Re: EVOLUTION is a figment of Chef Mike's imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX
I've watched and listened to your ramblings of "God" being a "made up" entity for a while.
Where are they?
Who's "they" you ask? The proverbial caveman of course. The Missing link. The transitional man in between ape and Human.
Bottom line, your claim of CREATIONISM being a hoax, I'm here to tell you your Evolutionary belief is no more functional.....LESS so in fact.
.
OK. Lemme get this straight. Since you can't find a Missing Link between Man and Ape, you trash the enitre concept of Evolution?
Evolution involves the gradual change of organisms over time, as they adapt to changes their environment, and pass on the adapted genes to their offspring, generation after generaton after generation.
You don't need an Ape Man to see that occurring.
And you don't need millions of years to notice a change in how animals or even humans change over time.
Creationism is based on faith in a higher power.
Evolution is based on science.
Your beliefs are your own affair. But belief in God(s) doesn't prove anything about the Universe was created, now where the Missing Link is.
A Missing Link isn't necessary to prove/disprove Evolution.
Re: EVOLUTION is a figment of Chef Mike's imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjaxSwann
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX
I've watched and listened to your ramblings of "God" being a "made up" entity for a while.
Where are they?
Who's "they" you ask? The proverbial caveman of course. The Missing link. The transitional man in between ape and Human.
Bottom line, your claim of CREATIONISM being a hoax, I'm here to tell you your Evolutionary belief is no more functional.....LESS so in fact.
.
OK. Lemme get this straight. Since you can't find a Missing Link between Man and Ape, you trash the enitre concept of Evolution?
Evolution involves the gradual change of organisms over time, as they adapt to changes their environment, and pass on the adapted genes to their offspring, generation after generaton after generation.
You don't need an Ape Man to see that occurring.
And you don't need millions of years to notice a change in how animals or even humans change over time.
Creationism is based on faith in a higher power.
Evolution is based on science.
Your beliefs are your own affair. But belief in God(s) doesn't prove anything about the Universe was created, now where the Missing Link is.
A Missing Link isn't necessary to prove/disprove Evolution.
I think there is some confusion in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Creationism is the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. The theory of Evolution has been observed in many life forms including humans. Creationism has never been observed, ever (and no, the intelligent design argument does not hold water).
Why can't both be accurate/correct? God or some omnipotent Creator could have created the earth, the moon, the stars, the galaxies and the universe a long time ago. And then Evolution kicked in and has taken us to where we are now. Evolution is a theory of if/how life forms change over time. Evolution does not address how life began. It only has to deal with how life changes over time due to mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. This is why I see as arguing over Creationism vs. Evolution is like arguing over apples vs. oranges.
Abiogenesis is the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. This is what should be compared with Creationism. Both address how life began long, long ago. On the Abiogenesis side some say the Big Bang was how life began. Creationists argue life was created by God. Yet neither has been observed nor can be proven. Some say evidence of the Big Bang can be seen by observing how the universe is expanding, but that is not a proof. Creationists argue that God must have created everything just because he did. So it boils down to a matter of faith. You can believe in Creationism or Abiogenesis but you can’t base it on a logical proof or material evidence (not yet).
So what do you chose? Both could be considered very sound theories. Remember that relatively short time ago scientific “experts” believed the earth was flat. And not so long ago experts “believed” that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around. I personally think ones personal choice for Creationism vs. Abiogenesis or Science vs. Religion is mostly guided by what they WANT to believe. If you find it more comforting to believe in Creationism then go right ahead who am I to say you are wrong? If you find it makes more sense to rest your beliefs on scientific theories then that’s just fine as well.
But, I believe it is important to continuously question your beliefs. To challenge your own and others ideas would be most healthy for everyone. Also, I believe it is most important that this practice ought to be carried out peacefully between people with open eyes and open minds.
Here’s some food for though on the subject. (I didn’t create these, and all of them are quite long)
http://glumbert.com/media/watchmaker
http://glumbert.com/media/priceofatheism
http://glumbert.com/media/dawkinsbishop
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22
