Oops, sorry. I haven’t read the entire thread. 
Mmm. Yep. Exactly. 
– Mitch
As far as I know, there are two macroevolution hypotheses: phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. For a long time I believed in phyletic gradualism (lots of small, beneficial changes) and then I stopped because I didn’t think it could explain speciation (I don’t remember exactly why, which is kind of embarrassing; I can’t explain my own thought process). Afterwards I believed in punctuated equilibrium (isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change - Oxford Dictionary) and then about three years ago I stopped believing in that too. It’s because there are some aspects of living things that are too complex (I believe) to have happened by chance, even over a long time. The human brain, with all of its pathways, is one example.
I don’t believe in any one religion, but I believe that shared DNA between different species could be the result of a creator recycling his or her work, or creating variations on a theme. I look forward to reading further evidence for macroevolution to see how I can rationalize it.
As a side note, the big bang could have been caused by extradimensional membranes colliding. There’s a PBS show that mentions it here.
Edit - I apologize because this post was kind of unorganized. I was trying to 1. say that it’s possible to believe in microevolution and not believe in macroevolution, and 2. state my own beliefs. The former is insufficiently explained. Perhaps someone else can explain it better.
Hmm, this thread certainly is interesting. I haven’t read all of it (specifically, pages 3-6) and I’m not sure if this has been done or not, so excuse me if it has. However, I don’t think I’ve seen a true definition of the Big Bang and the scientific evidence supporting it.
(Disclaimer: I’m a Secular Humanist, which isn’t exactly a religion but more of a philosophy. One of the basic upholdings of it is that I believe that everything that can be tested and supported by evidence is possible)
Scientists today have found that the distance from here to other galaxies is proportional to their redshifts, thus suggesting that the universe is expanding. Logically, therefore, the universe one billion years ago must have been smaller than it is now. If we go back, the universe has gotten smaller and smaller and smaller until we get a universe of an infinite density and an infinite hotness. Using some crazy general relativity science, we have also derived a finite date for the beginning of the universe.
An extremely small amount of time after that finite date ago, the extremely high density (which would have been an absolute number, as we have proven that the universe constantly expands), temperature, and pressure on the universe caused it to go through a phase change (similar to something like evaporation). This caused the universe to expand exponentially. A couple of minutes in, due to the still high pressure, neutrons and protons began combining to hydrogen and helium atoms.
Now, scientists today still don’t have the answer for the origins of life, except for saying that it likely involved self-replicating molecules that eventually formed the simplest cells.
Evolution, however, as has been said many times in this thread I believe, has been backed up by tons of fossil evidence. And, it is (and I don’t mean to make this sound like an insult) naive to think that evolution has suddenly stopped. Physical changes in evolutionary stages take millions and millions of years, and the theory has only become mainstream since Darwin in the mid-1800s, I believe.
I simply just can’t believe in creationism. For one, it is finite. Scientific theory constantly changes to the adaptation of knowledge, but creationism holds on to old traditions of pre-modern scientific knowledge. The Torah was canonized I believe in 400 BCE, and before that it was passed down through oral tradition. It refuses to change, even when science disproves it. Science however, can change! Darwin might have gotten some things wrong, but that’s because he published his masterpiece in the 1800s! 150 years later, and countless numbers of scientific experiment later, we have found contradictions to his work and have adapted the theory of evolution to it.
However, despite which one is true, evolution should be taught in schools while creation must not. People like to say that evolution should not be taught because it is a theory. However, most of modern science is based off of theory. There are very, very few natural laws that we know are 100% true. These include Newton’s Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics, conservation of mass and composition, etc. If we throw out evolution just because it is a theory, then we must throw out the entire Chemistry syllabus, because it is based on atomic theory. Einstein’s theory of relativity (e = mc2) must also never be taught.
I’m not trying to make enemies with this post, but creationism is a story with absolutely no scientific backing whatsoever. I believe that one day we will move past the religious explanation of the origin of life, just as we moved past the myth that every planet revolves around the earth, which the Church heavily promoted in the middle ages.
My two cents, don’t stone me 
I believe in micro-evolution, because most likely Noah’s Ark didn’t fit one of every specific breed. Yet there are many many breeds of kinds of animals today. Small changes and adaptation do happen, and they are minor. Macro evolution is kinda going to extremes, though.
Also, it has been discovered that fossils can from quicker than millions of years. One fossil has been determined to have formed in only 50 years.
There are flood stories in a large number of other cultures and religions too. So that should mean their gods are real as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology
-
Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
-
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
* Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
* In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
* Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
It’s possible people discovered shells on mountains and created the flood stories to explain them.
Hold on!..Mmmmph : picking up big rock : That’s it, here it comes! 
So basically Noah and his wife have made 6 billion people in ~5000 years? they were the only two peple that survived?
Oh, yes. I forgot about that. Doesn’t mean that their gods are real, though. (heh)
Nevertheless, the point remains that, although that may be true in “many cases”, it doesn’t mean that it applies to every case.
WALL•E - The only survivors of the Noahic flood, besides the animals who resided within the ark, were Noah, his wife, and Noah’s three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) and their wives.
– Mitch
8 people x5000 years = 6 billion all diffreent colours and races?
You can believe in evolution and still believe in God(s). I mean, you may not believe it took millions of years to evolve, but still.
As for the sun is shrinking theory… it’s just that… a theory. We can’t know for sure unless we’ve been there, which will never happen, I may add. No one for sure knows if there really is a God(s) or if we really did evolve.
There’s evidence to support both theories. I mean, for evolution, the Earth seems to be the right amount away from the sun because it’s the only planet in our solar system that evolved life over time. The creatures who were first here evolved to support the temperature that the Earth is currently at. It seems normal to us. However, if we ived on Mercury, that temperature would seem normal to us if we evolved to support it, if that makes any sense.
As for the theory of creation, well, I can’t really speak for all of us because I’m certain we have a variety of different religions here. I mean, it’s nice to think that some “greater being” created this Earth specifically for us. Sometimes we just can’t explain how everything is just the right amount. For example, the Earth is just the right amount away from the sun. There is just the right amount of food and such on the Earth for us.
The point is, no one will ever know which is true until we finally bite the dust. I think the point is that we should enjoy our time while we’re here. I don’t see why we have to spend a Sunday in church, or spend time praying. We should be doing. We should be enjoying our time, not spending it worshipping someone or something. < Those aren’t my personal beliefs, but I know people who think that way.
A day without laughter is a day wasted… and I truly don’t want to waste my days. I’d rather have a fun life. I’d like to look back and say… “I lived a good life.” Not stand there and wonder what could have been. If life gives me opportunity… I’ll take it gladly.
I kinda drifted off-topic for a second there. Sorry everyone. For all it’s worth, I think everything I said here makes no sense. I’m just as confused as everyone else is. Plus, I’m kinda hungry. I’ve been fasting for twelve hours… sleeping is considered fasting, right? (No, I’m not on Ramadan.) I’m not sure… Anyway, I have to wrap this up now. There’s my twenty-four cents…
No, some creation scietists say that 5,000 years occured until Christ came and now 2,000 years later we have 8 bill people and 2 races. (blacks/whites)
We don’t know how the two races became there is still speculation over parts of the bible that might indicate that some change occured. But if you put it onto perspective…
if every 70 years a couple had produced 2 children…
in 30 generations or 2100 years there would have been 1610612736 new children born to the world. Lets say that 1/2 of those died (that’s a big group) due to age (there having birth at 70 thats really old) LOL
they would still have had a 805,306,368 million increase in population!
For only 2,100 years and that includes people giving birth at 70
If people were to guive brith at 40 that number would almost double and that still doesn’t account for the afact that not 1/2 of the population have died out in 2100 years.
Phew this is getting a little confusing…
Wrapup-you could have a 805 mill population increase if people spent 2,100 years and having two offspring by the age of 70. That is just children who would be born.
The eternal quest…
Well, I have a hard time accepting the theory of evolution. And it’s because I want to believe that we’re here for a reason. As Carl Sagan has said it…
Consider again that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.
Made me feel absolutely sad.
Well they eventually split up and spread all over the world, so a lot can happen all over the world in a few thousand years, including different skin colors, because some places around the world have more sunlight than others, causing darker skin.
May I restate this again:
- Fossils don’t have to take millions of years to form. Some fossils were found to be only 50 years old.
- Scientists have discovered that the salt in the oceans accumulated over time. So if the world was billions of years old, then the water should actually be much saltier than it really is.
What would you have to say to that?
FounderofAzn: So what you are saying is that you believe in God because you can’t imagine that all of this happened by chance. But say I am out in the backyard and I find an Ant hill, and thousands of ants have lived and died there and none have ever travelled far enough to find any other ant hills, it’s entirely possible that those Ants think they are put there by some Divine being, when in fact, their Ant hill was created by something else.
Terrible example, I know.
No one has ever observed the entire process of the universe, and it is pretty much, entirely impossible for someone to ever do so. Perhaps in a trillion years the Universe will collapse on itself and the cycle would start all over again. Who knows what will happen, and there are many theories out there.
One of my favourite Carl Sagan quotes is found here. It’s quite long but very entertaining.
A113: You said way back that you don’t listen to anything Dawkin’s says because he doesn’t understand the Bible. What a load of poppycock. I’m sure Dawkin’s as read the Bible as thoroughly as you would have, or even more thoroughly. The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways and lets hope for the sake of humanity, not literally, otherwise we’d all be killing women, children and pigs and others who don’t believe in the same religion. You have committed the fallacy of Ad Nazium, which stems from the following type of argument
Adolf Hitler accepted idea I.
Therefore, I must be wrong.
The Nazis accepted idea I.
Therefore, I must be wrong.
Examples
Hitler was in favor of euthanasia.
Therefore, euthanasia is wrong.
The Nazis favored eugenics.
Therefore, eugenics is wrong.
Hitler was also a vegetarian, so must vegetarianism be wrong? No.
Because Dawkin’s may have said something you disagree with, doesn’t make it wrong and I think you should read some of Dawkin’s work as to not have a biased view of the world. I have certainly read some Christian and other religious material and found it personally, not be as convincing as what is it to be an Atheist.
Heck! I’d rather be a Pastafarian than a Christian. I’d even rather be a Muslim or a Hindu than a Christian. Although I’d rather be a Christian than a Scientologist.
As for evolution, the Church of England and The Roman Catholic Church have both said that evolution is compatible with their beliefs. Frankly, as shady as organised religion is, I applaud them both for the move. I think you forgot to add “In my opinion” to your “The Roman Catholic Church is wrong” statement A113.
A coulpe things wrong bawpcwpn…
for 1 don’t ever attack a persom when you are trying to persuade their opinions. That automatically makes a brick wall between both of you.
2-Roman Catholics aren’t nowaday Christians. I’m sorry if this offends someone but they don’t have the pure Christian intentions. If you examine the differences there are many that are drastic.
3-Hitler was bad only becuase he used his ideas in the world. His goals were what was wring. The problem wasn’t Hitler but the ideas. It would be Clinton trying to wipe out the swedes because they were lousy good for nothing poor people. Would people call him wrong…of cource…what was his problem. Why was he doing it??? His ideas.
For one where did you get killing people who didn’t believe in the same religion?!?!?! That is utter nonsence. Nowhere in the bible does it ever say kill the ones who do not confess and turn to Christianity?
1-We can see God through the bible and the events that happen around us.
2-Ants don’t think so we will never know…it kinda is a bad example (could you exlpain deeper) And your also very vauge on what you mean by it. Your just saying…
[Some ants in my backyard believe that they were created by a divine God but they really aren’t and are hence stupid.]
Actually i do know someone. He remained on earth for about 200 years and wrote the events down in a book. I read this every sunday…it really opens the mind on what took place.
No your not wrong…misled maybe…but the wrong thing is the idea.
“Ideas have consequences”
Your right. darwin was right on half of his theories. Microevolution is totally correct. Saying that major species like giraffs and mosquitos have totally transpformed into every single little animal on the planet in a little space, without having malfunctions, and not getting eaten, and not dying out, and not having malfunctions in their development stages. That is quite hard to believe. Your idea is harder to believe then mine.
What do you have against Christians??
Who said I’m trying to persuade? I’m a real devil’s advocate. I argue for the sake of arguing.
Nowadays Christians? Says who? What are pure Christian intentions? Are these your ideas of pure Christian intentions?
You also have completely misunderstood me on the whole Ad Nazium thing. And I don’t think you get it.
The examples I found were from another website, and they are saying “I” as in X in an equation. So it might look like this.
Adolf Hitler accepted idea X.
Therefore, X must be wrong.
The Nazis accepted idea X.
Therefore, I must be wrong.
That is what Ad Nazium looks like.
And no, I still think mine is easier to believe. A great big guy transcendental to the universe created everything including its problems? No thanks. Something evolving through natural process of which I have observed similar things happen such as plants growing? Sounds more promising. Evolution could be wrong, but it hasn’t been proved wrong yet and scientists are constantly modifying evolution to fit new evidence they find. I put my trust and faith in a very large bunch of people who are much smarter than I in the whole scientific area, rather than some words written in a book thousands of years ago about some big invisible guy and another guy who was around 200 years before the book was written.
What do I have against Christians? Nothing really, except that all those other religions make more sense than Christianity and aren’t as single minded. Probably my favourite quote on this topic is from Gandhi:
The reason you believe that “God” put us here is because you cannot accept the fact the samethign sponteneusly came into existence.
If god put us here, who put god there?
anf the person who put the person that put got there.
At one point something must have spontaneusly come into existence.
It says clearly in the Bible that those who are not guided by the Holy Spirit will not understand the Word of God. He’s worse than the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
God is eternal. Eternal has no beginning, and no end. It just is, similar to in Exodus, where God tells Moses to say that “I AM” had sent him.
Nothing can create a god. A god is not a god if it has been created.
he must ahve been eternally bored.