Theories that can be proven have a name "LAW"

The Theory of evolution is a theory in the classic sense, as is the theory of relativity. Both of which are full of holes and problems preventing them from being "law"

The theory of evolution has a gap, and big gap, no species generation can be observed. That does not mean it is false, only that it cannot be proven.

The theory of relativity has a problem in that the speed of light is a constant in the theory but light actually varies in speed and therefore relativity is only relativly accurate, kinda funny huh?

Both Einstein and Darwin admitted there were problems with their theories and made no attemp to prove them as law. Darwin new what he had was a good starting point, and Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying to prove relativity wrong with the "Unified theory" (rarely discussed but much more solid)

The Law of gravity seems to be real, the laws of motion are pretty safe too. That is the difference between a theory and a law.

The funny part is, few scientists will take up the challenge of either proving or dis-proving either theory because they are afraid of the brilliance of the original authors and the weapons of their fanatical followers. Darwin and Einstein would both be dissapointed as they were real thinkers, and always challenged the established boundries. Without people like them we'd be nowhere and until we find more, there will be no real progress.

PAX

I'm sorry but as of right now I know of no such missing link being found. This is why it is called "Missing". Please provide pics if you can find them for me as it would be cool to see it. But then I must ask..... why have I not seen this on the news, or the history channel, or in a news paper, or in any other news media? I'm not saying it does not exist rather its still missing and therefor allowing for the problems in the theory as HA HA states in his above post.

No I'm not a bible thumper I just like concrete proof before I go saying something is so.






Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Tristan wrote:the theory of evolution is not a theory as we think of the term. it is actually proven, not simply what scientists think happen. a scientific theory is fact, not a plausible explanation. that's one of the huge misunderstandings because people hear theory and think well then it's just what they think happen. when in reality they can prove it.

Theory <> Fact. Entering this discussion with such a flawed base of understanding undermines your entire argument.


---

Tristan wrote: there's a quote that says "if god wanted us to believe in him, then why'd he create logic?"

Why do people like you always feel the need to denegrate the religious beliefs of others? If you think you're being witty and impressive, you're not.


---

Besides, there are entirely logical argument in favour of God.

God wants people to come to him of their own will, not like a programmed robot. It's all about love, until you understand the concept, you will not understand the argument.

PAX

my goal was neither being witty nor impressive, simply surmising my beliefs. and you're judging me based on two or three posts and namely one quote? there was no malice meant by it, just simply that i dont understand how people believe it.. so please refrain my lumping me into some generic category of those who attack religion and if at all possible refrain from judging me off of three frigan online posts.

and i apologize about the discreprencies between theory and law. from my readings a theory was described as being proven, not just a idea. my information must have been incorrect. anyway, the fact remains that there is undeniable proof that evolution occurs. there are missing links, but that doesn't mean that evolution doesn't exist, just that we havent found all the proof.

The problem with why you can't prove species generation is because the line between species is quite blurred. There's no real defining line between one specie and another within the process of evolution--they appear to be a subspecie--similar to a "breed" of dog.

As such, there reall is no true "missing link." Further, until there can be a finite determination between what constitute a specie from another that is extremely similar, you can't really prove evolution unless you're tracking the progress of a specie that has several "breeds" over several--if not hundreds, of generations.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

An educated and reasonable believer in God will not deny evolution, that is not where the argument exists. They will argue against random mutation and natural selection as the means by which things evolve. That makes way more sense.

I use the old doorstop to a mousetrap argument. If a doorstop "evolved" into a mousetrap there would need to be a series of successful mutations. One the doorstop needs a spring, but why would that not be selected out, as the spring serves no purpose unless acompanied by a trap bar (or whatever its called) and a trigger mechanism. The spring would require extra energy but would provide no benefit so it should be selected out, and poof, back to a doorstop. Better might be the cillia on a single celled organism. The cilia need a propultion mechanism to be usefull and the propultion mechanism need the cillia to be usefull. What are the odds that both would appear in a single random mutation in sufficient numbers to become dominant?

I am not a Bio major, so I may not be the guy to argue this one, but I see the point. Hopefully others do too.

PAX

Quote:

i mean it used to be that god created adam and eve 6000 years ago and every living creature. religion and the concept of god make no sense to me. people created god because they didn't understand the world. it's much simpler to blame water falling from the sky on some omnipresent all-knowing god that controls the world.

But there are people that still believe that unfortunately (and unbelievably)... while it is true that no one can prove the non-existence of God nor can they prove the non-existence of the missing link. But as of right now, there is more evidence to support evolutionary theory than creationist theory. The 6000 year old Earth and Noah's Flood as decribed in Genesis is impossible based on modern evidence... creationists that are more moderate or people who are open minded enough to accept pieces of both have a better argument since you can't refute God... if anyone has a time machine I'd love to use it

I think that evolution by mutation and selection is fully possible... its like micro-evolution on a grand scale. I see pictures of the dozens of hominids and the change is gradual for head size, brain size, forehead slope, eyebrow ridges, length of arms and legs, stature, amount of hair, etc. The change from one species to another doesnt have to be imperceptably gradual... it can ocurr based on reproductive and physical isolation. The species dont even have to be that different to be separate species!

For example, the top fish is the Panamic Porkfish, found on the Pacific coast of Central America... the bottom is the Atlantic Porkfish found in the Caribbean... they are separate species that have evolved after the Isthmus of Panama closed millions of years ago. They are genetically different and will not interbreed despite their almost identical appearance. There are dozens of these pairs in both oceans... now I ask someone who believes in design, why would a designer put two separate species in two different oceans and make them IDENTICAL on the outside... the evolutionary theory of reproductive and geographic isolation makes more sense here!

Hahahaha wrote:I use the old doorstop to a mousetrap argument. If a doorstop "evolved" into a mousetrap there would need to be a series of successful mutations. One the doorstop needs a spring, but why would that not be selected out, as the spring serves no purpose unless acompanied by a trap bar (or whatever its called) and a trigger mechanism. The spring would require extra energy but would provide no benefit so it should be selected out, and poof, back to a doorstop.

I am not a Bio major, so I may not be the guy to argue this one, but I see the point. Hopefully others do too.

PAX

I can tell your not a Bio major, but you only needed to take high school bio to see the flaw in that argument.

First off, Natural Selection is NOT a mutation. Natural Selection is when a species turns into something over millions of years, example ape to human. Mutation is a quick change to a small group, example being one-eyed cat or five legged cows. You don't see those cats or cows all the time because it WASN'T EVOLUTION.

Second, Natural Selection is not losing things because they are not useful, it is having a trait that is beneficial to your survival and/or helps you find a mate. Using your messed up example, if the spring doesn't hinder the door stops survival and it doesn't get in the way of passing on it's genes, it will remain in the gene pool.

Let's use a more appropriate example, peacocks. If a male peacock has a bigger tail (don't know what it's called) and females are more attracted to it, then you will gradually see peacocks with bigger tails because it helps them pass on their genes. If however there was a virus that only affected large tailed peacocks, then you will gradually see a smaller tail population since they are the ones that can pass their genes on. If half of the peacocks for some reason had a useless leg growing out of their necks but it doesn't hinder the survival or mating, then the extra leg will remain in the population, even though it serves no purpose.

I barely even know what the original topic is supposed to be, but I hate it when people don't understand what natural selection is...


______________________________________________________________

ToBoGgAn wrote:we are gonna take it in the ass and like it, cause thats what america does.

Slo2pt2 (Projekt Unknown?) wrote:One my SON is ADHD N.O.S and Autistic Spectrum Disorder. I will nto medicate him he will battle throught this himself and learn to control it.

Quote:

If half of the peacocks for some reason had a useless leg growing out of their necks but it doesn't hinder the survival or mating, then the extra leg will remain in the population, even though it serves no purpose.

lol, this reminded me of Gobbles on South Park

I direct you all to Stephen Jay Gould's "Nonoverlapping Magisteria"

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Overall interesting reading which in an sprawling way concerns this topic

The true answer:

God is a DJ
Life is a dance floor
and YES! he wants you to get out there and shake your ass.

My view is that evolution and god can exist. The process of creation does not have to be a direct physical effect. I do believe he is capable of creating a human from nothing, but is intelligent enough to see the problems with unleashing direct human stupidity of an uneducated fully grown adult on the world. We already have enough of them, and there are plenty in places of power where they shouldn't be.

Like toppling dominoes. You plan the entire setup before you put it into motion. Then you top the first dominoe and watch it go, if you've taken the time to set it up properly everything falls into place.

My god started things off with a huge explosion....BOOM.... Because he's cool like that., I mean.. what's cooler than a huge @!#$ explostion... that's right... nothing, except....well..explosion, you hear me EXPLODIZZLE!!!!

And, Oh ya, Jesus... He's my homeboy.


-Chris

^ lol

oddly enough tho if i was %100 sure a god exsists (which i am not) i would agree with that.





:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

IamRascal wrote:The true answer:

God is a DJ
Life is a dance floor
and YES! he wants you to get out there and shake your ass.

My view is that evolution and god can exist. The process of creation does not have to be a direct physical effect. I do believe he is capable of creating a human from nothing, but is intelligent enough to see the problems with unleashing direct human stupidity of an uneducated fully grown adult on the world. We already have enough of them, and there are plenty in places of power where they shouldn't be.

Like toppling dominoes. You plan the entire setup before you put it into motion. Then you top the first dominoe and watch it go, if you've taken the time to set it up properly everything falls into place.

My god started things off with a huge explosion....BOOM.... Because he's cool like that., I mean.. what's cooler than a huge @!#$ explostion... that's right... nothing, except....well..explosion, you hear me EXPLODIZZLE!!!!

And, Oh ya, Jesus... He's my homeboy.

Best explanation ever. You need to teach a course, "The Mutual Coexistence of Evolution and Creationalism Theories Foshizzle Mai Dizzle".


______________________________________________________________

ToBoGgAn wrote:we are gonna take it in the ass and like it, cause thats what america does.

Slo2pt2 (Projekt Unknown?) wrote:One my SON is ADHD N.O.S and Autistic Spectrum Disorder. I will nto medicate him he will battle throught this himself and learn to control it.

Like I said, like trhe linked article said, like I said a million times before in other threads. "Created Evolution" has been church docturn for 1600+ years. This is far from a new idea. If you read the linked article above you would see that the only people in the world that don't seem to get it are living in North America.

Man this can be frustrating.

One more time.

The Church teaches that God planted the seeds of life, and did not nesessarily creat things exactly as we see them today.

PAX (is not my name, it is a word that you should learn, just while I'm repeating myself)

Hahahaha wrote:Besides, there are entirely logical argument in favour of God.

God wants people to come to him of their own will, not like a programmed robot. It's all about love, until you understand the concept, you will not understand the argument.

PAX

Great point, but I have a question. If it's important to "come to God", why would there be no species that could understand God for millions of years on this planet, and then only ONE species?

----------
Here's my theory... Ever see a diagram of an atom? It's a mini-solar system. Our solar system is just an atom inside a larger universe. We're located inside a 86 Chevette engine. Our entire universe is just a mixture of gas and air inside a cylender.

The big bang? That was right after the spark, of course.
Black holes? Cracks in the cylender.

Once the exhaust valve opens, we're getting blown out into another dimension. And yes, that would make God a 350 pound guy who just started his Chevette so he could go to Dunkin Donuts.
-----------




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

John Wilken wrote:
Great point, but I have a question. If it's important to "come to God", why would there be no species that could understand God for millions of years on this planet, and then only ONE species?

-----------

Some would say the whole thing is simply so that we can exist. It was made for us. We are his children and the universe is our home and our playground.

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:

John Wilken wrote:
Great point, but I have a question. If it's important to "come to God", why would there be no species that could understand God for millions of years on this planet, and then only ONE species?

-----------

Some would say the whole thing is simply so that we can exist. It was made for us. We are his children and the universe is our home and our playground.

PAX

So what you're saying is that God created the entire universe for us, then didn't create us until a few billion years later? I've done the same thing on a smaller scale... I bought a fish tank and won't be getting any fish for it until I'm 70.




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Time is not a constraint on the creator of time as well as everything else. Scale matters not either. Perhaps the cosmos are so vast simply to keep us wondering, and looking up. Otherwise we'd all likely stare at our belly-buttons

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:Perhaps the cosmos are so vast simply to keep us wondering, and looking up. Otherwise we'd all likely stare at our belly-buttons

PAX

My belly button is round and holds 4 grams of lint.




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

But why do you guys think the WHOLE universe was made just for us? Why would there be allllll that real astate out there if it was just us ? Thats a stupid and very ego centrick thing to think .

How do we know maybe there are thousands of other planets out there with other people on them. So if thats the case maybe there HAS been life around for millions of years.

Stop thinking so narrow mindedly.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

I don't know, and never would pretend that I do. I firmly do not know

If God wanted to, it would not be a problem for him. Remember that physical space means very little to a spiritual being, it only seems huge and vast to us, but we have tiny little minds that cannot comprehend the scale, or the reasoning behind it.

Heck, it might not even be real for all we know, it could be nothing more that a grand illusion set to keep us wondering. Or there could be other colonies of beings existing in other regions. I don't know, and it doesn't bother me that I don't know.

Considering possiblities is not stupid. In any situation there are always other possiblities and the only stupid ones are those who close their mind to all but one. Tunnel vision is far bigger problem than an open mind.

PAX

Funny the guy who insists that we could not be alone in the universe telling me not to be so narrow minded.. That's kinda funny don't you think?

Both are possible, and we have nothing to suggest either, therefore neither possiblity has been eliminated. Like I said above, we cannot even be sure that what we have observed is real.

It is possible that there are other life forms and whatnot spread throughout the universe. It is just as possible that we are the only ones with the universe as kind of a grand theatre just to keep us watching.

I guess it would also be possible that there are maybe only one other group, or five, millions, or maybe none, not even us.

PAX