Do you believe Human Evolution By Sir Charles Darwin or we're God's creation?

[yhokz101]

it's also a matter of scientific principle, sticking to tangible programs rather than mere speculations., seeking to understand what can be understood rather than relying on blunt notions such as "god did it"..

it is somewhat wrong to be thwarted by this so-called "no-complete-evidence-yet" scheme.. it is always good to synergize among the line of common interest, true scientific interest that is..

then it is safe from your point of view to claim the definite and much valid claim of human is from the "theory" of charles darwin? This is your basis if asked where did Man came from? Despite of the lack of "Transitional Fossils" or the origin of the species.

Much more to say that in science or as what you describe as "scientific principle", the approach of this theory is somewhat flawed. Why?
The word science means “knowledge” and science is the accumulation of knowledge. Science is an intentional, systematic and logical approach to discovering how things work in the universe so evolution cannot ever be a proven theory that shows that it works. Why do I say that? Because of these fundamental aspects in science:

- There must be observations made and recorded.

Now by disconnected evidence, aren't you also relying on speculations and not on solid facts and evidence? It should be reproduced until there are absolutely no discrepancies between the observations and the theory.

The theory of evolution is actually a faith-based belief since it must be accepted by faith..

[necrotic freak]

then in your own words, how is it the same?

Kindly refer to my post #41 .

[Jhared]

then it is safe from your point of view to claim the definite and much valid claim of human is from the "theory" of charles darwin? This is your basis if asked where did Man came from? Despite of the lack of "Transitional Fossils" or the origin of the species.

Much more to say that in science or as what you describe as "scientific principle", the approach of this theory is somewhat flawed. Why?
The word science means “knowledge” and science is the accumulation of knowledge. Science is an intentional, systematic and logical approach to discovering how things work in the universe so evolution cannot ever be a proven theory that shows that it works. Why do I say that? Because of these fundamental aspects in science:

- There must be observations made and recorded.

Now by disconnected evidence, aren't you also relying on speculations and not on solid facts and evidence? It should be reproduced until there are absolutely no discrepancies between the observations and the theory.

The theory of evolution is actually a faith-based belief since it must be accepted by faith..

yes observation and recording is a fundamental aspect of science, in fact there are six:

Observe > ask a question > Hypothesize > Experiment > Analyze > Conclude

Can it be observed? macro-wise no, micro-wise? yes.. well does a tree grow? yes but can we observe it's growth? like really see it growing? no but come back after a few years and you will certainly see the result..

has everyone asked a question regarding it? absolutely

Had anyone Hypothesized something out from it? yes

Has anyone conducted an experiment on it? yes in fact there is,

Has anyone concluded some facts regarding it? yes

therefore the theory is affirmed...

That my friend is scientific principle..


and creation? what sort of evidence would you support it with? the bible?

- - - Updated - - -

Kindly refer to my post #41 .

kindly explain post #41 to me.. you came up with the comparison, so explain it to me..

[yhokz101]

yes observation and recording is a fundamental aspect of science, in fact there are six:

Observe > ask a question > Hypothesize > Experiment > Analyze > Conclude

Can it be observed? macro-wise no, micro-wise? yes.. well does a tree grow? yes but can we observe it's growth? like really see it growing? no but come back after a few years and you will certainly see the result..

has everyone asked a question regarding it? absolutely

Had anyone Hypothesized something out from it? yes

Has anyone conducted an experiment on it? yes in fact there is,

Has anyone concluded some facts regarding it? yes

therefore the theory is affirmed...

That my friend is scientific principle..


and creation? what sort of evidence would you support it with? the bible?

- - - Updated - - -



kindly explain post #41 to me.. you came up with the comparison, so explain it to me..

Oh, the scientific principle.. you mean experimental on evolution at "micro" level..the microbs and bacteria so to say,, of course. These we can do an experiment and make an hypothesis out of it. Mind you we are talking here about "Human"...

Simulation, perhaps, yes. What you are referring to are controlled experiments in the laboratory, to pinpoint the mutations that selection acts upon, what brought about the adaptations, and to find out how exactly these mutations work.

Theory of Human evolution is ambiguous as it pertains indefinite how and why and when....inconclusive.

..and creation? what sort of evidence would you support it with? the bible?

If I ever I will have something to support it with scientifically, I'm sure you'll see me in the news.. I will let you know.


Oh about your tree statement, I can do it for you by using a very simple experiment to prove that it can grow very very slow.. ever heard of capturing something in time-lapses? it's very easy really.

[necrotic freak]

Darwin is your Jesus and Theory of evolution is your bible.

[Jhared]

Oh, the scientific principle.. you mean experimental on evolution at "micro" level..the microbs and bacteria so to say,, of course. These we can do an experiment and make an hypothesis out of it. Mind you we are talking here about "Human"...

Simulation, perhaps, yes. What you are referring to are controlled experiments in the laboratory, to pinpoint the mutations that selection acts upon, what brought about the adaptations, and to find out how exactly these mutations work.

Theory of Human evolution is ambiguous as it pertains indefinite how and why and when....inconclusive.

and what are we made of? yes my friend, bacteria..

If I ever I will have something to support it with scientifically, I'm sure you'll see me in the news.. I will let you know.

that's actually funny

you are quick to point out that evolution is unscientific, and seem to value the scientific spirit.. but you believe in creation who's only basis is what is written in that 2000 year old book, which also said that the cure for leprosy is a dead bird's blood? lol..

Oh about your tree statement, I can do it for you by using a very simple experiment to prove that it can grow very very slow.. ever heard of capturing something in time-lapses? it's very easy really.

Exactly!!! not bad, not bad at all., now you're catching my drift,.. now imagine slowing the pace by a millionth, now think of evolution,..

- - - Updated - - -

Darwin is your Jesus and Theory of evolution is your bible.

whoever said he's our Jesus? and evolution our bible?

[yhokz101]

and what are we made of? yes my friend, bacteria..

99% of a human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All are necessary to life.

Where is bacteria there? hehehe

this is the first time I saw someone actually saying we are made up of bacteria

that's actually funny

coz your question is quite funny.. you are trying to say I can give you solid proof of creation or origin of creation.. that absurd to begin with. Even the brilliant mind can't even proved any of their claims.. now here you are asking me.. hehehe

you are quick to point out that evolution is unscientific, and seem to value the scientific spirit.. but you believe in creation who's only basis is what is written in that 2000 year old book, which also said that the cure for leprosy is a dead bird's blood? lol..

Now here you are, having an assumption. As what your "scientific principle" dictates that assumption is called the null hypothesis. What part did I say evolution is unscientific, I didn't mention "scientific spirit" just yet (whatever that means, scientific + spirit). I did not quote or make reference the bible.. now I begin to doubt your scientific principle my friend.

You simply failed to see my point of view that with reference to the thread topic, I just refused to jump right into conclusion that we, humans, are in fact follow the theory of evolution. However you, on the other hand insists and aggressively conclude that the theory of evolution is the only explanation.

not bad, now you're catching my drift, now imagine slowing the pace by a millionth, now think of evolution,..

The only big challenge you'll face if you relate this to human evolution is that you can't observe nor record it, now could you? Only by faith and assumption can you say this must be the real explanation.

[Jhared]

99% of a human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All are necessary to life.

Where is bacteria there? hehehe

this is the first time I saw someone actually saying we are made up of bacteria

we are talking about bacterias not elements, lol.. do a little research, a quick search can help a great deal.. these microorganisms are essentially what makes us us,.. our body harbor 10x more bacterial cells than human cells.. so basically we are made up of bacterias... these tiny bacterias known as microbes are essentially the managing structure of our body.. we live because they are inside of us,. we are driven to evolve because of their influence..

coz your question is quite funny.. you are trying to say I can give you solid proof of creation or origin of creation.. that absurd to begin with. Even the brilliant mind can't even proved any of their claims.. now here you are asking me.. hehehe

Now here you are, having an assumption. As what your "scientific principle" dictates that assumption is called the null hypothesis. What part did I say evolution is unscientific, I didn't mention "scientific spirit" just yet (whatever that means, scientific + spirit). I did not quote or make reference the bible.. now I begin to doubt your scientific principle my friend.

in the light of what you said that evolution is faith-based, in other words unscientific, like creation.. so there you go., im observing you're words and coming up with conclusions.. that my friend is what we call scientific analysis.. you may think you didnt say it and you like to smack that on my face from time to time, but the fact of the matter is that you directly implied it.. ergo, it's your own words im referring to..

You simply failed to see my point of view that with reference to the thread topic, I just refused to jump right into conclusion that we, humans, are in fact follow the theory of evolution. However you, on the other hand insists and aggressively conclude that the theory of evolution is the only explanation.

aggressively? so you're thinking that im being aggressive to you? set aside your judgments my friend..

ok to set the record straight.. do you believe in creation or not?

The only big challenge you'll face if you relate this to human evolution is that you can't observe nor record it, now could you? Only by faith and assumption can you say this must be the real explanation.

not faith and assumption, but through gathering of evidence, experimentation, etc (by other scientists of course).. but that does not convince you does it?..

[yhokz101]

we are talking about bacterias not elements, lol.. do a little research, a quick search can help a great deal.. these microorganisms are essentially what makes us us,.. our body harbor 10x more bacterial cells than human cells.. so basically we are made up of bacterias... these tiny bacterias known as microbes are essentially the managing structure of our body.. we live because they are inside of us,. we are driven to evolve because of their influence..

made of is very different from having.. know your words.

Having bacteria in our body is crucial to our health. The complex relationships between humans and bacteria are quite fascinating, they play a very important role. But wait, let's go back, you meaning to say these bacteria are the deciding factor of our evolution? If I am hearing you right, you said body = bacteria. That;s why scientist do experiments on them to trace back our evolution?

Look, this is beyond the topic but the very reason they have those experiments is to study how microbs/bacteria interacts, as I said, to pinpoint the mutations that selection acts upon, what brought about the adaptations, and to find out how exactly these mutations work. Not on human level.. coz if this is the case, we could have easily say we are from - bacteria, case solved!

in the light of what you said that evolution is faith-based, in other words unscientific, like creation.. so there you go., im observing you're words and coming up with conclusions.. that my friend is what we call scientific analysis.. you may think you didnt say it and you like to smack that on my face from time to time, but the fact of the matter is that you directly implied it.. ergo, it's your own words im referring to..

Should science speak of Faith, or taking science on faith. Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith. Science as what was repeatedly being told is the exact or most reliable source of knowledge. But religion on the other hand is based on faith. So, should be inter-relate them as much as we would like when speaking scientifically? I'd say YES, but you just necessarily label that one as religious as it should be. Faith, is what drives Columbus to explore the earth to prove to the people that the earth is not flat. Faith, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe or unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes. You see, when you see faith, as you always do, jump into conclusion to label that person "unscientific". enough of this, OT na kau.

aggressively? so you're thinking that im being aggressive to you? set aside your judgments my friend..

You are indeed aggressively concluding on your explanation - evolution of humans

ok to set the record straight.. do you believe in creation or not?

Creation? of what? what do you mean by this, this is broad and vague.

not faith and assumption, but through gathering of evidence, experimentation, etc (by other scientists of course).. but that does not convince you does it?..

- we'll have to settle on theory as of the moment.. no way to record nor do an actual experimentation on human evolution. Evidence, yes, but inconclusive. To be convince is to have a solid proof, in scientific approach I mean. But when you say to be convince with the given data, you are taking it by faith.

[Saint_hard]

nana pud ta ani.....hahiggsstt