesn't the bible ban polyester, eating shellfish, women having any power, children out of wedlock to enter into a church, stoning non-marital virgins, people with deformaties cannot pray to god, and men without testicles from entering a church? I know this is a mixture of old and new testament, but come on, if you're going to use "not believing it all" as an excuse, you better believe it all.

And come on. How can we have fossils as old as we do? How come we have fossils that are similar to animals we have now, but not in the exact form, including humans? How come evolution makes so much more sense? Isn't there any way that humans may have not "translated" this part right from god or couldn't understand the more complex ideas behind his madness? I'm just saying.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I never suggested that the body is perfect. In fact, I said several times in this thread that sin has caused many imperfectons in our bodies. I only said that it can do some really amazing things that makes evolution hard for me to beleive.

I was elaborating on your point by showing the vast amount of imperfections.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I understand what you believe, but I don't agree.

I provided evidence favouring YOUR view so by saying you don't agree implies you don't agree with what you previously posted.

Originally Posted by Megan1

This is just a thought and I also may have understood you wrong, so take this comment with a grain of salt...but it's possible that humans were once herivors and it was used then. I'm not sure though, there are lots of different theories about that that could support either evolution or creationism.

You understood correctly.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I didn't know about those animals, but I did know that human eggs could produce asexually. However, that's eggs, not babies.

You do realize eggs are relevant for fertilization which will lead to babies.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Full term human babies are never created without sex.

Regarding the study I mentioned, a human baby could indeed be created without sex.

Originally Posted by Megan1

My whole original point (before we got off topic, which happens a lot), is that a male has something that is the only thing that can fertilize a female egg to create a baby....and I don't understand how that could be something that adapted when it's 2 different parts (males and females) that create it.

Again, see the list of organisms.

Originally Posted by Megan1

And I don't understand why you say that I need to do more research when I understand everything that you are saying (although I disagree with a lot of it).

You've shown a poor understanding of evolution by inferring evolution involves only natural selection or "accidents". You also showed a very limited understanding of science in general when you commented scientific theories are never fully proven. Last, in my previous post, I provided evidence supporting your view yet you disagreed, which indicates you didn't understand what I posted. I cant say you understood nothing because that would be incorrect on my part, you obviously do understand some but not a great deal.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I'm denying evidence- there is a big difference. And I'm not just flat out denying the evidence anyways

These statements contradict each other, are you denying evidence or not?

Originally Posted by Megan1

I'm just saying that there are other less-popular explanations to those things. I know that my theories on how those things happen don't make as much sense in the eyes of science, and I never claimed that they did...but that doesn't make them impossible and it doesn't automatically make macro evolution the truth.

As mentioned by Cosmo, the scientists have years of education far beyond you and I, they are much more knowledgeable about their field. For you to state macro-evolution is not, "the truth", is quite ignorant and very arrogant.

Originally Posted by Megan1

And I also don't know how doing hours of research and reading/replying to everything said here about evolution counts as "covering my ears". I HAVE done research, and came up with a different answer than you did. You call me close minded, and yet you are the one saying that I'm wrong simply because I view evidence differently than you do. I mean, yes I believe in the bible by faith alone, but I also know about science behind things too.

I cant comment whether you researched for hours on end but I have to question where you found these studies and whether they were from scientific journals. After years of research, scientists don't fully understand the scientific mechanisms so it's bullshit for you to come along and state you know the science behind these phenomena. Absolute bullshit. You're in high-school, you've scratched the surface of science and perhaps you have a high mark in your science class but compared to researchers, you and I both know very little. You fully understand skeletons? Sure, you may understand the differences between skeletons but do you understand the mechanisms behind embryogenesis, the contribution of Hox gene domain changes and vertebrate evolution, the geodesic model of axial skeletal formation (i.e. changes in locomotion patterns), the apical ectodermal ridge for limb development, the differences between the neurocranium versus dermatocranium versus splanchnocranium, etc...? I understand SOME of it, nowhere near all of it. If you don't know what these terms are without using Google, then you've proven to yourself you are in fact bullshitting. You don't have to agree with the scientific evidence but at least show some respect and acknowledge the researchers know far more. If you're going to discredit the scientific evidence, at least give an attempt of formulating a scientifically sound argument.

Originally Posted by Megan1

You can believe in God/Jesus and beleive in evolution, but you can't believe in the whole bible as being literal and still believe in macro evolution- because the bible makes it very clear that humans were on Earth since the the very first week, which gives them no time to evolve.

If there was no time for human evolution, how is it possible for fossils from various organisms to be dated hundreds of thousands to millions of years old?

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I'm not denying truth, I'm denying evidence- there is a big difference. And I'm not just flat out denying the evidence anyways; I'm just saying that there are other less-popular explanations to those things. I know that my theories on how those things happen don't make as much sense in the eyes of science, and I never claimed that they did...but that doesn't make them impossible and it doesn't automatically make macro evolution the truth.

Absolute "truth" requires evidence.
If you want to reject bonafide, hard thruths, that's up to you. But don't refer to your own beliefs as if they were the absolute the truth when you don't have a scrap of non-circumstantial evidence to support them.

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

So...you believe everything the bible says, saying nothing may be have just from the lack of man's knowledge of the times? Doesn't the bible ban polyester, eating shellfish, women having any power, children out of wedlock to enter into a church, stoning non-marital virgins, people with deformaties cannot pray to god, and men without testicles from entering a church? I know this is a mixture of old and new testament, but come on, if you're going to use "not believing it all" as an excuse, you better believe it all.

And come on. How can we have fossils as old as we do? How come we have fossils that are similar to animals we have now, but not in the exact form, including humans? How come evolution makes so much more sense? Isn't there any way that humans may have not "translated" this part right from god or couldn't understand the more complex ideas behind his madness? I'm just saying.

I believe the whole bible literally, but IN CONTEXT. There are some things that were written for specific times. I do believe that all of those laws literally had to be followed at some point, but the thing is that every single one of those laws you mentioned (except the one about women having no power) were either laws to prevent spiritual uncleanness or to avenge sin....so they no longer apply in the new testament because Jesus died to make us spiritually clean and avenge our sins instead of us having to do it. The one about the women's lack of power still applies as far as the fact that they need to not go against their husbands and not be the main leader of a church....but that doesn't mean that they can't do anything and the bible doesn't say that.

The thing about fossils is that I believe they aren't as old and people think they are. And you asked how we can have fossils that look like animals/humans that we have now but slightly different.....it's because animals DO evolve, just not into other animals. I've been saying this whole time that I believe in micro evolution, just not macro evolution. Is it possible that we translated the part about creation in the bible wrong? I guess it's a tiny bit possible, but I don't really see how, because the bible is pretty straight forward about it. The original word in the bible that says "day" when it talks about the Earth being made in 7 days translates to mean a literal 24 hour day.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I was elaborating on your point by showing the vast amount of imperfections.

Okay, but I'm already agreeing with you about the many imperfections.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I provided evidence favouring YOUR view so by saying you don't agree implies you don't agree with what you previously posted.

No, you stated some of my beliefs at the beginning, but then you proceeded to say that humans did come from apes- that's what I was disagreeing with.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

You do realize eggs are relevant for fertilization which will lead to babies.

Yes of course, but my point is that the woman produces the eggs that can't be fertilized without male sperm. That's what I think is so amazing- that it takes two different genders of people, so they couldn't really have just adapted to be able to do that.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Regarding the study I mentioned, a human baby could indeed be created without sex.

So you're saying that a full term born baby (not just an egg or embryo that stays inside and is never born) can happen without the fertilization of male sperm? And if that's what you are trying to say, why doesn't that happen?

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

You've shown a poor understanding of evolution by inferring evolution involves only natural selection or "accidents". You also showed a very limited understanding of science in general when you commented scientific theories are never fully proven. Last, in my previous post, I provided evidence supporting your view yet you disagreed, which indicates you didn't understand what I posted. I cant say you understood nothing because that would be incorrect on my part, you obviously do understand some but not a great deal.

Again though, I wasn't referring to "accident" the same way that you were. By accident, I just meant that it wasn't planned, and you agreed with me about that. And I just explained the thing about disagreeing with your other post- you stated my beliefs in the beginning, but the ending said that humans did come from apes, so no, that wasn't completely my belief. Only parts of it were. I understood completely what you were saying.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

These statements contradict each other, are you denying evidence or not?



As mentioned by Cosmo, the scientists have years of education far beyond you and I, they are much more knowledgeable about their field. For you to state macro-evolution is not, "the truth", is quite ignorant and very arrogant.



I cant comment whether you researched for hours on end but I have to question where you found these studies and whether they were from scientific journals. After years of research, scientists don't fully understand the scientific mechanisms so it's bullshit for you to come along and state you know the science behind these phenomena. Absolute bullshit. You're in high-school, you've scratched the surface of science and perhaps you have a high mark in your science class but compared to researchers, you and I both know very little. You fully understand skeletons? Sure, you may understand the differences between skeletons but do you understand the mechanisms behind embryogenesis, the contribution of Hox gene domain changes and vertebrate evolution, the geodesic model of axial skeletal formation (i.e. changes in locomotion patterns), the apical ectodermal ridge for limb development, the differences between the neurocranium versus dermatocranium versus splanchnocranium, etc...? I understand SOME of it, nowhere near all of it. If you don't know what these terms are without using Google, then you've proven to yourself you are in fact bullshitting. You don't have to agree with the scientific evidence but at least show some respect and acknowledge the researchers know far more. If you're going to discredit the scientific evidence, at least give an attempt of formulating a scientifically sound argument.



If there was no time for human evolution, how is it possible for fossils from various organisms to be dated hundreds of thousands to millions of years old?

My computer mouse hates me right now and is taking forever to quote each one individually, so I'm just doing these last 4 together and just numbering each statement:

1. Sorry for the confusion; that was bad wording on my part. I'm not denying that the evidence exists, but I'm denying that it means what you all think it means.

2. Obviously scientists have researched and looked into things much more than I have, but scientists have been wrong before and I'm not just going to say that something other than my faith is true because scientists say so. Also, it's funny that you can say "creationism isn't true" and that's not ignorant or arrogant at all, but as soon as someone says "macro evolution isn't true", that's arrogant to you. Yes evolution has more scientific evidence behind it, but again, that doesn't automatically make it truth. Scientists (even large groups of scientists who are in the majority) have been wrong before about important things.

3. I never said that I know all the science behind everything. I said that I know the basics of what people believe. I didn't mean to say that I did research about why evolution isn't true or anythng like that. I was just saying that I researched to find out some details about what others believe so that I know when I'm talking to them about creationism. Also, this research was not done through school, it was done on my own. I never took classes related to evolution in high school. My school doesn't require it (they teach it, but only in select science classes and those ones aren't required).

4. The whole point is that I don't believe they are that old. There was this one study I know of that shows how often scientists are wrong about the age of things, but I'm going to find it and send you a link rather than try to explain it myself.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I believe the whole bible literally, but IN CONTEXT. There are some things that were written for specific times. I do believe that all of those laws literally had to be followed at some point, but the thing is that every single one of those laws you mentioned (except the one about women having no power) were either laws to prevent spiritual uncleanness or to avenge sin....so they no longer apply in the new testament because Jesus died to make us spiritually clean and avenge our sins instead of us having to do it. The one about the women's lack of power still applies as far as the fact that they need to not go against their husbands and not be the main leader of a church....but that doesn't mean that they can't do anything and the bible doesn't say that.

I don't believe premarital sex is wrong or sinful, but I understand how that can be seen that way. But how does not letting testicleless men into a church avoid uncleanness? Or people with deformaties? Are deformed people born out of sin? Makes absolutely no sense. I don't believe Jesus died for our sins, but pretending that he did, I think that was for actually committing a sin, not being born with a deformity or having to have your testicles removed for one reason or another. That makes absolutely no sense, and in no way could these words be from an "all powerful god", rather, they would be from uneducated humans not knowing the difference between a deformity of a human being and a monster. One so called "all knowing and all powerful" would know the difference. No son needed to die to make it okay for somebody to have an impediment, we're born this way.

So...you still believe women should have less power in a household/church? Don't you think that's at all...outdated? You know, when we still believe women should be owned by their husbands, or that women had to get married to be worth anything...You believe that's outdated, right?

Because if so...What?! Aren't we a little passed this?

[Toz]

You are continuously operating under the horrid misconception that evidence is subjective. It's ignorant to look at a proven fact and say that you draw a conclusion from it that is unsubstantiated.

The thing about fossils is that I believe they aren't as old and people think they are.

People don't think they are a certain age. They know. Through scientific means- carbon dating, looking at geological layers. There isn't room for subjectivity.

Yes of course, but my point is that the woman produces the eggs that can't be fertilized without male sperm. That's what I think is so amazing- that it takes two different genders of people, so they couldn't really have just adapted to be able to do that.

What about organisms that reproduce by budding?
It isn't that amazing. To create an animal, you need two donors. Each give an equal set of chormosomes. There's nothing about this process that suggests intelligent design- it isn't efficient, it's long, it's painful, it can result in the death of the mother and offspring. Many babies die in utero via strangulation by the umbilical cord. What "intelligent" designer would allow for that possibility? And don't say it's a result of "imperfections" that were wrought upon us as a result of original sin. That holds no water.

So you're saying that a full term born baby (not just an egg or embryo that stays inside and is never born) can happen without the fertilization of male sperm? And if that's what you are trying to say, why doesn't that happen?

No. What The Man And XX Master said was that it could occur without sex. Which is very true. The process you are describing is fertilization. It occurs in labs every day.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

Yes of course, but my point is that the woman produces the eggs that can't be fertilized without male sperm. That's what I think is so amazing- that it takes two different genders of people, so they couldn't really have just adapted to be able to do that.

The only way I can explain why it would have adapted will involve humans evolving from non-humans. Since you reject the evidence and that concept altogether, it's useless if I explain it.

Originally Posted by Megan1

So you're saying that a full term born baby (not just an egg or embryo that stays inside and is never born) can happen without the fertilization of male sperm? And if that's what you are trying to say, why doesn't that happen?

I'm saying it can happen without sex. In humans it's possible with sufficient genomic manipulation to have parthenogenesis but not possible naturally to a point where the organism would ever be viable. Parthenogenesis can occur but the body terminates the pregnancy. A key player is a heterodimeric protein called maturation-promoting factor (MPF). I'm not going to type out how MPF functions since you need background information I'm certain you don't have (given this is well beyond high-school I'm not holding it against you). I tried to find papers that were both thorough and easy to understand but it may be too challenging. Ignore parts where they mention certain methods. http://jcb.rupress.org/content/185/2/193.full

This paper mentions how it is possible with sufficient tinkering to lead to full-term babies, although not naturally. http://www.formazione.eu.com/_docume...CUMENTO956.pdf

Originally Posted by Megan1

1. Sorry for the confusion; that was bad wording on my part. I'm not denying that the evidence exists, but I'm denying that it means what you all think it means.

Evidence is to be analyzed and critically thought about especially using background information. I'm kind of confused so could you give an example, say, from one of the links above?

[quote=Megan1;815959]
2. Obviously scientists have researched and looked into things much more than I have, but scientists have been wrong before and I'm not just going to say that something other than my faith is true because scientists say so.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Also, it's funny that you can say "creationism isn't true" and that's not ignorant or arrogant at all, but as soon as someone says "macro evolution isn't true", that's arrogant to you.

It's arrogant to me because you're operating under such false notions that you have no intent on correcting by doing further learning. Scientific evidence is peer-reviewed, whereas for the bible it's not. I reject the Christian belief altogether so for me creationism is not true, however, with that said, I do look at the evidence presented in favour of it, learn about it, question it and question myself. If I'm incorrect, I ask to be corrected so I can properly form my opinion, which is humble not ignorance nor arrogance.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Yes evolution has more scientific evidence behind it, but again, that doesn't automatically make it truth. Scientists (even large groups of scientists who are in the majority) have been wrong before about important things.

True, however, you're making that seem like a weakness to science when in fact it's a benefit.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I mean, yes I believe in the bible by faith alone but I also know the science behind things too

Originally Posted by Megan1

3. I never said that I know all the science behind everything. I said that I know the basics of what people believe.

You said: "I mean, yes I believe in the bible by faith alone but I also know the science behind things too". It's quite obvious that statement implies you "know the science", not just the basics but everything of a particular topic.

[quote=Megan1;815959]
I was just saying that I researched to find out some details about what others believe so that I know when I'm talking to them about creationism.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I never took classes related to evolution in high school. My school doesn't require it (they teach it, but only in select science classes and those ones aren't required).

Well that explains why you're unable to understand why and when you're operating under false assumptions.

Originally Posted by Megan1

4. The whole point is that I don't believe they are that old. There was this one study I know of that shows how often scientists are wrong about the age of things, but I'm going to find it and send you a link rather than try to explain it myself.

Whatever that paper is, it has to address the scientific methods used, otherwise it's useless.