Scientific? I understand the scientific explanation completely and I don't think you're quite right about what happens in the womb. I'm looking for a creationist viewpoint as too why, when creating the blue print for humans, he chose that men should have nipples at any stage in development, fetus or adult. IN B4 "God works in mysterious ways"
Please stay up with the debate. Quoting things on the front page doesn't help. 1. God is not a person. Just a raw example of "I have no idea what creation is, so its false" 2. Facepalm. God is omnipotent, therefore he doesn't need magic. 3. I think everybody knows that by now. 4. Could be stated as micro evolution, but i'm not going to bother.
But why would God include such nonsensical things in life? Man-nipples? Why? (p.s. Micro and macro evolution are not real. It's just evolution; macro referred to a series of microevolutions, but that's redundant.)
How are they nonsensical? Just because we don't know what they do doesn't exactly mean its nonsensical. Not knowing something doesn't grant the right to call it nonsensical. So Macro = Micro + Time Why have we never observed an entire mutation? Because it takes miiiiiiillions of years... Oh but micro can be just a few centuries. Darwin cited evidence for “micro-evolution,” or changes on a small level between species. His discovery of the several different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands with similar characteristics, derived from a common ancestor, comprised his evidence for micro-evolution. The 14 different species of finches vary according to plumage, size (from the size of a sparrow to that of a large blackbird), beak morphology, behavior and environmental habitat. They were each very different, yet closely related. From this observation, Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or “macro-evolution.” He used the evidence from the first half of his book on micro-evolution to suggest that the same mechanism could produce all life forms. However, this concept of macro-evolution is not supported by modern scientific evidence. Although we can explain and understand the mechanism behind micro-evolution, we still can only theorize about possible explanations for macro-evolution – since it has no scientifically valid occurrences. The concept of micro-evolution – or diversification of species – is a fact of nature. Species do vary and change, but only on a small scale. We have many examples of Darwin’s finches and even the breeding history of dogs which supports the notion of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution was first understood when George Mendel demonstrated the variation within species based on genetic mechanisms. By Mendelian genetics we see the various dog species, which range from the St. Bernard to the chihuahua. The concept of micro-evolution is widely accepted today and supports the biblical notion of life reproducing after its own “kind.” In other words, it is accepted in scientific circles that all the different types of dogs most likely descended from a common canine ancestor. Evolutionists, however, have expanded the model to suggest the origin of the universe, the origin of life from non-life, the origin of amphibians from fishes, the origin of birds from reptiles, and so on. Scientists have many theories of the mechanisms behind macro-evolution, but none of them have any direct evidence. The theories are merely extrapolations from what can be seen on the smaller scale. This extrapolation is scientifically unjustified. The underlying logic behind this premise is similar to plotting the fastest times man has run the mile over the years, and then predicting that someday man will run a two or three-minute mile. Anyone realizes that there are limits to valid extrapolation. Likewise, Darwinian macro-evolution is undergoing tremendous scrutiny in scientific circles because of the lack of evidence. When one examines the historical record of life, we find the absence of transitional forms between the major life groups such as fish and amphibians or reptiles and birds. The fossil record has failed to yield the host of transitional forms demanded by the theory of macro-evolution. Rather, the fossils show an abrupt appearance of very distinct groups of animals. Take, for example, the supposed“fish-to-amphibian” transition. The general assumption has been that the earliest amphibians evolved from the order of fish, the Rhipidistia. However, there are major differences between the earliest assumed amphibians, the Ichtyostega, and its presumed fish ancestor. The differences are not simply a few small bone changes but are enormous structural differences. The fossil record actually supports the model of creation. The Genesis account of creation states that God created the various kinds of plants, birds, fishes and animals on earth. From the creation model, one would expect to see an abrupt appearance of life forms as well as distinct and separate groups. The fossil record shows exactly that, not a history of gradual change from one major kind of life to another. The entire theme throughout the book of Genesis is that life reproduces after its own kind. Darwin’s finches still reproduce finches. It is a testimony to the creativity of God that He has created so many different forms of life, and even placed the great genetic potential for variation within the first creatures. Natural selection over the years has only drawn upon that great genetic potential as Charles Darwin observed. Natural selection brings out the diversity of life but cannot create new major groups of life as macro-evolution would postulate.
Well you could word it that way if that was your intention. I prefer to say that we're all female in the womb and males only later activate the hormones in their Y to initiate gender differentiation. I really view females as the base gender while males an accessory to gender but that's another story all-together.
What practical purpose do man-nipples serve? It's like building a school and then slapping a "Bob's Big Boy" statue on top. But fine, I guess we just haven't found out why God gave men this aesthetic touch. :| (p.s. What I was saying was that macro just points out a series of related changes. Ahh, I dunno. I'll nap now because I've been running on adrenaline this week; not healthy at all.)
As my last argument in anything on the debate forum, I'm posting this: Evolutionists claim that the process of life started something like this. In the beginning, there was nothing; just a void vacuum. Then there was a primordial explosion, which formed everything, constantly expanding the universe (known as the Big Bang Theory). The energy from the explosion interacted, forming protons/neutrons; all matter interacted and collided, forming the first basic elements. The elements then collided and interacted, as the universe expanded, and through millions of years, and cosmic/particulate evolution, formed galaxies from clusters of stars. In a cloud of gas in our galaxy, our sun formed, giving birth to all the planets, asteroids, and moons. Soon, Earth had formed an atmosphere, filled with lightning. This lightning combined chemical to produce the simplest life forms.After millions of years of mutations/natural selection, sea invertebrates appeared, then evolving into fish with backbones. Some fish developed into amphibians, then to reptiles, then to mammals, then to primates. An isolated group of primates became into man's earliest ancestors. In general, there are two views on the universe's formation: Evolution, and Creation. Both Evolutionists and Creationists agree that there is variety among species, that mutations occur in DNA, that animals adapt, and there is natural selection, or “survival of the fittest”. Mutations are good at explaining the origin of disease, but not something new that never existed - all mutations come from already existing genes. If the Big Bang ever happened, it would cause chaos and spontaneous degeneration, not order/new things and spontaneous generation. For example, think about all the explosions in the history of mankind (e.g. September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers in NYC.). Has a single one of those explosions ever caused new non-pre-existing life to spontaneously generate? No! And so therefore the Big Bang really couldn't have happened. Furthermore, the theory of Evolution directly contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The second law states that as time progresses, the entire universe is less ordered (also called entropy). We see this everyday: people are aging, skyscrapers crumbling, apples rotting, etc. In fact, the Bible also explains entropy in Psalm 102:25-26. Therefore, if things get less ordered, there must have been a time when the Universe was ordered (in the Bible's case, the Garden of Eden. After the Serpent caused Adam and Eve to sin, God cursed the ground and started death and disease). Therefore, time and space had a beginning (2 Timothy 1:8-9) The theory of Cosmic/Particulate Evolution states that the solar system was formed from a swirling mound of dust and gas. Then, as it gathered together, the planets, moon, and sun were formed from that swirling mound of dust and gas. Therefore, all planets should be made up of the same things, right? Wrong! Each planet is unique. If over 98% of the Sun is composed of hydrogen and helium, then Mercury, Venus, and Earth should all be mainly hydrogen and helium, but less than 1% of those planets are. If the universe evolved, then all planets should spin in the same direction, right? But no. Pluto and Venus spin backwards, while Uranus spins like a wheel. Also, moons should all spin one way, right? No! At least 6 moons have backwards rotations. Evolutionists might propose that small meteors striking the planets would make it turn, but however most of those explosions would be self cancelling, therefore causing a non-moving planet., but yet all planets spin, some faster then others. To grow a far away gaseous planet from the sun is impossible, because gas dissipates rapidly in the vacuum in space. Our young sun doesn't have enough hydrogen and helium to even produce a single Jupiter, let alone Saturn and Uranus. Again, there is no scientific reason to explain why four planets have rings, while 4 don't (Pluto is not considered a planet, according to NASA in 2006). There is no reasonable scientific theory on how the earth's moon had formed. The current theory states that a foreign meteor struck the earth and bounced slowly off, but the earth's elements are too dissimilar to that of the moon’s. Furthermore, the circular plane and orbit imply that the moon was created in its present orbit. There are many parameters and ratios that are so fine-tuned that if you adjust them just a bit, life becomes impossible (that is also called the anthropic principle). If the earth is just 5% closer or 1% farther from the Sun, then the earth would become too hot or too cold. For example: If the Earth turned at a different speed or the mass was a little bit different, the atmosphere would be too much or too little, causing extreme hotness or extreme coldness. If the Earth’s gravity was too much, the atmospheric pressure would crush everyone, and if there was too little gravity, there would be too little atmospheric pressure, causing all the oxygen to float off the earth. The thickness of the crust (controls surface temperature), rotation period (controls length of seasons and days), gravitational interaction with the moon (controls tides), etc. are all necessary for the existence of life. To the Christian, this comes to no surprise. In Isaiah 45:18, the verse reads, “For this is what the LORD says – he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited – he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.” To the Evolutionist, the way life was created came from the simplest of the simple: chemical compounds. This region of evolution is called the Theory of Chemical Evolution: that all living things once were chemicals. This theory is also called “spontaneous generation”. However, in Biology class, you learn something called the Law of Biogenesis, which states that life only comes from pre-existing life. Therefore, the theory of chemical evolution completely contradicts the Law of Biogenesis, because we all now that chemicals are non-living. However, in the 1970’s, a person named Stanley Miller did an experiment. He put in the four supposed gas compounds of the primordial earth at that time. They were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water vapour (H2O) and put them in a flask. Then he put an electrical spark in there to simulate the lightning flashing back and forth. In just weeks, he produced amino acids, the “building blocks of life”. However, three problems arose: 1. Stanley Miller used the wrong materials. 2. Stanley had the wrong conditions, and 3. Stanley got the wrong results. Ammonia couldn’t have been present because UV rays actively decompose ammonia (NH3), and methane (CH4)should be in sedimentary clay, but it isn’t. miller also left out oxygen (O2), because he knew it would destroy the very amino acids he was trying to create. (Wrong Materials) Miller knew that the spark would combine the NH3, CH4, and H2O, but he also knew it would destroy them, so he circulated the gasses, trapping out what he wanted, but that would be cheating. (Wrong Conditions) The main creation from the experiment was tar (produced ~85%), a nuisance in biochemical creations which is toxic, carboxylic acids (~13%) which are also toxic, and amino acids (~2%). Furthermore, the experiment produced both right-handed and left-handed amino acids, but only left-handed amino acids can produce life, and all it takes is one right-handed amino acid to destroy the protein chain. (Wrong Results) Long chains of amino acids (about 2000-3000) in exactly the right position are needed to make the one molecule of protein. Even worse for Evolutionists is that amino acids don’t naturally link, but rather tend to break down. The Information Theory Scientist, Hubert Yockey, and MIT Biologist Robert Sauer confirmed that the probability of a protein containing only 100 amino acids long forming spontaneously is about 1/10 to the 65th power. A comparison is like winning the lottery by finding the winning ticket in the street every week for 1000 years. Even if amino acids miraculously formed one single protein molecule, that still isn’t life. Even the simplest cells require thousands of proteins to function properly. Sir Fred Hoyle, a mathematician, using a supercomputer and several graduate students, estimated the probability of an amoeba’s proteins (2000) arising by chance, and the result was 1/10 to the 40 000th power. For comparison, snatching any single atom from the universe is 1/10 to the 80th power. Any single nucleus of a cell has an informational database larger than the 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Evolution states that [energy + matter] can, occasionally, produce new life. However, what most people don’t notice is that the entire food industry rests on the fact that this never happens. If we look at a can of peanut butter, we notice that it has both matter, and is exposed to heat and light, but we open it and – there’s no life, and aren’t you surprised? You’d only find life in it if it were contaminated by an outside source (mold, etc.). Thank you, and good day!
Im sorry but I stopped reading after that... honestly? Like, really? You are comparing the explosions at 911 to the immensity of what the big bang was? Do you think it was a random little 'pop' of air and bam, universe? Now Im not the one to go into explaining the big bang, but honestly, how can you try and compare what would be the biggest explosion ever to 911? Thats all I wanna say... because that really was a horrid example to use, and 'therefore, does NOT disprove the big bang theory.'
Yea, I stopped reading after I realized how little he knew about science. I red a few of his points after that, and I m not in the mood to go 1 by 1 and explain them all. I'll let somebody else do that. Instead, I'll just ask this: No matter how small the chances are of all of that happening, the chance of god happening is even smaller. The chance of a being somehow existing that has ultimate knowledge, power, and the ability to fundamentally alter our universe, is much less than the chance of our moon somehow forming and life beginning on earth. The God of the Gaps is not a valid argument. Showing that our abiogenesis theories are wrong DOES NOT mean your theory is god. If we need proof for you to believe our theories, you need proof for yours, also.
physics of our planet from planes hitting buildings is the perfect comparison to the big bang.[EXTREME sarcasm] I stopped reading there. Guys seriously, dont reply to that guy or bother reading that long post. it's pointless. He also wont reply and ignore what anybody else says anyway... Guys if you're going to say something here at least hang around to back yourself up. It's ignorant and cowardish if you just up and leave the forum after saying what you have to say.
Hey! don't single out people.. And guys, you can't attempt to debate him when you don't bother reading his full argument. Just because one point may be false (or however many points) doesn't mean he's wrong in everything. @Zerling: "Showing that our abiogenesis theories are wrong DOES NOT mean your theory is god. If we need proof for you to believe our theories, you need proof for yours, also." This is the creation vs evolution debate, its not one sided like the God debate. He never stated biogenesis proves God, he's trying to show that evolution can't happen, not that because evolution is false a Creator exists. EDIT: I'm pretty sure he said its his last argument, not post. (may be wrong though)
If you think creation is true, then you are obviously "challenged". Evolution has so many facts backing it up, I can't see how you can possible say its fake. Unlike Evolution, Creation just has a shitload of people that think God is the only reason they have for living, and the rest of the world doesn't want to turn their "Everything was made by God theory" down, so they still keep it up for debate. But if you have the slightest bit of common sense, I'm sure you'll understand the fact that even though following religion is good, Science has the hard facts and answers to our actual past, and not just some made up tales.
Whoops, I mean creationism, not god. Anyways, what he is arguing is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution explains how life has become what it is now, starting with the first organism. Abiogenesis is a much less agreed upon field, which explains how the first life was formed. We should probably make a new topic for abiogenesis- I don't want people being confused by the two.
Just thought of something. On a small scale, natural selection is constantly in effect with the influenza virus. Think about it, they have to make a new vaccine yearly to keep up with the the constantly changing strain. It changes because one little guy out of billions grows immune through mutation and continues to spread. The same could easily apply to all other life, which it does. Flies growing immune to insecticides is another example, one or two are born with natural immunities, survive and spread again. It's why they tell you not to overdo it with one kind of bug killer. How can you say evolution isnt happening?
Posts like these are I why I hate debates. Please, oh I beg you, show me this all evidence, don't just say "WELL DUD EVOLUTIN IS TRU CUZ IT HAZ FACTS BUT CREATION IZ JUST LIEK MADE UP STUFF YA KNOW AND COMMON SENSE YEA" What you're doing is attempting to prove evolution by saying there are hard facts, and not actually showing any. "Science is the answer to our past". Evolution was massively recognized in the very early 20th century. Belief in God was massively recognized before Jesus was around.. which is 2 thousand years before evolution. Now can someone tell me exactly why we have AD and BC?
Because when we decided to make a good timekeeping system, we needed a distinct point to base it on. Since the Church made a new calendar that kept time quite well, (the Gregorian calendar) that was the one that was used more often. The important thing to note here is that Pope Gregory XIII made this calendar, so of course he would pick a great Bible event to base time on. Not a great source, but still.
It was an example... Not nearly as big as your "Big bang" Try thinking of something like... Hiroshima Just because it was a bad example doesn't make the rest of my argument a worthless piece of ****. Read it. To CreepyChuck: I'm replying... Who's childish now? To Zergling (haha I play starcraft too!): I never said that your biogenesis theories are wrong, I'm saying the THEORY of macro evolution is wrong. We're not debating biogenesis, are we? The reason i capitolized theory was because most people leave the fact that, like creation, it is a theory, not a fact. Evolutionists and creationists have the same right to believe what they want without being insulted/penalized for their beliefs. You'd probably be okay with religion being illegal in north america, but you'd freak out if you'd be arrested for believeing in the theory of evolution. I'd freak out either way, because I believe everyone is equal. Oh, and if you believe in evolution, you're a sexist and a racist. This is because in the book "Evolution and the origins of man" written by charles darwin, it is written that anyone who isn't caucasian is less evolved than whiteys. And he also wrote that men can beat women at anything if they wanted to. Now, we both know these are wrong. So, why do you still believe in evolution? You'll say "I don't agree with parts of the theory, but I believe in it in general." So, why don't you do this for arguments that have good and bad parts? Because you're too ignorant to do that. You don't believe everyone is equal. If you're wrong on part of a topic you were talking about, and someone else is in the same situation, you're automatically 90% right while the other person is 100% wrong. If a person opposing you has one little flaw, they're worth nothing to you. Don't even try to deny this. Pigglez, Creepy CHUCK, and you are all perfect examples of this. There are no chances of an omnipotent creator. There just is. The chances are infinite out of infinite. An omnipotent being is incomprehensible. There is no beginning, and no end. As humans, we only understand time. To an infinite being, time is irrelevant. Let's take this by example. Could you imagine for me a color that is not able to be made up by either red, yellow, or blue? No. Can you imagine a measurement that is bigger and smaller than any measurements we currently have? No. To us, it seems impossible. People that believe in religion release themselves to the fact that they won't understand. Atheists, try to understand everything. The only thing is, they can't. It is physically impossible for a human to know everything. That's why there are questions out there like "If a tree falls in the woods, does anyone hear it?". It is simply people trying to make sense of the place we inhabit. It is pointless because we can never completely understand. Think about this. Can you ever really understand how the universe has no boundaries? No. You can think you do, but really, you don't. Can you ever imagine a satellite that just keeps floating on and on forever? No, you cant. All of your imagination has to come to an end. You can't do it. If you surrendered yourself to the fact that everything is unexplainable, you'd just know. That's the only way to explain it. Now, after people read this, I'm gonna get a whole lot of posts saying "What the ****? That's the proof of creation you have? Wow. You're a moron." It is this way because most atheists do the exact same thing they think creationists do. They're going to deny it, plug their ears and start quoting Darwin's theory, and then get mad when anyone tries to explain otherwise to them. To aMeoba That one point isn't false, just a bad example... You can find many of these on both side of this debate if you look far enough back. And, yes, I never said there was a God. You just assumed that was exactly what I was saying. Separate Assume. ASS | U | ME. You make an ass out of you and me when you do this. In conclusion, the main point is that LIFE cannot be formed by accident. It has to be formed by PRE EXISTING LIFE. The theory of evolution contradicts this. Making it scientifically impossible. Is it that hard to understand?