Creationism vs. Evolution

[Voar Tok 4]

Barbarossa: Personally, I don't find what you said to be very logical at all. For example, one of the touted sources of life is that we came from some sort of oozy liquid or something to which energy was applied and it became alive. So, by that theory, I'm supposed to believe that something like the vanilla coke I'm drinking, if I apply electricity to it (since the theory generally cites the source of energy as probably being lightning) that my drink will eventually live. I think not.

Now, something I've always wondered about but no one has ever been able to show to me is this. Evolution relies on objects that have the characteristics necessary to support life actually taking it on. So, here's the question - why do people just die? Only minutes after someone just dies, nothing has changed from the way they were when they were alive only minutes earlier, and the whole ability to revive people all rests on the fact that a person can be dead but their body is still capable of supporting life. So what's changed? Alternatively, why do inanimate objects on a person's desk remain inanimate and never change into a better substance. We papers that we know have been in existence for thousands of years, yet the only thing any of them has ever done is decompose. We never see even the slightest hint of anything happening to precipitate life among non-living objects.

Also, there's this thing about mutations. For all the stuff about them being so benign and stuff, why does the body have cells that are specifically designed to find and destroy mutated cells? Why do the elderly tend to have so many health problems? As people get older, their cells are less likely to reproduce accurately, which means mutations go up, and the more mutations their are, the more abnormally things tend to work, and the more their overall health tends to suck. This is what happened to Dolly the sheep. She was created from an adult sheep - an adult sheep that had seemingly benign mutations in her cellular makeup. Those mutations were copied into Dolly, and the rest of the history on Dolly's demise is history.

I won't say what it is just yet, but one of America's most feared diseases is nothing more than a series of seemingly benign mutations.

psycho_teddy: Creationism and micro-evolution are not mutually exclusive. For example, while it can't be proven that God gave anyone the ability to adapt, neither can it be proven that He didn't. This is one of those cases where it's one person's word against another's. Personally, I would argue that it's not at all an unreasonable belief, assuming you believe in Creation. It's obvious that living things have the ability to adapt. To me, it's fairly obvious that everything we see in this world didn't just evolve from some magical goop turned unicellular organism.

Almost all of the time, what these debates boil down to is an inability or refusal to accept that there may be more to reality than what either one theory is proposing. Things are rarely either one or the other.

The other thing is this. You said that in the Creationist thinking, there's background assumptions that create an inherent desire to make data fit the viewpoint. This exists on every side of every topic that will ever come before scientific review. There are full-blown, scientifically acceptable procedures on how to throw out data you don't like, and I'd be more than willing to bet that you could ask just about any scientist you wanted and if they were being completely honest with you, they'd tell you that at some point in their career, they've had moments when the data didn't support their theory and they tried to make it fit anyway.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: Odainsaker Hehe, wait till you start discussing history curriculums in schools, and you'll see how willing we are to distort the issues to fit around our own belief system.

I went to a high school in Texas were the issues surrounding the U.S. Civil War could NOT be mentioned in terms of slavery. Failing grade if you anywhere used the politically incorrect S-word. Instead, you had to limit yourself to describing the issues of the "War of Northern Aggression" in terms of northern economic domination and the struggle for "States Rights" while carefully avoiding mentioning just exactly what right it was that the states wished to exercise (such as engaging in slavery *gasp*) or the most controversial pillar of the economy of the South (slavery, doh!). It was reduced to arguing Douglas's points in refutation of Lincoln while never analytically looking at the bigger historical picture...it was absurd!

Here we are teaching our children political self-censorship and doublethink, and science classes are the other battlefield. On the same grounds of protecting religious beliefs, maybe at the requisite equal airing mention of Christian Creationism before lauching into evolution, I should have also demanded an equal hearing of Hawaiian creation myths centering on the gods Kane and Pele. Of course, doing that would have gotten me get hauled off for disrupting a class by administrators blind to the hypocrisy of the situation. That is why school boards who devise overall curriculum guidelines are the other favorite political battleground, and why science, which by its nature undercuts even the most tightly held assumptions, remains a populist target.

quote>

Same here, the Crusades were never discussed in my world history class, and we just brushed over the Salem Witch Trials.  Gotta love selective curriculums...

[MayorTim 16]

Originally posted by: city11

Originally posted by: MayorTim

Originally posted by: dalmatianfan2020 Now, I hope this has been mentioned before, but I don't have the time to read all 9 pages of this.

How I, and my church feel (The Episcopal Church) is that evolution is God's doing. I mean, there really isn't anything, that I know of at least, that completely shuts God out of it. Basically, we feel that God got it all started, and it just went from there. We Anglicans take the "accident" part out if Evolution. That's the only difference between us and hard scientists I'd say. God knew what he was doing, and he did it for a reason.

Science says: The Universe started with the "BIG BANG," well, what if God started it? What if God saying "Let there be light" was the Bang?

Also, the 7 day creation story: The Georgian calendar didn't exist back then. 7 Days could be millions of years for all we know.

-The evolution of man does not necessarily mean Adam and Eve couldn't have existed, I don't think anyway

Humans are such stupid creatures, all things considered, that it is really fairly pointless to try and make sense of the Universe.quote>

But to do that, you'd have to throw away Genesis. Also, there is still no scientific proof of what your saying, it seems to me like your simply trying to mold your beliefs around recent scientific findings.

Originally posted by: city11 As a man that believes in Creationism...I have just one thing to say....You may have your single celled organisms that evovled into larger organisms...but how do explain where that single celled organism came from...or where that evolved from...there has to be one great being that started everything....everything has a beginningquote>

I'm not an expert on this, so don't bother quoting it, but I'm pretty sure this has been explained by molecules forming together in tidal pools over millions of years.

I also think that the Christian approach of trying to prove their religion by disproving evolution is really ridiculous.quote>

 

But where then did those molecules that formed the organisms come from?...do you see what I am getting at?quote>

I'd assume molecules were formed by atoms.

For the the purpose of this discussion, I need not go farther than that, as I think everyone is in agreeance that there were plenty of atoms on Earth at the life's origin.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: MayorTim

Originally posted by: City11

But where then did those molecules that formed the organisms come from?...do you see what I am getting at?quote>

I'd assume molecules were formed by atoms.

For the the purpose of this discussion, I need not go farther than that, as I think everyone is in agreeance that there were plenty of atoms on Earth at the life's origin.

quote>

quote>

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[marc 13]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok Barbarossa: Personally, I don't find what you said to be very logical at all. For example, one of the touted sources of life is that we came from some sort of oozy liquid or something to which energy was applied and it became alive. So, by that theory, I'm supposed to believe that something like the vanilla coke I'm drinking, if I apply electricity to it (since the theory generally cites the source of energy as probably being lightning) that my drink will eventually live. I think not.quote>

You made a BIG leaping conclusion here... that Coke has the same "oozy liquid" in it as early Earth matter and that both would then be "brought to life" by applying energy to them. Broad generalizations about evolution are very typical of the anti-evolution crowd simply because they don't understand (or want to understand) the theory. If you don't understand evolution, DON'T debate it!

Potentially life-forming liquid had certain enzymes, proteins, and other matter in it that managed to develop into organic compounds... this probably isn't possible with Coke. From my Bio textbook: "Synthesizing organic compounds requires energy. On the early Earth, lightning, sunlight, or heat from hydrothermal vents might have fueled the reactions. Stanley Miller was the first to test the hypothesis that the simple compounds that now serve as the building blocks of life can form chemical processes. He put water, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia in a reaction chamber. He kept circulating the mixture and zapping it with sparks to simulate lightning. In less than a week, amino acids, and other small organic compounds had formed in the chemical brew... (Starr, Taggart- Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 11th ed.)"

Look at that! I quoted an actual book, not some stupid, nonsensical bible verse! (Sorry- I'm not referring to you here, Voar Toak, but to anti-evolutionists who think they can settle a debate by posting excerpts from fairy tales.)

Your Paragraph 2:

...So, here's the question - why do people just die?...quote>

Your Paragraph 3:

...As people get older, their cells are less likely to reproduce accurately, which means mutations go up, and the more mutations their are, the more abnormally things tend to work, and the more their overall health tends to suck. ...quote>

 

Your second paragraph answered everything you asked in your first paragraph.

I won't say what it is just yet, but one of America's most feared diseases is nothing more than a series of seemingly benign mutations.quote>

Hey, you got one! You're right- mutation rates are VERY low, and there is no need to fear them. Mutations can also be beneficial depending on environmental pressures.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to debate evolution on scientific grounds- and that it should be done more often. The problem with all the debate in our country is that it is being questioned on religious grounds (via "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" proxies), which is completely unacceptable and irrelevant.

EDIT: Barbarossa, it seems like you already made the same points.

[coolotter88 2]

D= the problem with history is that it's always being created. in the future, we won't have history classes, we'll have history pills, and you eat the history pills and learn all of history.

because, think of it this way, there is no way to stuff all of history into the minds of the children as more and more is created. further into the future, people won't bother teaching about hitler and the holocaust because it was so long ago...like the crusades. you can find it in the giant, complete history of the modern world, but 500 years in the future, nah.

but I digress

I believe Voar Tok is talking about MRSA?

from the bacteria's PoV, those mutations were beneficial, they helped the germs survive death from antibiotics.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

I would also like to add in a side note, evolution and big bang theory are not mutual topics, they are two different theories. One may believe in evolution without accepting the big bang theory. Evolution is not a universal origin theory, but merely a biological origin theory. Sorry, this is just one of my pet peeves.

[marc 13]

Originally posted by: coolotter88

...from the bacteria's PoV, those mutations were beneficial, they helped the germs survive death from antibiotics.quote>

Well put- mutations can be beneficial. But in your example above, it's implied that germs mutate to develop resistance to antibiotics. This is never the case- it's impossible for a cell to "respond" to a condition by altering its traits- this would require genetic modification. Genetic modification NEVER occurs in an individual- it only occurs during reproduction or replication- I.e.- as the gene sequence is being copied from one cell to a new one or from a parent to an offspring, a mistake in gene duplication results in an altered genetic makeup in the offspring, and over time (many generations) may result in a seemingly altered life form. (Humans are, however, beginning to experiment with genetic engineering/modification outside of reproduction.)

For example, 60 years ago, penicillin used to be a miraculous, catch-all antibiotic for may diseases. Now it is practically useless. Over the last 60 years, bacteria which were vulnerable to penicillin had been killed while the few bacteria which ALREADY (ie- purely coincidentally) happened to possess penicillin-resistant genes were able to survive and reproduce. So many of their offspring inherited penicillin resistance, resulting in the decreased effectiveness of penicillin in antibiotic treatments today.

EDIT: Oh, and I should probably bring this up now because someone is bound to ask, "Well then, how do you explain mutations on account of radiation, pollution, chemicals, etc and other stuff that make animals grow multiple head and legs and stuff like that?" First of all, if you are exposed to a radioactive substance or the like, you will NOT grow extra stuff and see your body distort. The toxins will reside in you and interfere with your reproductive process, which means that your children can be born with three heads when a toxin interferes with the gene replication process during reproduction. You yourself will not mutate if you are exposed to radiation.

The three-eyed fish in the lake near the nuclear power plant in the "Simpsons" did not grow an extra eye- it's parent may have been "normal" and the radiation from the plant may have interfered with gene replication when the parent was reproducing, resulting in a fish with three eyes. The word "grow" really has nothing to do with mutation.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: marcszar

Originally posted by: coolotter88

...from the bacteria's PoV, those mutations were beneficial, they helped the germs survive death from antibiotics.quote>

Well put- mutations can be beneficial. But in your example above, it's implied that germs mutate to develop resistance to antibiotics. This is never the case- it's impossible for a cell to "respond" to a condition by altering its traits- this would require genetic modification. Genetic modification NEVER occurs in an individual- it only occurs during reproduction or replication- I.e.- as the gene sequence is being copied from one cell to a new one or from a parent to an offspring, a mistake in gene duplication results in an altered genetic makeup in the offspring, and over time (many generations) may result in a seemingly altered life form. Hence, evolution.

For example, 60 years ago, penicillin used to be a miraculous, catch-all antibiotic for may diseases. Now it is practically useless. Over the last 60 years, bacteria which were vulnerable to penicillin had been killed while the few bacteria which ALREADY (ie- purely coincidentally) happened to possess penicillin-resistant genes were able to survive and reproduce. So many of their offspring inherited penicillin resistance, resulting in the decreased effectiveness of penicillin in antibiotic treatments.quote>

Well, it is certainly possible that the resistant gene was formed during mitosis.  I think that this may be what he meant, but I'm not sure.  (ie - the penicillin-resistant bacteria were begot from the penicillin-effected bacteria)  Also, where did you get the fact that the bacteria coincidentally coexisted without one evolving from the other?  I would like to see a source on this one, if you would.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[marc 13]

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy Also, where did you get the fact that the bacteria coincidentally coexisted without one evolving from the other?  I would like to see a source on this one, if you would.quote>

I think you misunderstood me. Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly... I wanted to say that some bacteria do happen to contain traits that make them resistant to some things and vulnerable to others. This is very obvious among populations- not all of us would die if we were all exposed to the 1918 flu, not all of us are equally vulnerable to the same diseases. What I meant in the penicillin example is that bacteria (like any other forms of life) have genetic diversity which allows some of them to be less vulnerable to antibiotics and thus be able to live to reproduce and pass on their genes.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Psycho_Teddy said: Well, it is certainly possible that the resistant gene was formed during mitosis. I think that this may be what he meant, but I'm not sure. (ie - the penicillin-resistant bacteria were begot from the penicillin-effected bacteria)quote>

Not quite. Mitosis and Meiosis are completely different processes. A change in one never impacts the other. A living rat, if it were to somehow get a mutation that led to its tail falling off, will NEVER be translated to its offspring. They will still have tails. However, if a mutation were to occur in the same rat's germ layer, (well, I am not being accurate, but a mutation led to the development of NO tail), then the offspring would not have a tail. And so long as that allele is dominant, then the offspring of that rat, after mating, would continue to lead to no tail. However, if it is recessive, and the rat's mate has a stronger pro-tail allele, then the offspring may still have a tail. Obviously, there is a bit of a spectrum... the tail could be atrophied or stunted, or both.

Barbarossaquote>

I always get mitosis and meiosis confused, excuse my idiocy...

[city11 0]

MayorTim: GREAT!!..then where did those atoms that formed the molecules come from and where did the formers of those come from....all your atoms and bases and compounds and molecules had to start some where...it didn't just appear...it had to be started by something..and i believe that something is God

[DragonStallion 0]

Well, I admit I'm a christian, evolution doesn't fall in place for me. As evolving from a single cell organism is chaotic and disorderly to me.

[Voar Tok 4]

OK, first off, no I don't honestly believe that my coke could have come to life, but there was a purpose to that illustration.  Amino acids, proteins, fats - you name it - can be found in the stuff I get at Smoothie King or can easily be added.  My point is that non-living objects aren't going to just become a living object.  Someone can take anything organic substance they want, do whatever they want, and I guarantee they'll never get a living object from it.  Living objects only come from previously living objects.  The chemical brew that Stanley Miller did probably wasn't radically different from the overall outcome of something like the fermentation process.

Now, about the thing about changes in death.  When someone has a heart attack and their heart stops pumping blood and they stop breathing, they can still potentially be revived?  Nothing has changed just yet in their physical make up.  Their cells are still perfectly capable of supporting life, at least for the next minute or two, but if no one does anything, the odds of them just reviving on their own is basically zilch.  They're brain hasn't stopped firing signals yet, so why doesn't it fire the signal to their heart again and restart it?  This is something that involves the mystic spark of life, something that no one can actually explain.  So, again, I'm supposed to believe that something inanimate took on properties no one can explain.  To me, it doesn't seem logical to assume that happened by chance.

As for the mutations thing, I've been numerously told by people who were all about evolution who repeatedly told me I was wrong to say that mutations were generally a bad thing.  Barbarossa, you cited an example very similar to what I had said about the issue with a miscarriage and said person was adamant that it wasn't a valid example.  I fully agree with what you said - mutations are usually detrimental.  But I've seen way too many people say that I'm wrong to cite examples pertaining to birth defects and such even though they are clearly the result of a mutation of some sorts and basically all of them are something that sucks.

Marcszar, I hate you say it, but you missed the point about one of the thing about one of America's most feared diseases is the result of seemingly benign mutations.  Mutations are something to be concerned about as an overall whole, because it means something is wrong.  Your cells are supposed to reproduce perfectly, and when they start to fail to reproduce properly, then you run the risk of contracting the disease I was alluding to.  That disease is cancer.  Cancer is a disease caused by the body failing to catch mutated cells and destroy them.  Maybe you got radiation poisoning and your body couldn't destroy them all, or maybe the mutations were slight enough that your body didn't realize they were a problem.

So what I'm driving at here is that all the stuff that's been said about how mutations are basically harmless isn't true.  Seemingly benign mutations, as I've been criticized so many times for not believing in, managed to become the second leading cause of death in Americans as well as the thing most likely to kill a woman in the prime of her adult life.

Does this explain why I have a hard time believing in the validity of a process that hinges on a process that's more likely to kill you than help you?

[panthersimcity4 162]

You know, some religious people view evolution as a bunch of silly nonsense just as secular people would see creation. For those of you who believe in evolution(and are atheist): do you believe in the human soul? If you do, then what point is there, since the human soul is an entirely spiritual thing. How do you explain the fact that we can see things in our mind that are not actually visible? And how can our mind exist if it isn't a physical object? And im not talking about the brain, but the images and thoughts that come from it, that don't exist and yet do.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm open minded and free-thinking, I just get tired of people always using Science as a religious belief instead of what it is. See, Science is about the order of atoms and molecules and how things work. Religion is about why we're here and why atoms and molecules work. Let me simplify it:

Science: How

Religion: Why

[Palpatine001 57]

I have managed to find some chocolate ice creams - who wants one

Also I have set up a small Time Out Cafe in the corner for those needing to recharge their batteries before getting back on the Merry-go-round

So then, what would a white hole prove? (must be nuts getting back on the merry-go-round)

[coolotter88 2]

well, I never said the bacterial mutated upon contact of the antibiotics, the mutations were already in the population.

@ the person with the cat avatar (sorry, I remember people by avatars), that's where existentialism comes in.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

I'm not really here to debate Creation and Evolution. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs whether I think they are correct or lacking fact.

Anyways.....I personally believe that we all came about through Evolution, I'm sorry but the idea that everything around us was done in 6 days just doesn't wash with me so to speak. I do believe in god, but I believe that he/she/it (no-one actually knows) was there in the very very very beginning and started what we refer to as the Big Bang, from that point on nature and evolution took its course and we are where we are now and still evolving I may add. As is the universe around us.

I agree with what some others have said in regard to those who clearly no idea what they are talking about making statements that are easily proved factless and incorrect. I'm not an expert but I do have knowledge of the subject and will come back and comment now and then if I feel the need.......

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: city11 MayorTim: GREAT!!..then where did those atoms that formed the molecules come from and where did the formers of those come from....all your atoms and bases and compounds and molecules had to start some where...it didn't just appear...it had to be started by something..and i believe that something is Godquote>

Okay then, where'd god come from? He had to start somewhere too, he couldn't have just appeared.

You see, no matter what, you have the problem of something coming from nothing, a beginning point of sorts. And not even religion has an explanation for that one, they just say it's all part of the "great mystery" or something.

So it's logically flawed since introducing a divine being into things only introduces another step backward... it still can't explain were it all began.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Voar Tok OK, first off, no I don't honestly believe that my coke could have come to life, but there was a purpose to that illustration.  Amino acids, proteins, fats - you name it - can be found in the stuff I get at Smoothie King or can easily be added.  My point is that non-living objects aren't going to just become a living object.  Someone can take anything organic substance they want, do whatever they want, and I guarantee they'll never get a living object from it.  Living objects only come from previously living objects.  The chemical brew that Stanley Miller did probably wasn't radically different from the overall outcome of something like the fermentation process.quote>

Fermentation requires yeast, or other bacteria.quote>

Yes, I know that.  My granddad worked at a brewery.  The point still being is that the guy didn't do anything particularly amazing.  He didn't make a living substance, nor will what he made ever create a living substance.

Now, about the thing about changes in death.  When someone has a heart attack and their heart stops pumping blood and they stop breathing, they can still potentially be revived?  Nothing has changed just yet in their physical make up.  Their cells are still perfectly capable of supporting life, at least for the next minute or two, but if no one does anything, the odds of them just reviving on their own is basically zilch.  They're brain hasn't stopped firing signals yet, so why doesn't it fire the signal to their heart again and restart it?  This is something that involves the mystic spark of life, something that no one can actually explain.  So, again, I'm supposed to believe that something inanimate took on properties no one can explain.  To me, it doesn't seem logical to assume that happened by chance.quote>

If you think about it, reviving something that was living (a complex life form, by default) is quite different from the origin of single celled organisms.quote>

The issue still boils down to that elusive "spark of life" as it has been called before.  The odds of it happening on its own are ridiculously small, and the odds of it happening in a previously non-living object are a confirmed zero.  There is no case anywhere on record of a person taking non-living material and making it come to life.

As for the mutations thing, I've been numerously told by people who were all about evolution who repeatedly told me I was wrong to say that mutations were generally a bad thing.  Barbarossa, you cited an example very similar to what I had said about the issue with a miscarriage and said person was adamant that it wasn't a valid example.  I fully agree with what you said - mutations are usually detrimental.  But I've seen way too many people say that I'm wrong to cite examples pertaining to birth defects and such even though they are clearly the result of a mutation of some sorts and basically all of them are something that sucks.quote>

Sadly, not everyone who believes evolution knows what they are talking about.  I can only agree with your comment, here.

Marcszar, I hate you say it, but you missed the point about one of the thing about one of America's most feared diseases is the result of seemingly benign mutations.  Mutations are something to be concerned about as an overall whole, because it means something is wrong.  Your cells are supposed to reproduce perfectly, and when they start to fail to reproduce pro

[coolotter88 2]

who said the spark of life is small? probability of that happening is 1

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

OK, first off, no I don't honestly believe that my coke could have come to life, but there was a purpose to that illustration.  Amino acids, proteins, fats - you name it - can be found in the stuff I get at Smoothie King or can easily be added.  My point is that non-living objects aren't going to just become a living object.  Someone can take anything organic substance they want, do whatever they want, and I guarantee they'll never get a living object from it.  Living objects only come from previously living objects.  The chemical brew that Stanley Miller did probably wasn't radically different from the overall outcome of something like the fermentation process.quote>

And, where are the facts in this statement?  Probably doesn't cut it in this thread.  You need some facts, my friend, not speculation on what you think happened.  Do some research on this experiment, and you'll find that it is quite revolutionary.

Now, about the thing about changes in death.  When someone has a heart attack and their heart stops pumping blood and they stop breathing, they can still potentially be revived?  Nothing has changed just yet in their physical make up.  Their cells are still perfectly capable of supporting life, at least for the next minute or two, but if no one does anything, the odds of them just reviving on their own is basically zilch.  They're brain hasn't stopped firing signals yet, so why doesn't it fire the signal to their heart again and restart it?  This is something that involves the mystic spark of life, something that no one can actually explain.  So, again, I'm supposed to believe that something inanimate took on properties no one can explain.  To me, it doesn't seem logical to assume that happened by chance.

quote>

There are scientific explanations for these processes, but it has nothing to do with evolution, and this so called "mystic spark of life".  You can't just write off the unknown as the "God force".

As for the mutations thing, I've been numerously told by people who were all about evolution who repeatedly told me I was wrong to say that mutations were generally a bad thing.  Barbarossa, you cited an example very similar to what I had said about the issue with a miscarriage and said person was adamant that it wasn't a valid example.  I fully agree with what you said - mutations are usually detrimental.  But I've seen way too many people say that I'm wrong to cite examples pertaining to birth defects and such even though they are clearly the result of a mutation of some sorts and basically all of them are something that sucks.quote>

The key word here is usually, which means that you accept the fact that:

A.) Genetic mutations exist.

B.) They can bring forth a positive change.

So what I'm driving at here is that all the stuff that's been said about how mutations are basically harmless isn't true.  Seemingly benign mutations, as I've been criticized so many times for not believing in, managed to become the second leading cause of death in Americans as well as the thing most likely to kill a woman in the prime of her adult life.quote>

We evolutionists never said that there aren't bad mutations that occur.  They happen quite often, actually.  But we say that the ones that cause positive changes happen few and far between, but these are the ones that get passed on, and the ones that have the bad mutations die off.

Does this explain why I have a hard time believing in the validity of a process that hinges on a process that's more likely to kill you than help you?

[Micah 16]

and we just brushed over the Salem Witch Trials.quote>

Actually, there are many myths about Puritans and the Salem Witch Trials. It was actually the government causing the problem and the Puritans wanted repentance for the victims.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4 You know, some religious people view evolution as a bunch of silly nonsense just as secular people would see creation. For those of you who believe in evolution(and are atheist): do you believe in the human soul? If you do, then what point is there, since the human soul is an entirely spiritual thing. How do you explain the fact that we can see things in our mind that are not actually visible? And how can our mind exist if it isn't a physical object? And im not talking about the brain, but the images and thoughts that come from it, that don't exist and yet do.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm open minded and free-thinking, I just get tired of people always using Science as a religious belief instead of what it is. See, Science is about the order of atoms and molecules and how things work. Religion is about why we're here and why atoms and molecules work. Let me simplify it:

Science: How

Religion: Whyquote>

Hmmm...  So, you're saying that the bible explains why atoms function?

Also, we never said that evolution is a religion.  Hence the name "A-" (meaning "without) "-theism" (meaning "god)

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: Micah

and we just brushed over the Salem Witch Trials.quote>

Actually, there are many myths about Puritans and the Salem Witch Trials. It was actually the government causing the problem and the Puritans were actually against the trials.quote>

I'm sure that they were...  That would completely explain why an entire play was written about this travesty, and how the puritans started the whole thing.  But this is another thread, for another day.  Let's stay on topic, shall we?

[KingTitan 6]

Can we close this post??? I mean really....this dicussion seems mute...if u "PLAY a simulation game such as SimCity.........how religous can you be??? It needs to be closed...It is monopolising the scroll boards.......

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: KingTitan Can we close this post??? I mean really....this dicussion seems mute...if u "PLAY a simulation game such as SimCity.........how religous can you be??? It needs to be closed...It is monopolising the scroll boards.......

quote>

Can we delete this post?  I mean really, this post seems unrelated and irrelevant...  if u "PLAY a simulation game such as SimCity.......how can you care about hogging the scroll boards???  It needs to remain open.... Some people actually care about this topic....