Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.





View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Evolution

I believe in it. We're evolved baboons
11
58%
I don't believe in it. I believe in creation or another theory (mention below)
2
11%
I have formed no opinion yet but I am skeptical of it
0
No votes
I don't know the truth but I know Darwin's theory is a lie
4
21%
I believe in change over time (evolution) but not origin of species
1
5%
All the theories I have heard seem like bullshit to me
0
No votes
I do not care how life got started and how we arrived here
1
5%
 
Total votes: 19

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27710
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Post by Winston » December 22nd, 2015, 5:03 am

You Evolutionists need to get some COLD HARD FACTS straight into your cranium that makes you look like fools. Here they are:

Evolution is not just unproven. It is FALSE and IMPOSSIBLE as well.

1. For apes and hominids to have evolved into humans, there would have to be many countless transitional species between ape and man for that to be possible. Yet there are NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. And for reptiles to have evolved into birds, there would have to be many transitions species between reptiles and birds. Yet there are NONE. ZERO. Charles Darwin even admitted in his book "Origin of the Species" in the chapter "Problems with Theory" that if no transitional species were found, then his theory would probably be wrong. And he was right, so even by Darwin's own standard, his theory is WRONG.

In fact, Evolutionists have had to resort to FRAUDS and HOAXES to try to find such transitional species between man and apes. For example, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and Lucy, were all HOAXES by desperate Evolutionists to try to find the missing links. Now, LOGIC would say that if Evolution were true, and there were plenty of REAL transitional species and fossils available, then these Evolutionists WOULD NOT have to resort to FRAUDS and HOAXES to try to prove their theory. They could just use REAL transitional fossils to show the missing links. But they don't have any! BUSTED! That fact alone is very damning and defeats their case.

Natural selection means that the weaker members of a species die early of disease and predators. It does not mean that one species can become another species. Also, odbo made a good point before here:

viewtopic.php?p=55121#p55121
Legitimate questions
If birds evolved from reptiles, how did the wings form? If a reptile started growing wings little by little, it would be at a disadvantage. Survival of the fittest seems to dictate it would become extinct. Someone please explain this.
2. Also, in the early 20th Century, when DNA was discovered, it was shown to be a closed genome system. Mutations could not add genes or take away from them. And the DNA structure was far more elaborate and complex than the codes for Windows 8 or any super computer, so that it could NOT have come from chance or natural selection or evolution. Even the co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, said that DNA could NOT have evolved from chance. Would you believe that the codes in Windows 8 could evolve from chance? Or that the parts in your smart phone could evolve from chance? Or that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and create a fully functioning Boeing 747 from chance? That's ridiculous of course, but that's what Evolutionists would have to believe.

3. Remember that even a single celled organism is highly complex. In just ONE single cell, there are THOUSANDS of parts that work together in harmony, like a clock or TV or radio. Thousands of parts working together in harmony could NOT have evolved from chance. No way. Not anymore than your smart phone or iPhone could have come about by chance and random mutations and natural selection. No way. We all know that, so why do many persist in the ridiculousness of Evolution? Very odd.

4. In the 20th Century, the best chemists and evolutionists in the world have tried in the lab to create living cells, using pools of inanimate matter and electricity to stimulate lightning, to try to prove the Evolutionary theory that the first living cells first came about from lightning striking mud pools of dead chemicals. Stanley Miller tried for years to do this in the 1950's. Yet all these attempts have COMPLETELY FAILED, 100 PERCENT! They never came close to creating living cells. Cells could not have come about by random forces. You can break open a cell in a test tube, fill it with chemicals conducive to life, and see that the parts of the cell will NOT randomly form into a living cell. Never happened.

5. Random mutations have NEVER been beneficial to a species or organism. All observed random mutations have been disadvantageous and resulted in damage or early death in that organism. There has NEVER been one documented case of random mutations being beneficial to an organism. NEVER. When Richard Dawkins was asked for an example of mutations adding new information to the genome, he was stumped and could not think of any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

So you see, the theory of evolution is not only unproven, but false and impossible as well. There is ZERO evidence that one species can evolve or transform into another species. No transitional species have ever been found between man and ape or even between reptiles and birds. And the few "transitional species" that have been alleged have all turned out to be either hoaxes, or types of animals or fish that have been around for a long time. Furthermore, the evidence from DNA and genes also show a locked genome system, which shown intelligent design beyond the complexity of the best supercomputers today. And random mutations have NEVER been shown to produce new organs or add new information to genomes or produce new genes. In fact, random mutations have ALWAYS been observed to be disadvantageous and detrimental to life, NEVER beneficial.

Another simple logical proof is this: Everything created by nature is in harmony with nature. All creatures in nature give and take in harmony. This includes all plants, insects, and animals. Nothing created by nature destroys or plunders nature. Only mankind does. This means that mankind could not solely have come from nature itself. It must have origins OUTSIDE and BEYOND nature. And only mankind is capable of cruelty or evil, animals are not. So there is definitely something very different and UNNATURAL about mankind. Simple logic demonstrates that.

Furthermore, there is no explanation or mechanism in Evolution that can account for the onset of human intelligence, regardless of how many millions of years you put into the equation. The rise of human intelligence is unique and does not follow any natural path observed in nature or animal species. It's a complete inexplicable mystery to scientists, biologists and evolutionists.

However, just because Evolution is false, does not automatically mean that the Biblical creation story is true or that the Bible is true and that you have to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved so that you won't go to hell. That does not automatically follow, as Christians claim. All it means is that YES, there is intelligent design by an intelligent CREATOR. This creator could be God, or a group of creators (gods), or even a computer programmer if we are living inside a computer simulation, as many cosmologists are beginning to believe. That's all it means, not that any particular religion or Bible has all the answers.

You see, the fallacy here that both Creationists and Evolutionists presuppose, without basis, is that if there's a creator, then this creator MUST be ONE God that is all powerful, infallible and perfect. But that doesn't logically follow. That's like assuming that if someone built my house, then only ONE person could have built it, when in reality a team of workers actually built it. It simply doesn't logically follow that a creator can ONLY be one, as people automatically assume. There is more than one of everything in the universe, so why can't there be more than one god or creator? Even a video game simulation is usually designed by a team of designers, not just one. And there is plenty of evidence that we are living in a computer simulation, and that's why the universe seems to be fine tuned, ala the "Anthropic Principle", and follow mathematical formulas and patterns.

It also does not logically follow that a creator or god MUST automatically be perfect, all good and infallible. That is another fallacy and assumption that people just automatically assume because religion says so. That's like saying that the people who built my house must be infallible and perfect and all good, just because they were the builders. It's ridiculous, unwarranted and simply doesn't logically follow. Just because a god or creator is bigger and more powerful than you, does not mean it must be a good moral being that is perfect and infallible. That's like an ANT looking up at YOU and thinking "Wow this human is huge and powerful. He or she must be perfect, infallible and all good." Would that ant be right in assuming that? No of course not. Humans are not perfect or infallible or all good as we all know. So again, it does NOT logically follow that just because something is bigger and more powerful than you, or higher up, that that being must be perfect, infallible and totally good, devoid of any evil or bad traits or faults. That's a fallacy and assumption that people automatically assume without thinking and without basis.

In spite of all this, most non-religious males have a BIAS in leaning toward Evolution for some reason, even though it has ZERO evolution to support it and contradicts basic principles of science and logic? I wonder why. I can only postulate two possible explanations:

1. Most non-religious men like to believe that THEY are in control of everything, especially their lives. They don't like the idea of a higher power like God or deities running things. They prefer to believe that everything is due to chance, coincidence and human choices. That gives them a feeling that they are in CONTROL, not unseen forces out there. The male ego likes to feel in control. Also, Evolution theory fits left brained logic, which men like. So they have a natural BIAS toward Evolution.

2. To accept intelligent design in the universe and in life on Earth, means that one would have to seek answers to life's meaning in religion, spirituality and philosophy. Most non-religious men don't want to feel obligated to do that. They prefer focusing on simple practical things like making money, building things, construction projects, eating food, driving cars, finding a woman, raising a family, etc. They don't want to deal with deeper mysteries of life which they can't control or touch. That's basic male nature. So they prefer to believe that Evolution explains everything and that's that. It's their BIAS.

Make sense?
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne




Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!



User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27710
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Post by Winston » January 12th, 2018, 10:57 am

Ive been watching many videos lately on creation vs evolution. I listened to the atheists on YouTube too. But they are annoying. All they do is ridicule and accuse the creationists of using logic fallacies, but then they use many logic fallacies themselves yet they are blind to it.

I also get annoyed by richard dawkins and lawrence krauss and bill nye. They are super arrogant and act like asses and claim you are stupid and ignorant if you dont believe in evolution because its a proven fact that everyone knows.

But what i dont get is, why does everyone in academia and science establishment claim that evolution is a fact? Whats the proof that one species can transition into another? I watched atheist videos and pro evolution videos and could not find any proof. All they would say is that small mutations over time over millions of years add up to big changes and macro evolution. Thats an assumption, not proof. Plus there are no transitional species between macro evolution either, in the fossil record.

So where is the proof? Thats my main question. I cant find an answer to it. The videos defending evolution dont give me this proof. They just use ridicule and cite logic fallacies of creationists, but offer no proof. Anyone can stamp a logic fallacy on everything they disagree with. It doesnt constitute proof or evidence.

I also cannot find an example of a beneficial mutation either that adds information to the genome. And even if there are beneficial mutations that doesnt prove that one species can become another species.

One example the evolutionists give for macro evolution is that some rabbits are known to evolve differently in different areas to the point where they cannot interbreed with rabbits of other species, such as the alaskan rabbit. They claim that if the rabbits chromosomes change then technically they have become another species and hence its evidence of macro evolution. What do you think of that?

But they are still rabbits right? So thats not really proof that one species can become another species right?

So why is evolution cited as established fact that no one can question? Its not logical and is like a religious inquisition.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27710
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Post by Winston » January 13th, 2018, 12:18 pm

Heres another thing I don't get about atheists.

They claim they dont believe in God because they cant see or touch God. Yet they are eager to believe in the multiple universe theory to try to explain away the fine tuning of the universe argument, even though they cannot see or touch other universes, and theres no evidence for them at all. Go figure.

Why are they such hypocrites and liars who pretend to have no biases? Lol

Likewise they also claim evolution is a proven fact even though they cannot prove it and cannot find any fossil evidence for any transitional species or evidence for beneficial mutations that add information to the genome. Etc. So if it has zero evidence to support it, how is it a fact? How can they believe in something that they cannot see or touch, as with God? Makes no sense. They contradict themselves greatly. Yet they lie and claim to be unbiased. Go figure.

Furthermore they claim God is not necessary. But how can God be unnecessary since there's no evidence at all for macroevolution, not even a little? And no evidence of beneficial mutations that add information to the genome. And no way to create life from non life. No way to create the first living cell from non living matter by any form of lightning striking a pool of mud, etc. Basic logic says that life cannot be created by non life. Just as consciousness cannot be created by non consciousness.

So how can God be unnecessary? It makes no sense. Yet they claim they are all about logic, science and rationality? Wtf? How do they sleep at night believing and touting so many lies? Shouldn't they know better? These are educated adults right?
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Pinayhunter
Freshman Poster
Posts: 44
Joined: February 9th, 2016, 1:52 am

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Post by Pinayhunter » January 13th, 2018, 5:45 pm

They’ll tell you there was a Big Bang explosion which somehow created all space, time, and matter in the universe and for no reason at all. Then all this explosive debris flying outward at hundreds of millions of miles per hour somehow gave rise to a retarded fish-frog that mated with another retarded fish-frog, which made you. Makes sense. *sigh* There’s no reasoning with evotards.

South Park - Garrison on evolution


User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27710
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Post by Winston » January 16th, 2018, 12:04 am

My Venetian friend Alex has a new original theory about how macroevolution could happen along with intelligent design. He calls it his cell differentiation theory, or R Evolution theory, and posted his theory on his blog here:

http://controsensi.blogspot.com/2016/02 ... al-ex.html

Here is our discussion about it:

[9/27/2017, 7:58 PM] Alex From Venice: another intuition I had it's that evolution of life forms could have happened like cell differentiation. From a source single cell that already contains the genes and descriptions of all the other different living organisms to comes in future generations
[9/27/2017, 8:04 PM] Winston: You mean like how a baby starts out like a single cell and grows? Then where did the cell come from? Aliens or gods?
[9/27/2017, 8:05 PM] Alex From Venice: yes like that. I don't know where the first cell or cells came from
[9/27/2017, 8:05 PM] Alex From Venice: my theory it's just only about evolution
[9/27/2017, 8:06 PM] Alex From Venice: not origin of life
[9/27/2017, 8:06 PM] Alex From Venice: it can be God or aliens, but not by chance
[9/27/2017, 8:28 PM] Alex From Venice: http://controsensi.blogspot.com/2016/02 ... x.html?m=1
[9/27/2017, 8:36 PM] Winston: Is this your blog? U wrote this?
http://controsensi.blogspot.com/2016/02 ... x.html?m=1
[9/27/2017, 9:07 PM] Winston: Does anyone else have the same theory?
[9/27/2017, 9:08 PM] Winston: Why are primitive life forms more complex? I dont get it. Arent we more complex than monkeys?
[9/27/2017, 9:15 PM] Alex From Venice: as of now I never read or heard of anyone that came with same theory as mine
[9/27/2017, 9:16 PM] Alex From Venice: yes, exactly, we are more complex so there's no reason for a single cell to have a DNA whichever is 200 times greater than human DNA
[9/27/2017, 9:31 PM] Winston: But what does that mean? Aren't our brains more complex?
[9/27/2017, 9:33 PM] Winston: How does that prove your theory?
[9/27/2017, 9:36 PM] Alex From Venice: Uhm... every single detail of human body it's designed within the genome of the first cell that a human beings body start to develop from
[9/27/2017, 9:37 PM] Alex From Venice: the genome it's made of DNA units
[9/27/2017, 9:38 PM] Alex From Venice: you may think at the genome as a sequence of bits that describe each single instructions and data of a software
[9/27/2017, 9:39 PM] Alex From Venice: the more complex it's the software, the more bits it's needed to make a complete description
[9/27/2017, 9:41 PM] Alex From Venice: that's why by the time goes application installers has turned from few KB, to MB, and now GB
[9/27/2017, 9:42 PM] Alex From Venice: so the more simple needs very little stored information, the more complex a huge amount of descriptive information
[9/27/2017, 9:44 PM] Alex From Venice: so, why a single cell organism like Amoeba Dubia, has a genome that it's 200 times the human genome?
[9/27/2017, 9:45 PM] Alex From Venice: I can't prove anything, noone can prove anything
[9/27/2017, 9:46 PM] Alex From Venice: my theory it's just a better theory than the currently mainstream supported theory of evolutionism
[9/27/2017, 9:50 PM] Alex From Venice: mainstream evolutionism theory can't explain the evolution from terrestrial to birds
[9/27/2017, 9:52 PM] Alex From Venice: because the "survival of the fittest" rule doesn't apply, doesn't work in that case
[9/27/2017, 9:54 PM] Alex From Venice: so my theory gives an answer : evolution it's by design
[9/27/2017, 9:54 PM] Alex From Venice: and the design it's contained in the primitive source living being
[9/27/2017, 9:55 PM] Alex From Venice: if that's the case such primitive being must have a huge genome that can describe many species
[9/27/2017, 9:57 PM] Alex From Venice: and scientific observations has indeed found huge genome in very simple "primitive" being like Amoeba Dubia
[9/28/2017, 12:01 AM] Winston: I mean how does it support your theory if primitive life has more genes than complex life?
[9/28/2017, 12:03 AM] Alex From Venice: because my theory needs that primitive life has more genes than what it's suppose to need to describe itself
[9/28/2017, 12:03 AM] Alex From Venice: as the contained genome needs to hold the information for many species to come in next generations
[9/28/2017, 12:04 AM] Alex From Venice: so must be very long
[9/28/2017, 7:02 AM] Winston: Hope u will win Nobel prize for your theory. Lol
[9/28/2017, 7:03 AM] Winston: So these primitive life forms, like amoebas, can still evolve into higher forms of life, like animals?
[9/28/2017, 7:04 AM] Winston: If so then u are in a sense supporting darwinism. U are just changing the mechanism by which macro evolution works.
[9/28/2017, 7:07 AM] Alex From Venice: no, Darwinisms it's based on "random mutations" selected by the "survival of the fittest" process
[9/28/2017, 7:07 AM] Alex From Venice: while my theory it's that evolution it's by design
[9/28/2017, 7:08 AM] Winston: But u still claim that cells and amoebas can become animals and humans right?
[9/28/2017, 7:08 AM] Alex From Venice: it's the negation of Darwinism fundamentals
[9/28/2017, 7:10 AM] Alex From Venice: I claim that a primitive being can contain in itself the genetic description of different species that will appear after a given number of generations from it
[9/28/2017, 7:11 AM] Alex From Venice: you can call it evolution, yes
[9/28/2017, 7:12 AM] Alex From Venice: I support the idea of evolution, macro evolution, but not in the Darwinism terms
[9/28/2017, 7:12 AM] Alex From Venice: rather in creationism terms
[9/28/2017, 7:13 AM] Winston: Oh i see. Well i guess it makes more sense than to say that organisms all started out as whole and complete. Lol
[9/28/2017, 7:14 AM] Alex From Venice: yes
[9/28/2017, 7:14 AM] Winston: But what about the bottleneck theory or punctuated equilibrium hypothesized by Stephen jay gould? It was created to explain the sudden explosion of species on earth. Its as if all the animals happened suddenly in one explosion. I think its called the Cambrian period. How to explain that?
[9/28/2017, 7:15 AM] Alex From Venice: it can still be "by design"
[9/28/2017, 7:16 AM] Alex From Venice: same as cell differentiation
[9/28/2017, 7:17 AM] Winston: U mean the cambrian explosion happened when the cells decided to jump in evolution and skip many stages?
[9/28/2017, 7:17 AM] Alex From Venice: the differentiation of cells happens after a given number of generation, which is hardcoded in the original genome
[9/28/2017, 7:17 AM] Winston: That means we could still be evolving right now right? Us humans i mean.
[9/28/2017, 7:18 AM] Alex From Venice: Uhm... I think we are having a misunderstanding Winston
[9/28/2017, 7:18 AM] Winston: Could that be why in asia, people are taller now than 30 years ago? I always assumed it was due to better nutrition and milk. But it may happen according to program in your theory.
[9/28/2017, 7:18 AM] Winston: Also a 20 year old in 1960 looks very different than a 20 year old today. I always wondered why.
[9/28/2017, 7:19 AM] Alex From Venice: cell differentiation it's not evolution from a single cell to a body
[9/28/2017, 7:20 AM] Winston: And in 1950s, most russian women were much more fat and masculine. But today they are thin like models and more feminine. Like a different species. No one can explain this. Not even russian scientists.
[9/28/2017, 7:20 AM] Winston: So it may be that we are constantly evolving today too.
[9/28/2017, 7:21 AM] Alex From Venice: cell differentiation it's a process that from one kind of cell, in a numbers of generations, born a different kind of cell
[9/28/2017, 7:21 AM] Winston: But cell differentiation means a cell is growing into a organism right? Like a baby does from sperm and egg to fetus to full grown baby.
[9/28/2017, 7:22 AM] Alex From Venice: yes that's a process that happens while from a single cell grows a whole body
[9/28/2017, 7:24 AM] Winston: Has cell differentiation been observed or proven in laboratory?
[9/28/2017, 7:25 AM] Alex From Venice: of course cell differentiation it's a matter of fact scientifically observed and studied
[9/28/2017, 7:26 AM] Alex From Venice: you know that human body (and every complex living organism) is made of many different kind of cells
[9/28/2017, 7:28 AM] Alex From Venice: neurons, skin cells, blood cells, tissue cells, and many many others
[9/28/2017, 7:29 AM] Alex From Venice: all of them are genealogically derived from the single starting cell
[9/28/2017, 7:31 AM] Alex From Venice: they are different "species" of cells all "descendants" of the source one
[9/28/2017, 7:35 AM] Alex From Venice: well, yes, of course, changes in body shape over generation may be due to genetic evolution design where changes are "activated" only over a number of generation
[9/28/2017, 7:37 AM] Alex From Venice: at now it's not clear how cell differentiation works, where in the genome it's written when, after how many generations from the source cell, the modifications are enabled, triggered
[9/28/2017, 7:38 AM] Alex From Venice: but it's known that all different kind of cells, all the cell "species", are described within the genome of the source cell
[9/28/2017, 7:39 AM] Alex From Venice: and that genome it's copied and carried completely, without modification, in all different species of cell
[9/28/2017, 7:40 AM] Alex From Venice: so that from the DNA of a skin cell it's, in theory, possible to build a whole human body, a "clone"
[9/28/2017, 7:42 AM] Alex From Venice: because a skin cell, as well as all other kind of cells in the body, contains the same DNA, in its complete form, of the source cell
[9/28/2017, 7:44 AM] Alex From Venice: biologists explain differentiation in terms of "activation" of DNA "sections"
[9/28/2017, 7:46 AM] Alex From Venice: even though the DNA it's same in all different kind of cells, each kind it's "result" of a different "section" of DNA
[9/28/2017, 7:47 AM] Alex From Venice: how those sections are "activated" it's Unknown yet
[9/28/2017, 7:47 AM] Alex From Venice: but has to be "by design", not a random activation
[9/28/2017, 8:12 AM] Winston: Thats interesting. I didnt know u knew anything about biology. I wonder if anyone else has come up with a similar theory.
[9/28/2017, 8:12 AM] Winston: We should make a YouTube video about this sometime.
[11/1/2017, 8:33 PM] Winston: Your theory of evolution by cell differentiation is a hybrid of intelligent design, within the cell, and evolution as well right?
[11/1/2017, 8:37 PM] Alex From Venice: my theory is an hybrid yes
[11/1/2017, 8:37 PM] Alex From Venice: I would define it as intelligent designed evolution
[11/1/2017, 8:38 PM] Alex From Venice: where all steps of evolution have been already designed and programmed within the genes of the very primitive form of life
[11/1/2017, 8:41 PM] Alex From Venice: the idea is that the original mono cellular living being already had inside, but dormant, the genes for the living beings and species to come generation after generation
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

TheLight954
Freshman Poster
Posts: 53
Joined: September 12th, 2016, 1:53 am

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Post by TheLight954 » November 2nd, 2018, 3:29 am

Darwinian evolution isn't the only type of evolution. The fossil record shows that some sort of evolution over a long period of time took place.

An alternative theory is Lamarckian evolution, where the mutations are not random; they are done intelligently like an editor on the computer. Cells are intelligent in some way and can often correct their own mistakes. In a drastically different environment, the organism evolves and adapts, possibly within a few generations instead of millions of years that way. This explains how all the body parts showed up at once, and why fossil records often contain jumps rather than being a smooth continuous function, despite the fact that climates always change in geographically short timescales and demand evolutionary pressure (such as ice ages and interglacial periods).

I believe in intrinsic intelligence, but am more agnostic toward an external intelligent designer.

User avatar
Yohan
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3106
Joined: April 3rd, 2014, 6:05 am
Location: Tokyo, JAPAN
Contact:

Re:

Post by Yohan » November 2nd, 2018, 6:16 am

Winston wrote:
November 26th, 2011, 4:01 pm
IntoTheWild wrote:I voted for evolution.
I'm not suprised that I'm alone so far!
Wait, you are badly misinformed here. Most of the guys here are nonreligious. Only a few are religious. I'm not religious either, or conservative.
....
Why do you believe in evolution?
You are not the only one, it seems so far 56 % were voting for evolution, despite facing rather unfair questions in this poll.
You might for example believe in evolution, but not being an evolved baboon.

For sure creation and religion cannot be easily separated, they are interlinked.
You cannot claim you are not religious but believe in creation.

Same with evolution and atheism. You cannot be an atheist and pray to the lord at the same time.

As more research data are coming in as more people abandon creation/religion.
Of course not all can be explained yet in detail regarding evolution but we know much more now about our existence than 100 years ago.

The number of people who do not believe in creation is therefore growing - many people who still are somehow religious are it only because of tradition. They join some events in temples and churches and give some donation, but don't care otherwise.

Should something like creators really 'exist', I can only tell them they made a lot of 'programming errors' when creating humans.

Interesting the Catholic Church considers now both is compatible, creation and evolution can be mixed up...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... both-right
Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right

Pope Francis cautions against portraying God as magician, and says it is possible to believe in evolution and creation

Pope Francis said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis. Photograph: ZUMA/Rex Features
It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.

“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.

“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

Although Francis was packaging the ideas with his trademark eye for a soundbite, the content of what he was saying does not mark a break with Catholic teaching, which has modified considerably since Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859.

Popes before him have also said that– with certain provisos – there is no incompatibility between evolution and God as divine creator.

HouseMD
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1599
Joined: February 14th, 2012, 3:20 am
Location: Buried Under a Pile of Books

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Post by HouseMD » November 10th, 2018, 1:58 pm

I believe in evolution, but I also believe in a higher power, though the true nature of that higher power is nebulous to me

Moretorque
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4783
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 3:00 pm
Location: USA,FL

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Post by Moretorque » November 11th, 2018, 2:38 am

I believe we evolved from the BLACKman and when you go to meet your maker it will turn out to be aunt Jemima
Time to Hide!

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”