Just In
for Evolution and Creation

6/23/2005 c1 Lil
I seem to have failed to read the part where you said you'd set out to prove evolution, so forgive me for not being upset about you not proving it. The essay was well planned out and seemed to use fairly good logic in dismantling Jk-89's claims. It would appear that you have passed at least high school biology and most one college bio course if not more. I applaud you on your work.
1/6/2005 c1 8Uhala
The cell theory states that, among other things, "living cells come only from other living cells". If this is true, then there cannot be an origin of life in nature.
5/13/2004 c1 warnthepenguins
Well said. Thank you for labeling that irritating "argument by incredulity" for me-it's been getting on my nerves.
4/25/2004 c1 1Lauren K
Very, very good! I like that you did research and backed up your points. I tried, in my own small way, to refute her refution when I previously reviewed those essays, but this was very well thought out. I dislike arguments that say "where did Earth/life/etc come from" when obviously one could just as easily argue "well then, where did God come from?" very good!
4/18/2004 c1 JJR Meerraf
It's a little harder to find errors now, just 'cause I forgot, but I'll try.
"they are those which have what it takes too survive"
Right after the whole thing with the seive, it should be "to" not "too."
That's the one that stuck out the most, sorry for forgetting the others, obviously nothing that bad. I think other reviewers got the rest as well.
4/17/2004 c1 148JJR Meerraf
I have to truly say that I enjoyed reading this. Truly.
I may not agree with your views, but I thought you presented them very maturely and I was very pleased to see your little note on the end, how evolution is a theory. What irks me is when people claim that it is 110% true and fact. I don't have a problem if people understand that it's a theory.
However, as I said, you did not do this (claim it to be true) and I was impressed with your writing.
Just to answer a few questions you posed. Some things you said about Christianity were true, I especially liked the part where you addressed the question of the Big Bang.
I agree with you that it's an easy way out to say "God's been there all the time." The thing is though that it's true. There's is absolutely NO way to prove this. There is nothing in science to prove that God has always been there or that there is a god, it is all a matter of faith. While there are historical and archeological parts of the Bible you could prove you can't prove God.
Personally I think it's better that way. I mean... what sort of god would He be if we could just conduct a few tests and prove Him and understand all parts of Him.
As I said, I don't agree, but never the less a marvelously written paper I believe, there are a few errors you might want to fix, but nothing too bad.
10/25/2003 c1 tofujunky
Just a couple of corrections:

The link is - http:/ w .answersingenesis .org/docs/1315.asp

'Imbeciles' was written incorrectly. Why? Because I'm a stupid monkey.

More tofu for you!
10/25/2003 c1 57tofujunky
Such a difficult subject to tackle - but you, my friend, did quite a nice job.

About jk-89 comments:

"Darwin's principal of survival of the fittest has destroyed human life . . ." - jk-89

Yes, because the world was perfect before Darwin came along. Darwin, the first angel to challenge God's will, convinced all his readers to sin. So Jesus was sent down to save us and so on. By the way, it was Darwin who also gave 'the apple' to Eve. A man of evil, he was.

To Tireny Adair:

"Do recall that upholding Darwin's teachings would be upholding that which he later wrote to be folly and something that simply led people away from the Church. Even he knew it was a stupid idea." - Tireny Adair

Man, that was a load of shit. After Darwin's death, the church fed false stories about him to any idiot that would listen. Check out "Did Darwin recant?" by Russell Grigg, it's a short interesting article. (http:/w.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp)

To CJ:

"Just one last thing: prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is -no- God, and I will look to other theories" - CJ

My Time Machine project is currently in it's early stages. But when the model is complete, I will immediately travel back in time and prove to you embiciles that we, humans, are indeed just stupid monkeys.

Bananas anyone?
10/6/2003 c1 Le Creature
I found a letter to an editor in my new time magazine that I thought explained the aquatic ape theory a bit better than I did:

"The theory was first proposed in 1960 by Oxford biologist Sir Alister Hardy. he pointed out that none of the features that differentiate hominids from apes evolved in any other savanna primates, which makes it difficult to explain why humans developed them. Some of these essentially human features include hairlessness, bipedalism, subcutaneous fat, voluntary control of breathing, and a descended larynx, which makes speech possible. Hardy suggested that instead of evolving in a savanna region, our transition from ape to human took place in a watery envornment, such as the East African region where Lucy, the best known example of Australopithecus afarensis, was found. This area became flooded about 7 million years ago and remained underwater for a few millions years. If humans did much of their evolving in this region, in a food-rich sea and its wetlands, it would explain why we have a long list of physical features in common with aquatic mammals, such as whales, dolphins, seals, and walruses. -Sally Campbell, New York."

She doesn't mention the theory about the eye and water-I think I heard that on the Discover channel, in an adaptation of that theory on this subject to refute that (the "complex eye could only come from god") argument.
10/3/2003 c1 2Qualia
I have to agree with the people who said that this wasn't really an essay as such, but there's certainly a place for rebuttal in the world, and it's good to see it out in the open instead of being conducted via email flames.

Shooting fish in a barrel... well, yeah, maybe. You might take the position that some fish just have to be shot.

To Tireny Adair, you're assuming that religion and organised religion (eg. Catholicism) are the same thing. Christianity of any denomination is a set of spiritual beliefs coupled with a set of rules by which believers attempt to live their lives. It's a religion, just like Zen Buddhism or Jainism. Off topic, I know, but there you have it.
10/2/2003 c1 Tiefling
Silvanus- You're right there- this piece isn't really an essay. Originally I did have in mind a really well thought out, logically ordered piece, but the research end took so long I got bored with the idea, and in the end I got lazy. Maybe I will work on it some time and develop it into a proper essay and get a bit more philosophical. However, while I conceded in my review of Stephen Bedwell's excellent essay that I don't think humanity has improved, I also don't think it's gotten worse. I think we're pretty much the same as we always were. I suppose I could try to argue that point at length in an essay.

It's really good to get such honest, constructive reviews!

Le Creature- I thought it might be something like that. Just checking. Good point about imperfections being evidence for evolution, too.
10/2/2003 c1 7Silvanus
As a rebuttal, this piece works well. As an essay, it is a failure, but I don't think that you were aiming at any kind of structure or logical order and progression of ideas. The grammar is fine, and you cited your sources well. I personally would have preferred a more philosophical debate; that is, one based more on logic and connected ideas that create a chain that leads to a conclusion presenting your final opinions. I didn't see that here at all; it was more of a point-by-point counter, which is what a rebuttal is. I would love to see this fleshed out and made into a real essay; I am confident you could do an excellent job.

Personally, based on anecdotal evidence I find that the world is gradually devolving into oblivion; you yourself admitted in a review of another work that mankind “hasn’t improved” (see your review to “The State of Humanity” by Stephen Bedwell). I would expand that statement to include the idea that mankind has actually gotten worse. Just a personal opinion, but it’s something to ruminate on if you choose to write an essay on this topic.
10/2/2003 c1 Le Creature
Typo. "Hair." See, it's off that old ape theory, you see, so they would be losing their hair (not skin). Sorry about that.
10/2/2003 c1 Tiefling
I really can't resist reply to reviews- it's an obsession.

Ghost in the Machine- As I said in my review of jk-89's essay, way back when, she inspired me to do some further reading on the subject, so I did. I don't read much non fiction, so it's been taking me a really long time to get through books on the subject. Plus when it came to writing this, other things (my 'life') got in the way. An easy target? If you say so.

Le Creature- Humans lost their skin?
10/1/2003 c1 Le Creature
Fun essay, much my style. I find it amusing that you're arguing against a person called "jk-89" though. Not that this is at all plausible, but I could just see in a few months, "Hah, my name really means 'just kidding!'" Ah, we'd all have a good laugh then.

On the argument of evolution itself, I always wanted to know how creationists justified appendixes and our now inoperative third eyelids-if we were created perfectly, then why do we have erroneus parts of our body?

Oh, and on the issue of eyes (which seems to be a large part of your argument) have you heard the theory that eyes developed the way they were because they were supposed to be used in an aquatic environment (which, according to the theory, is also why humans lost their skin-they relied on swimming to survive.)

Nice essay though, and i'm not just saying that because I agree with it ;),

_Le Creature_
22 Page 1 2 Next »

Twitter . Help . Sign Up . Cookies . Privacy . Terms of Service