eh, nobody has ever linked me a pro-creationist page from talk-origins, I always thought it was only presenting the side of evolution. Their FAQ sure seems to lean that way.



?

Mr Ducky's picture wins...

Yes really, I take a dim view on anyone being "uniliteral" about the THEORIES of Evolution or when interpreting the WORD of GOD.

If you believe in Science then it's a theory and you're chopping your legs off at the knees if you forget to remember you're supposed to be using the Scientific Method and the rest of the scientific thought process. There's an endless web of unconnected points out there and yet to be explained or understood phenomena. Assuming anything you know now to be a literal truth is a mistake a scientist cannot afford.

If you believe in God and the Bible being his Word then you've not got the point if you take it in a unilaterally literal way. God's words would transcend language and enter the realms of pure thought and concepts. Anything written in a created language would be less than perfect. Anyone with an inkling of language studies will understand the trouble of translating words that have no meaning outside a specific place, people, or cultural period.

The original Theory of Evolution is just as obsolete and out of date as Windows 3.11. Maybe we have the Windows Vista of Evolution now, but it's still not perfect. Just shinier.

The original Story of Creation I don't even want to comment on.

One doesn't even have to pick a side if one is following EITHER of the disciplines above in the correct way. Just realize the huge potential of both Science and a hypothetical Creator God. The trouble starts when one begins to limit his own thinking. Remove your limits. Be free.
Don't worry.
Be Happy.
*dances*

That's enough for me for now.

nice pic mr duky lol
here is a pic i found


I am Christian but i also believe in evolution and it is one of my favorite topics to learn about and any one who takes the bible literally needs to take into account that it was written by humans not god. if god wrote it, it would be perfect and could be read literally but as soon as humans wrote in it the fact that humans make mistakes means it can't be taken literally and when people say the earth was made in 6 days but who knows how long a day is for a god

no idea what the last thing is xD
but still then evulotion pic is better xD

You are all smart people, so explain this one.

There are 10^700 possible combinations that can create amino acids.

There are 10^22 atoms in the entire universe.

How many universes are required for randomness to create life?

You would have to have read or seen the Anime/Manga Death Note to understand it

Well I just read through this entire topic, and I am now quite intrigued....

I am an Atheist, and obviously believe in the Theory of Evolution.....
Honestly, how can the religious people in this thread actually believe what they are saying???

Especially about the debate on the word "theory". Like Ducky said, if you are debating that it is only a theory, plenty of hings that are taught and accepted are only theories. Take the Cell Theory...... It is only a theory, and is constantly being updated. But it is accepted in schools and throughout society because we have an believable amount of experiments and data that help to prove it. However, it is still classified as a theory, just as the Theory of Evolution is. So please, stop debating that because is has been changed and not fully proven that it is not true.

And please don't use age as an excuse not to be educated.... I'm only 14, but can coherently argue this topic.

Your argument/bafflement isn't very sound.
Who says that Cell Theory is accepted by the people who argue evolution theory? Evolution is also accepted in schools and throughout society.

But when you get down to it, that's not really the point. It's not evolution that people are arguing about. (Because when you listen to them, you realize they know very little about what evolution actually is/means.) What people get all upset about is the idea that randomness or chance appears to be able to get around the whole "entropy" thing. It just doesn't match what people see everyday of their lives.

Randomness == Jackson Pollock != DaVinci

Technically just one, extremely 'lucky' one. Not all combinations need to be tested for life to begin, just the one that works. that may not have made sense :/



Honestly, how can the evolutionist people in this thread actually believe what they are saying???

Are you trying to label us as some kind of insane crackpots here for having different views? :/

Bazzy, I suggest you do not try to make the theory of evolution out as an absolute truth, since there is no way of doing so using any method that anyone with the slightest scientific knowledge would accept.

im sorry... but please learn basic chemistry. Advacado's number (i actually forgot who figured out the number of atoms avogadros? adogadros? something...

6.022 x 10^23

thats the number of atoms of CARBON in 12g of CARBON.
what are you (Want to be allies? Sometimes I like to pretend I am a princess riding a pony..)?
12g of carbon has more then 60x atoms then the entire universe? please try again. this time... use science.

besides. its not pure randomness.
fail understanding of abiogenesis.
before life, there was noting to synthesize chemicals... there would have been chains soo long and vast and complex it borders impossibility but this would happen under the conditions of NO life. plenty of raw chemicals. and an earth full of catalysts ie. lightning, heat from earths active volcanic joy etc. even the motion of the tide would be a catalyst enough... rock pools would become super concentrated areas full of raw chemicals constantly reaction.

are you going to bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
earth is not a closed system.
we get a MASSIVE wave after WAVE of pure unadultered energy perday from the sun.
on a sunny day build a concave mirror 10 meters wide only. make it focus on a point only 10cm wide. stick your head into the focal point and tell me that the earth does not receive energy from an outside source.
and to bring up entropy is to try and string biology evolution with star evolution and formation.

either a.) grow a brain.... or b.) learn to use what you currently have.

and duffman is right. not about evolution... but abiogenesis. it is still far beyond scientific grasp with both RNA world and iron sulfide world contending theories, both yet to have sufficient evidence to support or destroy them.
only recently have scientists even bothered to endeavour into the field. before our understanding was just far too limited with how far back we could see into earths history.