Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[argonian 14254]

Is the world so far behind that this issue still has to be debated? Let's put it straight, The only "evidence" creationism is pointing out the extremely small and decreasing gap in the fossil record. Seriously. Look at what we DO have, not the few tiny little holes....

I believe evolution exists but this comment is just ridiculous. A FEW TINY holes? There are massive holes in evolution and there are lots of them. If you are seriously going to go out and say that there are only a few tiny holes here and there then I seriously doubt you know what you're talking about.

[Lego XBOX 915]

I believe evolution exists but this comment is just ridiculous. A FEW TINY holes? There are massive holes in evolution and there are lots of them. If you are seriously going to go out and say that there are only a few tiny holes here and there then I seriously doubt you know what you're talking about.

There are a few tiny holes in the evolution theory... however, there are massive holes in science all things concerned. I will remind you all that the Big Bang theory or Biogenesis theory has nothing to do with Evolution. Those came BEFORE evolution. Evolution is actually a biology theory where as the Big Bang and Biogenesis theories are physics and biochemistry accordingly.

[Haz 35]

Can I ask you what good insulting people does?

What good does it do?

It does about as much good as this thread.

It's about as constructive as this thread and the people & arguments within it. You are simply fighting amongst yourself "Oh, I believe this." - "Your belief is wrong." Without anything to support yourselves, you are simply throwing out a bollocks-load of assumption and speculation which is partly due to the nature of the 'debate', I suppose.

 

Making a post to directly insult someone is probably far more effective than coming up with a 500 word post describing why they are so very, very wrong because they'll never listen and they'll never even bother to attempt to understand your point of view.

This isn't a debate thread, it's an opinions thread. An opinions thread where no one actually cares for anyone's opinion, only to get across their own and say "This is the right opinion, everyone!"

 

Kudos to Lago and a few others for still trying to engage in actual debate, however.

[Rhonir 16]

I believe evolution exists but this comment is just ridiculous. A FEW TINY holes? There are massive holes in evolution and there are lots of them. If you are seriously going to go out and say that there are only a few tiny holes here and there then I seriously doubt you know what you're talking about.

What I am saying with a few tiny holes  is that in contrast to the huge amount of evidence we do have. I'll show you some.

 

Skulls of 1. Gorilla 2. Australopithecine 3. Homo erectus 4. Neanderthal (La-Chapelle-au-Seine) 5. Steinheim Skull 6. Modern human

​This definitely shows a steady increase in cranial capacity, as this is the most likely course of human evolution, with the gorilla except,  and Neanderthal sharing a common ancestor, instead of being a direct ancestor. 

 

There is even more evidence that supports evolution. In Richard Dawkin's Book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, he discusses the most famous hole, The Precambrian Explosion. Creationists see the Precambrian Explosion and suddenly say, 'Oh! This is definitely evidence for creation! Evolution could never accomplish this!" Perhaps that maybe, just maybe, conditions were not suitable for fossilization, and that is why we see a sudden burst? Just saying. 

 

Need more evidence to put the hole into proportion? Take whales. Even modern day whales have vestigial legs that have no purpose.

Now put this in relation with whale ancestors, and see the slowly decreasing size of the Whale limb.

A beautiful tree that shows powerful explanations. Vestigial organs are quite possibly the most powerful evidences for evolution. For example, Humans still have genes for growing tails, chickens still have genes for growing teeth, and the whales presented above still have remnants of limbs. Here's to a toothed chicken.

Given the mutation, the gene locking the gene for growing teeth is eroded. And boom! Toothed Chicken.

As Richard Dawkins said, "I shall emphasize .... that we don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure, even if one single corpse had ever fossilized" (Dawkins 165). 

 

I hope that this cleared the misconception that Evolution has so many holes and there for it is not possible. On the contrary, these holes get filled up, one after the other, and creationists just keep pointing more out. 

 

Thank ya,

 

G'bai!

 

 

Edit 1: ---Sorry about the highlited text on the top... I am a noob and don't know how to fix it. Sorry if it bothers you. :)---

Edit 2: Spelling Errors

Edit 3: Posting Edit 1,2, and 3. :D

[Rhonir 16]

-Ignore Re-post :3-

[Jistuma 1996]

But the universe is a closed system... how hard is that to undertstand?

The EARTH is NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM How hard is THAT to understand?

[hammer01 29]

Next thing, what is the problem with me pointing out one of the many contradictions in the bible? I remind you that he asked me to name one... and on that hand, he hasn't retorted.

I thought it was a joke... you really didnt explain yourself. You just said "Adam and Eve". I see no contradiction here.... that is why I have not refuted it.

 

 

The EARTH is NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM How hard is THAT to understand?

No, but if Evolution were true, then it is occurring all over the entire universe, which means... We cant just concentrate on Earth... you must look at the universe as a whole! If evolution is true, when something evolves, something else must be getting more chaotic, or devolving...

[Jistuma 1996]

No, but if Evolution were true, then it is occurring all over the entire universe, which means... We cant just concentrate on Earth... you must look at the universe as a whole! If evolution is true, when something evolves, something else must be getting more chaotic, or devolving...

NO, evolution has NOTHING to do with the universe. It only has to do with the evolution of SPECIES, not planets, not the big bang, not in other planets, just species of earth.

Also, even if it were to happen all over the universe, you can never generalize the universe, and use it as whole, to talk about occurences which happen in specific areas.

Also, yes, when evolution or anything that requires energy happens, then something else gets more 'chaotic', but nothing devolves. While open systems might decresse in enthropy, the systems around it will incresse in it, at least one of them. If you combine all open systems, you get the universe, which would be considered a closed system. Only THEN does the acumulated enthropy of EVERY single open system will result in the UNIVERSAL enthopy to be rising.

[hammer01 29]

NO, evolution has NOTHING to do with the universe. It only has to do with the evolution of SPECIES, not planets, not the big bang, not in other planets, just species of earth.

Also, even if it were to happen all over the universe, you can never generalize the universe, and use it as whole, to talk about occurences which happen in specific areas.

Also, yes, when evolution or anything that requires energy happens, then something else gets more 'chaotic', but nothing devolves. While open systems might decresse in enthropy, the systems around it will incresse in it, at least one of them. If you combine all open systems, you get the universe, which would be considered a closed system. Only THEN does the acumulated enthropy of EVERY single open system will result in the UNIVERSAL enthopy to be rising.

Evolution must be occurring all over the universe if it is true... what difference would one planet able to hold life be from another planet able to hold life? And yes, universal entropy would increase! Which means that if something were to evolve, something else would become more disorderly! Right?

[Lago 2572]

I thought it was a joke... you really didnt explain yourself. You just said "Adam and Eve". I see no contradiction here.... that is why I have not refuted it.

 

 

No, but if Evolution were true, then it is occurring all over the entire universe, which means... We cant just concentrate on Earth... you must look at the universe as a whole! If evolution is true, when something evolves, something else must be getting more chaotic, or devolving...

 

The stars are.

 

Any living thing makes itself more ordered. The compounds that make up your body are phenomenally ordered structures and they are made from less ordered structures. A living thing like a human becomes more ordered itself, and makes its enviroment less ordered. Total entropy must always increase, but the entropy of one thing can go down in entropy (become more ordered) if something else goes up in entropy (less ordered) to a greater degree.

Bear in mind that "order" here is in chemical and mathematical terms, not literary terms.

[Jistuma 1996]

Evolution must be occurring all over the universe if it is true... what difference would one planet able to hold life be from another planet able to hold life?

No, Evolution is only about evolution of species. Species are alive. If there is another planet with life in it, the evolution theory would apply to the species on that planet as well, but the system would still be an open system.

It can occur all over the universe, but you can not use the universe as the system, because in places like the sun, or empty space, or planets without life, the theory of evolution doesn't apply.

[Lago 2572]

I believe the argument being made is that life becoming more ordered violates the second law, and it is born from a catastrophic misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Net entropy always increases, but the entropy of one thing can decrease if something else increases more. When water freezes to ice, its entropy goes down. Total entropy increases because the heat given off by it freezing increases the entropy of the surroundings by means of an increase in temperature. That's why water freezes under 0 celcius but not over it. If it froze above 0 degrees, the entropy increase of the surroundings would not outweigh the entropy decrease of the water.

[The Best Basileus 97]

I have NEVER once said that the earth was a closed system! You can't just say that I said things I never said. Never once has anybody quoted me saying that the earth was a closed system. The earth is most certainly not  a closed system, though. All I ever said was that the universe was a closed system, and that had only to do with the impossibility of the big bang. The earth receiving energy from the sun naturally requires a change in energy, and thus this process, the absorption of energy by the earth, INCREASES entropy. Earth is losing order at a faster rate because it is an open system. (anybody who has taken a basic introduction in thermodynamics will recall that an increase in heat in any system increases its entropy. Obviously the sun does more harm than good to the evolutionst's arguments, as the loss of energy in the sun is increasing it's own order while decreasing the order of everything receiving that energy)

 

With regard to the scientific standing of the LAW of Thermodynamics compared to the THEORY of Evolution, I can say no more than a theory is actually one step lower on the credibility scale than a law. Thermodynamics is a universal law, and evolution is considered to be a universal theory. Both have the same scope, but one is just more credible. My use of the LAW of Thermodynamics to disprove the THEORY of evolution is perfectly accurate.

 

Next, the meaning of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law can be safely transliterated to mean: "In a closed system the disorder increases more than is predictable with every physical process." This means there is an inherent imbalance as the universe progresses to a state of total entropy. When energy is gained, however, is when the entropy increases the most dramatically. Life consumes energy disproportionately to the amount it expends on things other than itself. Life is, thus, increasing in entropy more rapidly than its surroundings (as it is harvesting the energy, and thus entropy, from its surroundings). More specifically, the approach taken by evolutionists to explain the mutation of genes always involves some form of energy transfer into the DNA, thus making the DNA have a pronounced spike in disorder. This, as was stated earlier, means that only de-evolution is possible. Evolution CANNOT happen. The far more credible Law of Thermodynamics is fine to use in disproving it, as I have done (I have re-explained my understanding of the Law. There really is no need to say that I don't understand it. I understand that it works on closed systems, and that earth is not one. Earth, though, happens to be gaining disorder at the expense of the sun. This effect everything on earth. Even life acts, in a way, like earth, and gains disorder at the expense of its surroundings.)

 

With regard to the "missing links" presented by ThePrrroman, no missing link has been shown to be it's own type of animal, but rather that it was a certain species of another already existing type. Archaeopteryx, for example, is fully bird. All of the toothed birds that used to exist could have contributed to the recessive trait for tooth growth among modern birds by interbreeding. The evolutionist merely interprets the evidence in a different way (one that happens to be thermodynamically impossible <3). The Neanderthal genes are prevalent among modern Europeans, meaning that they were a specific sub-species of the human type that had many recessive traits. These traits, however, do not seem to be inferior to those of modern humans, but rather to be, in many cases, superior. They had larger brains, stronger bones (meaning less chance of injury), and were slightly taller than the other humans of their time. Over all, it is clear to see that rather than sticking to the outdated theory of evolution when considering the evidence, it would be better to say that they were a collection of humans that had a collection of unique (probably recessive) traits.

 

Furthermore, the idea of evolution is rather hard to defend on the grounds of specified complexity. Let us examine the supposed evolution of the whale, since it has been brought up already. When Pakicetus decided to begin its mutation into Ambulocetus, it must have either become shorter, or grow webbed feet (although I have no idea how the paleontologists decide the feet were webbed, as skin doesn't stick around on fossils...). Either way, the hunting ability of the land-dwelling Pakicetus would have been impaired, and it would have remained ineffective at living amphibiously in the early stages of mutation. These mutations would have proved to be inferior, then, and would have killed off the first half-Ambulocetuses. No whales.

 

Consider the supposed evolution of the bird. The lungs of birds are extremely complex, and would have taken many mutations over thousands of years at the very least to produce. This leaves all the proto-birds stranded with insufficient lungs for flight, killing them off as they sit on the ground, easy target for predators. Consider their wings. The first winged raptor would have had no hands to use during hunting. The hands of these creatures were incredibly important, and with useless hands and useless wings, the new proto-bird would have died. Again. No birds.

 

Consider the evolution of the bat. The wings of the bat are considered to have evolved from the front hands of a shrew-like creature. The shrew's forelegs would have been perfect for scurrying until one of them had a mutation where his forelegs grew larger and webbed. This development would have inhibited the shrew's ability to run and would not have even helped the shrew to begin to learn to fly through gliding. The early proto-bats die. No bats.

 

Based on the very principles of natural selection which macroevolution claims to be based on, it cannot logically exist. Creatures undergoing macroevolution would have always been more unfit than their finely-tuned cohorts in their species, leaving them immediately vulnerable and soon dead. This is what is known of as specified complexity.

 

The Adam and Eve "inconsistency" of the Bible is not an inconsistency at all. When we know that a Creative Force must have existed to create the universe, that is all we can say about the creation. We cannot say in what manner he created the universe, because while it was being created there was none but the Creative Force to observe it. The story surrounding Adam and Eve is perfectly possible. Any actions that the Creative Force takes meddling with His creation don't have to follow the otherwise standard laws of the universe, because the Force Itself isn't even a part of the universe. The supposed inconsistencies with the Adam and Eve story are none.

 

To those of you who insist upon flaming, mocking, and what even may be deemed as trolling, I will only say that you do not belong on this thread. This post:

 

What good does it do?

It does about as much good as this thread.

It's about as constructive as this thread and the people & arguments within it. You are simply fighting amongst yourself "Oh, I believe this." - "Your belief is wrong." Without anything to support yourselves, you are simply throwing out a bollocks-load of assumption and speculation which is partly due to the nature of the 'debate', I suppose.

 

Making a post to directly insult someone is probably far more effective than coming up with a 500 word post describing why they are so very, very wrong because they'll never listen and they'll never even bother to attempt to understand your point of view.

This isn't a debate thread, it's an opinions thread. An opinions thread where no one actually cares for anyone's opinion, only to get across their own and say "This is the right opinion, everyone!"

 

Kudos to Lago and a few others for still trying to engage in actual debate, however.

 

 

Is absolutely devoid of any evidence to prove that Creationism is being anything but scientific and factual. The fact that this post is, as the poster himself said, "a post to directly insult someone," is just a shocking and blatant flouting of the rules of this debate. The fact that the only arguments left from this person are mocking plainly shows that he has lost the debate. Sorry if that offends you, but you have just lost.

 

I have yet to see a response to my proofs that evolution is wrong, the big bang is wrong, and that "Evolution for Dummies" explanation is nothing more than the industrial revolution British moths explanation on a microscopic scale, and is wrong in its own right. Please don't insult the other side, call them stubborn, call them stupid, call them thick, or call them racist or any other name you wish to call them, but rather introduce a coherent argument so that we may resume the debate. Thanks a lot. (I'll be private messaging a few forum moderators to let them know they should probably regulate the flames and trolls in this thread.)

[The Best Basileus 97]

"I believe the argument being made is that life becoming more ordered violates the second law, and it is born from a catastrophic misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Net entropy always increases, but the entropy of one thing can decrease if something else increases more. When water freezes to ice, its entropy goes down. Total entropy increases because the heat given off by it freezing increases the entropy of the surroundings by means of an increase in temperature. That's why water freezes under 0 celcius but not over it. If it froze above 0 degrees, the entropy increase of the surroundings would not outweigh the entropy decrease of the water."

 

I address this point in the above post. I shall quote myself:

 

"Next, the meaning of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law can be safely transliterated to mean: "In a closed system the disorder increases more than is predictable with every physical process." This means there is an inherent imbalance as the universe progresses to a state of total entropy. When energy is gained, however, is when the entropy increases the most dramatically. Life consumes energy disproportionately to the amount it expends on things other than itself. Life is, thus, increasing in entropy more rapidly than its surroundings (as it is harvesting the energy, and thus entropy, from its surroundings). More specifically, the approach taken by evolutionists to explain the mutation of genes always involves some form of energy transfer into the DNA, thus making the DNA have a pronounced spike in disorder. This, as was stated earlier, means that only de-evolution is possible. Evolution CANNOT happen. The far more credible Law of Thermodynamics is fine to use in disproving it, as I have done (I have re-explained my understanding of the Law. There really is no need to say that I don't understand it. I understand that it works on closed systems, and that earth is not one. Earth, though, happens to be gaining disorder at the expense of the sun. This effect everything on earth. Even life acts, in a way, like earth, and gains disorder at the expense of its surroundings.)"

 

I understand this law. Please consider what the law states in regard to evolution of life in particular.

[The Best Basileus 97]

"Any living thing makes itself more ordered. The compounds that make up your body are phenomenally ordered structures and they are made from less ordered structures. A living thing like a human becomes more ordered itself, and makes its enviroment less ordered. Total entropy must always increase, but the entropy of one thing can go down in entropy (become more ordered) if something else goes up in entropy (less ordered) to a greater degree."

 

Tell that to somebody over forty. Life cannot sustain order for itself forever. In fact, less orderly life forms have an easier time preserving themselves than do more orderly life forms such as Humans. If you really believe life is always getting more orderly, you can tell that to your 50-year-old parents. (I jest :D)

 

Note: Sorry for the triple post, just had to organize it that way.