Creation over Evolution

[Prometheus]

Australopithecus evolved into the genus Homo, which evolved into Homo habilis and ultimately Homo erectus which lived between 1.5 million to 300 thousand years ago. Molecular biology however gives us a common ancestor which lived ~50,000 years ago. This is while making calculations based on a generous population figure for the evolutionist theory. If we make the calculations based on a larger population figure as evolutionists wants us to belief is the case then we actually get our common ancestor at up to 25,000 years ago.

So molecular biology disproofs that our common ancester evolved from Homo habilis since it was extinct by that time. So much for poor feeble Lucy which hasn't even been proven to have walked upright.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b47d7b94f92.htm

btw. 37 references were used for this article. I just love it when an evolutionist's own science proves him wrong...

 

[Prometheus]

It seems creationists doesn't have to prove any of their theories since the evolutionists are doing it for them.

 

[Rkootknir]

Australopithecus evolved into the genus Homo, which evolved into Homo habilis and ultimately Homo erectus which lived between 1.5 million to 300 thousand years ago. Molecular biology however gives us a common ancestor which lived ~50,000 years ago. This is while making calculations based on a generous population figure for the evolutionist theory. If we make the calculations based on a larger population figure as evolutionists wants us to belief is the case then we actually get our common ancestor at up to 25,000 years ago.

So molecular biology disproofs that our common ancester evolved from Homo habilis since it was extinct by that time. So much for poor feeble Lucy which hasn't even been proven to have walked upright.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b47d7b94f92.htm

btw. 37 references were used for this article. I just love it when an evolutionist's own science proves him wrong...

Your information seems incomplete. Currently it is thought that hominid evolution proceeded as follows:

Homo habilis: 2.4mil - 1.5mil years ago
Homo erectus: 1.8mil - 0.3mil years ago
Homo heidelbergensis (Homo sapiens): 0.5mil - 0.2mil years ago
Homo neanderthalensis (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis): 0.23mil - 0.03mil years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens: 0.195mil years ago - current

[edit]
If you intentionally leave out some of the steps then it will seem that there are "gaps", so don't do it. It fails one of the basic requirements of a relevant argument: true representation of the other side's view.

It seems creationists doesn't have to prove any of their theories since the evolutionists are doing it for them.

Since creationists are the ones postulating a theory other than that of the TOE, the burden of proof falls on them to construct such a theory and provide us with the evidence, mechanisms (Goddidit ATM) and predictions of said theory.

Evolutionary biologists are finding new evidence all the time, and for some reason, it all fits in with the TOE.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Actually quantum physics is hindering the working of your computer, since it makes it unreliable, which is why Intel cannot seem to reach 5Ghz on their Pentium chips.

please provide me with proof of this. as with any device there are physical limitations. do you suggest an alternative method to fit 100 million transistors on a chip without using quantum theory? if it wasn't for this we would still be stuck using vacuum tubes with computers the size of a city block.

 

[JBFRobisher]

Since the blasted creation lovers persist in arguing, please would one of them explain, in terms of their viewpoint, why over 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Your god cock it up?

 

[Prometheus]

Evolutionary biologists are finding new evidence all the time, and for some reason, it all fits in with the TOE.

Seems you're missing a few viewpoints from your own biologists. But that's excusable seeing that the evolutionists participating in this discussion seem to be so mucked up in the head that they call their theory for the creation of life the most astoundingly stupid thing they've ever read. And if you think I was being unfair about that comment, I am only following the lead of the people who decided to get nasty on this forum and resort to using rude names. If you can dish it out then you should be able to take it.

please provide me with proof of this. as with any device there are physical limitations. do you suggest an alternative method to fit 100 million transistors on a chip without using quantum theory? if it wasn't for this we would still be stuck using vacuum tubes with computers the size of a city block.

The physical limitations are in fact due to quantum physics. Silicon transistors can't reach atom size, because quantum effects cause them to function unreliably. Now scientists have to find new devices to use in place of silicone transistors. I guess however that with your limited brain capacity you're somehow unable to understand this.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

The physical limitations are in fact due to quantum physics. Silicon transistors can't reach atom size, because quantum effects cause them to function unreliably. Now scientists have to find new devices to use in place of silicone transistors. I guess however that with your limited brain capacity you're somehow unable to understand this.

lol no need to pick on my brain capacity, im not the one saying that we magically appeared from grains of dust. regarding the microprocessor issue, i advise you to do some research before commenting. i refer you to the follwing link:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/quantum-leap/2006/03/05/1141493547589.html

The biggest barrier to the future of semiconductor manufacture is the transistors' size, which need to shrink to fit in the same amount of space. The pathways etched into the original 4004 processor in 1971 were 10 microns wide, about 1/10th the width of a human hair. But the pathways on the latest Intel processors are 65 nanometres (nm) wide, or about 1/1500th the width of a human hair.

Dr Steve Duvall, a microprocessor engineer and 23-year veteran and a fellow at Intel, expects things to go even further in the future, "down to below 5 nm, possibly even 1 nm, although there's probably a practical limit at 10 nm".

Given the width of your average atom is only about 1/10th of a nanometre, we're getting to the point where the atoms themselves are simply too big and clunky for our engineering purposes. A remarkable situation, to say the least.

Even with continual developments in semiconductor materials, manufacturing and an emphasis on parallelism rather than producing faster and faster single chips, the days of the microprocessor as we know it appear to be numbered. The US-based Semiconductor Industry Association sees a point in about 15 years where the barriers to continued scaling of transistors get the better of us.

At this point we depart from conventional semiconductor engineering and go quantum in order to see computing's future.

the physical limitation is in fact due to the size of the actual transistors and that the insulating barrier between a transistor gate and its channel between source and drain is continuously shrinking in order to accomodate more transistors. eventually the size of this channel will reach a point where the actual atom is larger than the channel. at this point quantum tunneling comes into effect. if you're an electrical engineer you'll know what im talking about. if not, and if you're going to question something, please provide proof. you are yet to provide a link stating that quantum mechanics is the cause, on the contrary its the solution to the dilemma facing the semiconductor industry. i take it that you've heard of moore's law? this applies to semiconductor technology, not quantum mechanics.

 

[nocilah]

hrmm i think this will all end when they develop the quantum cpu or even better the hyper dimensional cube cpu. as the article above states... atoms are getting to clunky and i think it might force engineers to start thinking laterally...

but what has this got to do with evolution vs creation?

what if God made it so that the world evovled?

 

[Highflyer_GP]

but what has this got to do with evolution vs creation?

that according to certain people (no names mentioned ) evolution is just another scientific theory. and according to said people, scientific theory has no factual basis.

what if God made it so that the world evovled?

then that would completely debunk the story about creation and basically everything the bible states about how we came into being. one would then question everything the bible states. which is why creationists will not see things any other way, because it would ultimately go against everything they believe in.

PS: prom no disrespect mate. even though some of us have opposing views from you and and others, lets not let personal beliefs degrade us into personal attacks regarding brain capacity and the like

 

[nocilah]

Since the blasted creation lovers persist in arguing, please would one of them explain, in terms of their viewpoint, why over 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Your god cock it up?

so lets get this right.

there is a whole bunch of goo on earth. somehow something happens and we have the first amino acids forming that start to form protiens that over time build more proteins and eventually dna is born and thus the building block of life.

now i read somewhere that for just the amino acids to happen is like getting the equivalent of a 37 symbled 30km slot machine to get all the same pictures to win the prize. chances are something insane... but somehow it happened.

further more to get protiens and eventually some form of a dna is something of the same but to the power of 1000 or a billion or something even more absurd, random and 1 in a billion to the power of a billion million zillion.

but that happened.

now from simple dna strands we start having the formation of cells. amebo's that have no concious thought, but are merely cells that decide one day that they should form organisms. these organisms eventually decide to become more and begin to form the beggenings of some form of animal. cells decide to become eyes... ears etc...

but this also happened...

i could go on and on but i fail to see the accident in all of this. to say we are accidental. Sure i think evolution happened and IS happening. todeny that is being plain stupid. But i think somehow there must have been some form of devine intervention. wether that devine intervention can be described as a God or the very energy that holds us together, the earth and the universe.

i have an interesting question for evolutionists... why is it that man is the ONLY animal that can think. that has some form of consioucness? Why didn't other animals inheret this kind of mind? Is this related purely to brain size? If so are octopus more intelligent then man?

 

[Prometheus]

Halicon I applaud you for realising that under such high odds it cannot be considered a mere accident. You seem to be more intelligent that most of the people on this forum.

PS: prom no disrespect mate. even though some of us have opposing views from you and and others, lets not let personal beliefs degrade us into personal attacks regarding brain capacity and the like

Firstly, I am not the one who resorted to terms such as "Spaghetti Monster" so I'm sure you can see the reason I feel like resorting to personal attacks. If you are not part of that group then I apologise for this, but I didn't see you standing up against it either.
Secondly, if you followed the posts carefully you can actually see that it was the evolutionists who first introduced the term "creation" (as if they have something to fear from it) when I wasn't planning on doing anything of the kind. I didn't suggest that "so in other words creationists insist that something magical up there descended upon us, took two grains of dust, created adam and eve and thats how we came to be?". You suggested that.

if God exists outside the physical universe then surely he can have his way outside the universe and he has no effect on what exists inside? kinda like you existing on earth but being able to water plants on pluto

No, it's like you stepping on an ant hill. You are not part of the ant's universe, but you can surely cause major disruption to their world.

With all these evolutionists seeming so hellbent on trying to convince people that their theory is absolute fact that they have to resort to rude names, none of them seem to have realised that there is in fact a third option which could in fact fit in with both theories. Does Planet X ring any bells at all? Isn't it possible that this is in fact the biblical Eden which no human will set foot in ever again?

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Halicon I applaud you for realising that under such high odds it cannot be considered a mere accident. You seem to be more intelligent that most of the people on this forum.

Firstly, I am not the one who resorted to terms such as "Spaghetti Monster" so I'm sure you can see the reason I feel like resorting to personal attacks. If you are not part of that group then I apologise for this, but I didn't see you standing up against it either.

neither did i refer to anything as spaghetti monster. if you read my other posts on similar topics in the past you'd see that regardless of my own belief, i respect everyone elses beliefs. after all we each entitled to our own opinion right? and if i didn't stand up against using derogatory terms then i apologise, but it would be like repeating myself over and over again asking people to respect others beliefs. if they dont want to, well theres nothing i can do about that

back on topic, and re the high odds: have a look at the sheer size of the universe. billions of galaxies, each galaxy containing billions of stars and planets. why is it hard to believe that considering the sheer amount of amount of matter that exists in the universe that life evolved on earth?perhaps conditions were ideal for life to evolve here. yes its a small chance, but a chance nonetheless.

re the ant hill: i can cause disruption to their world, but i cannot create an ant with super intelligence nor influence their decisions either positively or negatively. that is left for themselves to sort out. also i cannot determine who has been a good ant or a bad ant, because the ants definition of good and bad may vary between each individual. at this point you'd probably bring in the commandments into the equation, but consider that the commandments were written into the bible by mortal men. if i send an ant who claims to be my son to communicate my ideal commandments to the other ants, this would then make me an ant too which we all know isnt true. so the question remains, why humans? why does "God" portray himself as human by choosing to send J3sus in human form? why not send him as a dolphin? surely we cant be so conceited to think that earth was created soley for humans, and animals created to serve humans. what about the rest of the universe? why create one planet among trillions and trillions on which to create life? why create the other planets and stars in the first place?

 

[Prometheus]

neither did i refer to anything as spaghetti monster. if you read my other posts on similar topics in the past you'd see that regardless of my own belief, i respect everyone elses beliefs.

I know you didn't. I know exactly who said it and who agreed with it. Again, if you were mistakenly treated like that group then I apologise for it. Sorry for that misunderstanding.

 

[jabulani]

Firstly, I am not the one who resorted to terms such as "Spaghetti Monster" so I'm sure you can see the reason I feel like resorting to personal attacks.

With all these evolutionists seeming so hellbent on trying to convince people that their theory is absolute fact that they have to resort to rude names, none of them seem to have realised that there is in fact a third option which could in fact fit in with both theories. Does Planet X ring any bells at all? Isn't it possible that this is in fact the biblical Eden which no human will set foot in ever again?

You lot are so blinded by your religion that you assume the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster posts were personal attacks. Not so. To put it simply so that maybe even you get the message - there is no more evidence about the existence and identity of the so-called "creator" to suggest your biblical god as opposed to our pasta one. Other than primitive myth and legend, that are as credible in a literal sense as Jacob Zuma.

You, Prometheus, also miss the point I made earlier about "scientific fact", that it is not absolute fact but humankind's "best effort". You should maybe do some reading on the nature of scientific knowledge.

I don't know about Planet X - the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster has Planet Y where he does his cooking - its out beyond the Kuiper Belt. Does Planet X suggest we are actually aliens from outer space?? You and Manto should compare notes!

Ramen! Noodly!

 

[pupa]

You lot are so blinded by your religion that you assume the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster posts were personal attacks. Not so. To put it simply so that maybe even you get the message - there is no more evidence about the existence and identity of the so-called "creator" to suggest your biblical god as opposed to our pasta one. Other than primitive myth and legend, that are as credible in a literal sense as Jacob Zuma.

You, Prometheus, also miss the point I made earlier about "scientific fact", that it is not absolute fact but humankind's "best effort". You should maybe do some reading on the nature of scientific knowledge.

I don't know about Planet X - the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster has Planet Y where he does his cooking - its out beyond the Kuiper Belt. Does Planet X suggest we are actually aliens from outer space?? You and Manto should compare notes!

Ramen! Noodly!

You sound like a antichrist, a non religieos individual that have nothing to live for. Shame! The boer's called them now a now ilegal name so I will rephrain from using it. I would then be blamed racist again!
I pity folks like you. Shame again! The world can just become one great party as there is nothing else out there, we have no reason to exist and all will end one day with nothing left of the human race the "Fluke" existence of man would just end!

 

[nocilah]

back on topic, and re the high odds: have a look at the sheer size of the universe. billions of galaxies, each galaxy containing billions of stars and planets. why is it hard to believe that considering the sheer amount of amount of matter that exists in the universe that life evolved on earth?perhaps conditions were ideal for life to evolve here. yes its a small chance, but a chance nonetheless.

if you localise everything that is required to start life which scientifically is a huge question mark, but assuming it as they say. amino acids... the chances of that happening are not small, they are incredibly small. so small in fact it would be 1 in so many zero's i would crash this server trying to fill it with the zero's.

but the fact remains. we are alive here and today however it may have started.

if you want to read a great objective an subjective book on the subject and many other intersting subjects read: A short hostory of almost everything.

there the author describes what has been established wrt evolution and the building blocks of life. incredibly fascinating and interesting stuff.

 

[arf9999]

This is the most entertaining thread in ages!!

I think that the argument can be broken down in one line:

The story of creation vs. the theory of evolution.
Neither of them is neccessarily true, but at least the theory is investigated and put to some kind of testing.

Just for those on the forum who have brought the proverbial knife to an intellectual gunfight, here are some definitions of scientific theory and an overview of the scientific method:
http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

edit: Just so you know where I stand on this issue: it is my opinion that the rejection of the three central tenets of the Enlightenment (i.e. the use of reason, the scientific method, and the importance of progress), means that we may as well be wearing skins and worshipping the sun. The one thing that separates homo sapiens from the rest of the species in the world is our ability to reason in the abstract - or so I thought until I read some of the drivel written here.

 

[arf9999]

You sound like a antichrist, a non religieos individual that have nothing to live for. Shame! The boer's called them now a now ilegal name so I will rephrain from using it. I would then be blamed racist again!
I pity folks like you. Shame again! The world can just become one great party as there is nothing else out there, we have no reason to exist and all will end one day with nothing left of the human race the "Fluke" existence of man would just end!

If you need to find meaning for your existence in a book written by semi-civilised nomads, go for it...

 

[icyrus]

You sound like a antichrist, a non religieos individual that have nothing to live for. Shame! The boer's called them now a now ilegal name so I will rephrain from using it. I would then be blamed racist again!
I pity folks like you. Shame again! The world can just become one great party as there is nothing else out there, we have no reason to exist and all will end one day with nothing left of the human race the "Fluke" existence of man would just end!

Do you pity the ancient Greeks who believed in Zeus and the rest of Olympus? They to believed in the super-natural and pitied anyone who didn't share their beliefs. Eventually time moved on, and so did people's beliefs. What makes you think yours will not share the same fate?

People are allowed to believe whatever they like so you are completely entitled to yours, but save your pity for something that doesn't make you look like a fool.

 

[jabulani]

You sound like a antichrist, a non religieos individual that have nothing to live for. Shame!

I pity folks like you. Shame again!

Thanks man! You know, one of the more attractive traits of some religious people is a genuine concern for their fellow man, so I appreciate your concern. However, I would prefer you save your sympathy for those who 1. deserve it and 2. want it. I have plenty to live for! I'll have to answer some of these posts more fully when my brain is more in gear - today is Pasta Sunday in our church, and I have so overindulged in the sacrament of lasagne that I fear I cannot think clearly.

Ramen, brothers!