What do you believe in? Evolution or creationism?

[Chip]

Nooooooooo!!!! DOn't open this thread!!!!! Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!!

here we go again.......

:popcorn:

[the josh]

Both, I'm a Catholic but I'm also loyal to my 3rd yr. high school section (Darwin)

[city]

AFAIK..

Darwin confessed his sins before he died. He said that his "theory" was not true.
That's what my professor in history said.

He must be present at Darwin's deathbed which is impossible.

[CoDer]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...ns_illness.asp

What Darwin did not know

We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming scientific developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned that his theory might one day be proved wrong.

In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and published his work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents according to precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance random processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.

James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so the present universe could not have created itself), and the second law of which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward degenerating direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do not of themselves become more organized with time).

Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which showed that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-life.

The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the odds of life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet been applied to the theory of evolution.

Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so enormously complex that it could not possibly have been formed by chance, had not yet commenced.

The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently for palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that chains of intermediate 'links' do not exist.

Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin at the time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been enough to torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of evolution stone dead!

Oy magsitigil na kayo!

[theveed]

Not again...

[niky]

Aw, c'mon, don't even start:

What Darwin did not know

We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming scientific developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned that his theory might one day be proved wrong.

In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and published his work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents according to precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance random processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.

That's an oversimplification of genetics. There are many strings of "garbage" in DNA that help to make the genes robust, and contribute to flexibility in cases of mutation and the passing of traits. Genes can mutate due to chemical, hereditary (excessive inbreeding) or environmental conditions, and if the off-spring with mutated genes proves successful, the mutation propagates. (Note the "ostrich-foot" tribe).

James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so the present universe could not have created itself), and the second law of which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward degenerating direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do not of themselves become more organized with time).

That's incredibly funny. That interpretation would mean that life itself could not exist, and that trees cannot grow.

It ignores the fact that life and evolution does follow the laws of thermodynamics. Order in life comes from using more energy to produce organization than the energy that comes out.

In other words, you use 100% of the resources available to you to generate life, which can only remit about 40% of that energy (not accurate, this is an example). If you don't generate life, the resources go unused.

Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which showed that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-life.

Which showed that bacteria begets bacteria... not bacteria begetting bagels. Evolution works over time, not in the petri-dish.

The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the odds of life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet been applied to the theory of evolution.

According to who? It's zero when rounded-off. When you don't round it off... a chance of 0.0000001% means that in a Universe this big, life still has a greater than 1 chance of occuring.

Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so enormously complex that it could not possibly have been formed by chance, had not yet commenced.

"that it could not possibly have been formed by chance" is the opinion of the site author, not by molecular biologists. In my opinion, the Sistine Chapel ceiling is so complex that it could not possibly have been painted by one man. So Michelangelo obviously did not paint it... :hysterical:

The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently for palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that chains of intermediate 'links' do not exist.

And genetics is now so well-understood that we can use genetic evidence to fill in many of these missing links. I'd still like to see how digging up about 1/100,000th of the surface of the Earth constitutes a thorough search for fossils, and who actually says intermediate links do not exist... the creationists?

Any one of these concepts or laws, if known to Charles Darwin at the time he was writing his Origin (1856-59), would have been enough to torpedo his ideas; taken all together they kill the theory of evolution stone dead!

It would have been funnier if the guy wasn't so serious.

Stop resurrecting threads! This one only brings sorrow and misery!

[6shooter]

It would have been funnier if the guy wasn't so serious.

Stop resurrecting threads! This one only brings sorrow and misery!

Di lang po sorrow and misery ang dulot nito. It exposes the ignorance of creationists. Paano kaya sila nakakapaniwala sa sinasabi nila?

[mazdamazda]

Di lang po sorrow and misery ang dulot nito. It exposes the ignorance of creationists. Paano kaya sila nakakapaniwala sa sinasabi nila?

Warning for making flame bait remarks... and even creating flame bait threads and on resurrecting long dead threads.



Closing this thread!