Religion.

[DramaQueen]

To ask that question is to assume there was another creator before God. At some time, however, we are forced to stop asking that question and realize that there ad to be something that has always existed. God is that infinite Being who has always been and who was created by no one. At least to me He is. It's a difficult concept to understand because finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite. Like, when we try to think of the highest number, but we can't do it. We shouldn't limit the infinite by our finite understanding.



That's a thing that bugs me. When people say they believe in evolutionism but not creationism. I'm like "Okay. But the things that we evolved from had to get here somehow. How did that happen?"

The only people i've ever had this debate with were just like " AAA! THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT! IT'S ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE CAME FROM. NOT ALL ANIMALS!!!"

And i'm just like, " But seriously. If we evolved from animals, how did they get here"

I seriously and legitimately don't understand how that's possible.

no offence, but you just totally contradicted yourself in that post.
i mean...you just said God just kind of existed and came out of no where, but when people believe in evolution you question how they can think something came from nothing.

if you can believe that God just exists and didn't come from anything, why can't evolutionists believe that the first organisms just exists and didn't come from a Divine creator

again, no offence, and I'm not necessarily a strict evolutionist, I'm just saying that's sort of contradictory...

 

[STOPxmickeytime]

if there were a sudden drought, the lakes dried up, the fish wouldn't evolve, they would die. So how come they could evolve back then when the environment changed?

I dunno if you remember this, but around 5 years ago people around the Great Lakes were having trouble with this new species of fish, it had evolved to the point where (at a VERY close proximity, of course) flop/walk a short distance from one lake to another. The gene for that trait was a mutation, but since having that gene made survival more likely for the fish, they then survived to pass down that gene to new baby fish.

So, my facts might be completely wrong on that, but it's the only example I could think of for modern-day evolution :]

But yeah, personally I believe in the watchmaker theory.
Something out there created all of this (or put the chemicals necessary for the Big Bang to happen together, whichever) and then kinda pushed it aside and let it take it's own course.

 

[marypops!]

I think how we got here is very confusing if we don't strongly believe in something.

It's like 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' and you can go back and forth and back and forth and never make any progress.

Depends on what you believe.

If you believe in Creationism, then it's the chicken.

If you believe in Evolutionism, then it's the egg. This is because the chicken that layed the egg wasn't exactly a chicken. There was something different about it. That same with the chicken before that, and before that, etc.

The chicken's descendant were the dinosaurs...

About how life exists now, I remember watching some show about the birth of the Earth. I think it said we all evolved from bacteria.

I'm not sure why we still don't see evolution. Maybe it's because it takes millions of years for something to evolve into another form.

 

[ktbutterfly2011]

no offence, but you just totally contradicted yourself in that post.
i mean...you just said God just kind of existed and came out of no where, but when people believe in evolution you question how they can think something came from nothing.

if you can believe that God just exists and didn't come from anything, why can't evolutionists believe that the first organisms just exists and didn't come from a Divine creator

again, no offence, and I'm not necessarily a strict evolutionist, I'm just saying that's sort of contradictory...

No. I believe that God (one being, has always existed) created everything. The earth and all its inhabitants.

I don't see how evolutionists believe something just existed because of how many thousands of different plants and animals being on Earth. All the plants and different species of animals didn't just evolve from ONE thing. How could they have?

And if you're gonna say that i'm contradicting myself in this post, i'm not.
One being CREATING everything on Earth and
One being letting everything on Earth EVOLVE from it are totally different.

 

[DramaQueen]

No. I believe that God (one being, has always existed) created everything. The earth and all its inhabitants.

I don't see how evolutionists believe something just existed because of how many thousands of different plants and animals being on Earth. All the plants and different species of animals didn't just evolve from ONE thing. How could they have?

And if you're gonna say that i'm contradicting myself in this post, i'm not.
One being CREATING everything on Earth and
One being letting everything on Earth EVOLVE from it are totally different.

Not really...because someone asked you where you thought God came from and you said that "we have to stop asking questions and realize that there is something that has always existed". Evolutionists believe the same thing, but instead of the one thing that has always existed being God, it's bacteria and organisms.

Life DOES come from "nothing" mold and mildew for example, the bacteria and organisms grow and evolve from non living objects.

 

[Kit-Kat-Bar]

~ Kat

 

[ktbutterfly2011]

Not really...because someone asked you where you thought God came from and you said that "we have to stop asking questions and realize that there is something that has always existed". Evolutionists believe the same thing, but instead of the one thing that has always existed being God, it's bacteria and organisms.

Life DOES come from "nothing" mold and mildew for example, the bacteria and organisms grow and evolve from non living objects.

I think this is kind of a moot point. You're not going to convince me that every thing (as complex as it is) on this earth evolved from bacteria. And i'm not going to convince you that it was created by a God.

 

[xApril]

I don't believe in anything. So I guess I'm Atheist.

My family in Missouri are Christians. When we visit them, we respect their views and go to church. I just could never be a "holy roller" as my Mom calls it. I wouldn't want to go to church during feasting days, pentecost, etc. three times a day. That's just insane. ;x

 

[PowerMonkey]

Thank you! Though how else would traits first apear other than through genetic variation?

haha genetic variation is very different from genetic mutation.. variation is a lot of traits of the same category (tall, short, medium height)... mutation is just something that went wrong in the dividing of cells during development (extra eye, missing limbs, etc etc)....

traits first appear through variation...... here, ill copy and paste the same example as i did before.. i feel that it demonstrated my point very well:

say there are many animals in a region of land.... they are frolicking in a well vegetated field, and are some happy mofos... and suddenly, there is a serious drought.. all the grass dies.. and the only source of food are the remaining leaves on the trees... therefore, any animal that cant reach the trees will die of starvation.. the animals that can reach the trees will survive, and reproduce.. they will pass their tall genes on to their kids... the short gene will die with all the short animals.. therefore, over time, the whole species of animals in that region of land, will be taller as a result...


this was how they believe that giraffes came about... heres a nice diagram depicting it:

the giraffes with the tall neck gene thrived and reproduced.. over time, the tall neck gene became more dominant.... the short neck gene died off with the (for lack of a better word) "short neck giraffes (more so the ancestors of the giraffe)", which is why we dont see these short neck giraffes anymore



natural selection is just a thriving of a gene that aids in survival.. doesnt have to be a mutation to introduce a new gene... like you said yourself, its not like "this animal" turned into "this animal".... it was very very very gradual... different traits evolved from an already existing trait... for example, limbs are believed to be a result of the thriving of longer fins in bony fish... it wasnt like a fish just got a mutation and had a leg haha.. hope that clears things up

 

[Nomi]

That's a thing that bugs me. When people say they believe in evolutionism but not creationism. I'm like "Okay. But the things that we evolved from had to get here somehow. How did that happen?"

In the first place, abiogenisis=/= evolution. And there is evidence to support abiogenisis, the science of looking at how life may have started (like how all organics can be boken down to inorganics, such as carbon and water, and the forming of biotic components in controled experiments from non-organics). This is opposed to creationism, which is not a science at all! It isn't even a hypothesis. Creationism has no evidence, not any, and isn't even falsifiable (which all sciences, need to be).

The only people i've ever had this debate with were just like " AAA! THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT! IT'S ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE CAME FROM. NOT ALL ANIMALS!!!"

And i'm just like, " But seriously. If we evolved from animals, how did they get here"

I seriously and legitimately don't understand how that's possible.

Well, the organisms in our biosphere today evolved from other previous organisms though many branches (evolution is not linear). I just need to make it clear evolution =/= abiogenisis.

 

[DramaQueen]

In the first place, abiogenisis=/= evolution. And there is evidence to support abiogenisis, the science of looking at how life may have started (like how all organics can be boken down to inorganics, such as carbon and water, and the forming of biotic components in controled experiments from non-organics). This is opposed to creationism, which is not a science at all! It isn't even a hypothesis. Creationism has no evidence, not any, and isn't even falsifiable (which all sciences, need to be).


Well, the organisms in our biosphere today evolved from other previous organisms though many branches (evolution is not linear). I just need to make it clear evolution =/= abiogenisis.

you are so smart and eloquent and that makes me happy.

 

[Nomi]

haha genetic variation is very different from genetic mutation.. variation is a lot of traits of the same category (tall, short, medium height)... mutation is just something that went wrong in the dividing of cells during development (extra eye, missing limbs, etc etc)....

traits first appear through variation...... here, ill copy and paste the same example as i did before.. i feel that it demonstrated my point very well:

say there are many animals in a region of land.... they are frolicking in a well vegetated field, and are some happy mofos... and suddenly, there is a serious drought.. all the grass dies.. and the only source of food are the remaining leaves on the trees... therefore, any animal that cant reach the trees will die of starvation.. the animals that can reach the trees will survive, and reproduce.. they will pass their tall genes on to their kids... the short gene will die with all the short animals.. therefore, over time, the whole species of animals in that region of land, will be taller as a result...


this was how they believe that giraffes came about... heres a nice diagram depicting it:

the giraffes with the tall neck gene thrived and reproduced.. over time, the tall neck gene became more dominant.... the short neck gene died off with the (for lack of a better word) "short neck giraffes (more so the ancestors of the giraffe)", which is why we dont see these short neck giraffes anymore



natural selection is just a thriving of a gene that aids in survival.. doesnt have to be a mutation to introduce a new gene... like you said yourself, its not like "this animal" turned into "this animal".... it was very very very gradual... different traits evolved from an already existing trait... for example, limbs are believed to be a result of the thriving of longer fins in bony fish... it wasnt like a fish just got a mutation and had a leg haha.. hope that clears things up

Ah, your right. But the variations in traits that would alow the giraffe to reach higher was a genetic mutation, or maybe I'm using the wrong term. I mean mutation in that the organisms are not a clone of their parents, but have genes that are different. Variations are caused by these gentic differences that are, essentially, a divergence from the parents gentic codes. I use the term mutation to mean the alteration of existing genes.

I like the giraffe picture, I think I've seen it before. Where did you find it?

 

[PowerMonkey]

Ah, your right. But the variations in traits that would alow the giraffe to reach higher was a genetic mutation, or maybe I'm using the wrong term. I mean mutation in that the organisms are not a clone of their parents, but have genes that are different. Variations are caused by these gentic differences that are, essentially, a divergence from the parents gentic codes. I use the term mutation to mean the alteration of existing genes.

I like the giraffe picture, I think I've seen it before. Where did you find it?

haha i believe your just trying to say that the offsprings have enhancements of the gene thatll help them survive... much like how kids these days can out grow their parents lol .. and yes, everyone has genetic variation from their parents (natural result of meiosis)... and thanks! haha, i googled the pic.. im actually majoring in biology atm, and that was the prime example that stuck out in my head

 

[Nomi]

Depends on what you believe.

If you believe in Creationism, then it's the chicken.

If you believe in Evolutionism, then it's the egg. This is because the chicken that layed the egg wasn't exactly a chicken. There was something different about it. That same with the chicken before that, and before that, etc.

The chicken's descendant were the dinosaurs...

About how life exists now, I remember watching some show about the birth of the Earth. I think it said we all evolved from bacteria.

I'm not sure why we still don't see evolution. Maybe it's because it takes millions of years for something to evolve into another form.

Acctually it's the chicken that came first in both cases, since an egg is made by the proto-chicken, and therefore has it's genetic code. Meaning the egg from the proto-chicken would still be a proto-chicken egg, but inside is the chicken with it's new genes! Just something cool I came across day. Hmm... maybe I am really, really geeky after all.

We all (everything from humans to fish to plants) evolved from prokaryotes acctually (bacteria evolved later), and yes, evolution takes millions of years to make the great bio-diversity we see. Though examples of smaller-scale evolution have been observed, mostly in viruses and bacteria. Why do you think they need to keep making new flu vaccines? Because the flu virus evolves to be resistant to the antibodies the vaccine creates.

 

[Mr.Gabriel]

In the first place, abiogenisis=/= evolution. And there is evidence to support abiogenisis, the science of looking at how life may have started (like how all organics can be boken down to inorganics, such as carbon and water, and the forming of biotic components in controled experiments from non-organics). This is opposed to creationism, which is not a science at all! It isn't even a hypothesis. Creationism has no evidence, not any, and isn't even falsifiable (which all sciences, need to be).



Well, the organisms in our biosphere today evolved from other previous organisms though many branches (evolution is not linear). I just need to make it clear evolution =/= abiogenisis.

We do have evidence, and that's our faith. There might be all that scientific stuff, but to me,its all junk. I believe God created everyting, and the Bible and my faith is all the evidence I need..

 

[Nomi]

We do have evidence, and that's our faith. There might be all that scientific stuff, but to me,its all junk. I believe God created everyting, and the Bible and my faith is all the evidence I need..

It's all good and fine for people to believe what they want, for whatever reason they want. (Though is scientific stuff to you like medicine, technology, ect, all junk to you?)

But no, creationism does not have any evidence. You can believe it, but trying to pass off creationism as science is deceitful at best. It's an offshot of religion, not a science and it does not have evidence.

Science looks at the evidence to come to a conclusion.
Creationism came to a conclusion then tried, and failed, to find evidence to support it.

Sorry, it's just trying to pass of creationism as a science is a pet peeve of mine. People can choose to believe that if they want, but it's an insult to science to put them on the same side of the coin.

 

[marypops!]

Acctually it's the chicken that came first in both cases, since an egg is made by the proto-chicken, and therefore has it's genetic code. Meaning the egg from the proto-chicken would still be a proto-chicken egg, but inside is the chicken with it's new genes! Just something cool I came across day. Hmm... maybe I am really, really geeky after all.

We all (everything from humans to fish to plants) evolved from prokaryotes acctually (bacteria evolved later), and yes, evolution takes millions of years to make the great bio-diversity we see. Though examples of smaller-scale evolution have been observed, mostly in viruses and bacteria. Why do you think they need to keep making new flu vaccines? Because the flu virus evolves to be resistant to the antibodies the vaccine creates.

you're so smart. It's like you're just copying this from Wikipedia (I haven't actually looked at the Wikipedia page for Evolution, it just seems like it...)

I got the thing about the egg being first from a science show called What Would Happen If...? At some point of the show, they "lock 2 scientists (or something) in a room" and they discuss a chosen topic for 10 mins before reaching conclusion. That was their conclusion on what came first.

Has anyone used the term "survival of the fittest" yet? So like uh... antelopes have sharp hearing and are rather fast so they can get away from predators. They got this genetic mutation/trait (I don't know) over the years where those who were too slow were killed and those who were fast would then reproduce and have children who would most probably inherit the speedness (or would it be about their legs or something...)

Sorry if i'm making no sense. I'm rather tired...

 

[Disneylover 2]

Baptist.

 

[chisnpeke]

Baptist.

Do you all believe you can't dance because it leads to corruption.

 

[Mr.Gabriel]

It's all good and fine for people to believe what they want, for whatever reason they want. (Though is scientific stuff to you like medicine, technology, ect, all junk to you?)

But no, creationism does not have any evidence. You can believe it, but trying to pass off creationism as science is deceitful at best. It's an offshot of religion, not a science and it does not have evidence.

Science looks at the evidence to come to a conclusion.
Creationism came to a conclusion then tried, and failed, to find evidence to support it.

Sorry, it's just trying to pass of creationism as a science is a pet peeve of mine. People can choose to believe that if they want, but it's an insult to science to put them on the same side of the coin.

Scienctific junk to me, is all this Evolution, Earth had a big explosion, type of stuff. THAT I don't believe and, to a point, think its idiotic.

Evidence may have been found, but that doesn't mean that God didn't create us. I'm sure there was no big expolsion that created our planet. God did it all by himself.