Evolution versus Creationism

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderators: Global Moderators, Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.

Evolution versus Creationism

I believe in Evolution
85
79%
I believe in Creationism
7
7%
I believe in Itelligent Design
4
4%
I believe in Theistic Evolutionism
11
10%
 
Total votes: 107

User avatar
Jurgen Wullenwever
Posts: 2847
Joined: 2009-04-10, 19:32
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Jurgen Wullenwever » 2014-02-15, 23:10

JuxtapositionQMan wrote:If they feel the passage of time at all (Humans, Angels, Devils), they're 4th or 5th dimensional.
If they can control what happens anywhere on a moment-to-moment basis, they're 5th; otherwise, 4th.
These two have a lot of interplay, because many cultures have gods of certain things, which means they only control part of reality, so in the 4.5-ish range are The Greek & Roman Gods/Godesses & Titans. Demigods would be more of a 4.25-ish
If they can visit any point in the history of the Universe and change it, they're at least 6th.
If they preside over the Multiverse, they're at least 7th.
If they created the Universe (Greek Erebus, if I have my facts right), they're at least 8th.
If they're ∞ everything, they're 9th.

I suspect that historical gods do not even achieve the 5th dimension - control what happens anywhere at a given time. In the Christian world, Jehovah (to use that form :D ) could not go back in time, and he could not control everything. Has there been any such 5-9 gods?
Chekhov wrote:I don't know about naive worldviews, but Jurgen Wullenwhatever pisses me off to no end because of his extreme pessimism and cynicism. You'd think the world was going to end imminently when talking to that guy.

Jag är rebell: jag sockrar teet, saltar maten, cyklar utan hjälm, och tänder glödlampor.
(Ovanstående var förut, nu försöker jag minska sockret och saltet.)

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2014-02-16, 3:00

Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:I suspect that historical gods do not even achieve the 5th dimension - control what happens anywhere at a given time. In the Christian world, Jehovah (to use that form :D ) could not go back in time, and he could not control everything. Has there been any such 5-9 gods?
Jesus was a man and therefore 4th dimensional.
As for 5-9 gods, I already mentioned Erebus is 8th. Kronos is 6th. I know of no others in Greek mythology, but Hinduism probably has some 7s and 8s.
Well, that was a thing.
speak: [flag=]en[/flag][flag=]eo[/flag]
learning: [flag=]fr[/flag][flag=]de[/flag][flag=]ru[/flag][flag=]pt[/flag][flag=]es[/flag][flag=]ro[/flag][flag=]art-jbo[/flag]
hiatus: [flag=]fi[/flag][flag=]it[/flag][flag=]la[/flag][flag=]wa[/flag][flag=]sv[/flag][flag=]eu[/flag][flag=]zh.Hans[/flag][flag=]is[/flag]
want to learn: [flag=]fo[/flag][flag=]be[/flag][flag=]ko[/flag][flag=]he[/flag][flag=]sw[/flag][flag=]hi[/flag][flag=]tr[/flag][flag=]nl[/flag][flag=]cy[/flag][flag=]hu[/flag]

User avatar
md0
Posts: 7039
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby md0 » 2014-02-16, 4:40

What I get from that is that we are deemed to eternal irrationality.
We are just going to keep inventing gods and demons, instead of trying to describe the universe as clinically as possible.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"

User avatar
Yserenhart
Server Administrator
Posts: 770
Joined: 2009-11-09, 2:56
Country: BE Belgium (België / Belgique)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Yserenhart » 2014-02-16, 6:26

JuxtapositionQMan wrote:I don't, but here's how I understand it: subatomic particles control the properties & motion of atoms.

Subatomic particles do control the properties of atoms, in that the right kind of subatomic particles have to be present in the right quantities for the atom to exist. The properties of those subatomic particles can change without effecting the atom though (except in certain cases - see below).

Consider an atom of helium-4, which consists of two protons, two neutrons, and two electrons. A proton is made of three quarks; two of these are up quarks, and one is a down quark. A neutron is also made of three quarks; one up quark, and two down quarks. The electron is itself an elementary particle.

These elementary particles can have a number of different properties. Some of these (like flavour for quarks) determine the larger particle made by their interactions, some are irrelevant at the scale of protons and neutrons. For quarks, these properties are flavour, electric charge, colour, and a few others that don't matter here. For electrons the only properties we'll consider are spin and energy level.

For quarks, flavour is probably the most important property in relation to atoms. Most of the other properties are a function of flavour. For example, the electric charge of an up quark is +⅔, while the electric charge of a down quark is −⅓. As such, a proton must consist of two up quarks and one down quark, and a neutron must consist of one up quark and two down quarks. For both the total colour charge of the quarks must also be 0, but this happens as a function of the interaction that allows the quarks to bond to make the larger particles anyway. Within a proton or neutron, the quarks may undergo a change in colour charge, which will cause the other quarks to also change colour to maintain a net charge of 0; however, this will have no effect on the neutron/proton being a neutron/proton, and therefore no effect on the atom.

In certain cases a quark can change flavour. The only time this is noticeable normally is in β decay, where a neutron decays to form a proton. In order for this to happen, one of the down quarks in the neutron has to become an up quark. This is mediated by the weak force, and involves the emitting of a W boson, which then decays. The boson, and products of the boson decay depend on the type of β decay; for β⁻ decay the boson emitted is a W⁻ boson, and the decay products are an electron and an electron antineutrino; and for β⁺ decay the boson emitted is a W⁺ boson, and the decay products are a positron and an electron neutrino.

For an electron, the spin can change direction (but not magnitude), which isn't noticeable to the atom at all, and energy level. Energy level is increased by absorption of a photon, and decreased by emission of a photon. In single atoms the most obvious effect of electrons having higher energy states is the wavelength of the photon emitted to decrease the energy level. For atomic bonds, the bonds tend to stabilise electron energy levels (i.e. make them as close to the ground level as possible).

For motion, the forces binding the subatomic particles together are quite strong, and so the individual motions of the particles can't normally overcome these forces in most atoms (radioactive elements and isotopes are the exception). Breaking these bonds releases a lot of energy, as can be seen with nuclear fission.

As an interesting note on how subatomic particles affect atoms: Helium-4 is normally chemically inert, it doesn't want to lose or gain an electron to form an ion, nor does it need to share electrons to fill the valence shell. It's possible to remove one of these electrons and replace it with a muon, which makes it behave like an isotope of hydrogen, which will bond with another hydrogen to again have a filled valence shell (or indeed would form any of the bonds hydrogen does, He₂O would be an interesting thing to see), despite this actually then giving the system a net electric charge of −1. This hasn't ever actually been observed to occur in nature I believe, so it's not particularly relevant now.

Atoms determine the properties of molecules, and atoms' movement determines the movement of molecules.

As above, but essentially just up a scale. All isotopes of an element will essentially form the same chemical bonds, and therefore the same molecules, and so if a neutron or two were to disappear or appear (except in cases of radioactive decay), and an isotope of an element were to replace another isotope of the same element, the chemical bond wouldn't change, and therefore the molecule wouldn't. Spontaneous neutron (dis-)appearance doesn't exactly happen in nature though.

Again, the bonds within a molecule are quite strong, and the normal motions of atoms won't overcome them without other factors.

Molecules' properties & movement determine the properties & movement of materials (movement to a lesser extent, but if all the molecules in something move upwards, it moves upwards).

And again the same as above, just up another scale again. With the motion, some external force needs to act on the material, the molecules will never all move in the same way in absence of such a force.

Probability is the number of successes vs. outcomes, so, for example, the probability of a floor mat moving 3ft. off the ground is the same as the probability of all its molecules moving 3ft. upward, which is the same as all the molecules' atoms moving upward, which is the same as all the subatomic paricles moving upward, which is governed by quantum mechanics.

The probability of all subatomic particles in a material moving upward simultaneously is nil in the absence of an external force. In the case of your floor mat moving 3 ft. off the ground, the probability is equal to the sum of the probabilities of all external factors capable of inducing such a change doing so. If the only external factor around is you, and you have no intention of going near that mat, then the probability will be essentially 0, the molecules, atoms, and particles are absolutely irrelevant.
Native: Derbyshire English (en-GB)/New Zealand English (en-NZ) Learning: Vlaams (nl-BE)

User avatar
Yserenhart
Server Administrator
Posts: 770
Joined: 2009-11-09, 2:56
Country: BE Belgium (België / Belgique)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Yserenhart » 2014-02-16, 6:29

JuxtapositionQMan wrote:Sometimes that way as well. Still governed by QM, though. *see above*

As I wrote above, by the time we're looking at molecular interactions, the only relevant thing is the that the appropriate atoms are in each molecule, the exact composition of those atoms is irrelevant (as long as that composition makes the right elements), and the properties of the subatomic particles are even more irrelevant (especially the ones that were already irrelevant at the scale of protons and neutrons). Really, when it comes to mutation, the chemical composition and changes of the relevant molecules is considered pretty irrelevant too, it's the effects that matter. In frame-shift mutations the exact chemistry is unimportant, because all that happens is some base-pairs get deleted, or additional pairs get inserted; the normal molecular interactions apply. Even in the mutations that involve molecular changes, the actual chemistry is considered unimportant in terms of the results (and therefore evolution), but even considering the chemistry the particle properties are still irrelevant, as long as the atoms are some isotope of the right element (which they will be else the chemistry doesn't happen).

Exactly! (also, thanks for answering my initial question)
I do have a specific reason for 9 dimensions, though. I start off with the assumption that God is ∞ everything. Then, I go through the mathematical dimensions:
1 dimension is a line.
2 is a plane.
3 is a space.
4 is time.
5 is all alternate realities possible at a given moment.
6 is the list of all possible realities from a certain set of laws of nature.
7 is the ratio of the laws of nature.
8 is the set of all possible laws of nature.
therefore, 9 is ∞ everything.
9 dimensions= ∞ everything=God.
9 dimensions=God.
God is a 9th-dimensional being.

Mathematical dimensions are just dimensions of space, given that the primary use of dimensions in mathematics is geometry. Therefore, mathematically, the fourth dimension isn't actually time, but space; consider for example the 4-cube (or tesseract), which has a surface consisting of eight cubic cells, in the same way as a cube has a surface consisting of six squares and a square has a surface defined by four lines. This pattern continues throughout all mathematical dimensions, so a 5-cube has a surface consisting of ten 4-cubes, and a 6-cube has a surface consisting of 12 5-cubes.

Dimensions in physics also have only one time dimension, in all current theories (of which M-theory is the most accepted). Indeed, in classical mechanics time isn't even a dimension at all, just an artefact of the laws of thermodynamics. In relativity, time is so dependant on the three spatial dimensions that while it is called the fourth dimension, it really can't be separated from three-dimensional space.

For higher dimensions, all accepted theories consider them to be spatial dimensions, and many of those theories also calculate the higher dimensions to be of a size equivalent to, or smaller than, the Planck length. Any dimension capable of holding all alternate realities, or all possible laws of nature would by nature have to have a size larger than the Planck length.

As a note, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics provides for alternate realities without requiring additional dimensions. Also, as far as I know none of the theories in physics have nine dimensions exactly; some have less (either 8 or 5), some more (11 for M-theory).

JuxtapositionQMan wrote:Jesus was a man and therefore 4th dimensional.

If Jesus was a man then he, by definition, can't have been fourth-dimensional. Apart from the reason above (humans under standard conditions not being dealt with as relativistic objects in physics), for something to be n-dimensional, that thing must be able to freely move in the nth-dimension
Native: Derbyshire English (en-GB)/New Zealand English (en-NZ) Learning: Vlaams (nl-BE)

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2014-02-16, 15:59

Yserenhart wrote:The probability of all subatomic particles in a material moving upward simultaneously is nil in the absence of an external force. In the case of your floor mat moving 3 ft. off the ground, the probability is equal to the sum of the probabilities of all external factors capable of inducing such a change doing so. If the only external factor around is you, and you have no intention of going near that mat, then the probability will be essentially 0, the molecules, atoms, and particles are absolutely irrelevant.
Also, I'm aware that it's essentially 0, the key word being essentially. It's never truly 0, but that doesn't diminish your point. And what are these forces which you so talk about? Forces caused by energy, right? (and the 4 fundamentals, of course, but those I was just assuming to be true in this instance). Energy is either separate particles like photons or the motion of particles, both of which are governed by QM (that's how I've heard it. please correct if wrong).

Yserenhart wrote:As I wrote above, by the time we're looking at molecular interactions, the only relevant thing is the that the appropriate atoms are in each molecule, the exact composition of those atoms is irrelevant (as long as that composition makes the right elements), and the properties of the subatomic particles are even more irrelevant (especially the ones that were already irrelevant at the scale of protons and neutrons). Really, when it comes to mutation, the chemical composition and changes of the relevant molecules is considered pretty irrelevant too, it's the effects that matter. In frame-shift mutations the exact chemistry is unimportant, because all that happens is some base-pairs get deleted, or additional pairs get inserted; the normal molecular interactions apply. Even in the mutations that involve molecular changes, the actual chemistry is considered unimportant in terms of the results (and therefore evolution), but even considering the chemistry the particle properties are still irrelevant, as long as the atoms are some isotope of the right element (which they will be else the chemistry doesn't happen).
Ahh, but what about the isotopes affecting stability? or if electron decides to fly off? or a quark? Also, I underlined a line of your paragraph that is just, frankly, completely wrong: The base pairs get deleted, yes, but how? Chemistry! Also also, you keep completely glossing over my point of if all the pieces of something move up, that something will move up.

Yserenhart wrote:Mathematical dimensions are just dimensions of space, given that the primary use of dimensions in mathematics is geometry. Therefore, mathematically, the fourth dimension isn't actually time, but space; consider for example the 4-cube (or tesseract), which has a surface consisting of eight cubic cells, in the same way as a cube has a surface consisting of six squares and a square has a surface defined by four lines. This pattern continues throughout all mathematical dimensions, so a 5-cube has a surface consisting of ten 4-cubes, and a 6-cube has a surface consisting of 12 5-cubes.
Uhhhhhhh.....what? A tesseract is basically the model for spacially representing time. Your math is right, though.

Yserenhart wrote:Dimensions in physics also have only one time dimension, in all current theories (of which M-theory is the most accepted). Indeed, in classical mechanics time isn't even a dimension at all, just an artefact of the laws of thermodynamics. In relativity, time is so dependant on the three spatial dimensions that while it is called the fourth dimension, it really can't be separated from three-dimensional space.


Yserenhart wrote:For higher dimensions, all accepted theories consider them to be spatial dimensions, and many of those theories also calculate the higher dimensions to be of a size equivalent to, or smaller than, the Planck length. Any dimension capable of holding all alternate realities, or all possible laws of nature would by nature have to have a size larger than the Planck length.
I am confused at this concept. 1 dimension is infinitely long in all provided directions. 2 dimensions is. 3 dimenions is. 4 dimensions is. What changes at 5?

Yserenhart wrote:As a note, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics provides for alternate realities without requiring additional dimensions. Also, as far as I know none of the theories in physics have nine dimensions exactly; some have less (either 8 or 5), some more (11 for M-theory).
At this point there might as well be 16 different theories of QM. Just because it's not supported by any other theories doesn't really mean much anymore, given there are like a million and one of them now. I see it as this: these things govern our universe, so they must be part of reality, but QM says anything can happen at any time (just less probably), so these must be variable somehow, and the only way I see possible is for them to be higher up in the dimension chain.

Yserenhart wrote:If Jesus was a man then he, by definition, can't have been fourth-dimensional. Apart from the reason above (humans under standard conditions not being dealt with as relativistic objects in physics), for something to be n-dimensional, that thing must be able to freely move in the nth-dimension
Ahhh, that makes sense. I thought that because we experience the flow of time that we must be 4th, but your idea makes more sense. So for that, shift everything in the 4th dimension down one.

Also, I'd just like to point out: this is a thread about Evolution versus Creationism, and we're talking about quantum mechanics. :rotfl: I don't want to diminish the argument, but it's not exactly something you'd expect on a thread like this.
Well, that was a thing.
speak: [flag=]en[/flag][flag=]eo[/flag]
learning: [flag=]fr[/flag][flag=]de[/flag][flag=]ru[/flag][flag=]pt[/flag][flag=]es[/flag][flag=]ro[/flag][flag=]art-jbo[/flag]
hiatus: [flag=]fi[/flag][flag=]it[/flag][flag=]la[/flag][flag=]wa[/flag][flag=]sv[/flag][flag=]eu[/flag][flag=]zh.Hans[/flag][flag=]is[/flag]
want to learn: [flag=]fo[/flag][flag=]be[/flag][flag=]ko[/flag][flag=]he[/flag][flag=]sw[/flag][flag=]hi[/flag][flag=]tr[/flag][flag=]nl[/flag][flag=]cy[/flag][flag=]hu[/flag]

User avatar
dkatbena
Posts: 678
Joined: 2012-06-02, 17:29
Real Name: Diwani Kamatoden
Gender: male
Location: Lungsod Makati
Country: PH Philippines (Pilipinas)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby dkatbena » 2014-05-13, 9:16

I believe that creationism is correct.That evolution is the next trend after creationism. that intelligent designs keep on going using the laws of etheric bodies and creating conditions for physical bodies be made compatible with pairing of etheric bodies of undefined/mystical origin. The missing link between creationism and evolutionism is the. Lack of correct informations about the origins of beings and.spiritual forces.The time I realized that there other forms of creationisms(from good and evil) and special form of mutation and genetics(formation of supernatural beings after the creation of human and other physical beings), these given theories are all correct but in proper order and time.several decades the known humans are around 5 ft tall but the discoveries of giant humans or nephilims resulted to the discoveries of biases in past sciences. These supernatural laws of creations must be tackled first so that there will be meeting pts. Among the theories of origins of different beings in this planet and in the vast galaxies out there.
Kapionan ey mangyedi de inoman a manoloson de benal a Makyedyepat! eye a Makyedyepat.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 20470
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby linguoboy » 2014-05-13, 15:21

dkatbena wrote:several decades the known humans are around 5 ft tall but the discoveries of giant humans or nephilims resulted to the discoveries of biases in past sciences.

What discoveries?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
languagepotato
Posts: 438
Joined: 2013-01-22, 7:17
Gender: male
Country: NL The Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby languagepotato » 2014-05-25, 12:31

i kinda believe in both
i believe evolution like for 99% but the difference is solely these two things:

1. i believe God started it and is in control of it
2, i believe that God put Adam and Eve (whom i view as the first homo sapiens) on earth directly right at the time that homo sapiens should have appeared through evolution.

so, which option should i choose?
Last edited by languagepotato on 2014-05-25, 13:22, edited 1 time in total.
native: (ar-MA) (nl)
very comfortable: (en-US)
somewhat comfortable: (de) (es) (af)
forgetting: (fr) (ar-arb)
touristy level: (ro) (sv)(ber)(pl)
someday hopefully: (ja) (sq) (cs) (tr) and many others

onlyhuman

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby onlyhuman » 2014-05-25, 12:50

I've chosen the first option.

User avatar
Varislintu
Posts: 15297
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Varislintu » 2014-05-25, 13:41

languagepotato wrote:i kinda believe in both
i believe evolution like for 99% but the difference is solely these two things:

1. i believe God started it and is in control of it
2, i believe that God put Adam and Eve (whom i view as the first homo sapiens) on earth directly right at the time that homo sapiens should have appeared through evolution.

so, which option should i choose?


How do you think of Neanderthals? I mean, how do you fit their existence into your beliefs? What are they to you, in other words?
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
languagepotato
Posts: 438
Joined: 2013-01-22, 7:17
Gender: male
Country: NL The Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby languagepotato » 2014-05-25, 14:02

Varislintu wrote:
languagepotato wrote:i kinda believe in both
i believe evolution like for 99% but the difference is solely these two things:

1. i believe God started it and is in control of it
2, i believe that God put Adam and Eve (whom i view as the first homo sapiens) on earth directly right at the time that homo sapiens should have appeared through evolution.

so, which option should i choose?


How do you think of Neanderthals? I mean, how do you fit their existence into your beliefs? What are they to you, in other words?


i dunno, i'm not very knowledgeable on that field, but from what i gather scientists argue whether or not they are a subspecies of homo sapiens.*

so, that's the science part, now for the belief part: my belief is that if they are indeed a subspecies of homo sapiens, then they are descendants of Adam and Eve. if they aren't, they are humanoid creatures who evolved from other humanoid creatures.


*correct me if i'm wrong on this.
native: (ar-MA) (nl)
very comfortable: (en-US)
somewhat comfortable: (de) (es) (af)
forgetting: (fr) (ar-arb)
touristy level: (ro) (sv)(ber)(pl)
someday hopefully: (ja) (sq) (cs) (tr) and many others

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 4457
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Poznań
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Saim » 2014-05-25, 14:33

languagepotato wrote:i kinda believe in both
i believe evolution like for 99% but the difference is solely these two things:

1. i believe God started it and is in control of it
2, i believe that God put Adam and Eve (whom i view as the first homo sapiens) on earth directly right at the time that homo sapiens should have appeared through evolution.

so, which option should i choose?


1. is irrelevant as far as evolutionary theory goes - evolution explains the diversity of life, not how it arose.
2. does contradict evolutionary theory, as species don't just "appear" in one generation, it's a continuum made of millions of years. If we were to go back generations there would be no point where we could safely say "homo sapiens" ends and "another species" begins.

User avatar
languagepotato
Posts: 438
Joined: 2013-01-22, 7:17
Gender: male
Country: NL The Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby languagepotato » 2014-05-25, 14:40

Saim wrote:
languagepotato wrote:i kinda believe in both
i believe evolution like for 99% but the difference is solely these two things:

1. i believe God started it and is in control of it
2, i believe that God put Adam and Eve (whom i view as the first homo sapiens) on earth directly right at the time that homo sapiens should have appeared through evolution.

so, which option should i choose?


1. is irrelevant as far as evolutionary theory goes - evolution explains the diversity of life, not how it arose.
2. does contradict evolutionary theory, as species don't just "appear" in one generation, it's a continuum made of millions of years. If we were to go back generations there would be no point where we could safely say "homo sapiens" ends and "another species" begins.


in that case, there's 1 difference between my view of evolution and the general view of evolution and that is what my second point was. but as i said, that's where i disagree with the theory of evolution.
native: (ar-MA) (nl)
very comfortable: (en-US)
somewhat comfortable: (de) (es) (af)
forgetting: (fr) (ar-arb)
touristy level: (ro) (sv)(ber)(pl)
someday hopefully: (ja) (sq) (cs) (tr) and many others

User avatar
TeneReef
Posts: 3047
Joined: 2010-04-17, 23:22
Gender: male
Location: Kampor
Country: HR Croatia (Hrvatska)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby TeneReef » 2014-05-25, 16:02

Humans were designed by inter-dimensional aliens to serve them as a slave race.
They feed on our negative emotions (fear, anger) and energy released at suffering, war, starvation etc...
These aliens tailored us according to their needs, created our religions and stopped up paths to our inherent spirituality.
So, we got the worst of both kinds (animal and ''intellectual'').
This theory was 1st exposed by Charles Fort.

Darwin never explained why and how two ape chromosomes fused into 1 human chromosome: chromosome 2 appeared by magic. :mrgreen:
विकृतिः एवम्‌ प्रकृति

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 4457
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Poznań
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby Saim » 2014-05-25, 17:00

languagepotato wrote:in that case, there's 1 difference between my view of evolution and the general view of evolution and that is what my second point was. but as i said, that's where i disagree with the theory of evolution.


The problem is that it breaks down the whole theory of evolution. If speciation were detectable within one generation, mutations would be so big that it would be impossible for them to have a positive effect. That's precisely what creationists criticise in evolution - they fail to understand the gradual, continual nature of it.
Last edited by Saim on 2014-05-25, 17:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
IpseDixit
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 9140
Joined: 2013-05-06, 21:06
Gender: male
Location: Bologna / Milan / Florence
Country: IT Italy (Italia)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby IpseDixit » 2014-05-25, 17:14

in that case, there's 1 difference between my view of evolution and the general view of evolution and that is what my second point was. but as i said, that's where i disagree with the theory of evolution.


And where's your evidence?

User avatar
JuxtapositionQMan
Posts: 679
Joined: 2013-12-22, 18:14
Location: Denver
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby JuxtapositionQMan » 2014-05-25, 17:20

TeneReef wrote:Darwin never explained why and how two ape chromosomes fused into 1 human chromosome: chromosome 2 appeared by magic. :mrgreen:
Non-lethal (and advantageous) mutation in the chromosomes caused the number of chromosomes to change.
Well, that was a thing.
speak: [flag=]en[/flag][flag=]eo[/flag]
learning: [flag=]fr[/flag][flag=]de[/flag][flag=]ru[/flag][flag=]pt[/flag][flag=]es[/flag][flag=]ro[/flag][flag=]art-jbo[/flag]
hiatus: [flag=]fi[/flag][flag=]it[/flag][flag=]la[/flag][flag=]wa[/flag][flag=]sv[/flag][flag=]eu[/flag][flag=]zh.Hans[/flag][flag=]is[/flag]
want to learn: [flag=]fo[/flag][flag=]be[/flag][flag=]ko[/flag][flag=]he[/flag][flag=]sw[/flag][flag=]hi[/flag][flag=]tr[/flag][flag=]nl[/flag][flag=]cy[/flag][flag=]hu[/flag]

User avatar
TeneReef
Posts: 3047
Joined: 2010-04-17, 23:22
Gender: male
Location: Kampor
Country: HR Croatia (Hrvatska)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby TeneReef » 2014-05-26, 2:14

JuxtapositionQMan wrote:
TeneReef wrote:Darwin never explained why and how two ape chromosomes fused into 1 human chromosome: chromosome 2 appeared by magic. :mrgreen:
Non-lethal (and advantageous) mutation in the chromosomes caused the number of chromosomes to change.


What are your sources for this particular fusion?
(Origin of chromosome 2 in H. sapiens)

The scientists haven't found the final answer but only speculation.
If they advocate evidence-based science, they should be able to replicate it in a laboratory.
विकृतिः एवम्‌ प्रकृति

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10370
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Real Name: Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Evolution versus Creationism

Postby mōdgethanc » 2014-05-26, 2:33

dkatbena wrote:the discoveries of giant humans or nephilims
1) nephilim is already plural
2) no nephilim have ever been found anywhere because they're mythological creatures
TeneReef wrote:They feed on our negative emotions (fear, anger) and energy released at suffering, war, starvation etc...
Dementors?


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest