Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,036 views
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
PS,
Perhaps you should start your own thread or get to point in how this relates to the topic of this thread.
If you believe in Satan, than you also believe in God and you also know that God cast down Satan. You also know that Satan was one of God's angels, so unlike most depictions of Satan, one can only guess that he is more pleasing to look at than what one might gather from other sources.
Satanism is a self loathing and self gratifying religion with "I" being at the heart of everything. There is no personal sacrifice for another. There is no "agapay" love for another human. You look out for #1 and destroy your enemies. You can help your friends and family, but only after your own selfish needs have been meet.
But again, I don't see how this relevant to our discussion.
Perhaps you should start your own thread or get to point in how this relates to the topic of this thread.
If you believe in Satan, than you also believe in God and you also know that God cast down Satan. You also know that Satan was one of God's angels, so unlike most depictions of Satan, one can only guess that he is more pleasing to look at than what one might gather from other sources.
Satanism is a self loathing and self gratifying religion with "I" being at the heart of everything. There is no personal sacrifice for another. There is no "agapay" love for another human. You look out for #1 and destroy your enemies. You can help your friends and family, but only after your own selfish needs have been meet.
But again, I don't see how this relevant to our discussion.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
BurnoutYou really should explain yourself sometimes. It's not healthy to only insult people.
You go by the definition of the Church, not a dictionary.
And I didn't insult you, you did that yourself.
Oh, and noone has ever been "sacrificed" for the devil, or other entity. There is nothing in the Satanic commandments or church that condones sacrifice or violence, unless you yourself are attacked, in which case defense/retalliation is fine.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
Pako
Pako, I don't mean to demean or disrespect your religion, but that's not what "Satan" means. Before Christianity swept its hand across the world, the word "satan" was a referrence to one's self, meaning...you.
When Christianity was in its' beginning, it used satan as a disconnected way to tell you not to submit, or be fooled by him. Yourself. Its' intentions were fine: be strong, and be overcome by lust, etc. But it started taking on a whole new emaning, and eventually a whole other entity. Satan was now the name of an evil person and that's what it's recognised as today.
Satanism, in terms of the Satanic Church, is about yourself. You follow noone but your own goals and your own desires. Much of it is moral, believe it or not, and it's more of a "new" and more "practical" Christianity. And it's not as selfish as you make it out to be.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
PS
Satan is NOT a diety. Nor is he even remotely close to being on the same level as God.
I have more respect for a person that lets me know where he stands, even if I think he's wrong, then one that hides behind technicalities.
Oh please, you don't poke fun, you directly insult.
You don't acknowledge any god except yourself. Don't say I'm just turning my back on you because you're proposing something different. I'm turning my back on you because your track record shows that your ideals really aren't founded in ANYTHING.
- 8,017
- GTP_Royalton
Here is some questions I would like answered.
A. What creature did [our] ape-like ancestors evolve from?
B. What [creature] did monkeys and apes evolve from?
C. Did the first cell [form] in water or on land?
D. Which came first, plants or multi-celled in the ocean?
E. If life first evolved in the ocean, when did it get onto land to form plants [trees etc]
F. Or did cells evolve into life in the [water] while some cells on land evolved into insects and plants at the same time?
As for there being alot of fossils that claim to show a gradual transition, what about the millions of fossils that show complete, fully developed creatures? Even in the Cambrian period, millions of years ago, creatures are complete and fully formed. All creatures can easily be classified. The purpose of genes is to prevent new forms from forming.
The next quotes are taken directly from the university of California. No, not a theolgian website. But a modern scientific University. Here is the link to their homepage
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/
The following quote is taken from this link
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears. It was once thought that the Cambrian rocks contained the first and oldest fossil animals, but these are now to be found in the earlier Vendian strata.
The following quote is taken from this link:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html
When Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, he and most paleontologists believed that the oldest animal fossils were the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian Period, now known to be about 540 million years old. Many paleontologists believed that simpler forms of life must have existed before this but that they left no fossils. A few believed that the Cambrian fossils represented the moment of God's creation of animals, or the first deposits laid down by the biblical Flood. Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."
I'm not, at this point, debating life changing over the years. I am debating whether the first cell appeared by chance, and whether some creatures had no ancestors, meaning they were created, not evolved from earlier ancestors.
A. What creature did [our] ape-like ancestors evolve from?
B. What [creature] did monkeys and apes evolve from?
C. Did the first cell [form] in water or on land?
D. Which came first, plants or multi-celled in the ocean?
E. If life first evolved in the ocean, when did it get onto land to form plants [trees etc]
F. Or did cells evolve into life in the [water] while some cells on land evolved into insects and plants at the same time?
As for there being alot of fossils that claim to show a gradual transition, what about the millions of fossils that show complete, fully developed creatures? Even in the Cambrian period, millions of years ago, creatures are complete and fully formed. All creatures can easily be classified. The purpose of genes is to prevent new forms from forming.
The next quotes are taken directly from the university of California. No, not a theolgian website. But a modern scientific University. Here is the link to their homepage
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/
The following quote is taken from this link
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears. It was once thought that the Cambrian rocks contained the first and oldest fossil animals, but these are now to be found in the earlier Vendian strata.
The following quote is taken from this link:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html
When Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, he and most paleontologists believed that the oldest animal fossils were the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian Period, now known to be about 540 million years old. Many paleontologists believed that simpler forms of life must have existed before this but that they left no fossils. A few believed that the Cambrian fossils represented the moment of God's creation of animals, or the first deposits laid down by the biblical Flood. Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."
I'm not, at this point, debating life changing over the years. I am debating whether the first cell appeared by chance, and whether some creatures had no ancestors, meaning they were created, not evolved from earlier ancestors.
- 3,802
Claim to show? They do. Simple as. Your wrong. What about these fully complete fossils? I honestly fail to see what point your trying to make.
*slams face in to monitor* Please...stop pretending that you don't understand evolution, it's driving me insane. What you said doesn't even make sense. OFC they are fully formed.
When they say "relatively short time", they don't mean a week, they mean about 5-10 million years. I love it when they try and use science to back their dogmatic ideas up...and fail.
I cba to try and answer your questions, you guys ignore mine. Someone else will I'm sure.
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Earth
A shrewlike creature. And, before that, a Starfishlike creature.
Earth
A common monkey/ape ancestor
Earth
It rather depends on your definition of "cell". Prokaryotic or eukaryotic?
It also rather depends on your definition of "in water or on land", since bodies of liquids can exist, above sea level, on land.
Earth
Again, that rather depends on your definition of "plants". Green, flowering things, or single plantlike cells?
Earth
And again, it depends on what you classify as life, "on land", plants, etc. etc. etc. Please be more specific.
Earth
A complete, fully-developed creature IS a transition. It's a transition from the species which precede(d) it and the species which follow it.
Earth
Nope.
Earth
And, since they contain absolutely nothing at all which is conducive to either side, I fail to see why you've posted them.
- 325
Well... first off, that doesn't have anything to do with evolution. But it does happen to be the first real question you posted in this thread that isn't entirely stupid.
If you are naive enough to call it "chance," then yes, the first cells formed by chance. The chance that chemicals abundant enough on the early Earth's surface have a natural predesposition to forming different things - lipids making barriers and membranes, DNA molecules linking, ect., indeed, these cell, probably the most basic of bacterias, would have no ancestors. They were created by the conditions of the Earth. There is no valid scientific reason to assume God had anything really to do with that.
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No.
At no point were we a starfish, a shrew and an extra from "The Planet of the Apes". And we didn't start out as a starfish either - there were things before the starfishlike stage. AND we didn't go starfishlike > shrewlike > Planet of the Apeslike > baby, as there are intermediate stages too.
At no point were we a starfish, a shrew and an extra from "The Planet of the Apes". And we didn't start out as a starfish either - there were things before the starfishlike stage. AND we didn't go starfishlike > shrewlike > Planet of the Apeslike > baby, as there are intermediate stages too.
- 3,802
Earth gets my vote for the most ignorant post for that last one.
I honestly can not believe that you have such a poor understanding of evolution that you can't grasp simple ideas such as slow transitions over millions upon millions of years, and the fact that there were creatures between these transitions.
I honestly can not believe that you have such a poor understanding of evolution that you can't grasp simple ideas such as slow transitions over millions upon millions of years, and the fact that there were creatures between these transitions.
- 8,017
- GTP_Royalton
drfterxl
I understand how creatures within a 'kind' change over time, the human race being an example in itself, but I do not think there is sufficient evidence to prove every living thing came from a cell, or that all land animals came from an early amphibian.
Natural selection is just that, a natural process. White bunnies survive better by hiding in snow so the darker ones die out and the white ones thrive. This doesnt change the bunnies into a new creature, though.drfterxl
drfterxl
There is alot of creatures that have been found that have no fossil ancestor. Fish seem to appear out of nowhere, fully formed, modern apes have no yesterday, giraffes with 3/4 the length long knecks have not been found. Even some of the earliest life, tribolytes and jelly fish are fully formed, and the only things found in rock lower then them is some bacteria and algae. There is no transitional creature, which points to a creator, [unless] you believe these transitional ancestors are yet to be found. It should be interesting to note that the Bible does not say all these creatuers were created at one time, but rather over a period of eras, or 'days'. Genesis and scientific facts agree on the general order of the appearance of life on this planet.
There is also left hand right hand shaped amino acids. If life was prepared randomly in an organic soup, there would be no reason why it should [prefer] one shape of amino acid over the other. Yet all the amino acids used in life are all one shape.
If you want your proof in being able to see or measure God, well, you can't. The Bible says he is a spirit, and a spirit is invisible to human vision. Also the Bible states earthly man cannot look upon him and live. Moses had a [glimpse] of just his [glory], and his face emitted rays. We are talking about someone who brought into existance untold trillions upon trillions of tons of gas and matter. And if God used E=MC2, the process of changing some of his energy into matter, to create the universe, his power is truly unconceiveable by humans. If I remember correctly it takes a huge amount of energy just to produce a little bit of matter. I see why we will die if we look at him.
Read Genesis 2:4 to see why a Genesis 'day' is not 24 hours long. The Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
And if anybody thinks I thought evolution states we jumped from starfish to shrew, then apeman to man, just like that, in 4 stages, I really think they are second guessing my intelligence, and I take that as an insult. I know there was suppose to be intermediate stages. Did you catch where I said 'somwhere down the line'?
I would like someone to give me a list, in order, of all [our] transitional ancestors
- 8,017
- GTP_Royalton
Famine
This article, about a few days old, says we share genetic information with a modern chimp
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2005-08-31-chimp-genes_x.htm
From the above article:
You know more about evolution than I do, so what do you have to say about this?
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I think the point is that we didn't evolve from apes - merely, humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor, hence why were are related and have large genetic similarilties...
