Did you not see the part about Einstein living in a time when there was little evidence for evolution? If he was alive today, it is probable that he would have vastly different views on evolution vs. creation. When he was younger, creation was still the accepted view on how we came to be. Quit living in the past and recognize that scientific views (on everything) change over time.
Think about what you just said "IF he ws alive today, it is PROBABLE that he....." I need more proof than that.
I believe in provable science. Theories are interesting and make for good conversation. Infact I'm in to conspiracy theories. I'm one of the most open minded people I know. But I also believe "the proof is in the putting." ✅
Originally posted by Darth Revan
No offense, but did you people pass 10th grade biology? I myself have done extensive research on both sides of the argument... I've looked through a number of the major "creation science" sites, and even written to one of them. The response I got was a drawn-out, nitpicky letter that didn't even come close to answering my original question, which I posed in a polite way. I found not one shred of evidence for Creation that was not either ridiculous or refuted by a thousand other sites. If you want me to cite examples, say the word, and I will gladly do so. So, after all my research, I concluded basically one thing: it was a complete waste of time and my opinion on evolution had not changed one bit. Please don't assume I'm some moron who goes around parading my spur of the moment ideas as fact.You did just what I claimed you had, in at least two places in this thread. Here:
"I can get into the intracacies and talk about probability and so on but you wont want to hear it anyway."
And here:
"I could go on and given many reasons why creationsm works where naturalism doesnt, many that I havent even cited previously. I dont believe evolutionism has anything legitimate to show in support of itself either because the things that are being uncovered, refute it."
"Oh thats right. Spontaneous generation is 'scientific' but a creator creating is 'unreasonable' and 'unsupported'. Gotcha."
"Spontaneous generation," as you so aptly put it, does not in fact need be included in the study of evolution. Evolution is about the 4.6 billion years after life first appeared, not necessarily how it was created. How it first appeared is anybody's guess... Who knows, maybe it was created by some supernatural power at first. All I'm saying is that the idea earth is 6000 years old and was created in exactly the state it is now is a load of bull. The amount of evidence backing that up is enormous... To name the two most commonly used ones:
-We can see light from stars millions of light years away. This would obviously be impossible if the universe were under a few billion years old.
-We have found various artifacts that were carbon dated and found to be older than the supposed age of the Christian universe.
Now, as for evolution itself, the amount of evidence is just as great... And I honestly don't know how it's possible that you haven't heard any of this in the past. Creationists often claim that life is too "perfect" to have been created by anything other than an intelligent mind. The fact is, life is far from perfect.
For example, hundreds of studies have found that every living organism will always reproduce past the maximum load its environment can support. When this happens, a number of individuals from that species will simply die off until the population is within the amount the availible resources can support. The species will be more healthy as a whole, and will reproduce again, and the same thing happens over and over.
I could go on and on about life's various imperfections, and perhaps I will later, but I'm getting tired.
Before I go, I have to mention the thing that sparked the idea of evolution in the first place--Darwin's famous Galapagos finches. When Darwin was a naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle, which made stops in the Galapagos islands, he collected a number of specimens of what he thought to be different species of birds. However, when he got back to England, he was informed that all of the birds he had collected were types of finches. Back in the day, people knew that species sometimes changed due to variations in climate. What puzzled Darwin was the fact that all of the islands he had visited were identical in climate. There was no apparent reason for the birds to be so different from one another. Why would God put different finches on identical islands? He reasoned that perhaps organisms adapted over many generations to new situations--not just climate, but factors such as availible food and predators as well. That was the spark that got him thinking about natural selection...
But, like I said, it's past my bedtime and I must be leaving you all. Good day.
finches?
finches are a product of adaptation i have already discussed this in another thread. You know how their are certain breeds of dogs that can live in extreme extreme cold? You know how there are dogs that are adapted to extreme extreme heat? well if you switch them around in their climates they will not survive very well now will they? But they are both dogs. Those dogs will not eventually spawn dogs that have wings.
Finches and peppered moths that you forgot to mention are poor examples of evolution
"When this happens, a number of individuals from that species will simply die off until the population is within the amount the availible resources can support."
that is one of the reasons i believe that there is a creator. everything works in perfect harmoney. Everything is structured to work together. If a animal has learned over generations and generations of how to evolve and they change to survive best, how could they decide to also change to benefit the rest of the enviroment unless there is a governing force that keeps thinsg in balance. How do 100s of sperate pieces of a puzzle all fit together at the same time without being able to communicate together and being random?
and as a side note i respect you are well read on the matter raven and i was not trying to insinuate in any way your a dumby on this subject and you just follow whatever you hear. I am also not thatw ay by the way and i have done some research on this subject as well.
Originally posted by moviejunkie23
finches?
finches are a product of adaptation i have already discussed this in another thread. You know how their are certain breeds of dogs that can live in extreme extreme cold? You know how there are dogs that are adapted to extreme extreme heat? well if you switch them around in their climates they will not survive very well now will they? But they are both dogs. Those dogs will not eventually spawn dogs that have wings.
Finches and peppered moths that you forgot to mention are poor examples of evolution
How are they poor examples of evolution? The finches migrated from the mainland, some to each island, and evolved to have different colloration, different feet, different wingspans, different beaks, etc... In no way is that a poor example of evolution. And I didn't "forget" to mention peppered moths, I know plenty about moths. I did state that I could give many more examples, what I said was only a tiny fraction of the amount of evidence collected in support of evolution.
"When this happens, a number of individuals from that species will simply die off until the population is within the amount the availible resources can support."
that is one of the reasons i believe that there is a creator. everything works in perfect harmoney. Everything is structured to work together. If a animal has learned over generations and generations of how to evolve and they change to survive best, how could they decide to also change to benefit the rest of the enviroment unless there is a governing force that keeps thinsg in balance. How do 100s of sperate pieces of a puzzle all fit together at the same time without being able to communicate together and being random?
But wouldn't it be better if animals simply reproduced within the carrying capacity of their environments? It would save everybody a lot of trouble. Hundreds of separate pieces of a puzzle all fit together because they all evolved from a single organism. Think about it--first there was one archaebacteria, that couldn't tolerate the presence of very much oxygen, and then a genetic mutation caused a new type to appear. The new type let off a lot of oxygen, filling the atmosphere with it, and the old type died off because of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Therefore everything that evolved after that had to be able to tolerate, and make use of, the gases in the atmosphere. That's a very simple example, but that's basically the way it all worked. There was one organism, or a number of organisms, and a new one appeared because it was better adapted to its environment. It's not like there were a bunch of random mutations that by some miracle were all successful. At some point a mutation appeared that allowed an organism to survive better, and so the individuals with the mutation were successful and the ones without were not. It wasn't random chance that new organisms appeared and happened to be well adapted to their environment.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
Hundreds of separate pieces of a puzzle all fit together because they all evolved from a single organism.
Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.
Screw.
Yes, screw.
I said it in another thread, and I will say it again:
"I see two sides, each taking ambiguous evidence and manipulating it to meet their needs."
Personally, I think evolution is "more scientific"...although that seems rather vague. Both require faith in the mechanism of creation, though creationists such as myself believe in God, which is not scientifically provable or disprovable.
i am glad you have the ability to form an opinion PhilO, I can do that as well and that is what i am doing. I have searched the web and listened to both sides of the argument and it is my belief god is real and formed the universe and the world we live in and i am gratefull for that
thank you and god bless
The question about Einstein and Darwin having believed in a god is quite simple: Einstein never believed in a personal god, but rather in a mere higher, intelligent power, BUT that was an emotional, irrational condition because his mother was very religious and he loved her very much, so psycologically his mother's religious nature had a great effect on him in an emotional sense. He knew that the existence of a god does not mek rational sense, but emotionally he felt there was a god. So the bottomline is that when he said there is a god, he was not talking in a scientific capacity, but from an emotional reflex. In Darwin's case, he suffered from an irrational fear of a punishing god - also the result of emotional indoctrination - not a rational stance!
Albert Einstein from Albert Einstein: The Human Side:It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
The obituary of Albert Einstein; New York Times, April 19th 1955:I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
I believe in creation that god created the world.I know that I did not evolve from a fish it just does'nt make sense and even today more scientist at University's believe that god created this world.Hell the grand canyon was created by alot of water well when god flooded the world that water made that canyon.Okay explain this you have civilization on mountain that is straight then 2000 years today where they lived the mountain is 2000 feet sea level now only something big could have caused that.
Gee, have you ever even been inside a science classroom? There were never civilizations on flat plains that are now mountains. It takes way too long to form a mountain range, longer than humans have been in existence. There is evidence that what are now mountains thousands of feet high were once below sea level, but there was never human civilization living there. I believe the most they've found at the tops of mountains are fossils of clams and other shellfish. The Grand Canyon wasn't created by "alot of water well when god flooded the world," it was eroded over millions and millions of years by the Colorado river, which, by the way, is still down there.