Genetics, Evolution and the Creationist Conspiracy

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

... What?

I probably should have written that sentence differently. I was saying that SUPPOSEDLY the reason for Hitler doing what he did, according to some conspiracy hungry creationists, is that he wanted only the fit to survive and was motivated by evolution.

I was not calling into question the historical veracity of the holocaust.

Ignore him talking about creation?

He's talking about the creation and origin of the entire Universe, not of creation versus evolution as it relates to life on Earth, they are two separate things. I am not, in my post, arguing against the idea of a creator god for the Universe as a whole.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

if there was no origin for the universe why would there be an end of all things in it?

Who said there is an end to all things???

that argument is you running around in circles unwilling to see the truth of things, evolution is bound by creation or the sciences and laws Which creation is governed by...

You've already said that everything couldn't have come from nothing. So if it didn't come from nothing, then it had to come from something. If something was already there then it just evolved into something else. No need for it to be created.

there is no evolution without creation that's the bottom line you guys can suppose all you want, you ain't saying anything new and not proving a damn thing either...

See above.

creation was needed for evolution to begin its that easy...

Not easy at all. What created evolution then??? If there was something there already then no creation was needed.

so Creation and Evolution are both real and intertwined its just creation was needed first...

Then what did the creating???

the only things that are constant are energy and mass and they were introduced into this "closed system"
This little bubble called the universe...

Well, if they are constant then they must have always existed in some form and they certainly aren't part of "the end of all things" then either. So which is it???

if they were always here so would everything else that is have always been here only we know that's not true,the universe is expanding from its origin see...

You're going in circles. Make up your mind already.

More evidence of creation...

because we are in a closed system something can exist beyond said closed system and therefore be beyond it all and therefore logically be the creator...

How do you know we're in a closed system???

Particles pop in and out of our reality all the time. That doesn't sound very closed to me.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Fair enough, on both points.

a reply to: mOjOm
If he ever wants to actually know the truth, he'll come around. Being an X-creationist myself, I remember vehemently arguing against evolution. Even argued against it in my early days on ATS. While I still have the odd question here and there, it is threads like this that have helped me see and understand my own misconceptions.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Who created God or did he come from nothing? Would love to hear a simple answer. So you agree with evolution but your struggling to differentiate between creationism (created) and evolution (process).????

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Earth and everything brought to life upon it stem from this same creation though...

And are bound by the same laws as the rest you know the things we call science to try and understand it...

All these sciences are parts of the puzzle of creation that point to a blueprint of said design or creation if you prefer...

So amazed by one aspect of creation holding it as supreme yet it is just a piece of the puzzle...

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: mOjOm
If he ever wants to actually know the truth, he'll come around. Being an X-creationist myself, I remember vehemently arguing against evolution. Even argued against it in my early days on ATS. While I still have the odd question here and there, it is threads like this that have helped me see and understand my own misconceptions.

I try not to even argue any more. Especially since we're dealing with cosmological origins and stuff which we may never know the correct answer for anyway. It's more of a philosophical exercise at most. I just keep asking questions and posing various counter ideas in the hopes that he'll have to think about it some more. Trying to tell someone something never works. You have to get them to discover it on their own.

a reply to: rossacus

to be God as you call the creator thanks for introducing him...

you would have to agree to be the creator you would have to be greater than all of your creation...

seeing as that would have to be accurate it is logical to assume said creator would exist outside of his creation,...
Therefore he would not be bound by the laws of his creation...
So he could predate his creation have no need for being created and would have to be beyond it...
Unbound by it unable to be judged by the same rules...
Etc...
Simple answer for you...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Science is in fact trying to work out the rules and structure of the universe and reality but so far nothing has been pointing to a designer.

Maybe things are the way they are because they have to be that way or it doesn't work resulting in non-existence. But since non-existence, like nothing, doesn't exist, voila, here it all is.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

So you can't explain a universe as complex as ours without a creator first. Yet that creator is even more complex and unable to be explained than the original problem of explaining the universe.

Ya, because that makes sense.

Do you not see a small problem with that kind of logic???

a reply to: mOjOm

none at all...

I'm not the one unable to admit to something superior to myself though...

that would be your little misconception...

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Things that science needs to prove before a natural cause and evolution past Class/Phylum is anything more than your imagination.

1. Abiogenesis
2. Single Cell to Multi Cell
3. Physically observe cross Kingdom - a plant physically observed to become an animal. Since plants and animals are both DNA based, either they have a common creator or common ancestor.
4. Physically observe the separation of cellular organisms from asexual to male/female
5. Physically observe an animal cross Phylum
6. Physically observe an animal cross Class
7. Physically observe an animal cross Order
8. Physically observe an animal cross Family
9. Physically observe an organism cross Genius
10. We have observed Speciation.

The genome project

With the genome project science has a chance to use DNA and the genome to determine if we have any chance to understand how evolution may have taken place. Without a complete genome project it's impossible to understand when humanoids branched from a common ancestor with apes. The gnome project also has the task of providing viability of evolution for anything to cross Genius, Family, Order, or Class.

Currently those who are part of the genome project no longer think we descend directly from apes, because the genetic variation between apes and humans. Which means that scientists that are part of the genome project have ruled out Darwin's theory of ape to man and our now looking for a common ancestor.

The imagination of an old earth creationist.

I believe that God created all organisms from single cell, plants and animals according to their Kinds. I believe that Kinds is somewhere between Class and Phylum and most scientists would agree that the lines between Class/Phylum are blurry, something the Genome project should be able to unblurr to some extent.

I personally accept that after Class/Phylum, what I refer to as Kinds, adaptation can account for all evolution from Class to Species.

But currently DNA and the Genome are irreduciby complex. Meaning we have no viable understanding of Abiogenesis. What we have proven is no more than saying that nature can mix chemicals in a pan. Nature's ability to mix chemicals in a pan is a far cry from life forming out of those chemicals.

Without having any evidence that single cell organisms can do anything past adapting to work together, and without any observable evidence that any species is even in the process of crossing Genus to accept evolution takes imagination.

Alien Theory

I might except Abiogenesis without scientific method if we ever find alien life not based on DNA. Since DNA forming on 2 separate planets without having a common origin/creator should be mathematically impossible.

The difference between scientific method and imagination

1.To say male/female evolved from asexual is imagination.
2. To say the eye devolved gradually is imagination.
3. To say that lungs evolved gradually is imagination
4. To say that man and apes had a common ancestor is imagination
5. The list of things one needs to imagine happened to confirm evolutionary theory is nearly endless, as scientific method has been unable to prove anything beyond Speciation.

Occums Razor

1. Intelligent life arose from an extraordinarily complex single cell that contained all the genetic material required for all visible life, with fully functional DNA able to replicate itself. Out of this single cell created out of chaos over millions/billions of years intelligent human life evolved.
(Intelligence from Chaos)

2. Intelligence and complex life from an intelligent complex designer/creator/God.

I believe Occums Razor points to intelligence from intelligence. As Intelligence from Chaos is much less likely.

I have an imagination also.

And my imagination says God created everything according to their Kinds, Kingdom/Phylum/Class. And I believe that humans belong in their own created Kind. Using my imagination in this way is no more intelligent nor ignorant than you using your imagination to fill in the gaps with evolution.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

none at all...

I'm not the one unable to admit to something superior to myself though...

that would be your little misconception...

Is that what you think??? LOL.

I'll admit to many things superior to myself. But that still doesn't change the fact that I've seen nothing that leads me to believe there is a Creator God.

That would be your little misconception.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

I believe Occums Razor points to intelligence from intelligence. As Intelligence from Chaos is much less likely.

That isn't an answer though. Intelligence from intelligence doesn't explain the origin of Intelligence. Because you're talking about the same thing. Unless you're saying that it came from itself in which case you don't need to say it twice. You're forcing something called intelligence to come before intelligence to explain the origin of intelligence. That makes no sense.

a reply to: mOjOm

My bad, I had no idea you were blind...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

My bad, I had no idea you were blind...

Well, I can see well enough to see that you're explanation is BS. That you have nothing to back it up other than circular logic and "because you said so". Well, that's not enough.

I'm not saying I have the answer either. I not claiming to know the answer. But I am saying that unless you can provide the reasoning to believe you, then you don't have it either and I have no reason to believe you over anyone else.

a reply to: Isurrender73

10. We have observed cross species.

We have observed this. You can type observed speciation into any search engine and find out about the times it was observed both in the lab and in the wild.

As for your other desires most are not able to currently be observed in real time due to the massive time scales on which these changes take place. However because of genetics and the fossil record we know that life is interrelated and that it changes over time.

You seem to have ignored the fact that the genetic evidence demonstrates ALL LIFE is BIOLOGICALLY related, as in related via reproduction, as in we share a common ancestor.

Abiogenesis does NOT need to be proved for evolution to be true, not even remotely. Life could have come from a god, aliens, panspermia via asteroid impact and would still have evolved.

Since DNA forming on 2 separate planets without having a common origin/creator should be mathematically impossible.

I don't know why you would assume this. DNA is just chemistry. If an Earth-like planet is some other solar system is made up of the same stuff as Earth and has similar pre-biotic chemistry than it might evolve early life similar to what evolved on Earth. Whether or not it would be DNA is debatable but there's certainly no reason to assume that alien life has to run on a totally different form of biochemistry than our own. Human beings are made up of the same stuff that Earth is made of.

It's hard to make any assumptions on what alien life would or wouldn't be like but I see no reason to assume it couldn't use DNA or a similar genetic system to what we have here on Earth.

Which means that,scientists that are part of the genome project have ruled out Darwin's theory of ape to man and our now looking for a common ancestor.

Assuming this is true without fact checking it their discoveries still demonstrate a genetic relationship that is undeniably there and as I stated before being RELATED by DNA means the same thing for different species as it means for you and your parents to be related, we share common ancestry.

To say that man and apes had a common ancestor is imagination

No it isn't, its a biological fact established by genetics, behavioral science, morphology and the fossil record. To deny that we have a common ancestor is absurd. And what is the alternative? God created them via kinds?

So why, then, did God create the Ape Kind to be similar to the Human kind? Not only do we look absurdly alike physically but we share a great deal of behavioral characteristics and are genetically similar to a degree that can only indicate biological interrelatedness (common ancestry). If God did not intend to give us the idea of evolution why would he create us in his image and then create a slightly less intelligent version of us when he made the apes?

If we compare the following three lists we will see that apes have as good a chance of being made in the image of God as humans do:

List 1 - The physical, behavioral and genetic profile of humans.

List 2 - The physical, behavioral and genetic profile of chimps.

and List 3 - The supposed physical, behavioral and genetic profile of God.

The conclusion we will inevitably reach is that chimps are at least as similar to us as any God is (unless God is some sort of human sub-species) and thus that chimps must also be made, at least in part, in God's image.

I believe Occums Razor points to intelligence from intelligence. As Intelligence from Chaos is much less likely.

Does this not create a causal infinite regress? If intelligence requires intelligence to exist than God needs an even more intelligent being to make him exist, to argue your God out of this requires a fallacy of special pleading whereby the rules you've just established don't apply to him just because you say so.

to accept evolution takes imagination.

I think in that instance you are confusing imagination with deductive reasoning.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

none at all...

I'm not the one unable to admit to something superior to myself though...

that would be your little misconception...

Is that what you think??? LOL.

I'll admit to many things superior to myself. But that still doesn't change the fact that I've seen nothing that leads me to believe there is a Creator God.

That would be your little misconception.

I understand your point and for a non believer it is valid.

But belief in God transcends all earthly concepts necessary to be created. Time is a dimension that those who don't believe in the immortality of spirit are trapped in.

My mind is not trapped in time or mortality.

For me their is no time, there is only what we perceive at the present moment. And there is no mortality only a spiritual manifestation trapped in a material manifestation on a search for knowledge.

Everything is what you imagine it is and I choose to believe in the prophets.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

If you read your own quote of my post you will see that I agreed with speciation.

Everything else you claimed is still trapped by imagination. You can say it 1000 different ways but science has been based on scientific method since the "Golden Age of Islam". And I see no reason to reclassify science based on what might be possible.

To believe that all life has similar genetic information because it has is one creator, is not nearly as different as saying that they are similar because they have a common ancestor.

Wouldn't God be both a creator and common ancestor? As a creationist I could accept evolution when scientific method is able to prove it.

Most evolutionists are much more closed minded then I am. Only one of us is calling our imagination scientific facts. While I prefer to wait for scientific method to prove scientific facts. I clearly stated that I know that I am using my imagination, but like most evolutionist you want to ignore scientific method and call evolution from single cell to human a fact.

Just ignore 5star, he's close-minded at best and a troll at worst. He seems to enjoy derailing threads for his own enjoyment/ignorance. There's actually a few car dealerships in my town called 5 star, seems like a fitting name when you consider the tact of car salesmen.

Anyways, great thread. I too used to be a creationist, luckily the evidence became too obvious for me to ignore and I started listening instead of letting it go through one ear and out the other.

I don't deny there being a divine aspect to the universe around us, but I do deny that the divine used supernatural means to start life on this planet. God and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive.

S&F