Do You Believe in Higher Lifeforms in the Universe?
- Thread starter The Eternal Storyteller
- Start date
Scorpius":3ochseon said:
Yeah, no. First off, you can't discover constellations. They're completely arbitrary, imaginary lines that we put in.
Second, as Carl Sagan pointed out, we human beings THRIVE on finding patterns. That's why Jesus is on every piece of toast in America, it isn't a miracle. The arrangement (in 3d space, not just the sky) of nearby stars coincedentally fit. Slim odds, for certain, but not unbelievable. In fact, the woman who discovered the pattern (not the abductee) looked from THOUSANDS of angles before finding anything.
Third, the memories were recovered via hypnosis, which makes them unreliable right of the bat. There are people with recovered memories of meeting Bugs Bunny at Disney Land.
Fourth, there are all sorts of other fishy bits with the accounts, suggesting it's a hoax. Sorry.
(PS: the woman was Betty Hill, in case you're interested in the story)
No, it's not.
Evolution is based on the idea of slow adaptations to a changing environment. Sometimes this does mean gaining genetic material. Other times it just means losing one gene in favor of another.
But, nobody LOSES genetic information as they go. You'll always have the same genes you started out with, and your kids will share this, short of a mutation.
Evolution is based on the idea of slow adaptations to a changing environment. Sometimes this does mean gaining genetic material. Other times it just means losing one gene in favor of another.
But, nobody LOSES genetic information as they go. You'll always have the same genes you started out with, and your kids will share this, short of a mutation.
children don't get all of their parents genes. And if it's based on adaption, there are so many animals that don't fit the survival of the fittest and natural selection methods, like birds with useless wings. Also, wouldn't people, such as eskimo's be extremely hairy, or people in hot climates not have dark skin? Which kind of goes against the adaption thing.
Survival of the fittest doesn't mean having no totally useless body parts, it means being able to survive in your area. Ostriches do just fine with wings, there's no reason to get rid of them.
Dark skin is a result of melanin, a chemical which provide protection against UV rays, which are generally pretty noticable in... hot climates. Sounds like adaptation to me.
Also, eskimos pioneered the concept of stealing other creature's fur to do the work for them. Humans are really good at cheating evolution, we have tools so we don't need to adapt in any way besides making our tools adapt.
Dark skin is a result of melanin, a chemical which provide protection against UV rays, which are generally pretty noticable in... hot climates. Sounds like adaptation to me.
Also, eskimos pioneered the concept of stealing other creature's fur to do the work for them. Humans are really good at cheating evolution, we have tools so we don't need to adapt in any way besides making our tools adapt.
So where's evidence of humans having to evolve? I've yet to see a "missing link" that hasn't been dismissed as a fraud or purely primate, and not related to human. I can also point out some instances where entire "missing links" where created from a shard of bone. That's not science.
Homo erectus has nothing to support it being anything but human, there are many diseases that were current that could have caused a person to appear in such a way, and if there were a few diseased, they would most likely be outcast or live with eachther. Again, scientists will have to assume things.
And I'll gladly point you to a site or to with information on homo habilus and how evolutionists are wrong in that case as well.
here's a little snippet of some of it:
"By now, everyone has heard of the discovery in Kenya that Homo habilis fossils were found near Homo erectus fossils. They were discovered to have co-existed for thousands of years. This blows their theory right out of the water that the two were millions of years apart –that is, if you believe in such things as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Previous thinking held that man’s so-called ancestors followed one another in a linear timeline. Now the thinking is that they both evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years.
The Homo erectus fossils date back 1.55 million years while the Homo habilis dates back 1.44 million years, according to the scientists. Farah Idle, the Kenya museum director stated that “The story of human evolution has not yet been [told]. The more discoveries you make, the more questions you raise.â€
And I'll gladly point you to a site or to with information on homo habilus and how evolutionists are wrong in that case as well.
here's a little snippet of some of it:
"By now, everyone has heard of the discovery in Kenya that Homo habilis fossils were found near Homo erectus fossils. They were discovered to have co-existed for thousands of years. This blows their theory right out of the water that the two were millions of years apart –that is, if you believe in such things as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Previous thinking held that man’s so-called ancestors followed one another in a linear timeline. Now the thinking is that they both evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years.
The Homo erectus fossils date back 1.55 million years while the Homo habilis dates back 1.44 million years, according to the scientists. Farah Idle, the Kenya museum director stated that “The story of human evolution has not yet been [told]. The more discoveries you make, the more questions you raise.â€
Gotcha. However, there is one ignored point. Homo erectus still led to humanity. We just don't know the critter that led to it. There are holes all across the evolutionary tree, not because evolution is wrong, but because fossils are rare, and difficult to find. It's like a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces are scattered throughout your living room, so you have to find them before you can even get started.
you have pieces you shove into place. Homo erectus didn't lead to humanity, there is nothing to suggest that "it" was any less human than any other human. There are plausible ideas on how a human came to be of such structure, but again, ideas, so I can't use that as proof. As for any type of scientific standing I can show you this:
EDIT: And fossil's are not rare, there are tons of them, they jsut can't find fossils that support evolution with solidity
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... il2002.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/cranial.asp
EDIT: And fossil's are not rare, there are tons of them, they jsut can't find fossils that support evolution with solidity
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... il2002.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/cranial.asp
You demand proof to back up the theory of evolution, but you seem to be fine with taking the absence of proof for evolution as irrefutable evidence of creation.
Now it's your turn. Show us some evidence that God created everything exactly the way it is in six days. And explain the dinosaur bones while you're at it.
And I won't be happy if you reply with "well look what they said about evolution was wrong so things must have been created in a miraculous fashion."
Now it's your turn. Show us some evidence that God created everything exactly the way it is in six days. And explain the dinosaur bones while you're at it.
And I won't be happy if you reply with "well look what they said about evolution was wrong so things must have been created in a miraculous fashion."
explain dinosaur bones? What about them? So there were dinosaurs, yeh.
dinosaurs were created right along with the other creatures.
And if evolution is wrong, what would you propose take it's place? Just out of curiosity. And I demanded nothing, I was just trying to support my own beliefs. I just see that there is tons of holes in the evolutionary process, that's all.
As for scientific evidence of six days, I wasn't there, so I couldn't really provide any of that, I go based on what the bible says about it, as you do with Darwin's theory.
dinosaurs were created right along with the other creatures.
And if evolution is wrong, what would you propose take it's place? Just out of curiosity. And I demanded nothing, I was just trying to support my own beliefs. I just see that there is tons of holes in the evolutionary process, that's all.
As for scientific evidence of six days, I wasn't there, so I couldn't really provide any of that, I go based on what the bible says about it, as you do with Darwin's theory.
WildCard":2flnp4zr said:
This ended up way off topic, but to be honest, evolution vs. creationism is a huge decider in whether or not you believe in higher life forms throughout the universe. Science has yet to explain large portions of the history of the universe- that is the means of the scientific process. But creationism has even more holes and contains more paradoxes than the pieces of scientific history.
Additionally, you should not use slanders such as "if you’re a God-hating, Bible-hating evolutionist." Using such terms really reduce the validity of your arguments in either direction. The 'insult defense mechanism' is a sure fire way to tell that your debate opponent is running out of defense material.
Do you agree that the fossils were properly dated to 1.55 Million years? If I'm not mistaken, the bible currently dates the Earth at only a few thousand years. What has gone so wrong in the dating process that we were off by 1.5 million years in determining the origin of a fossil?
You disagree with science's explanations because they lack information, but support another that is even more mythical and goes against all the laws of physics as we have established. Faith is a good reason for you to believe in what you believe in, but not a good stance to take to a debate.
That being said, it is entirely likely that evolution may have lead to our existence. Evolution may be the road to more life on other planets, and maybe if we can witness how other life forms in the universe have evolved and came to be, we can gather more knowledge on our lives and existence.
WildCard":107d3em9 said:
The whole thing perhaps? You want us to provide evidence that evolution has occurred, there have been factual statements presented. I ask you for solid evidence that creationism has been solidified, just 3 pieces of fact that make it MORE plausible. And "because it explains everything" is not a plausible reason.