creationist vs evolutionists debate, the big one.

I cant think of any scientist that thought the world was flat, leeches are still used in medicine and have real uses and potatoes ARE poisonous. Potatoes are a member of the nightshade family and contain the poison solanine. 5kg of sprouting potatoes typically contain enough poison to kill a human. They would not pass current EU food safety legislation but are allowed because they have been used for so long.

Evolution can be demonstrated. We can watch it in action and we can genetically follow evolution from bacteria to ourselves. Many bacteria contain genes that can also be found in humans.

I'm not saying that some deity didnt start it all off, but I for one dont believe that. I always ask religious people the same question: If you werent told about God, would you still believe in God, especially the same God? If it was so important to this deity that you believed in "it", wouldnt "it" make you of aware if "it" personally?

The current creationist movement was created by religious fundamentalists who didnt like the fact that their children questioned why daddy told me god made the animals and their teacher told them something else. Strong faith raises strong emotions in people and they decided to do something about it. These people will deny evidence in front of their face and twist and turn to ignore it. Look at how the Catholic church has changed its 'story' over the years in the face of undeniable scientific evidence. Look at the rage in so called religious people that post on sites such a www.venganza.org.


As far as I am concerned people can believe whatever they like as long as it doesnt harm anyone. Allowing children to go to school with 'kill gay people' slogans on their t-shirts etc under the guise of religious freedom is taking it too far.

If anyone wants to debate with me then go ahead. Only have better arguments than "it says this in the bible so there"

 

I remember one scientist saying that because natural selection happens over such an incredibly long time the problem is there are no witnesses as is the same problem with the creationist theory

 

does anyone know about rapid adaptation?
It demonstrates natural selection in a short time, not long term like you suggested.

The slow adaptation leads to evolution but it takes a loooooong time.

 

Fast adaptation to enviromental stresses can be demonstrated with bacteria - take for example resistance to antibiotics. In a small number of generations total immunity can gained by the surviving population.

 

which is also why you shouldn't take antibiotics as a first measure because the surviving bacteria can become immune and you'll have to use a different antibiotic, and then another, and another.

If you take antibiotics, you HAVE to use all of them up. Don't stop taking them at the first sign of getting better, because it gives the remaining bacteria time to grow...and then you're screwed.

 

Not in an attempt to whore my channel, but it's completely relevant to this topic.

http://Youtube.com/AzureFlameElk

I'd post one of my relevant videos here, but I'm not sure if javascript is enabled, or if it's in good taste on these forums to post a video.

 

anyone ever heard of the monkey trial lol the defense attorney in the case was the famous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial clarence darrow in the end hollywood make a movie out of it^_^

 

off-topic: is he using the chewbacca approach?

 

You can always tell when a court decision is complete bullshit when you listen to the judges reasoning and the lawyers propaganda. If you hear just one logical fallacy, religion must be involved!

 

it came from the jew and than the christains changed it to what they thought was Right

 

Yeah. It came from an uncountable number of different authors from different centuries.
A lot was even left out (google Banned from the Bible).

 

You are correct, but also quite misleading. Micro-evolution can indeed be demonstrated rather easily through microorganisms, macro-evolution on the other hand cannot be neither demonstrated nor observed. Also no, we cannot follow the genetic flow of bacteria to humans, we can only speculate. Everything on the planet is related to some degree because of we all share the identical fundamental genetic constructs, DNA.

 

as many have already posted "i was brought up like this so this is what i believe in". me too.
the bible is proof of the word of god that states he created the world
yes some may be inaccurate but what is your proof it is? and what is my proof it isnt?
i have seen loads of stuff about evolution with proof
so what i came up with is this(i still believe in god and how he created it but because of the dinosaurs forgive me god but i am forced to wonder about this. i said WONDER. not believe. i still believe in how god created the world)
because no one really knows who wrote the bible and some maybe inaccurate then maybe god created the world but did it evolution style. im saying there has been some manipulation in the original text of the bible(as b2kx said the bible may have gone to the wrong hands for some time for it to be changed)and these pranksters modify the bible so we really dont know the truth anymore.

but as i said this thought just popped up in my head but i still dont believe it i still believe in how god created the world
ridiculous but possible

 

it would be more like thousands of books with hundreds of years of research, oh hang on a bit like evolution has

 

As opposed to people who believed the Sun rotated around the Earth. And wrote in this great book of fact.

 

The difference with science is that the theory fits the majority of available data, experiments can be replicated by others and it can make testable predictions. Does the bible do this?

Darwin was actually a church minister (or whatever they are called) if memory serves me right.

At the end of the day, you cannot disprove the existence of God just as you cannot diprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both are highly improbable, but possible.

 

your memory serves you wrong he was not a church minister

and i have never used science or evolution to disprove god, but on the other hand if your an intelligent person you'd realise that it does in its own right disprove many of the bibles facts and there for make the rest of the lovely old story book seem a bit suspect.

and your idea about science is foolish

a theory is a theory

a theory is the basis of experiments

a theory that fits "a majority of available data" is not yet proof but a working theory but can still be discredited or amended

a theory that fits ALL available date and agreed by many professionals is considered to the answer

science its self never boasts undeniable fact it does make mistakes but as the technology gets better ideas are amended
(Pluto's not a planet its a planetoid, the t-rex is not the king but a scavenger and so on)

"does the bible do this" no it does not it forces people to believe blindly in something and boasts fact.

 

Pluto's not a planetoid, Pluto's a plutoid.