PS - B4 reading: U either read ALL or don't read AT ALL. I don't wanna c replies such as 'Hey r u done copying and pasting ur everlasting essays?' or 'No one's gonna read this sh*t..' and so on....

The reason why I am starting to post this is realizing that there are many athiests on this forum and I guess I should try to make things a bit clearer for everyone to choose his/her own beliefs...


"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, anything that is true? I tried this question on the geology staff at the Feild Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence... Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Colin Patterson, Senior Palaentologist at the British Museum of Natural History and author of the book Evolution.

____________

The theory of evolution is a philosophy and a conception of the world that produces false hypotheses, assumptions and imaginary scenarios in order to explain the existence and origin of life in terms of mere coincidences.

All athiest philosophies that deny creation, directly or indirectly embrace and defend the idea of evolution . The same condition today applies to all the ideologies and systems that are antagonistic to religion.

The theory of evolution is a theory that fails at the very first step. The reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.

Does it sound logical or reasonable when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species on earth were formed?

Even if it does not seem logical to you, evolutionists do believe this fable.

However, it is merely a belief-or rather a faith-because they do not have even a single piece of evidence to verify their story. They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird. Nor have they been able to prove that a protein, or even a single amino acid molecule composing a protein, could have formed under what they call primordial earth conditions; not even in their elaborately-equipped laboratories have they succeeded in doing that. On the contrary, with their every effort, evolutionists themselves have demonstrated that no evolutionary process has ever occurred nor could ever have occurred at any time on earth.




Evolution Can Not be Verified in the Future Either

Seeing this, evolutionists can only console themselves by dreaming that science will somehow resolve all these dilemmas in time. However, that science should ever verify such an entirely groundless and illogical claim is out of the question no matter how many years may pass by. On the contrary, as science progresses it only makes the nonsense of evolutionists' claims clearer and plainer.

That is how it has been so far. As more details on the structure and functions of the living cell were discovered, it became abundantly clear that the cell is not a simple, randomly-formed composition, as was thought to be the case according to the primitive biological understanding of Darwin's time.

With the situation being so self-evident, denying the fact of creation and basing the origins of life on extremely unlikely coincidences, and then defending these claims with insistence, may later become a source of great humiliation. As the real face of the evolution theory comes more and more into view and as public opinion comes to see the truth, it may not be long before the purblind fanatic advocates of evolution will not be able to show their faces.


The Biggest Obstacle to Evolution: Soul


There are many species in the world that resemble one another. For instance, there may be many living beings resembling a horse or a cat and many insects may look like one another. These similarities do not surprise anyone.

The superficial similarities between man and ape somehow attract too much attention. This interest sometimes goes so far as to make some people believe the false thesis of evolution. As a matter of fact, the superficial similarities between men and apes do signify nothing. The rhinoceros beetle and the rhinoceros also share certain superficial resemblances but it would be ludicrous to seek to establish some kind of an evolutionary link between these two creatures, one being an insect and the other a mammal, on the grounds of that resemblance.

Other than superficial similarity, apes cannot be said to be closer to man than to other animals. Actually, if level of intelligence is considered, then the honeybee producing the geometrically miraculous structure of the honeycomb or the spider building up the engineering miracle of the spider web can be said to be closer to man. They are even superior in some aspects.

There is a very big difference between man and ape regardless of a mere ******d resemblance. An ape is an animal and is no different from a horse or a dog considering its level of consciousness. Yet man is a conscious, strong-willed being that can think, talk, understand, decide, and judge. All of these features are the functions of the soul that man possesses. The soul is the most important difference that interposes a huge gap between man and other creatures. No physical similarity can close this gap between man and any other living being. In nature, the only living thing that has a soul is man.


God Creates According to His Will

Would it matter if the scenario proposed by evolutionists really had taken place? Not a bit. The reason is that each stage advanced by evolutionary theory and based on coincidence could only have occurred as a result of a miracle. Even if life did come about gradually through such a succession of stages, each progressive stage could only have been brought about by a conscious will. It is not just implausible that those stages could have occurred by chance, it is impossible.

If is said that a protein molecule had been formed under the primordial atmospheric conditions, it has to be remembered that it has been already demonstrated by the laws of probability, biology, and chemistry that this could not have been by chance. But if it must be posited that it was produced, then there is no alternative but to admit that it owed its existence to the will of a Creator. The same logic applies to the entire hypothesis put forward by evolutionists. For instance, there is neither paleontological evidence nor a physical, chemical, biological, or logical justification proving that fish passed from water to land and formed the land animals. But if one must have it that fish clambered onto the land and turned into reptiles, the maker of that claim should also accept the existence of a Creator capable of making whatever He wills come into being with the mere word "be". Any other explanation for such a miracle is inherently self-contradictory and a violation of the principles of reason.

The reality is clear and evident. All life is the product of a perfect design and a superior creation. This in turn provides concrete evidence for the existence of a Creator, the Possessor of infinite power, knowledge, and intelligence.

That Creator is God, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and of all that is between them.

Well the reason why the discussion is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many ppl to abandon their faith or fall into doubt.

And that is why I believe that showing this theory is a deception is a very important duty, and it is imperative that this important service be rendered to everyone.

I won't get all optimistic and believe that many ppl on this site r gonna read these essays... but I guess that if YOU are an Athiest, and u believe that everything came to existence by chance, and that THERE IS NO GOD, and THERE IS NO CREATION, and so on and on, and u r willing to DIE with THESE BELIEFS... then please do urself a favour and check the sites http://www.evolutiondeceit.com and http://www.harunyahya.com/create01.php (Creation of the Universe)

Do that only if u r seriuos about ur beliefs...
Hope I was of any use...
Peace all.

You are a Muslim, arent you?

In Koran, it states that Muslims may not try to change or affect anyone else's religious beliefs. So what are trying to achieve right now, with posting that?

I might actually take time to read that, but it seems as bull**** as people who claim that dinosaurs and humans co-existed and try proving that with some fake fossils :|

EDIT: I read the first part of your post, and :|

The guy's a hypocrite... he accuses Darwin of not having any evidence for his Evolution theory, but I don't see any proofs for Creation either.

i dont belive in evolution either. u guys and think all you want ;)

Originally posted by The_Knight
By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very modern times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia", it was reported in the journal Science that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia" 70


You know why you're wrong, because when one group of a species is geographically isolated from the rest of the species they may change, or stay the same as I'll argue in this case. In Java, the small group of Homo erectus was geographically isolated from the rest of the homo genus, and therefore did not evole with them. I can also say that a group can evolve, but leave behind other members of a group. Think aligators and crocodiles. They clearly are related, and they each evolved separately. This is how different human species evolved, and many species that exist. Here's how I'll relate it.......

Canis Lupis is the scientific name for the grey wolf. Dogs cannot breed with wolves and are therefore a different species that came from wolves sometime in the past. Just because normal house dogs evolved into their new species, does not automatically make their predecessor extinct, they can survive for awhile, especially if the newly evolved species doesn't compete for resources better. Homo Sapiens compete for resources better than Homo erectus, so they eventually became extinct while Homo Sapiens thrived, but on Java, where there are no Homo Sapiens outcompeting Homo erectus for food, they could survive until recently. When Homo Sapiens eventually came to Java,(the homo sapiens probably looked at them like european settlers looked at American Indians) they took Homo erectus' food, and drove them to extinction.

Basic science here The_Knight, it doesn't take an expert to figure this out.

Very well said Nimreitz. COuld not have said it better myself, so i won't try to.

ANyway people will always disbelieve something, and people will always follow a belief blindly. And there is nothing anyone can do to change someone's view otherwise.

Look, I am not interested in trying to defend science over religion, etc. etc. I am what many would call a 'philosopher' and to tell you straight I am not interested in subscribing to one team over the other. BUT your argument as posted above is void of any meaningful conclusion. It follows the logic that becuase there are issues within the evolutionary theory of life, then it must be wrong, therefore creation theorists are right. How can this be? You don't actually offer any substantive reasons why the creationists are right, how do the creationists explain the formation of a protein? They can't other than to remove any real forces from the equation and say 'god did it'. Now I am sorry, but based on an argument like that, I am going to be following the evolutionist argument through rather than the short-cut to thinking that you advocate.

Its his believe get over it - im a catholic, but i know alot of it is BS. The only reason im catholic is because of kin, plain and simple. My parents are catholic - its more like a family tradition then religion. The Knight hasnt posted in a while, but its his belief and he can post what ever he wants as long as its not detremental to another person or race.

To The Knight: yeah alot of it sounds BS to us mostly because of our up bringing we follow what we want when we want to. The Knight dont be discourage posting that but please keep it to one thread

- if anyone has a problem with him dont read his threads simple.

Originally posted by Gareth
ANyway people will always disbelieve something, and people will always follow a belief blindly. And there is nothing anyone can do to change someone's view otherwise.


Gee that almost sounds funny coming from you

Originally posted by zul-aid
Gee that almost sounds funny coming from you

How so?

Anyway back onto the topic. I myself believe in Evolution, I have many friends who are religious and choose the Creation theory over the Evolutionary one. We accept each other's view and do not attempt to persuade one another to follow someone elses view, it's all in vain.

Nimreitz, so u believe in evolution, therefore you are a Darwinist, well let's c who Darwin is and what his beliefs are.

Theperson who originally put forward the theory of evolution, esentially in the form that it is defended today, was an amateur English biologist by the name Charles Robert Darwin.. You probably know that...

But what I doubt u know, since you are a believer in Evolution, was the claims of this person: He claimed in his book 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection', that all living beings had a common ancestor and that they evolved from one another by means of natural selection. In other words, Those that best adapted to the habitat transferred their traits to subsequent generations, and as time goes on, these advantageous qualities accumulated and transformed individuals to totally different species from their ancestors. He then said that the human being was thus the most developed product of the mechanism of natural selection, in short, the origin of one species was another species.

These were Darwin's words and thoughts, well u know them? well good, u believe in them? Good again... Many ppl AT HIS TIME believed in what this man said, and the main reason was that THE LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE of those days was not sufficient to reveal that this man's imaginary scenarios were false..
The disciplines of GENETICS, MICROBIOLOGY, AND BIOCHEMISTRY did not yet exist.

Its a shame for someone to believe in Natural selection after what scientists discovered in 1950...

What happened in 1950 was simply: DNA.

All the genetic information in it threw the theory of evolution intoa great crisis, because the Information determining the species ALREADY EXISTS in the genes and it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR NATURAL SELECTION to produce new species by altering genes.

And Besides all these scientific developments, no transitional forms (which should have been much much more than the final forms) which were supposedto show the gradual evolution of living organisms from primitive to advanced species, have NEVER BEEN FOUND despite years of search.

So the Darwinists try to save themselves out of this crisis by another means: NEO-DARWINISM

According to Neo-darwinism, species evolved due to MUTATIONS!!!
Meaning that minor changes in their genes happened and the fittest ones survived through the mechanism of Natural Selection..

Sounds reasonable and charming, right? It may also sound 'scientific' too, only it's NOT.

Did anyone of u guyz ever study Biology?

Well anyway the evolution of a species to another species requires a GREAT and ADVANTAGEOUS change in genetic information, and NO MUTATION WHATSOEVER improves the genetic information or adds new information to it, MUTATIONS only derange genetic information.
Thus, the 'gross' mutations imagined by evolutionists would only cause 'GROSS' that is 'GREAT' reductions and impairments in the genetic information... unless ur watching the X-MEN movie...

Proof of Creation: Download this http://www.harunyahya.com/images/books/pdf/universe.zip

If u DO give a damn indeed...

And yes I am a Muslim, and yes in my religion you should not force anyone to change his/her religious beliefs... but this is about changing someone who HAS NOT religious beliefs...

I just feel bad when i know that many Catholics no longer believe in Jesus, don't believe in his miracles, well no one saw them right? Well I believe that God knew that a time will come, when ppl will say we didn't c Jesus and we didn't c him give life to the dead and therefore we don't believe in him, I believe that God knew that a time will come when science will be everything, and that's why God has made it possoble for science to prove creation and disprove any other athiest theory such as evolution...

I'm not addressing ppl of other religions, I'm addressing those with NO religion from the first place... alright K-man?

Originally posted by rhizome17
Look, I am not interested in trying to defend science over religion, etc. etc. I am what many would call a 'philosopher' and to tell you straight I am not interested in subscribing to one team over the other. BUT your argument as posted above is void of any meaningful conclusion. It follows the logic that becuase there are issues within the evolutionary theory of life, then it must be wrong, therefore creation theorists are right. How can this be? You don't actually offer any substantive reasons why the creationists are right, how do the creationists explain the formation of a protein? They can't other than to remove any real forces from the equation and say 'god did it'. Now I am sorry, but based on an argument like that, I am going to be following the evolutionist argument through rather than the short-cut to thinking that you advocate.

Well I'll tell you one thing, Evolutionists have succeeded in showing how a FAILURE it was for them to explain the formation of protein by means other than Creation.

And it is not just the cell that cannot be produced: the formation, under normal conditions, of even a single protein of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up cell is IMPOSSIBLE.

The probability of providing the particular amino-acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter - taking it for granted that the monkey pushes the keys on random!

Moreover, while DNA can replicate only with the help of some enzymes that are actually proteins, the sythesis of these enzymes can be realised only by the information coded in DNA, As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has had to be "created" before the other.

2 German scientists, Junker and Scherer, explain this:

'Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis'

What does that sound like to you...

Originally posted by zul-aid
Its his believe get over it - im a catholic, but i know alot of it is BS.


I am of the opinion that perhaps, "YES! The Darwin theory is correct. That via Natural selection species randomly experienced gradual, slight change changed over many, many generations. Yet, that some omnipotent being, God, was behind these alterations. It may be reasoning that contradicts the notion that the work of God is incomprehendible by man, that science based on human discovery is intwined with religion, but hey. It may be fooling myself that a God exists but hey.

For any Aussies....... I know that at least in Melbourne, there has been a weekly program/series on 7:30pm every Thursday night on SBS based on evolution. It is still running, check it out. About a month back, there was also a re-enactment type show on Darwin and his theories.

Originally posted by The_Knight
Well I'll tell you one thing, Evolutionists have succeeded in showing how a FAILURE it was for them to explain the formation of protein by means other than Creation.

And it is not just the cell that cannot be produced: the formation, under normal conditions, of even a single protein of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up cell is IMPOSSIBLE.

The probability of providing the particular amino-acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter - taking it for granted that the monkey pushes the keys on random!

Moreover, while DNA can replicate only with the help of some enzymes that are actually proteins, the sythesis of these enzymes can be realised only by the information coded in DNA, As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has had to be "created" before the other.

2 German scientists, Junker and Scherer, explain this:

'Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis'

What does that sound like to you...

Look, I am obviously not getting through. I am not advocating an either/ or position when it comes to evolution versus creationism. Science is one way of understanding the world, religion is another. Both have flaws. BUT your argument is basically along the lines of 'there are problems in the evolutionist argument, therefore creationism is right'. Well sorry to break the news to you but that style of argument is inherently wrong. You cannot set up a proposition that states one side is right becausethe other side has internal inconsistencies.
Like I said, I reagard myself more as a philosopher. As such, I am going to critically examine the claims of both the science-based arguments as well as the religious-based ones. As yet, you have not stated why the creationist side is more convincing than the evolutionary perspective. You can point out the issues with evolutionism until the cows come home, but I repeat: just because there are issues with one side DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THE OTHER SIDE RIGHT.
You also fail to grap the fact that scientific studies of evolution have moved on somewhat since Darwin. I suggest that you check out the more recent literature in scientific theory that draws inspiration from the field of complexity.
But at the end of the day, your style of argument is still false. If one wanted to, then a huge number of inconsistencies in the creationist argument could be listed, and without any evidence whatsoever I could then say 'that automatically makes evolutionism right'. But I wouldn't do that, becuase I wouldn't want to make a crap argument. Just because science doesn't have a laboratory big enough to recreate existence in all its forms does not automatically make creationism right. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by rhizome17
Look, I am obviously not getting through. I am not advocating an either/ or position when it comes to evolution versus creationism. Science is one way of understanding the world, religion is another. Both have flaws. BUT your argument is basically along the lines of 'there are problems in the evolutionist argument, therefore creationism is right'. Well sorry to break the news to you but that style of argument is inherently wrong. You cannot set up a proposition that states one side is right becausethe other side has internal inconsistencies.
Like I said, I reagard myself more as a philosopher. As such, I am going to critically examine the claims of both the science-based arguments as well as the religious-based ones. As yet, you have not stated why the creationist side is more convincing than the evolutionary perspective. You can point out the issues with evolutionism until the cows come home, but I repeat: just because there are issues with one side DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THE OTHER SIDE RIGHT.
You also fail to grap the fact that scientific studies of evolution have moved on somewhat since Darwin. I suggest that you check out the more recent literature in scientific theory that draws inspiration from the field of complexity.
But at the end of the day, your style of argument is still false. If one wanted to, then a huge number of inconsistencies in the creationist argument could be listed, and without any evidence whatsoever I could then say 'that automatically makes evolutionism right'. But I wouldn't do that, becuase I wouldn't want to make a crap argument. Just because science doesn't have a laboratory big enough to recreate existence in all its forms does not automatically make creationism right. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: For you, Religion is a direction and Science is a completely different (or maybe opposite) direction, and For you again, Creation=Religion and Science=Evolution... Well if this is the correct equation then I am supposed to be an evolutionist and an athiest too, since I am a strong believer (as we all should be) in science...

However, this is not the equation.

For me, Religion (and I'm talking about Islam when I refer to religion) is never contradicting with Science and they are both parralel and complementary to each other, and any slight contradiction would be SOLID PROVEN proof that their is a flaw in the religion, and therefore, the religion is wrong, and therefore evolution wins.

So as I said, for me any religious fact could be scientifically proven and vice versa. And that is why all the evolutionists' trials to find proof for their 'theory' have only succeeded to prove the fact of creation, for example:

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is seen that living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the 'Cambrian', which has an estimated age of 530-520 million years.

Living creatures that are found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged in the fossil record all of the sudden without any pre-existing ancestors. The vast mosaic of living organisms, made up of such great numbers of complex creatures, emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION" in scientific literature.

These are the scientific facts.

Richard Monestarsky, the editor of Earth Sciences magazine, states about this sudden emergence of living organisms:

"A half billion years ago the remarkably complex forms of animals that we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the starts of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla today were present already in the early Cambrian and were as distinct from each other then as they are today"

How did evolutionists react to this new scientific piece of information...? They suggested an imaginary period of 20 million years before the Cambrian period to explain how life originated and 'the unknown happened'...

Tell me now, who are the ones who are proving with science and who are the ones 'suggesting', 'presuming', and I must say, imagining?

I must say that the term 'internal inconsistencies' is very unsiotable in describing the FATAL BASIC SCIENTIFIC problems facing evolution...

And as I mentioned in the beginning of this post, about religion and science being in harmony (and they should, since religion is about the God that set the rules of science), in the Quran, there are a huge variety of scientific indications that have been miraculously proved correct science in vast fields: Astronomy, Biology, Medicine, Embryology, Zology, Geography... etc (www.it-is-truth.org could help u on that) And it is as if God knows tat a time will come when science shall rule and there is the scientific proof of the existence of God in a way only ppl of science shall preceive.

I hope my style of argument is getting more appealing to you Rhizome, but I must say one thing, every fact that is set against evolution, is a fact that counts for creation, though this is not enough for some ppl to prove Creation, there are millions of proof that stand for Creation regardless of evolution if this is more convenient to you.

___________________________
www.it-is-truth.org
http://www.harunyahya.com/create01.php

Originally posted by K-Man
EDIT: I read the first part of your post, and :|

The guy's a hypocrite... he accuses Darwin of not having any evidence for his Evolution theory, but I don't see any proofs for Creation either.

What you read were lines of the LAST chapter of A BOOK. The rest of the book (7 chapters, 166 pages) have the proof u wanted for creation...

If u indeed want to know more about them then: http://www.harunyahya.com/create01.php

Hey r u done copying and pasting ur everlasting essays? No one's gonna read this sh*t

Originally posted by The_Knight
but I must say one thing, every fact that is set against evolution, is a fact that counts for creation, though this is not enough for some ppl to prove Creation, there are millions of proof that stand for Creation regardless of evolution if this is more convenient to you.


I completely disagree with this statement. I do not believe that it is a question of choosing one or the other. This completely limits human endeavours, by presuming that only 2 stories exist reagrding the formation of life on the planet. I repeat: just because there are flaws in the evolutionary argument, does not automatically mean that creationism is correct. You effectively place limits on the future possibilities of scientific research. Just because it has not been found yet, does not necessarily mean it won't be. But again, my position is not to defend science. My issue is that you see this issue as as either/or choice between the two, as if other possibilities and potentialities do not exist. Who can predict what directions human ontology and epistemology may travel in the future. Science itself is an evolving beast, always finding new reasons why prior premises are incorrect. It does not set itself in stone (unless some money can be made for a while). Because that is called DOGMA.
I am sorry, but the binary opposition arguments that you pose just do not cut it with me. You will never convince me that there is 'one truth' out there just waiting to be found. That totally limits thinking and research. The period of history where metanarratives reigned supreme has come to an end, my friend.

That doesn't limit or hinder human or scientific research at all as it is an issue related to the 'ORIGIN' of Life, so concerning the ORIGIN of life it is either creation or evolution but it cannot be both. But as regards how life continued or progressed or is progressing or will progress, these matters are liable to research but the Origin can only be one of the 2. I completely understand what you are saying....

And I again insist on how unsuitable the word 'flaws' is when u describe the fatal problems concerning this theory, as everyday passes and every scientific conclusion reached is a step towards the complete collapse of this fragile athiest theory...

Who can predict what directions human ontology and epistemology may travel in the future.

That was the concept evolutionists kept using (the concept is right but not in favour to evolution at all) whenever an obstacle lied in their way. A famous example is the quest for fossils as concrete proof for their party:

The theory of evolution states that the evolution of a species to another species takes place step-by-step gradually over millions of years, so lets put down the logical deductions extracted from this theoretical statement:

-Monstrous organisms called 'TRANSITIONAL FORMS' should have lived during these periods of transformation.
-Since all species transformed step-by-step, the NUMBER AND VARIETY of these transitional forms should have been in MILLIONS.
-In fact, of this thesis is correct, the number of intermediate (transitional) forms should be even greater than the number of animal species alive today, and their fossilised remains should be ABUNDANT EVERYWHERE.

There you go, but since Darwin, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and the result has been a CRUSHING DISAPPOINTMENT. No-where in the world -NEITHER ON LAND NOR IN THE DEPTHS OF THE SEA- has any intermediate transitoinal form between any two species ever been uncovered.

T.Neville George, a paleontologist, explains the reason:
" There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record, In some ways, it has become almost UNMANAGEABLY RICH and discovery is OUTPACING INTEGRATION... The Fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed MAINLY OF GAPS."

So pal, I am happy with the scientific research and progress as it proves each day that evolution as the origin of life is a FROGERY not more not less. Look at it in a sientific view, look at it in a religious view, look at it using solid proof of both views, evolution is consuming itself as rapid as the progress of science.

this thread would have to be the biggest load of useless, non informative, off topic, crap.

Just cause you can post 1 million word essay doesn't mean **** imo and never will :|

take the crap somewhere else ... all your doing is post boosting imo, posting utter crap.

gees, get a life ... breath some fresh air :rolleyes:

Well Paul I just cut the 'crap' annoying you to about 50%

Hope it appeals to you now, and if it isn't, I'm sure u can find more than one interesting topic that would contain more informative issues for you.

Some ppl actually 'care' for their beliefs validity.

Originally posted by The_Knight
That doesn't limit or hinder human or scientific research at all as it is an issue related to the 'ORIGIN' of Life, so concerning the ORIGIN of life it is either creation or evolution but it cannot be both. But as regards how life continued or progressed or is progressing or will progress, these matters are liable to research but the Origin can only be one of the 2. I completely understand what you are saying....


yeah, look, I may as well quit with you now, because despite your claim, you are still not getting my point. You have set up a system in your mind where the origin of life can only have one of two explanations, evolutionary or creation. My point is, that claim in itself is problematic. All you are doing is setting up a straw man that can easily be knocked down. Well, anyone can do that. But I may as not waste my breath because you still don't get the point I am making. iom it is not a matter of choosing one or the other. The search for origins will always be flawed, no matter what perspective is taken.

Originally posted by rhizome17
The search for origins will always be flawed, no matter what perspective is taken.

Right, unless one 'prespective' is proved wrong by SCIENCE, then you start taking a look on the other prespectives.

If anyone is expecting a videotape with the creation of the Universe and the 'Big Bang' and all, then u shall never find the proof you are seeking.

All we have in hands is SCIENCE. It proves the right and disapproves of the wrong.

So a claim is no longer a 'claim' when it is a proven scientific fact.

No-body witnessed the Big Bang, yet science has proved it happened, and that it was how the universe was created, and it was why the universe is constantly expanding, and that it has left cosmic radiations as remanents of the explosion.

And same applies to every other issue such as the origin of Life. Science proves and disproves. And so far, Science has done a great job proving that evolution as the origin of life is a hoax, not any different from the 'infinite universe' theory back in the 1900s...

Plz don't quit on me, or on urself, as this may be the most imp belief in one's life. The achnologement of the presence of a Creator is no longer mere religion, it is a now proven scientific fact.

Originally posted by The_Knight
Right, unless one 'prespective' is proved wrong by SCIENCE, then you start taking a look on the other prespectives.

If anyone is expecting a videotape with the creation of the Universe and the 'Big Bang' and all, then u shall never find the proof you are seeking.

All we have in hands is SCIENCE. It proves the right and disapproves of the wrong.

So a claim is no longer a 'claim' when it is a proven scientific fact.

No-body witnessed the Big Bang, yet science has proved it happened, and that it was how the universe was created, and it was why the universe is constantly expanding, and that it has left cosmic radiations as remanents of the explosion.

And same applies to every other issue such as the origin of Life. Science proves and disproves. And so far, Science has done a great job proving that evolution as the origin of life is a hoax, not any different from the 'infinite universe' theory back in the 1900s...

Plz don't quit on me, or on urself, as this may be the most imp belief in one's life. The achnologement of the presence of a Creator is no longer mere religion, it is a now proven scientific fact.

No, I disagree again. Science is a far more complex and many-headed beast than you give it credit for. Not all scientists subscribe to the big bang theory, it is just that, a theory. And the presence of a creator is not a proven scientific fact, some people subscribe to it, some don't. My original statement still stands, the search for origins is flawed, regardless of what science says.

Mystery is but an essential part of our existence. For if we knew everything what excitement would there be, what fun could be had? Not much.

Maybe it is all part of the design, so that we never know the real reasons behind our origin. Perhaps us knowing the true reasoning behind our being could cause a cataclysmic event that could end life as we know it.

Just a thought.

This sounds like Science vs. Religion v1325936.4

Hmm....... this is interesting........

I was wondering..... is it within the realm of the human mind to actually discover what is behind creation/evolution/creation of the universe?

Is it possible to get a definite answer, no matter what time frame?

Originally posted by JTNY
This sounds like Science vs. Religion v1325936.4

Hmm....... this is interesting........

I was wondering..... is it within the realm of the human mind to actually discover what is behind creation/evolution/creation of the universe?

Is it possible to get a definite answer, no matter what time frame?


I don't think we (being the human race) will ever know the really meaning behind our existence, nor its beginnings.

Even if, beyond a doubt, we figured out the exact way inwhich the universe and our being began, there would be someone out there who would contradict that. And with that alone it would cast some shadow of doubt of any conclusions made.

I think that really our cerebrum's aren't advanced enough to even comprehend the origins of our existence.

Originally posted by The_Knight
Some ppl actually 'care' for their beliefs validity.

good, care for mine and go somewhere else to care about yours.

Religion will shrink and die!!

Hopefully soon ... :mrpimp:

One question for all you evolutionists: If we evolved from apes and monkeys thousands of years ago, then why haven't we evolved into some other advanced being? Because evolution is crap.

Originally posted by phloax
One question for all you evolutionists: If we evolved from apes and monkeys thousands of years ago, then why haven't we evolved into some other advanced being? Because evolution is crap.

Because it takes thousands or years, even more, for major changes to occur. Humans are different to what we were 2000 years ago. Evolution is not just restricted to our appearance but our enviroment.

It is a proven fact that humans are getting larger (taller & fatter).
People may say 'what fatter? that's just food' but it is still evolution.

Primates have been in existence since the ice age, that's alot of years ago and alot of time to evolve since then.

Things are changing with humans its just that its that slow that we rarely see any change during our relatively short lifetimes. Its like watching a sun set, watch it and it doesn't appear to move, look away for a moment and look back and it may have set already.

Originally posted by phloax
One question for all you evolutionists: If we evolved from apes and monkeys thousands of years ago, then why haven't we evolved into some other advanced being? Because evolution is crap.

Wow your powerful argument stuns me...

If you knew anthing about evolution, you would know that it takes a very very very long time...it doesn't happen overnight...and humans have only been around for a blip in time...

Originally posted by rhizome17
No, I disagree again. Science is a far more complex and many-headed beast than you give it credit for. Not all scientists subscribe to the big bang theory, it is just that, a theory. And the presence of a creator is not a proven scientific fact, some people subscribe to it, some don't. My original statement still stands, the search for origins is flawed, regardless of what science says.

So let me know if 'm getting this right:

U easily disagree with a proven scientific fact, Big Bang.
And easily approve of a proven scientific FALLACY, evolution.

Over time, science has been proving that evolution is no longer a valid theory, but arguing this is so easy, u can just say: Science is an evolving beast and if it hasn't proved evolution is right then, someday, hopefully it will. That's what u just said pal.

And when science is proving (and has already proved) that the origin of the universe is the Big Bang, u easily say that nah, I dn't think it is. Is it because this proven fact suggests the presence of a creator?

I actually thought u believed in science...

Read on...

The Expansion of Universe and the Discovery of the Big Bang

The 1920s were important years in the development of modern astronomy. In 1922, the Russian physicist Alexandra Friedman produced computations showing that the structure of the universe was not static and that even a tiny impulse might be sufficient to cause the whole structure to expand or contract according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. George Lemaitre was the first to recognize what Friedman's work meant. Based on these computations, the Belgian astronomer Lemaitre declared that the universe had a beginning and that it was expanding as a result of something that had triggered it. He also stated that the rate of radiation could be used as a measure of the aftermath of that "something".
The theoretical musings of these two scientists did not attract much attention and probably would have been ignored except for new observational evidence that rocked the scientific world in 1929. That year the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, working at the California Mount Wilson observatory, made one of the most important discoveries in the history of astronomy. Observing a number of stars through his huge telescope, he discovered that their light was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum and, crucially, that this shift was directly related to the distance of the stars from Earth. This discovery shook the very basis of the universe model held until then.

According to the recognized rules of physics, the spectra of light beams travelling towards the point of observation tend towards violet while the spectra of light beams moving away from the point of observation tend towards red. (Just like the fading of a train's whistle as it moves away from the observer) Hubble's observation showed that according to this law, the heavenly bodies were moving away from us. Before long, Hubble made another important discovery; The stars weren't just racing away from Earth; they were racing away from each other as well. The only conclusion that could be derived from a universe where everything moves away from everything else is that the universe constantly "expands".

Hubble had found observational evidence for something that George Lemaitre had "prophesized" a short while ago and one of the greatest minds of our age had recognized almost fifteen years earlier. In 1915, Albert Einstein had concluded that the universe could not be static because of calculations based on his recently-discovered theory of relativity (thus anticipating the conclusions of Friedman and Lemaitre).


Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. Eventually he found evidence of the "the Big Bang", a cataclysmic event whose discovery forced scientists to abandon the notion of an infinite and eternal universe.
Shocked by his findings, Einstein added a "cosmological constant" to his equations in order to "make the answer come out right" because astronomers assured him that the universe was static and there was no other way to make his equations match such a model. Years later, Einstein was to admit that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career.

Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding led to the emergence of another model that needed no fiddling around with to make the equations work right. If the universe was getting bigger as time advanced, going back in time meant that it was getting smaller; and if one went back far enough, everything would shrink and converge at a single point. The conclusion to be derived from this model was that at some time, all the matter in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume. This explosion has come to be called the "the Big Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been confirmed by observational evidence.

There was another truth that the Big Bang pointed to. To say that something has zero volume is tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The whole universe was created from this "nothing". And furthermore this universe had a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that "the universe has existed for eternity".

Sorry Paul, but this was a unusually necessary essay to post.

And Rhizome, I hope u read the essay, it is a scientific one and not a religious one....

Originally posted by The_Knight
So let me know if 'm getting this right:

U easily disagree with a proven scientific fact, Big Bang.
And easily approve of a proven scientific FALLACY, evolution.

Over time, science has been proving that evolution is no longer a valid theory, but arguing this is so easy, u can just say: Science is an evolving beast and if it hasn't proved evolution is right then, someday, hopefully it will. That's what u just said pal.



No! You have got it wrong again. I never said that I agreed with evolution. I never said that I hoped science would prove evolution right. I DID say that maybe it will. But who knows?

My point is this: I object to your argument that there is a choice of only 2 alternatives, evolution and creation. And I also object to your assumption that if science says something is right, then it is.
THAT is what I disagree with, your style of argument. Because it is totally based on false pretenses.

So I repeat: I am NOT arguing with the content of your posts, because all that is a matter of perspective. I am arguing with the STYLE within which you construct your argument.

Just because science can 'prove'; something, according to the rules of its internal logic, does not make it necessarily true. Because it will only hold for the rules constructed by that logic. I am coming from a philosophical viewpoint, whereas you have already decided that if science 'says' something is right, then it is. Your whole argument could be summed up as: 'some scientists have proven that creation is correct, evolution is false. Therefore, creation is right'.

Well, you neglect to mention that NOT ALL scientists agree with this perspective. But anyway, that is besides the point. I am not subscribing to a position, simply because science says 'this is so'.

well i didnt read the essay because well........anyway what exactly are your motives for posting this stuff knight??

As for my views i think Darwinism and Evolution are two completely different things from a religious stand. The Darwin theory states that humans evolved from monkeys without the help of a higher being which obviously would not be right according to monotheistic religions while Evolution states that organisms inherit traits to survive,adapt etc without however mentioning wheater there is a higher power over seeing everything or not.After all in the Quran(for those who have read it) does it not say all things on earth started from water??

Ahmed, I stated my motives for doign this discussion in my second post in this forum, anyway here it is again:

Originally posted by The_Knight
Well the reason why the discussion is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many ppl to abandon their faith or fall into doubt.

And that is why I believe that showing this theory is a deception is a very important duty, and it is imperative that this important service be rendered to everyone.

Anyway Ahmed, contrary to what u mentioned, the evolution theory is based on Darwinism, which moves in paralel with materialism, and all 3 deny the presence of a creator. And all three have been scientifically proved wrong (rhizome don't press the reply button if this sentence stimulates you, plz read on)

And Ahmed, as regards the Qur'anic verse, it says: (I Translated it to English)
"And We have made of water every living thing"

And the scientific explanation of this verse is that all living organisms are made up of cells, cells contain protoplasm or 'cytoplasm', this cytoplasm constitutes of about 90% water. And the human being is 4/5 made up of only water.

The verse doesn't suggest 'STARTED from', it states 'made of' water.

And rhizome, ur last post had some relief for me in it, though I can't understand what proof are u waiting for if scientific proof isn't enough. Anyway I didn't post an imp essay that was about the cosmic radiation that are solid proof for the occurence of the Big Bang... they were awarded the noble prize for it...

So u disagree with the style of argument... well for me creation and evolution (darwinism) is like black and white.. no grey. And till science proves otherwise (very very very unlikely the way science is progressing) I shall stay tuned to this concept...

OK I'm lost. I lost track somewhere when I fell asleep.

But what do you agree with Knight? Do you agree with Evolution that it exists or don;t believe in it?

Originally posted by The_Knight
So u disagree with the style of argument... well for me creation and evolution (darwinism) is like black and white.. no grey. And till science proves otherwise (very very very unlikely the way science is progressing) I shall stay tuned to this concept...

Yes well I won't bother with this thread anymore because I am not going to buy into that argument that there is one singular 'truth' out there just waiting for us to find it. And I especially don't but the argument that scientific proof is the basis for that truth. And finally I will never allow my thinking to be clouded by the idea that there are only two alternatives to a particular proposition. It is akin to saying 'you are with us or against us'. Which misses the whole point about the complexity of our existence.

Gareth, plain and clear, I am against evolution as the origin of life and species. Backed with scientific evidence that is.

And I ask all those who are with evolution to do some reading and research because this belief could mark an imp turnpoint in their beliefs.

Rhizome, u said u won't bother anymore with this conversation... well b4 doing that, please note that this is not a 'U are either with us or against us.' If it was then as u said, it misses the whole point about the complexity of our existence.

But who said creation is not complexity.... creation is complexity itself.

Alright, I great some great scientific news, concerning Evolution! I will only post it tomorrow, though. There was a press conference in Portugal today, so the newspaper's articles with more complete info are going to be out tomorrow. Hopefully I'll have a link to post here, then.
Hint: a skeleton of a boy dating back to 25000 years ago was found. He has... both Homo neanderthalensis and homo-sapiens traits! Now the thing is that the current theory defends that the Homo neanderthalensis men got extinct over 28000 years ago, and they never crossed with the modern men.

Guys, this could explain my neighbour's behaviour! :D

I found a great article, but it's in Portuguese. Anyway, they are editing a monograph, in English, so it will probably be available on the net any time soon.

http://ultimahora.publico.pt/shownews.asp?id=277228&idCanal=35


Here's more, now in English, to all you non-Evolution believers:

http://www.open.ac.uk/StudentWeb/s292/S292broadcast_files/lapedo.htm

http://faculty.vassar.edu/piketay/evolution/Lapedo_Valley.html

http://www.ipa.min-cultura.pt/news/news/1999/lapedo/lapedofaq

SOMEONE QUOTED THIS:- Many ppl AT HIS TIME believed in what this man said, and the main reason was that THE LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE of those days was not sufficient to reveal that this man's imaginary scenarios were false..

Well the same could be said about the teachings of the bible.So,if we have progressed intellectually to accept Darwins theories as rubbish,why doesnt this reasoning apply to the theory of Creation.In this day and age how can anybody actually believe in a virgin birth of all things.Its utter rubbish.Also why are people so obsessed with how it all began...its all so irrelavent.We all know what is wrong and right in this world,and i for one have always tried to live my life without wishing or causing harm to anyone or anything.If your god is not happy with that then tough ****.Religeous zealots are facists....everyone is entitled to their own opinions and because you might disagree does not make the other party wrong.There is no proof for the creation theory either or are we just supposed to have FAITH.Don't make me laugh. Get your head out of the sand you imbecile.

More importantly......can Chelsea kick Stoke City's butt in the next round of the F.A.Cup.Now this is a religeon i can live with....C'mon you Blues

let's all go making threads every time we read a non-fiction book :rolleyes:

I actually agree with him!

I think that what he has written is quite credible and (although I won't be using it in any essays in the near future) actually found it very interesting... especially the stuff about Proteins!

Oh, and Paul... He is well within his rights to post this here... this is a 'DEBATE' forum and he's talking about The Evolution 'DEBATE'! He is not FORCING you to believe it, I think he has done some excellent research and we should give him credit for it... whether you believe it or not!

:clapwap:

Hello and welcome to last week.

I'm surprised that people on these boards DON'T believe in evolution.

Originally posted by juventusita
Hello and welcome to last week.

I'm surprised that people on these boards DON'T believe in evolution.

There's nothing wrong with bringing up old topics... look at the number of times the Oceania Direct Qualification thread has come up in the Soccer Forum!