What do you believe in? Evolution or creationism?

[CoDer]

you ask for proof of the theory of evolution? take this one. human genes are 98% the same as chimpanzee genes. how's that for proof?

di naman kasi po pwede na black and white ang explanation bakit tayo andito. when the book of genesis was written they did not even have a telescope to look at the universe. the guy/guys who wrote that "book" were trying to explain the origin of the universe according to what they knew then, which was 3000-4000 years ago! do you mean to say that you will take the writings of some person 3000-4000 years ago as an absolute to explain why you are here now. remember this: GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BOOK OF GENESIS, HUMANS DID. not believing in hwta genesis says does not necessarily mean that you do not believe in God. genesis is not the tell-all of this universe. even the catholic church has acknowledge that genesis was wrong as far as creation is concerned, so why are you arguing?

so stop fighting already. ask nyo na lang si God when you meet Him in person.

Sir yebo wala pong away dito. Totoo na gawa ng Dyos lahat. Nagkaka problema lang kung Kunin mo ang Dyos dahil ang daming butas.

I believe that God created everything and it evolved to what it is now all according to Gods design.

Yun lang naman po sir.

[CoDer]

Thanks David.

In a nutshell ito ang sinasabi namin sayo, CoDer.

Wow... ginawa nyo na akong engot pati ang ibig sabihin ng Theory hindi ko alam.

Ayos... hahahahaha

[CoDer]

Uy! ang haba na pala ng tread ah.

Hehehehe

[city]

do you believe in science, coder?...cause if you don't, there is no point discussing anything related to science to you. And if you do believe in science..which part of science that you do not accept or do not understand?

it's better we clarify these things before pursuing proofs of evolution.


wait...something struck me....can you define evolution? i mean do you exactly know what evolution is all about?..baka kasi mali ang perception mo sa evolution kaya nangagalaiti kang ma-iprove ito e...nakakpagtaka lang kasi na humuhingi ka ng proofs after all this time...are you sure you don't know any proofs of evolution or are you just trying to challenge me to present proofs? but before you answer this question please answer my first question above. thanks.

[CoDer]

do you believe in science, coder?...cause if you don't, there is no point discussing anything related to science to you. And if you do believe in science..which part of science that you do not accept or do not understand?

it's better we clarify these things before pursuing proofs of evolution.


wait...something struck me....can you define evolution? i mean do you exactly know what evolution is all about?..baka kasi mali ang perception mo sa evolution kaya nangagalaiti kang ma-iprove ito e...nakakpagtaka lang kasi na humuhingi ka ng proofs after all this time...are you sure you don't know any proofs of evolution or are you just trying to challenge me to present proofs? but before you answer this question please answer my first question above. thanks.

I love science city. Uy ginawa mo naman akong engot nyan ha pati definition ng evolution hindi ko na alam.

Dati po akong nasa academe, kung medyo engot ang taglish ko eh pag pasensyahan nyo na po.

Kung sa tingin nyo po na ala akong alam sa mga definition ng evolution at theory, naku eh pag pasensyahan nyo na po.

Computer Science at System Design po kasi ang area ko.

Sorry po sa pagiging engot ko.

[IPSG_SlimShady]

Every living thing (whether evolving or not) came from ATOMS. How did atoms come about ba? Did it just magically appear and started to combine to form proteins which later evolved into more complex life forms?

Evolution always has a starting point. How did that starting point come about? Evolution is only as good up to its starting point. But it cannot explain how the starting point came to being in the first place.

[city]

I love science city. Uy ginawa mo naman akong engot nyan ha pati definition ng evolution hindi ko na alam.

Dati po akong nasa academe, kung medyo engot ang taglish ko eh pag pasensyahan nyo na po.

Kung sa tingin nyo po na ala akong alam sa mga definition ng evolution at theory, naku eh pag pasensyahan nyo na po.

Computer Science at System Design po kasi ang area ko.

Sorry po sa pagiging engot ko.

no, no, don't get me wrong....that's what i'm trying to say to you all this time...you seem to be smart but you're not acting like one...people are misled because of your behavior... i myself got the impression that you do not know science because of the way you answer...

so ok..you're from an academe (whatever that is)...and you're a graduate of computer science and a systems design by profession...wow man..you have the credentials of a learned person..talk about science..no doubt about that...

this brings to me to my question..why ask me to prove the theory of evolution? You're either trying see if i will make a mistake of presenting evidences and laugh at the back of your seat or you're just playing smart.

let's be honest dude......from the credentials you claim to possess , you don't need proofs of the theory because you simply know what a scientific theory is....moreover you have been a defender of theory as you claimed..but you changed your mind...now you may want to share it to us why...or you may keep it to yourself....

i'm assuming you personally have found the theory to be false that's why you changed your mind. This would be interesting to hear and worth listening to.

[yebo]

coder and city,

personalan na ang posts ng mga tao dito. hindi yata dapat ganyan, meron rules e. if you post di ba dapat it should be a comment, for or against, a certain topic or point of view. e kaso ang punto ng mga posts ninyo e personal na sa isa't-isa. para matigil na ito suggest ko na magkita na lang kayo at magsuntukan, barilan, sabunutan, o di kaya ay bigyan ninyo ng manicure at pedicure ang bawat isa at tignan na lang kung sino sa inyo ang mas magaling. dinadamay nyo pa kami sa pataasan ninyo ng ihi e (tuli na ba kayo?)

stop na nga kayo! pag nag-post pa kayong 2 na nagaaway kayo dito then that will confirm na ..... bakla kayong dalawa

jokla!

este, "joke lang" pala ehehehehehe!

[niky]

*sigh* I've just read three extra pages of gibberish. If you have nothing of value to add, please, don't crowd the thread.

I've said this previously, and I don't want to say it again. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT CONTRADICT OR CONTRAVENE THE WORD OF GOD. Look up POPE JOHN PAUL II and EVOLUTION in Google. Let that point rest.

This then becomes a debate on how creatures came to be... not the prime motivator... because even with Evolution, we can hypothesize that there COULD HAVE BEEN a God who started the process of cosmic and organic evolution. And since we CANNOT perceive anything outside this Universe, GOD may be there, whether we believe it or not.

So, belief or disbelief in God has NOTHING to do with EVOLUTION.

_____

Let's eliminate Evolutionary Theory for a moment, and FOCUS on the evidence. Pretend DARWIN never existed. Pretend the CHURCH doesn't exist either.

Early paleontologists dig up the remains of creatures the likes of which no one has ever seen. Most believed these were the monsters and dragons of myth.

But as time goes on, we became better able to determine the relative age of these remains, and found remains that would appear to be an elephant, say, or a horse, but unlike any such creature existent.

Now we start looking at fossil age. We devise methods of dating fossils.

Before a certain date, we find NO Fossils of man or of some of the other modern animals. Many of the "lizard monsters" we dig up are from periods long before there were any men, so they can't be monsters of legend.

But some of them look like creatures of today, only wildly different.

One explorer, by accident, finds Archeopteryx... the lizard monster with feathers. Since no bird fossils have been found older than archeopteryx, then, should we surmise, that maybe archeopteryx was the first bird?

From evidence around us, we know that species can change over time. Look at dogs. They are all the same species, but they are markedly different, physically.

Look at goldfish. The Chinese, over thousands of years of breeding, have created dozens of physically different subspecies from the basic goldfish.

From archeological records, we find that modern corn, rice and grain are much different from their ancestral forms.

But these are guided developments... so maybe, someone was guiding the development of archeopteryx into the many different birds we have now? But no men existed then... (the fossils say so) so who could it be?

But wait, we look at different species of birds and animals in isolated islands off Africa and Asia. We see that species can also change develop in response to their environment without interference from intelligent sources. They develop in response to needs on the island.

Turtles on one island have slightly longer necks, because the bushes grow higher and they can't reach the food. We can then imagine that turtles with short necks would starve and die, while turtles with long necks keep reproducing, and the children with longer necks reproduce more... (this is where Darwin started).

We look at man. Over the past few centuries, Caucasian (white) man has been growing taller and taller. We look at clothes of Caucasians from two or three centuries ago, we look at their homes... they're tiny compared to modern Caucasians. (about 5 1/2 feet or less). Was there a conscious process in this change?

We look around the world. Men don't come in the same shape and size everywhere. Aboriginies, Pygmys and Eskimos are small, all the better to make use of their limited available resources. Some African plainspeople are tall and lanky... they can run quickly and jump quickly... all the better to hunt. So, does man also changes over time given different environments?

We look at the apes. Some of them look so much like us, but so different. They can't speak, yet they can learn our language (in writing and sign), but they're stupid. Could they be cousins to us, like all birds are cousins? Or all cats? Or all dogs?

We look at the fossils again, find a time when there were no modern human skeletons but skeletons of things that may have looked much like us and somewhat similar to apes. Some of these skeletons are found with crude tools, much like the tools found with human skeletons from ancient times... or much like the tools some primitive tribes still use today.

We start making connections. Maybe we came from something that was once like an ape, but got bigger, smarter, and stronger over time. We know that some current humans are much bigger than ancient humans of some four to five thousand years ago, while some humans are still small.

One question... where are these pre-humans now? Did they all die out, like the "lizard-monsters"? For that matter, if archeopteryx was the first bird, why don't we see them anymore?

Maybe the pre-humans who weren't as smart died out, couldn't survive. Same with archeopteryx... we can see from its skeleton that it probably couldn't fly as well as modern birds. Thus, as new species develops, the pre-cursor species dies out.

Maybe, if there's enough time, the species become so different that they can't reproduce with each other, and separate into new species. It's happened with cats already... with dogs, not yet... it's only been a few thousand years. With birds, it's been tens of millions of years already.

We've come full circle.
_____

That's how you can justify evolution by evidence, and with no reference to Darwin. You can't justify classical Creationism via the same methods, because you're always referring to the opinion of an ancient writer (who may be divinely inspired, but IS not GOD HIMSELF), not on evidence. Intelligent Design can also not be proven by empirical methods or observation, thus its relegation to the field of philosophy.

Until we can peer outside our Universe and see what things were like before the Big Bang, or we find a sign written into the fabric of the Universe, like a picture drawn into the value of pi (ref. Carl Sagan's Contact), we can't prove that there is a God or Intelligent Designer out there... not yet.

We can prove that Evolution occured, whether or not there was a God. And even given the existence of God, why does Evolution have to be wrong?

[niky]

hehe... nagsalita na pala si boss yebo! :lol:

[city]

coder and city,

personalan na ang posts ng mga tao dito. hindi yata dapat ganyan, meron rules e. if you post di ba dapat it should be a comment, for or against, a certain topic or point of view. e kaso ang punto ng mga posts ninyo e personal na sa isa't-isa. para matigil na ito suggest ko na magkita na lang kayo at magsuntukan, barilan, sabunutan, o di kaya ay bigyan ninyo ng manicure at pedicure ang bawat isa at tignan na lang kung sino sa inyo ang mas magaling. dinadamay nyo pa kami sa pataasan ninyo ng ihi e (tuli na ba kayo?)

stop na nga kayo! pag nag-post pa kayong 2 na nagaaway kayo dito then that will confirm na ..... bakla kayong dalawa

jokla!

este, "joke lang" pala ehehehehehe!

nothing personal....medyo emotional lang si coder.

OT: bakla?...gusto mo malaman?...joke lang!..hehehehe.

[yebo]

ok sige tita, need ko pa-manicure e

[city]

*sigh* I've just read three extra pages of gibberish. If you have nothing of value to add, please, don't crowd the thread.

I've said this previously, and I don't want to say it again. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT CONTRADICT OR CONTRAVENE THE WORD OF GOD. Look up POPE JOHN PAUL II and EVOLUTION in Google. Let that point rest.

This then becomes a debate on how creatures came to be... not the prime motivator... because even with Evolution, we can hypothesize that there COULD HAVE BEEN a God who started the process of cosmic and organic evolution. And since we CANNOT perceive anything outside this Universe, GOD may be there, whether we believe it or not.

So, belief or disbelief in God has NOTHING to do with EVOLUTION.

_____

Let's eliminate Evolutionary Theory for a moment, and FOCUS on the evidence. Pretend DARWIN never existed. Pretend the CHURCH doesn't exist either.

Early paleontologists dig up the remains of creatures the likes of which no one has ever seen. Most believed these were the monsters and dragons of myth.

But as time goes on, we became better able to determine the relative age of these remains, and found remains that would appear to be an elephant, say, or a horse, but unlike any such creature existent.

Now we start looking at fossil age. We devise methods of dating fossils.

Before a certain date, we find NO Fossils of man or of some of the other modern animals. Many of the "lizard monsters" we dig up are from periods long before there were any men, so they can't be monsters of legend.

But some of them look like creatures of today, only wildly different.

One explorer, by accident, finds Archeopteryx... the lizard monster with feathers. Since no bird fossils have been found older than archeopteryx, then, should we surmise, that maybe archeopteryx was the first bird?

From evidence around us, we know that species can change over time. Look at dogs. They are all the same species, but they are markedly different, physically.

Look at goldfish. The Chinese, over thousands of years of breeding, have created dozens of physically different subspecies from the basic goldfish.

From archeological records, we find that modern corn, rice and grain are much different from their ancestral forms.

But these are guided developments... so maybe, someone was guiding the development of archeopteryx into the many different birds we have now? But no men existed then... (the fossils say so) so who could it be?

But wait, we look at different species of birds and animals in isolated islands off Africa and Asia. We see that species can also change develop in response to their environment without interference from intelligent sources. They develop in response to needs on the island.

Turtles on one island have slightly longer necks, because the bushes grow higher and they can't reach the food. We can then imagine that turtles with short necks would starve and die, while turtles with long necks keep reproducing, and the children with longer necks reproduce more... (this is where Darwin started).

We look at man. Over the past few centuries, Caucasian (white) man has been growing taller and taller. We look at clothes of Caucasians from two or three centuries ago, we look at their homes... they're tiny compared to modern Caucasians. (about 5 1/2 feet or less). Was there a conscious process in this change?

We look around the world. Men don't come in the same shape and size everywhere. Aboriginies, Pygmys and Eskimos are small, all the better to make use of their limited available resources. Some African plainspeople are tall and lanky... they can run quickly and jump quickly... all the better to hunt. So, does man also changes over time given different environments?

We look at the apes. Some of them look so much like us, but so different. They can't speak, yet they can learn our language (in writing and sign), but they're stupid. Could they be cousins to us, like all birds are cousins? Or all cats? Or all dogs?

We look at the fossils again, find a time when there were no modern human skeletons but skeletons of things that may have looked much like us and somewhat similar to apes. Some of these skeletons are found with crude tools, much like the tools found with human skeletons from ancient times... or much like the tools some primitive tribes still use today.

We start making connections. Maybe we came from something that was once like an ape, but got bigger, smarter, and stronger over time. We know that some current humans are much bigger than ancient humans of some four to five thousand years ago, while some humans are still small.

One question... where are these pre-humans now? Did they all die out, like the "lizard-monsters"? For that matter, if archeopteryx was the first bird, why don't we see them anymore?

Maybe the pre-humans who weren't as smart died out, couldn't survive. Same with archeopteryx... we can see from its skeleton that it probably couldn't fly as well as modern birds. Thus, as new species develops, the pre-cursor species dies out.

Maybe, if there's enough time, the species become so different that they can't reproduce with each other, and separate into new species. It's happened with cats already... with dogs, not yet... it's only been a few thousand years. With birds, it's been tens of millions of years already.

We've come full circle.
_____

That's how you can justify evolution by evidence, and with no reference to Darwin. You can't justify classical Creationism via the same methods, because you're always referring to the opinion of an ancient writer (who may be divinely inspired, but IS not GOD HIMSELF), not on evidence. Intelligent Design can also not be proven by empirical methods or observation, thus its relegation to the field of philosophy.

Until we can peer outside our Universe and see what things were like before the Big Bang, or we find a sign written into the fabric of the Universe, like a picture drawn into the value of pi (ref. Carl Sagan's Contact), we can't prove that there is a God or Intelligent Designer out there... not yet.

We can prove that Evolution occured, whether or not there was a God. And even given the existence of God, why does Evolution have to be wrong?

[CoDer]

no, no, don't get me wrong....that's what i'm trying to say to you all this time...you seem to be smart but you're not acting like one...people are misled because of your behavior... i myself got the impression that you do not know science because of the way you answer...

so ok..you're from an academe (whatever that is)...and you're a graduate of computer science and a systems design by profession...wow man..you have the credentials of a learned person..talk about science..no doubt about that...

this brings to me to my question..why ask me to prove the theory of evolution? You're either trying see if i will make a mistake of presenting evidences and laugh at the back of your seat or you're just playing smart.

let's be honest dude......from the credentials you claim to possess , you don't need proofs of the theory because you simply know what a scientific theory is....moreover you have been a defender of theory as you claimed..but you changed your mind...now you may want to share it to us why...or you may keep it to yourself....

i'm assuming you personally have found the theory to be false that's why you changed your mind. This would be interesting to hear and worth listening to.

Look were going nowhere, pasensya na. Inumpisahan kasi ni Alpha_One eh. Lumabas tuloy na jologs ako.

Ganito, for those who subscribe to creationism. It’s either they believe that God was the master of the creation, and that life form evolved according to Gods plan or will claim that an alien with superior intellect and technology created us. The latter got its roots from Hollywood, na feature na to sa Discovery Channel.

The problem with creationism is if you don't believe in God. Now we will rule out Aliens here, pleaseeeeee.

I am not saying that one must not subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, because its science and mannnn I love science. My point is if you believe that Theory of Evolution is true and claim that science has proven it therefore makes it a law.

If the Theory of Evolution becomes a law based on tangible scientific fact then it is only proper that you share to us the proof.

But if you say that it is not a Law but you believe that it is true, medyo malaki ang problema mo. Conflicting kasi yan. A Theory is just a Theory until proven to be true. Genesis never mentioned about Dinosaurs. How come we unearthed fossils to prove that they exist? Get my point; all I am saying is give us the proof.

Regading monkeys naman, I’m sorry, medyo sarcastic yun eh. But according to science, Homo sapiens and the modern primate came from the same Evolutionary tree. Believe me, hibang ako sa Theory of Evolution wayyyyy back college days until na convert ako.

And don’t even start arguing about human consciousness and reason. Dahil kung na map na yan in relation to Brain function, how come Artificial Intelligence has not been perfected by Computer Science? and it will never be.

And please refrain from asking someone if he know the meaning of the words. Hehehehe…. Elementary masyado yan. And pardon me for being Juan Dela Cruz. Hehehehe…

To those who subscribe to Theory of Evolution present your proof. Believe me daming kulang dyan, billions of years na tangible proof ang kulang nyan.

Again there's no logic in creationism if you don't believe in God. Kaya the burden of proof is on the Theory of Evolution.

To those who believe that God created everything, don’t even bother proving it because you can’t. It never got it roots from science in the first place.

Yan malinaw na yan ha.

[CoDer]

coder and city,

personalan na ang posts ng mga tao dito. hindi yata dapat ganyan, meron rules e. if you post di ba dapat it should be a comment, for or against, a certain topic or point of view. e kaso ang punto ng mga posts ninyo e personal na sa isa't-isa. para matigil na ito suggest ko na magkita na lang kayo at magsuntukan, barilan, sabunutan, o di kaya ay bigyan ninyo ng manicure at pedicure ang bawat isa at tignan na lang kung sino sa inyo ang mas magaling. dinadamay nyo pa kami sa pataasan ninyo ng ihi e (tuli na ba kayo?)

stop na nga kayo! pag nag-post pa kayong 2 na nagaaway kayo dito then that will confirm na ..... bakla kayong dalawa

jokla!

este, "joke lang" pala ehehehehehe!

Hahahahaha... Alpha_One kasi eh, namemersonal sumakay naman si city.

Lalakwe pho akho. heheheheee....

[CoDer]

Hahaba pa tong tread na to. Hahahahaha....

Keep em coming.

[niky]

Please read my post, I presented evidence that can be confirmed if you take the time to visit the proper museums, fossil dig sites and archeological sites.

Theories are stated as Theories and not as Laws because it is impossible to prove anything 100% in the real world. That's why the only Theories to become Laws are the very simple ones... the Laws of Thermodynamics, etcetera.

But calling something a Theory does not state that it is necessarily untrue... just that we are 99% percent sure it's true, but there are exceptions to the Theory. These exceptions may be due to environmental causes such as catastrophes or diseases. Mass extinctions have occurred numerous times in our history... the oldest found killed off the trilobites, who were the fittest sea creatures ever, and should have been around till today. The most popular killed off the dinosaurs, who were very successful, from an evolutionary standpoint.

Evolution is a Theory because there are times when "survival of the fittest" doesn't work out... but 99% of the time, it works. The Thermodynamic Rules are Laws because you can't change them... ever. Energy never goes uphill... at least not in the visible universe.

[GlennSter]

you guys can only go so much discussing this and will never ever have the WHOLE truth...bits and pieces lang ang kayang alamin ng isang tao since TAO LANG tayo.

keep the discussion healthy guys.

[theveed]

It's starting to be a real discussion again, thank god (whoever you choose to thank hehe).

[CoDer]

Ubos na brain cells ko niky, at nabasa ko na rin lahat about that Theory. Coelacanth a prehistoric fish though extinct millions of years ago were discovered in 1938, correct me if I'm wrong.

And now scientist is going back to the drawing board because based on current study dinosaur are feathered creatures. Well perhaps some of them.

That's why a theory remains a theory. The problem with that Theory is that it has to be 99% sure then you have to consider +5, -5 allowance for error. And the fact that paleontologists still need billions of years of prehistoric evidence would make the rest skeptic.

Expect that science will now and then revise the evolutionary tree.