Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Haz 35]

I only speak to those that state wrong things about evolution and beliefs about evolution can be based on bad information. If others believe in god, or that god created things, or guided, I do not coment. But when in their posts they give their reasons for such beliefs and some of those reasons are wrong facts about things, then I correct those facts, and maybe the belief might change, or it might not.

You realize that there is always the possibility that the theory of evolution is completely inaccurate? You cannot /know/ that evolution occurred, it is a widely accepted thing but that does not make it a fact, a theory can never be a fact and a theory can never be proven.

I think you are too quick to discard the beliefs of others, particularly relating to scientific beliefs simply because it is not the 'ideal' theory of evolution that you have come to believe in yourself.

My earlier post for those that missed it: CLICK

[Jistuma 1996]

You realize that there is always the possibility that the theory of evolution is completely inaccurate? You cannot /know/ that evolution occurred, it is a widely accepted thing but that does not make it a fact, a theory can never be a fact and a theory can never be proven.

I think you are too quick to discard the beliefs of others, particularly relating to scientific beliefs simply because it is not the 'ideal' theory of evolution that you have come to believe in yourself.

A theory in scientific terms is the most acurate explanation of facts.

 

Examples:

Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution, germ theory

Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory

Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, M-theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory

Other: climate change theory (from climatology), plate tectonics theory (from geology)

(taken from wiki)

 

And also, gravitational theory.

 

While the theories are never 100% true, and can never be, they are based on facts. If someone thinks that the theory of evolution says that dogs give birth to cats, I will tell them they are wrong. If they ask if apes evolve to humans, why are they still apes around, I will explain where they went wrong in that thinking, and give them the correct facts about the theory.

 

[edit] belief and knowledge are two different things. I have knowledge on the theory of evolution, and many other theories, and I have the belief that right now, they are the most acurate representation about reality.

 

Going to sleep, I'll continue tomorow.

[Haz 35]

A theory in scientific terms is the most acurate explanation of facts.

 

Examples:

Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution, germ theory

Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory

Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, M-theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory

Other: climate change theory (from climatology), plate tectonics theory (from geology)

(taken from wiki)

 

And also, gravitational theory.

 

While the theories are never 100% true, and can never be, they are based on facts. If someone thinks that the theory of evolution says that dogs give birth to cats, I will tell them they are wrong. If they ask if apes evolve to humans, why are they still apes around, I will explain where they went wrong in that thinking, and give them the correct facts about the theory.

I wouldn't say it's an explanation of fact. A theory is generally created before evidence is established. Except in the cases of people like Newton whom gathered factual data, created a hypothesis and then came up with a theory. Evolution was not based on any fact at first, it was simply that - a theory.

 

Normally evidence (i.e. a 'fact') is generated to support a theory. Just a side-note, I prefer to use 'evidence' instead of 'fact'; 'fact' implies that there is a 100% validity, nothing has 100% validity (accuracy).

 

EDIT: I don't think you've properly understood the message I was trying to convey in that post. Reading it with an open-mind will yield the best results and have a more prominent effect.

[hammer01 29]

Ok, i know i said i wouldnt post, but here goes... the following is an exerpt from a page against evolution:

 

 



What Were the Odds For Evolution?

Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening
are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.

Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University,
estimated that the probability of the chance formation of the smallest,
simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. One
out of ten to the 340 millionth power is unimaginable odds. This large
figure is a "1" followed by 340,000,000 zeroes. As you can see,
Morowitz' odds against even the simplest life evolving were infinitely
more than 1*10^50, making them impossible.

The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University,
figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally
on a planet such as earth. According to Sagan, the probability would be
about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten to the 2 billionth
power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds
against evolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of
our time.

According to evolutionists, we just got lucky. However, the odds against
this luck have been shown above. Borel's law of probability should have
been enough to refute evolution completely, but I know that the
evolutionary "intellectuals" need more convincing data.

 

  How Many Events Have Ever Occurred?

Here is a good mental workout: Let us attempt to figure the total amount
of things that have taken place in the universe. Even evolutionists
will agree that only a certain amount of events have taken place in this
universe. If this total number of possible events is even barely close
to the number of chances needed for the first step in evolution to take
place, then we will agree that life did evolve from non-life. Here we
go.

 

 

How Big Is the Universe?

We are attempting to determine how many events have ever
taken place in the universe. To do so, we must first determine the size
of the universe so that we can pack it with event-accomplishing
particles.

So how big is the universe? Scientists have estimated it to be
about 5,000,000,000 light years across. To give the evolutionists a
little help, let's assume that it is a million times wider, taller, and
deeper. The new diameter would be 5*10^15, or 5 quadrillion light years.
This will make our experimental universe 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
bigger than the real universe. Many events can occur in such a big
place.

 

• 5,000,000,000,000,000 light years = 30 octillion miles, or 3*10^28 miles in diameter.

 

 

How Small Is a Proton?

Now that we have thought big, lets think small. The
effective diameter of a proton is about 2.4*10^-15 meters, or 2.4
femtometers. To help understand this tiny size, one inch is equal to
about 10 trillion protons lined side to side.

Remember, we are trying to figure how many events could have ever
happened. We need to know how many particles exist so they could
interact through the ages and create life from non-life.

We should use particles a good bit smaller than protons, so that the
evolutionists will have enough particles to do lots and lots of events.
By volume, the real universe contains billions and billions of times
more space than particles. Since we are attempting to determine how
many events have ever occurred in the universe, let us give the
evolutionists the benefit of the doubt by completely filling our
experimental universe with particles. This will give them billions of
times more events to produce life.

Protons are way too big for our exercise. We are figuring the total
amount of events that have ever taken place, and more particles can
accomplish more events to give evolution more of a "chance." We should
give evolutionists lots and lots of particles so that life has a better
chance of evolving. Therefore, we will be using particles having a
diameter 1 trillion times smaller than protons. This will allow us to
pack our experimental universe with (1 trillion)^3, or
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, more particles than
would be possible with "large" protons.

 

 

How Many Particles Could Fit In Our Universe?

First, let us determine how many of our extra-small particles could be lined across the diameter of our extra-large universe.

 

• 3*10^28 miles = 5*10^31 meters = 1.2*10^47 proton diameters = 1.2*10^59 extra-small particle diameters.

Therefore, 1.2*10^59 of the "smaller than possible" particles lined side
to side would stretch across the "larger than possible" universe. This
should provide plenty of particles to interact and make life from
non-life.

 


 

So, How Many Particles?

Evolutionists believe that the Big Bang blew everything
from a central point in the beginning. Therefore, this universe should
be spherical. We will now figure the volume of our universe and pack it
with particles.

 

• Universe Diameter = 3*10^28 miles = 1.2*10^59 "small-particle" diameters
   
• Universe Volume = (4/3)*(PI)*[(Diameter)^3]*(1/8)
   
• Universe Volume = (4/3)*(PI)*[(1.2*10^59 "small-particle diameters)^3]*(1/8)
   
• Universe Volume = 8*10^177 particles.

As mentioned before, our real universe is full of empty space, but this
theoretical universe is packed full of "smaller than possible"
particles. This increase in the number of particles has helped the
terrible odds against evolution. The total amount of particles possible
is 8*10^177. Remember that we generously allowed for a universe 1
million times wider than reality, and we used particles 1 trillion times
smaller than protons.

 

 

How Quickly Could Each Particle Make Life?

Okay, now we have the number of particles available for
life-making. How much can each particle do in a second? Since we don't
know, let's be generous to our evolutionary friends. Let's assume that
each of the 8*10^177 particles can participate in one trillion trillion
trillion events each second. This factor would be 1*10^36 events per
second.

 

• Activity of each particle = 1*10^36 events per second.

 

 

How Much Time To Produce Life?

Now that we know the amount of particles and the
work-rate of each, let's determine the amount of time that they have to
perform their life-producing tasks. I think that the current estimated
life expectancy of the universe is about 30 billion years. This could be
a little small or large; I'm not sure (I believe that the universe is
less than ten-thousand years old). Anyhow, to give the evolutionists a
little more time than they really have, let's multiply their time by 1
billion. This would give the universe 30 quadrillion years to produce
life.

How many seconds are contained in 30 quadrillion years?

 

• 3*10^19 years = 1.1*10^22 days = 2.6*10^23 hours = 1*10^27 seconds

 

 

Finally, How Many Events Could Ever Occur?

The universe, crammed with 8*10^177 particles working at 1*10^36 events per second for 1*10^27 seconds, could only make:

 

• (8*10^177)*(1*10^36)*(1*10^27) = 8*10^240 events.

 

 

  Only 8*10^240 events could ever happen!

 

Dr. Morowitz postulated that life could evolve from
non-life every 1 out of 1*10^340,000,000 events. The great Dr. Sagan
calculated 1 out of every 1*10^2,000,000,000 events. However, only
8*10^240 events could ever be possible, in the entire universe, with all
of the time possible.

According to Morowitz, we would need 1*10^340,000,000 events to produce
life. Unfortunately, we would need 10^339,999,759 TIMES AS MANY EVENTS
to have 1*10^340,000,000 events. Compared to Sagan's predictions, we
would need 10^1,999,999,759 TIMES AS MANY events to achieve the odds
necessary for life.

The total number of events ever possible was only 8*10^240. This was
only 10% of 8*10^241, or 1% of 8*10^242, or 0.1% of 8*10^243. You can
see that 8*10^240 was not enough events by any means to reach the number
of events needed for the evolution of life. And we're talking about the
most primitive, simple kind of life forming. These odds are impossible.

It is hard to argue with basic probability. Simple mathematics has

helped us to realize that life could never evolve from non-life.

 

Here is the link to the page: http://www.ryanscarpage.50megs.com/evolution.html

[Jistuma 1996]

I wouldn't say it's an explanation of fact. A theory is generally created before evidence is established. Except in the cases of people like Newton whom gathered factual data, created a hypothesis and then came up with a theory. Evolution was not based on any fact at first, it was simply that - a theory.

 

Normally evidence (i.e. a 'fact') is generated to support a theory. Just a side-note, I prefer to use 'evidence' instead of 'fact'; 'fact' implies that there is a 100% validity, nothing has 100% validity (accuracy).

 

EDIT: I don't think you've properly understood the message I was trying to convey in that post. Reading it with an open-mind will yield the best results and have a more prominent effect.

You are mistaking common use of the term theory with scientific theory. Scientific theory is not done before facts, it's done after the many facts have been proven and the way they fit together. You are the one who is not understanding what a word means in a context. A hipothesis is what comes before a theory as you stated, before the proofs are gathered. The Theory of evolution was first a hipothesis, then with proof, expecially the ones gathered by Darwin, it became a theory.

 

You are using arguments that have been discussed many times before in this thread, a theory is used with PROVEN FACTS, it's the explanations of it.

 

From the wiki (I still know it's not the best source, but meh):

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works.

(...)

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.

 

This is what I mean by incorrect knowledge of something. If you think "Oh it's just a theory", then you have false information on what a theory really is.

 

No nothing is 100% true, it can never be, there is many more things to explain. But facts can be close to it, gravity exists, but it's still not 100% true, because we don't know everything about gravity. Evolution is the same, evolution exists, both in micro and macro evolution, but it's not 100% true, because we keep discovering new things and making slight changes to the theory.

 

Reading something with an open mind will make you learn more, and learn from your mistakes. I read yours with an open mind, I liked it a lot, I took information from it, and understood some things a different way than I did before. You on the other hand are closing your mind, not letting me teach you where you are wrong, thinking what you know right now is completly correct.

 

Beliefs can be wrong, there are many kinds of them. Belifs are most normally based on occurances, trust, and evidence. Saying something like "I don't believe gravity exists" only means the one who said it has no idea what gravity is, which makes his belief a wrong one, since it's based on wrong understanding.

 

[edit] To Hammer

 

I have never heard of those odds, those are probably wrong. And if those odds are wrong, which they probably are, then all the rest is wrong as well.

 

I can't find the source of such astronomical probablilities, seriously, 1 in 10^340,000,000? That was a lot of errors in that math for this probablilities to be made.

 

What you had there was bad math, so unless you tell me the exact math to get to that horribly stupid number, I will just say it's wrong.

 

Also, Dr. Harold Morowitz said in a cort of law (at least from what is said in the website, this might be wrong.):

Q: Now, you have been explaining why the creation science dual model approach to the teaching of origins of life on this planet is unscientific. Is there any other aspect of the creation science treatment of the origins of life on this planet that is similarly unscientific?

A: Well, I find the use of probabilistic arguments to be somewhat deceptive.

Q: Would you explain what you mean?

A: In general in the creation science literature, they start out by assuming, by making statements about the complexity of living systems. These will generally be fairly accurate statements about the complexity of living systems.

They then proceed on the basis of probabilistic calculations to ask, what is the probability that such a complex system will come about by random. When you do that, you get a vanishingly small probability, and they then assert that therefore life by natural processes is impossible.

501

A: (Continuing) But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the processes by which life has come about in detail. To do the probabilistic calculations, we would have to know all the kinetic and mechanistic details by which the processes have come about, and, therefore, we would then be able to do the calculations. We are simply lacking the information to do the calculations now, so to present them on the basis of the random model is somewhat deceptive.

Q: Is it also in your view unscientific?

A: Since deception is unscientific, the answer to that is yes.

(...)

Q: Would you tell Judge Overton what the odds of life emerging from non-life in an equilibrium state are, according to your calculations?

A: All right. Ten to the minus ten to the tenth. [[1 in 10^10]]

(http://www.antievolution.org/cs/mclean_gould_test_2#pg577)

As you can see, if that site really states what was said in a cort of law, someone twisted his words at some time.

[Amorphbutt 199]

Or it could be as what Terry Pratchett said, it being 'Things just happen, what the hell'

[Haz 35]

Or it could be as what Terry Pratchett said, it being 'Things just happen, what the hell'

Yes.

 

You are mistaking common use of the term theory with scientific theory. Scientific theory is not done before facts, it's done after the many facts have been proven and the way they fit together. You are the one who is not understanding what a word means in a context. A hipothesis is what comes before a theory as you stated, before the proofs are gathered. The Theory of evolution was first a hipothesis, then with proof, expecially the ones gathered by Darwin, it became a theory.

 

You are using arguments that have been discussed many times before in this thread, a theory is used with PROVEN FACTS, it's the explanations of it.

 

From the wiki (I still know it's not the best source, but meh): 

This is what I mean by incorrect knowledge of something. If you think "Oh it's just a theory", then you have false information on what a theory really is.

 

No nothing is 100% true, it can never be, there is many more things to explain. But facts can be close to it, gravity exists, but it's still not 100% true, because we don't know everything about gravity. Evolution is the same, evolution exists, both in micro and macro evolution, but it's not 100% true, because we keep discovering new things and making slight changes to the theory.

 

Reading something with an open mind will make you learn more, and learn from your mistakes. I read yours with an open mind, I liked it a lot, I took information from it, and understood some things a different way than I did before. You on the other hand are closing your mind, not letting me teach you where you are wrong, thinking what you know right now is completly correct.

 

Beliefs can be wrong, there are many kinds of them. Belifs are most normally based on occurances, trust, and evidence. Saying something like "I don't believe gravity exists" only means the one who said it has no idea what gravity is, which makes his belief a wrong one, since it's based on wrong understanding.

 

[edit] To Hammer

 

I have never heard of those odds, those are probably wrong. And if those odds are wrong, which they probably are, then all the rest is wrong as well.

 

I can't find the source of such astronomical probablilities, seriously, 1 in 10^340,000,000? That was a lot of errors in that math for this probablilities to be made.

 

What you had there was bad math, so unless you tell me the exact math to get to that horribly stupid number, I will just say it's wrong.

 

Also, Dr. Harold Morowitz said in a cort of law (at least from what is said in the website, this might be wrong.):(http://www.antievolution.org/cs/mclean_gould_test_2#pg577)

As you can see, if that site really states what was said in a cort of law, someone twisted his words at some time.

What? God no...

I'm not sure if it's just me, but you appear to have been offended what I have said, this is not an intentional/desired effect so please do not get snappy with me.

Please do not accuse me of being close-minded, I am always willing to listen to someone's opinion and if they are right I am willing to say "Yeah, okay. This is a good ideology and I accept that it bears some truth." That's probably the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me, it hurts man.

"You on the other hand are closing your mind, not letting me teach you where you are wrong,"

I'd accept that I was wrong if I was wrong, however, I am not wrong.

 

No, you are misinterpreting the text that is already there my friend. Regardless of how you use the word 'theory' it will never mean to 'explain fact' - not in any study of the world is a theory considered an explanation of fact, it contradicts the initial definition of a theory for starters.

 

"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science."

This doesn't in any way, shape of form even imply 'fact'.

Okay... Basically there is something called the 'scientific process' which is part of the scientific method. There are two main methods of scientific process: The inductive method, which means that the data collection has caused a creation of theory - such as Newton's supposed ability to see patterns in the way things works, he collected data and then came up with a theory. Second is the deductive method, which obviously means that a theory is deduced which might explain the natural world, data collection is done in order to try and disprove the null hypothesis (the opposite of a hypothesis) which will then tick one of the 'Does it support the Theory?' boxes.

Also, just a side note: The deductive method is also known as the Darwinian scientific process and looks a little like this:

Theory -> Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation.

On the other hand, the structure of the inductive method is as follows:

Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation -> Theory

Many scientists such as Karl Popper who was a great philosopher of science said that the deductive method is the only scientific process worthwhile. He suggests that this is because the data is collected to try and falsify a theory (you do not collect data to 'prove' a theory).

Which brings me onto my next point, nothing is ever regarded as being 'proof' of a theory. You cannot 'prove' a theory, that is not what a theory is for or how the scientific method is supposed to be conducted - you must try to disprove a theory.

EXAMPLE:

Theory: I have a theory that all swans are white.

Hypothesis: All swans are white.

You do not go around finding swans that are white, that doesn't many sense. Instead you create a null hypothesis like so:

Null Hypothesis: There will be a swan which is not white.

This is the only time the word 'proof' should be used; you aim to prove that the null hypothesis is true. When you manage to find a black swan you know that your original hypothesis is therefore falsified. This is called falsifiability which is something Popper delved in quite detail.

You use the word proof when there is almost 100% certainty of a fact. If you see a black swan, that is proof that black swans exist, because it cannot be disputed (unless of-course you want to be pedantic and bring in colour blindness).

Example of something can be proven:

Humans can have blue eyes. (Like me!)

Something that cannot be proven:

A human's blue eyes are due to evolutionary changes in their ancestral biology.

It can be theorised, and evidence can be submitted to support the theory - but it cannot be proven. That's a pretty poor example, but I blame my lack of food.

ALSO! There is also a circular process (scientific method):

Theory -> Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation -> Theory

You can start at theory (deductive) or hypothesis (inductive) and go around the circle.

CLICK ME FOR A VISUAL REPRESENTATION! (Sorry for the bad hand-writing)

Perhaps I already covered this, however... A belief can never be wrong, regardless of what you do to try and disprove it. It's a belief, it is not intended to be dis-proven - it's completely illogical. Do not try and treat a belief as a theory, they are two very different things, I already covered this in my initial post.

 

[The Fact Core 511]

Fact: Evolution is just a another word for making love.

 

Fact: Humans got a faith because if not, they would kill each other.

[Jistuma 1996]

If I have insulted you, I am sorry, that is not what I meant.

No, you are misinterpreting the text that is already there my friend. Regardless of how you use the word 'theory' it will never mean to 'explain fact' - not in any study of the world is a theory considered an explanation of fact, it contradicts the initial definition of a theory for starters.

Explanations of facts, not fact. Example, gravity exists, it's a fact, the gravitational theory explains how.

"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science."

This doesn't in any way, shape of form even imply 'fact'.

I placed in red what you should be reading in the quote I before gave. I never said theories were facts, I said they explain facts (at least the best explanation we have so far).

Okay... Basically there is something called the 'scientific process' which is part of the scientific method. There are two main methods of scientific process: The inductive method, which means that the data collection has caused a creation of theory - such as Newton's supposed ability to see patterns in the way things works, he collected data and then came up with a theory. Second is the deductive method, which obviously means that a theory is deduced which might explain the natural world, data collection is done in order to try and disprove the null hypothesis (the opposite of a hypothesis) which will then tick one of the 'Does it support the Theory?' boxes.

Also, just a side note: The deductive method is also known as the Darwinian scientific process and looks a little like this:

Theory -> Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation.

This one is accepted after the theory is already done, example: theory of gravity states that all mass attracts itself. So why don't planets fall to the sun? Hypothesis - they are already in motion, and inertia exists, so since the planets are in orbit, what keeps them in orbit is gravity. Alright lets collect data, lets interper them -> the hyposisis is true, and the theory of gravity is now more updated.

On the other hand, the structure of the inductive method is as follows:

Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation -> Theory

Yes, this is how new theories are made.

Many scientists such as Karl Popper who was a great philosopher of science said that the deductive method is the only scientific process worthwhile. He suggests that this is because the data is collected to try and falsify a theory (you do not collect data to 'prove' a theory).

There are various ways to do things. You don't collect data to falsify a theory, you collect it to falsify a hypothesis, and change a theory. And even after not proving a hypothesis wrong, to make a theory, you need to combine many of them to make the theory. The theory explains and predicts. After the theory is done, you use the predicting ability of it to make new hypothesis, and if that hypothesis is proven wrong, you find out why, and change the theory acordanly, until is it as close to reality as posible.

Which brings me onto my next point, nothing is ever regarded as being 'proof' of a theory. You cannot 'prove' a theory, that is not what a theory is for or how the scientific method is supposed to be conducted - you must try to disprove a theory.

I never said a theory can be proven, I actually said the reverse... It can never be 100% true. And no, theories are there to predict, if something is wrong in a theory, it is changed. You do get a lot of information from just trying to disprove something, but by going with it, and trying to find out what is missing about it, or just using it, you will find a lot of information as well.

EXAMPLE:

Theory: I have a theory that all swans are white.

Hypothesis: All swans are white.

You do not go around finding swans that are white, that doesn't many sense. Instead you create a null hypothesis like so:

Mhh... no... You don't start with the theory. You start with a hypothesis: "ALl swans are white"

Then you go around trying to find out if that's true (one of them could very well be trying to find one that wasn't white) and if you find it is, then the hypotheses is true. Yet one true hypotheses is not enough for a theory. A theory explains the nature of the whiteness of the swan, using the many confirmed hypotheses, and so on.

Null Hypothesis: There will be a swan which is not white.

This is the only time the word 'proof' should be used; you aim to prove that the null hypothesis is true. When you manage to find a black swan you know that your original hypothesis is therefore falsified. This is called falsifiability which is something Popper delved in quite detail.

You find a swan which is not black, do you destroy the theory because of that? No, you study the anomaly and find out why it exists, then you update and improve the theory. the Hypothesis was wrong, yes, the Theory improved. The theory after finding the hypotheses untrue, could turn into: "All healthy swans, between the age of 1 and 2 years, which reside in these expecific location are white. Those that migrated further south have started to develop a more yellow tone." New hypothesis: "The ones in the south have more yellow tone because of the water they live in"

And then you repeat. I think the one you show below is the best representation to base research on.

You use the word proof when there is almost 100% certainty of a fact. If you see a black swan, that is proof that black swans exist, because it cannot be disputed (unless of-course you want to be pedantic and bring in colour blindness).

Example of something can be proven:

Humans can have blue eyes. (Like me!)

Something that cannot be proven:

A human's blue eyes are due to evolutionary changes in their ancestral biology.

It can be theorised, and evidence can be submitted to support the theory - but it cannot be proven. That's a pretty poor example, but I blame my lack of food.

Yes, a theory can never be proven, they are the best representation of reality we have. Nothing can ever be 100% true, as I have said many times before. We try to make something as close to 100% true as possible, but there will always be something that still needs to be discovered.

ALSO! There is also a circular process (scientific method):

Theory -> Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation -> Theory

You can start at theory (deductive) or hypothesis (inductive) and go around the circle.

CLICK ME FOR A VISUAL REPRESENTATION! (Sorry for the bad hand-writing)

This would be the best representation on how the scientific research is done I believe.

Perhaps I already covered this, however... A belief can never be wrong, regardless of what you do to try and disprove it. It's a belief, it is not intended to be dis-proven - it's completely illogical. Do not try and treat a belief as a theory, they are two very different things, I already covered this in my initial post.

A belief can be wrong. If you want an example again of a wrong belief "I do not believe in gravity". Does it mean there is no such thing as gravity? No, means the one who believes that has wrong information about something, making his belief a wrong one. But maybe this is just scementics.

[The Best Basileus 97]

Alright. Here goes:

 

The first two laws of thermodynamics are going to be very important here.

1: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form

2: A closed system always advances toward entropy (entropy=disorder)

The universe consists of all there is, by definition. Certain rules apply to this "all there is." The laws of thermodynamics are universally true. If energy was infinite, there would be no definite amount of it, rendering the first law basically impotent. Because of the first law's proven truth, then, energy cannot be infinite. Since the universe is composed of energy, which must not be infinite, one must be able to consider it a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics applies not only in sub-universal systems, but to the universe itself if the universe may be considered a closed system.

 

When discussing the origins of the universe, the necessary conclusion is that it came out of nothing. Thus, the only powers that could have caused this universe are extra-universal. The type of things that fit this bill are a multiverse, or hyper-dimensional aliens, or God. God, however, fits this bill even more nicely than any of the others, because, in a way, they can be argued to be Him, and He can be argued to be them, because of the lack of facts. Based on definitions, then, it is safe to say that this force is what, for the purposes of this explanation, I will call "God."

 

Let us revisit the thermodynamic laws from paragraph one. If God is just a random extra-universal driving force, then he really has no capacity to induce order in the framework of the universe. If, however, God is a sentient being, then He could form the universe with logic, and MAKE it orderly to start with, before he pressed the analogous "play" button. This much must be, logically.

 

On a more precise level, we may observe evolution. The process of natural selection has been ecumenically proven, and it's power has been harnessed by humanity for thousands of years. We breed animals by inducing conditions on them, forcing natural selection. This phenomenon has occurred even in the human species in the form of the different races. The most obvious example is the adaptation of dark skin by Africans due to the climate of their home continent, and the lack of it in populations becomes more and more prevalent the farther north we observe. Nobody, however, would even question the fact that these traits do not make us inhuman. If this point is argued, then, I ask, why was it wrong to enslave other humans? After all, they were not fit enough to resist their enslavement effectively...

 

This is what the term micro-evolution means. The traits that already exist in a population are made more and less prevalent based on the circumstances. The same goes for the much-lauded "evolution" of British moths during the Industrial Revolution. There were always black moths, but the circumstances made that trait less advantageous. When soot covered the white bark, that trait became more prevalent. At no point in this example, or in any example, has the production of new advantageous traits ever been shown.

 

Moreover, the mutations needed to produce new traits ALWAYS produce inferior traits. Let us again consider the second law of thermodynamics. Any change in form or phase within a closed system increases entropy, or disorder. This is precisely what always happens with mutations. The only exception is when mutations are directed by sentient beings who have to put work into forcing order into the change in order to make it a good one (this would be considered an open system, so the law would not apply in this case). Macro-evolution relies entirely on mutations. Macro-evolution, also known as Darwin's Theory (hypothesis) of Evolution, has been proven using scientific law to be false.

 

The problem with the alien theory comes at this point: the very first aliens to interfere would themselves had to have evolved without interference. As has been shown above, evolution is impossible unless directed by a sentient being who can transfer order from one part of the universe to another (this sounds quite fancy and special, but in fact humanity does this all the time. I am not suggesting that the creative force, God, had any hand in advancing evolution).

 

Many will still insist in believing evolution, despite reading what I have written here. Let us examine the moral implications of believing in evolution as a culture.

 

Evolution describes progress as the advancement of a species by selection of superior genes and mutations. We need only look back in history to the mid-twentieth century to see what evil this has wrought, as humans have tried to advance our genes for the good of the species. Hitler is one of our favorite examples of much evil, but he was driven by a sincere belief in Darwin. He truly believed that inferior humans needed to be exterminated (dalek) in order to purify our genes, optimize our operation, and maximize our potential. This resulted in a slaughter that the world had never before seen. This slaughter was the Holocaust, in which over 6,000,000 Jews, gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, Christians, mentally disabled, and physically handicapped were brutally and efficiently murdered in the name of Darwinian Evolution. Worse was still to come.

 

Communism denies God, and in doing so must embrace another explanation for our origins. Darwinian Evolution provided the perfect fit. Communist regimes throughout the twentieth century killed at least 100,000,000 people, and perhaps upwards of 200,000,000 people. Stalin and his successors, Mao and his successors, Kim Il Sung and his successors, the Viet Cong in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, et cetera, many African Communist regimes (a notable ethnic cleansing event was the Rwandan Genocide), Balkan Communists (the famous conflict in Yugoslavia), and Communist Latin-American regimes.

 

Since the so-called fall of Communism, Darwinian Evolution has continued to wreak havoc in the world. Communist ideas were traded out for Socialist ones, which emphasize group-advancement at the cost of individuals. The many individuals who have suffered religious, social, and other forms of persecution have hardly advanced the group at all, however.

 

Aside from social systems, Darwinian Evolution destroys the moral fiber of people and eradicates belief systems. It encourages propagation of one's own genes, and with over propagation of genes comes overpopulation, and the need to spend valuable resources on contraceptives, not to mention the horrible epidemics of different HIV strains and other sexually transmitted diseases, especially in countries where the population is either too poor, or too group-oriented to be able to do much to stop it.

 

Because of the focus  on sexual things to an extreme, women become nothing more than a means of propagation, encouraging men to satisfy their urges through pornography, a practice that changes the mental structure of a man and makes him more violent, less considerate, and more sex-oriented. This obviously contributes to crimes worldwide, at the expense of women and young boys who are too weak to defend themselves.

 

So far, all I have managed to do is show the necessity of a God, and debunk and criticize evolution. In the next section, I will examine the religion of origin of most debaters of evolution: Christianity.

 

The Bible is a compilation of 66 books written by forty men over at least 1600 years. They wrote a book that has no historical inaccuracies, no scientific errors (except where it is clearly being artfully descriptive), and information inside that was impossible for the writers to know. The amount of fulfilled prophecy from this book is amazing, especially when compared to other holy texts. The information in it, including references to gravity, the gender of worker ants, and perhaps even string theory, is impossible and shocking when revealed. A work like this, written by mere men, is impossible. Yet, it exists.

 

Multiple times has the archaeological and historical community thought they had disproven the Bible, only to learn as more developments were revealed, that it was not the Bible, but they themselves that were wrong. A prime example is the mockery over the Biblical Hittites by the scientific community, until they realized that the Hittites actually had existed, and that the Biblical account was totally accurate.

 

I may have caused much confusion amongst proponents of evolution who claim that the Bible states that the sun moves around the earth. This was not a declaration explicitly made by the Bible, but was something, rather, that the leader of the Catholics insisted was true. The Bible was not proven wrong, only the Pope was. Other misconceptions about the Bible can mostly be chalked up to Catholics (sorry Catholics, but it's true. :P).

 

Another line of criticism may perhaps be that the Bible has caused so much pain and suffering throughout history. This, in fact, is not true either. The Crusades were a few things that most people don't realize:

 

1. Carried out by Catholics under order from the Pope, not the Bible (yup.)

2. Not aimed at permanent conquest

3. Defensive in nature! That's right, the Muslims attacked first!

 

This brief summary is all that is needed for this discussion, but if a debate on the Crusades is needed, somebody can make another thread.

 

This by no means is all I have to say, and these aren't all of my arguments either. This, however, soundly defeats evolution by showing it is scientifically impossible, and also morally destructive. This has shown (not proven, but I could do that too) the existence of a Creative Force, which English speakers call God. It has also shown the prowess of the Bible throughout history, and in comparison to modern science and known events. I feel this was rather comprehensive, but if more needs to be said, by all means, I am willing to say it.

 

TL;DR: Evolution is impossible. A God must exist. The Bible is the best fit. Read all of this, though, if you really want to be convinced. I know, it is a wall of text, but your patience and intellectual engagement will be rewarded :)

[Haz 35]

PLEASE read everything. Read all of my other posts too, it is apparent to me you haven't been fully reading what I've been writing.

Also, quoting isn't working properly for me, so I'll just quote certain sections.

 

"Explanations of facts, not fact. Example, gravity exists, it's a fact, the gravitational theory explains how."
Right - so I never said that a theory was a fact..? I don't know where you got that from.

 

"I placed in red what you should be reading in the quote I before gave. I never said theories were facts, I said they explain facts (at least the best explanation we have so far)."

Okay? Again, I never said that you said theories were facts either. I'm not sure where you're getting this whole idea from.

REFER:
"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science."

This doesn't in any way, shape of form even imply 'fact'.
Note that I underlined the key-word 'nature', the sentence I wrote (above) is focused towards you thinking that the explanation of nature is equal to explanation of fact.

 

"This one is accepted after the theory is already done, example: theory of gravity states that all mass attracts itself. So why don't planets fall to the sun? Hypothesis - they are already in motion, and inertia exists, so since the planets are in orbit, what keeps them in orbit is gravity. Alright lets collect data, lets interper them -> the hyposisis is true, and the theory of gravity is now more updated."

No... No it's not...
Please refer to the below...

 

"Yes, this is how new theories are made."
Please do some research into what I have said, I think you'll find that the deductive method is far more widely accepted by scientists across the board as a scientific method.
A large portion of scientists consider the deductive method the only 'true' scientific method.

 

"There are various ways to do things. You don't collect data to falsify a theory, you collect it to falsify a hypothesis, and change a theory. And even after not proving a hypothesis wrong, to make a theory, you need to combine many of them to make the theory. The theory explains and predicts. After the theory is done, you use the predicting ability of it to make new hypothesis, and if that hypothesis is proven wrong, you find out why, and change the theory acordanly, until is it as close to reality as posible."
Obviously I was not thinking "Oh, he'll probably be pedantic and shout me out regarding how I've worded this sentence ill regard to all other sentences whereby I have refereed to the falsification of hypothesis rather than theories."
Further suggests you haven't been properly reading what I've been saying... I didn't refer to the falsification of theory by intention, it was a semantic error - but the message is still there and is clear, I don't see why you felt the need to comment.

"Mhh... no... You don't start with the theory. You start with a hypothesis: "ALl swans are white"

Then you go around trying to find out if that's true (one of them could very well be trying to find one that wasn't white) and if you find it is,
then the hypotheses is true. Yet one true hypotheses is not enough for a theory. A theory explains the nature of the whiteness of the swan, using the many confirmed hypotheses, and so on."
Refer to my previous post on scientific method.

"You find a swan which is not black, do you destroy the theory because of that? No, you study the anomaly and find out why it exists, then you update and improve the theory. the Hypothesis was wrong, yes, the Theory improved. The theory after finding the hypotheses untrue, could turn into: "All healthy swans, between the age of 1 and 2 years, which reside in these expecific location are white. Those that migrated further south have started to develop a more yellow tone." New hypothesis: "The ones in the south have more yellow tone because of the water they live in"

I never said the theory is 'destroyed'.
I did not even indicate to such a thing, rather the opposite: refer to scientific theory (circular).
 

"A belief can be wrong. If you want an example again of a wrong belief "I do not believe in gravity". Does it mean there is no such thing as gravity? No, means the one who believes that has wrong information about something, making his belief a wrong one. But maybe this is just scementics."
Belief is not a fact.
Belief does not make something true.
Belief is a self-sufficient thing, used to benefit ourselves as one and as social beings.

"I do not believe in gravity." Is not wrong, it's a belief. It doesn't mean: "There is no gravity."

Look, please just read what I've said in previous posts and this one. If you are not going to reply to me with anything other than pedantic comments, nitpicking and straw-manning then I'm just going to get frustrated. If you are going to offer an argument, at least provide some evidence to support your point and then explain it.

 

 

-SNIP-

Okay, and your sources/research to back this up?
Otherwise, you know, it's just pure speculation.

One might as well go into the lore forum and find an appropriate religion thread and simply copy/paste into here.

[Lvke 1000]

Actually you cant. The Bible gives a clear creation story. God made everything in 7 days. Plus the Genealogy of Jesus to Adam is produced in Luke( I think it was luke... could have been Matthew), and all the maximum it would have taken would be 10,000 years... so No.

So, you're getting your 'evidence' from a single book, about worshipping a non-existent deity, despite the fact there are huge quantities of evidence to support the Big Bang theory, and many, many books and papers published on it?

[hammer01 29]

Alright. Here goes:

 

The first two laws of thermodynamics are going to be very important here.

1: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form

2: A closed system always advances toward entropy (entropy=disorder)

The universe consists of all there is, by definition. Certain rules apply to this "all there is." The laws of thermodynamics are universally true. If energy was infinite, there would be no definite amount of it, rendering the first law basically impotent. Because of the first law's proven truth, then, energy cannot be infinite. Since the universe is composed of energy, which must not be infinite, one must be able to consider it a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics applies not only in sub-universal systems, but to the universe itself if the universe may be considered a closed system.

 

When discussing the origins of the universe, the necessary conclusion is that it came out of nothing. Thus, the only powers that could have caused this universe are extra-universal. The type of things that fit this bill are a multiverse, or hyper-dimensional aliens, or God. God, however, fits this bill even more nicely than any of the others, because, in a way, they can be argued to be Him, and He can be argued to be them, because of the lack of facts. Based on definitions, then, it is safe to say that this force is what, for the purposes of this explanation, I will call "God."

 

Let us revisit the thermodynamic laws from paragraph one. If God is just a random extra-universal driving force, then he really has no capacity to induce order in the framework of the universe. If, however, God is a sentient being, then He could form the universe with logic, and MAKE it orderly to start with, before he pressed the analogous "play" button. This much must be, logically.

 

On a more precise level, we may observe evolution. The process of natural selection has been ecumenically proven, and it's power has been harnessed by humanity for thousands of years. We breed animals by inducing conditions on them, forcing natural selection. This phenomenon has occurred even in the human species in the form of the different races. The most obvious example is the adaptation of dark skin by Africans due to the climate of their home continent, and the lack of it in populations becomes more and more prevalent the farther north we observe. Nobody, however, would even question the fact that these traits do not make us inhuman. If this point is argued, then, I ask, why was it wrong to enslave other humans? After all, they were not fit enough to resist their enslavement effectively...

 

This is what the term micro-evolution means. The traits that already exist in a population are made more and less prevalent based on the circumstances. The same goes for the much-lauded "evolution" of British moths during the Industrial Revolution. There were always black moths, but the circumstances made that trait less advantageous. When soot covered the white bark, that trait became more prevalent. At no point in this example, or in any example, has the production of new advantageous traits ever been shown.

 

Moreover, the mutations needed to produce new traits ALWAYS produce inferior traits. Let us again consider the second law of thermodynamics. Any change in form or phase within a closed system increases entropy, or disorder. This is precisely what always happens with mutations. The only exception is when mutations are directed by sentient beings who have to put work into forcing order into the change in order to make it a good one (this would be considered an open system, so the law would not apply in this case). Macro-evolution relies entirely on mutations. Macro-evolution, also known as Darwin's Theory (hypothesis) of Evolution, has been proven using scientific law to be false.

 

The problem with the alien theory comes at this point: the very first aliens to interfere would themselves had to have evolved without interference. As has been shown above, evolution is impossible unless directed by a sentient being who can transfer order from one part of the universe to another (this sounds quite fancy and special, but in fact humanity does this all the time. I am not suggesting that the creative force, God, had any hand in advancing evolution).

 

Many will still insist in believing evolution, despite reading what I have written here. Let us examine the moral implications of believing in evolution as a culture.

 

Evolution describes progress as the advancement of a species by selection of superior genes and mutations. We need only look back in history to the mid-twentieth century to see what evil this has wrought, as humans have tried to advance our genes for the good of the species. Hitler is one of our favorite examples of much evil, but he was driven by a sincere belief in Darwin. He truly believed that inferior humans needed to be exterminated (dalek) in order to purify our genes, optimize our operation, and maximize our potential. This resulted in a slaughter that the world had never before seen. This slaughter was the Holocaust, in which over 6,000,000 Jews, gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, Christians, mentally disabled, and physically handicapped were brutally and efficiently murdered in the name of Darwinian Evolution. Worse was still to come.

 

Communism denies God, and in doing so must embrace another explanation for our origins. Darwinian Evolution provided the perfect fit. Communist regimes throughout the twentieth century killed at least 100,000,000 people, and perhaps upwards of 200,000,000 people. Stalin and his successors, Mao and his successors, Kim Il Sung and his successors, the Viet Cong in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, et cetera, many African Communist regimes (a notable ethnic cleansing event was the Rwandan Genocide), Balkan Communists (the famous conflict in Yugoslavia), and Communist Latin-American regimes.

 

Since the so-called fall of Communism, Darwinian Evolution has continued to wreak havoc in the world. Communist ideas were traded out for Socialist ones, which emphasize group-advancement at the cost of individuals. The many individuals who have suffered religious, social, and other forms of persecution have hardly advanced the group at all, however.

 

Aside from social systems, Darwinian Evolution destroys the moral fiber of people and eradicates belief systems. It encourages propagation of one's own genes, and with over propagation of genes comes overpopulation, and the need to spend valuable resources on contraceptives, not to mention the horrible epidemics of different HIV strains and other sexually transmitted diseases, especially in countries where the population is either too poor, or too group-oriented to be able to do much to stop it.

 

Because of the focus  on sexual things to an extreme, women become nothing more than a means of propagation, encouraging men to satisfy their urges through pornography, a practice that changes the mental structure of a man and makes him more violent, less considerate, and more sex-oriented. This obviously contributes to crimes worldwide, at the expense of women and young boys who are too weak to defend themselves.

 

So far, all I have managed to do is show the necessity of a God, and debunk and criticize evolution. In the next section, I will examine the religion of origin of most debaters of evolution: Christianity.

 

The Bible is a compilation of 66 books written by forty men over at least 1600 years. They wrote a book that has no historical inaccuracies, no scientific errors (except where it is clearly being artfully descriptive), and information inside that was impossible for the writers to know. The amount of fulfilled prophecy from this book is amazing, especially when compared to other holy texts. The information in it, including references to gravity, the gender of worker ants, and perhaps even string theory, is impossible and shocking when revealed. A work like this, written by mere men, is impossible. Yet, it exists.

 

Multiple times has the archaeological and historical community thought they had disproven the Bible, only to learn as more developments were revealed, that it was not the Bible, but they themselves that were wrong. A prime example is the mockery over the Biblical Hittites by the scientific community, until they realized that the Hittites actually had existed, and that the Biblical account was totally accurate.

 

I may have caused much confusion amongst proponents of evolution who claim that the Bible states that the sun moves around the earth. This was not a declaration explicitly made by the Bible, but was something, rather, that the leader of the Catholics insisted was true. The Bible was not proven wrong, only the Pope was. Other misconceptions about the Bible can mostly be chalked up to Catholics (sorry Catholics, but it's true. :P).

 

Another line of criticism may perhaps be that the Bible has caused so much pain and suffering throughout history. This, in fact, is not true either. The Crusades were a few things that most people don't realize:

 

1. Carried out by Catholics under order from the Pope, not the Bible (yup.)

2. Not aimed at permanent conquest

3. Defensive in nature! That's right, the Muslims attacked first!

 

This brief summary is all that is needed for this discussion, but if a debate on the Crusades is needed, somebody can make another thread.

 

This by no means is all I have to say, and these aren't all of my arguments either. This, however, soundly defeats evolution by showing it is scientifically impossible, and also morally destructive. This has shown (not proven, but I could do that too) the existence of a Creative Force, which English speakers call God. It has also shown the prowess of the Bible throughout history, and in comparison to modern science and known events. I feel this was rather comprehensive, but if more needs to be said, by all means, I am willing to say it.

 

TL;DR: Evolution is impossible. A God must exist. The Bible is the best fit. Read all of this, though, if you really want to be convinced. I know, it is a wall of text, but your patience and intellectual engagement will be rewarded :)

Thank you! You have summed up a lot and said more than i could have. Please continue!

 

So, you're getting your 'evidence' from a single book, about worshipping a non-existent deity, despite the fact there are huge quantities of evidence to support the Big Bang theory, and many, many books and papers published on it?

If you read what was going on previous to this, you would know we were talking about evolution being possible through the Bible...

[Jistuma 1996]

Before the part I quote I have no problems with your explanations and what you said. They are beliefs of the unknow and things which are correct (Thought I still think disorder in enthopy talk is a bad word to use).

If this point is argued, then, I ask, why was it wrong to enslave other humans? After all, they were not fit enough to resist their enslavement effectively...

Just a small thing here, biologicaly speaking, enslavement is not really wrong. It's wrong in society.

Moreover, the mutations needed to produce new traits ALWAYS produce inferior traits. Let us again consider the second law of thermodynamics. Any change in form or phase within a closed system increases entropy, or disorder. This is precisely what always happens with mutations. The only exception is when mutations are directed by sentient beings who have to put work into forcing order into the change in order to make it a good one (this would be considered an open system, so the law would not apply in this case). Macro-evolution relies entirely on mutations. Macro-evolution, also known as Darwin's Theory (hypothesis) of Evolution, has been proven using scientific law to be false.

Now, here you start wrong. Earth is an open system, there doesn't have to be sentinel beings forcing such. A closed system is something of which no energy or mass enters of leaves. Earth receives energy from the sun, mass from meteriorites, we send rockets outside earth and earth eradiates energy outwards, so earth is not a closed system. This means all this paragraph focusses on bad information and bad assumptions. Also, mutations do not always produce inferior traits, you don't even know is a change is inferior or not, it has to do with the specie it happens with. Lets take a mutation which makes plumage of a bird more brown. To a specie of bird which uses it's color to call out to other birds (like strong reds and the like), being more brown will be a disavantage. To a bird that needs to hide itself in the trees, maybe being more brown will be a good change. The mutations can not always be inferior traits, but must of the time are.

The problem with the alien theory comes at this point: the very first aliens to interfere would themselves had to have evolved without interference. As has been shown above, evolution is impossible unless directed by a sentient being who can transfer order from one part of the universe to another (this sounds quite fancy and special, but in fact humanity does this all the time. I am not suggesting that the creative force, God, had any hand in advancing evolution).

You use the explanation of before to explain why the alien theory (and this one is not a scientific theory) is wrong, but since what you said before was wrong, this explanation is also wrong.

Many will still insist in believing evolution, despite reading what I have written here. Let us examine the moral implications of believing in evolution as a culture.

You stated wrong arguments, which then lead you to wrong conclusions. That should be one of the reasons as to why you do not believe in evolution, you have wrong facts about it.

Evolution describes progress as the advancement of a species by selection of superior genes and mutations. We need only look back in history to the mid-twentieth century to see what evil this has wrought, as humans have tried to advance our genes for the good of the species. Hitler is one of our favorite examples of much evil, but he was driven by a sincere belief in Darwin. He truly believed that inferior humans needed to be exterminated (dalek) in order to purify our genes, optimize our operation, and maximize our potential. This resulted in a slaughter that the world had never before seen. This slaughter was the Holocaust, in which over 6,000,000 Jews, gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, Christians, mentally disabled, and physically handicapped were brutally and efficiently murdered in the name of Darwinian Evolution. Worse was still to come.

I call Godwin's law. I doubt hitler was doing it for evolution... He was just a twisted man.

Communism denies God, and in doing so must embrace another explanation for our origins. Darwinian Evolution provided the perfect fit. Communist regimes throughout the twentieth century killed at least 100,000,000 people, and perhaps upwards of 200,000,000 people. Stalin and his successors, Mao and his successors, Kim Il Sung and his successors, the Viet Cong in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, et cetera, many African Communist regimes (a notable ethnic cleansing event was the Rwandan Genocide), Balkan Communists (the famous conflict in Yugoslavia), and Communist Latin-American regimes.

Oh my... now you brought communism... You do know there is nothing wrong with communism, only with those that rule in communists locations? Communist principals are really not all that bad, they are just impossible to place into action, because of human greed and lasiness.

Since the so-called fall of Communism, Darwinian Evolution has continued to wreak havoc in the world. Communist ideas were traded out for Socialist ones, which emphasize group-advancement at the cost of individuals. The many individuals who have suffered religious, social, and other forms of persecution have hardly advanced the group at all, however.

I really can't comment on this... But a question, do you really believe this is because of evolution, or human greed for power and riches?

Aside from social systems, Darwinian Evolution destroys the moral fiber of people and eradicates belief systems. It encourages propagation of one's own genes, and with over propagation of genes comes overpopulation, and the need to spend valuable resources on contraceptives, not to mention the horrible epidemics of different HIV strains and other sexually transmitted diseases, especially in countries where the population is either too poor, or too group-oriented to be able to do much to stop it.

Evolution actually tells nothing of this... Evolution talks of species evolving with the process of natural selection, but it doesn't say a specie has to evolve. There are many species which do not evolve, because they are already quite able to survive.

Because of the focus  on sexual things to an extreme, women become nothing more than a means of propagation, encouraging men to satisfy their urges through pornography, a practice that changes the mental structure of a man and makes him more violent, less considerate, and more sex-oriented. This obviously contributes to crimes worldwide, at the expense of women and young boys who are too weak to defend themselves.

This has NOTHING to do with evolution. You are comparing human society to evolution, it has nothing to do with each other. No, evolution will never make men treat women like nothing more than a baby pooping machines.

The Bible is a compilation of 66 books written by forty men over at least 1600 years. They wrote a book that has no historical inaccuracies, no scientific errors (except where it is clearly being artfully descriptive), and information inside that was impossible for the writers to know. The amount of fulfilled prophecy from this book is amazing, especially when compared to other holy texts. The information in it, including references to gravity, the gender of worker ants, and perhaps even string theory, is impossible and shocking when revealed. A work like this, written by mere men, is impossible. Yet, it exists.

Most of the stories ar- You know what, I won't talk about the bible. You may read and interper the holy texts how you see fit. You may believe it is correct, that it has prophesies. What you can not do, is take a theory which is entirerly for biology purpose, and give it social standings on humanity, say it was the reason of the bad doings of a few men, and say that if humans follow it, it will be disasterous. There is no way for humans to escape evolution, but it will not bring the things you have stated. Evolution is a theory which talks on how being evolve, it has nothing to do on improving a specie, sometimes the specie will even change and become smaller, weaker, eat less, and seek hiding. The Evolution theory has no place in human politics nor will it interfere with society, it is a scientific theory, to explain how species change throughout the time.

[hammer01 29]

Most of the stories ar- You know what, I won't talk about the bible. You may read and interper the holy texts how you see fit. You may believe it is correct, that it has prophesies. What you can not do, is take a theory which is entirerly for biology purpose, and give it social standings on humanity, say it was the reason of the bad doings of a few men, and say that if humans follow it, it will be disasterous. There is no way for humans to escape evolution, but it will not bring the things you have stated. Evolution is a theory which talks on how being evolve, it has nothing to do on improving a specie, sometimes the specie will even change and become smaller, weaker, eat less, and seek hiding. The Evolution theory has no place in human politics nor will it interfere with society, it is a scientific theory, to explain how species change throughout the time.

You cant not comment on it and be in this discussion... the title is Creation or Evolution... you cant not comment on the creation part if you wish to refute it...