Doubting Didymus

You're going to have to define your use of the word 'creationism' for me.

Gracchus

In this corner, for evolution--"TURTLE POOP"!

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/poop.htm

And in the other corner, for creationism--"JAPANESE LESBIAN MONKEYS"!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/846454/posts

jolene555

You're going to have to define your use of the word 'creationism' for me.



i believe what the bible says in it's entirety, that god created the world and everything in it in 6 days. if it's in the bible, i believe it.

and my little post earlier was not meant to be taken so literally as that one lone creature ventured off and suddenly morphed into something else. perhaps i should have made it clearer that i simply was trying to give a basic example. i am not a science major, i just have a general understanding of how nature works. don't mean to offend anyone

-jo

Gooch's dad

Hi, Jolene, and welcome to the SecWeb!

Its a good question you ask, and I think one faulty assumption you're making is that we evolved from monkeys. We didn't. We share a common ancestor with chimps and apes, and much further back, monkeys. That ancestor didn't look much like any modern day ape or monkey.

So here's how it might have worked: the proto-chimp population lived in the trees somewhere in Africa, and occasionalliy came down to gather some food and/or to hunt. Some band of these chimps lived at the edge of the forest, and over many generations gradually got more of their food from the savannah rather than the forest. They started walking upright more often, because that gave them a much better view across the savannah, to see prey and to avoid predators. Those that were better at walking upright for longer periods had more offspring and survived better.

See, already this band of proto-chimps is acting a bit different than the chimps back in the forest. They may have still been the same species at this point (could interbreed and produce non-sterile offspring). But they are becoming isolated, and eventually will not be able to interbreed with the other chimps due to accumulation of genetic changes over many generations.

Eventually, the savannah proto-chimps become proto-humans, and the forest proto-chimps become chimps and bonobos and maybe gorillas too. Both populations can change, they diverge from the common ancestor.

Getting the idea?

pz

Errm, I get the impression that Jolene understands all that. She was saying that the "why are there still monkeys?" argument is a bad argument.

The real question is, what does she consider to be a good argument for her creationism?

jolene555

gooch . . . thaks for the welcome - glad to be here. i see what you are saying and i respect it, as much as i respect any other faith. you have about as much proof that your "theroy" (which i believe to be a scientific word for "belief") as i do do for the total validity of the bible. you have no proof, just faith in science

-jo

Lobstrosity

Actually, what he has is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory much stronger than what he put forth. For example, the theory of gravity is still a theory. Similarly, you have the theory of electrodynamics. The computer you are using right now is built upon that theory, yet it still remains just a theory. You see, it's rather faulty to say that scientists have "faith" in theories and it's a bit weak to say that theory is equivalent to belief. Such notions come from a lack of understanding as to what science really is. Science could never work if faith were involved. Were faith involved, I think it's a pretty fair bet that computers wouldn't exist right now.

jolene555

grrr . . . i am new here so please understand i am just getting used to things. a good arguement for creationism??? i'll go with one y'all can respect - where the hell is the missing link??? i am sorry to throw out a timeless debate but surely you don't think that there was an entire evolved level of a species that was taken up by aliens before any of them died. evolution is faith as far as i am concerned, and frankly it's much harder for me to believe that all this beauty came from a rock rather than by a loving god

-jo

Godless Dave

Which one? I assume you mean a transitional form between two known species. Which two species? There are lots of transitional forms in the fossil record, but I don't know which specific one you are looking for.

Four points:
1) The theory of evolution does not exclude the existence of any gods, including your loving god. The existence of gods falls outside the realm of science
2) The ToE says nothing about life coming from a rock.
3) Beauty is subjective
4) How hard something is to believe has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is true.

jolene555

i think you missed the point of my arguement. this is less to do with the word "theroy" and more to do with "proof". until you have it - we are argueing 2 sets of unknowns

-jo