It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists: Have you ever read a book about Evolution?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
evolutionsists attack creationists they spout the same tired bs


There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist', you either accept evolution or you reject it. It is the same reason we do not have 'gravitationalists' or 'atomists' or 'germists'. It's not a ism.

What 'tired bs' do people who accept evolution as fact make on creationists?


originally posted by: Another_Nut
and when creationsists attack evolution they are told there is no evolution vs creation as evolution doesnt deal with the origin of life


This is and is not true. See, even though Creationism deals with the begining of life, it makes a claim that life has always existed in it's modern form. Evolution, even though it doesn't directly deal with the origin of life, makes a claim that 'life, in it's modern form, is subjected to a gradual process of gene variation through successive generations."

So yes, they do conflict.


originally posted by: Another_Nut
see it is just the hate each has for each other. they will never see eye to eye because they are not the same subject


They don't need to focus on the exact same thing to conflict. Read above.


originally posted by: Another_Nut
then you have the problem that not all creationists are religious which the pro materialistic people hate . they cannot seem to grasp that creation does not just mean god.


I acknowledge that the idea of creationism can stem from concepts outside of the realm of religion. However, the most 'loud' creationists are the ones who are from the Abrahamic religions. It's not as if Scientists go out to debunk religious creationism, it's that creationists make claims about scientists, and so scientists correct their misunderstandings.


originally posted by: Another_Nut
then you have the fact that neither evolution nor abiogenisis nor creation as a whole has really been tested or proven and i doubt they can be


I've already shown this claim to be false both here and in the other topic.


originally posted by: Another_Nut
the closest evolution has gotten to being tested is this ecoli experiment
en.wikipedia.org...
and guess what after 60000 generations we still have ....ecoli


We have already observed Speciation, and I believe I mentioned it in this topic earlier (I can do so again if you wish). However, the observation of one species evolving to another isn't what proves evolution. Fossil records, Shared DNA, Vestigial limbs/organs, Junk DNA, Reproduction with Variation, these all prove evolution.




posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logman
I have many Christian friends. Extremely intelligent and highly educated. Not one them believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I was woefully ignorant and they really opened my eyes.

They also believe that all Creationists are extremely stupid. This literal interpretation of the Bible is a new thing. Even Augustine didn't believe in the literal meaning of Genesis and he wrote a book about it. Genesis was written as a counter to core beliefs put forward by the Babylonians in Enuma Elish, Atrahasis,and the Gilgamesh Epic. Rather than explain how the universe was created it was written to explain the Jewish view of how God relates to man as opposed to the mainstream Babylonian point of view at the time. You have to understand the context and you need to understand a lot of ancient history.

I mean it's still all nonsense but it's extremely interesting. Creationists don't reflect the educated Christian viewpoints. They are fundamentalist idiots that lack the intellect to think in allegorical terms. Kind of like ISIS.


Ah, the 'literal interpretation' of Genesis. If Creationists argue that evolution theory is a misconception and misunderstanding, I stand by that. I also say that the ''literal interpretation' of Genesis is a misconception and misunderstanding. Therefore, if you support evolution theory because it is preferential to the 'literal interpretation' of Genesis you are forming an opinion based on two wrongs which don't make a right. Creationists who rely on the 'literal interpretation' of scripture are only singly wrong. Who has the upper hand?

Isn't it a more efficient use of time to collaborate and find a path through Genesis that satisfies everyone? It will be closer to the Truth than that which both parties are arguing at the moment.

For example, start with a definition for a 'day' and answer why Genesis says 'and the evening and the morning, the first day'. When I went to school the day ended with the evening, not the morning. Then, the traditional interpretation is that Genesis 1:27 (And Elohim created man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created them... etc.) is the same as Genesis 2 when Adam and Eve are created from dirt and a rib. Genesis 1 ends with blessings, the giving of the Earth to the created etc. Genesis 2 ends with curses and expulsion. Tradition says these are the same thing. That's the literal interpretation for you. Add the third component, the theory of evolution, that is founded on science which requires observation, experiment, replication and conclusion formulation, and has none of those to support it, and was intended as an alternative to Genesis by nouveau scientists dissatisfied with the 'literal interpretation' - well obviously you can't propose an alternative to something contradicting itself in the 'literal interpretation' so what's to say the correct interpretation of Genesis doesn't accurately explain the development of life? Get that sorted and you don't need evolution theory.

I'm a fundamentalist. I've read Genesis as allegorical but can't find the moral of the story. D'oh, I'm an intellectually challenged idiot and I bow to your superiority. Please, tell me what the purpose of Genesis is allegorically. Jesus' allegories always have a point to take away and learn from. What is the meaning of Genesis and what does it teach? How has it enriched your life?



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
if you support evolution theory because it is preferential to the 'literal interpretation' of Genesis you are forming an opinion based on two wrongs which don't make a right.


I've never heard of anyone accepting Evolution for that reason. The vast majority of people who accept evolution as a valid theory do so because of the evidence that surrounds


originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
Isn't it a more efficient use of time to collaborate and find a path through Genesis that satisfies everyone?


No, because most people in the world do not view the Bible as correct in any way. The world isn't out to prove or disprove the Bible, and it most certainly isn't the center body of knowledge that humanity is bound to.


originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
Add the third component, the theory of evolution, that is founded on science which requires observation, experiment, replication and conclusion formulation, and has none of those to support it


I've already shown, multiple times, that this claim is clearly false. I suggest taking a look at my other topic that goes into more detail on the matter. Here



originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
and was intended as an alternative to Genesis by nouveau scientists dissatisfied with the 'literal interpretation'


No. there was no deceitful intention behind it. The Theory of Evolution was formed based on the observations that all life around is adapts to it's environment, and reproduces with variation.



originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
I'm a fundamentalist. I've read Genesis as allegorical but can't find the moral of the story. D'oh, I'm an intellectually challenged idiot and I bow to your superiority.


I don't think you're an idiot. I do, however, think that you seem to be willfully ignorant about any information that shows Evolution as anything but your presupposed, and inaccurate depictions of it.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

If you could explain the problems creationist have you would win your argument



Because in almost every thread the same issues are addressed ad nauseam; however, there are several fall back fallacies for the creationist crowd. The thread then goes round and round in circles with creationists while they put fingers in their ear going "nanananana" followed by "god did it because I say so".



You just look silly

Thats just because those of us that have intentions on understanding actual science are pounding our heads into a wall by the 10th page of one of these threads



I dare you to author a thread titled this
"I will answer every question about evolution you have"


How is that going to be any different than any other thread on this forum.....or this thread even?


edit on 27-11-2015 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

Actually, I did make that thread Here

So far, most of the people who asked questions were people who accepted evolution, but didn't understand specific parts to it. There has yet to be any back and forth responses like we normally see in similar topics, and it's actually been quite productive.

Raggedyman did post his first concern there, and I addressed it thoroughly. So far he has yet to reply to my response.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
The deception that we are being subjected to is absolutely huge.

Creationism Vs. Evolution is a farcical debate that is being guided by the occult rulers of this world and mainly perpetuated by the petty and ignorant in search of pride-fuelled games of one-upmanship.

We used to have a ceiling put on any belief or understanding in the hidden world via organised religion. Now, a purely materialistic uniformitarianism has successfully told most of us, that there is no such place.

Rudimentary psychological manipulation is at the heart of this nonsense. Something like: 'Clever people believe in evolution; the superstitious believe in religion. Here is the evidence for evolution and here is how you must interpret it. Anyone with any perception and that truly thinks for themselves, can clearly see that what I'm saying is beyond doubt'.



Actually, there is no debate. Evolution is a proven process.

The reason you see it as a cult trend in today's society is because there are groups, largely evangelical protestant christian in the US, that feel marginalized due to the increase secularization of modern society. There is no prayer in schools, gay marriage had been moving towards legalization for over a decade, all the PC nonsense from both sides about whether there can be a capital G in god or not etc. This was just another fight for them to take up in the mainstream.

Then through in the occasional person who is an accomplished scholar yet throws all sense of reason out the window to try and confirm their faith such as Behe with his terrible irreducible complexity argument That is why you get states like Kansas and Texas taking up ridiculous stances on the nonsense, catering to the largely rural christian base. Inside of science there isn't the kind of arguing you see in the public realm.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Wrong thread. My bad. Shame shame!!
edit on 27-11-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Hah, I was about to ask what the heck you were talking about



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
The Selfish Gene, The Evolution of Plants, 3 or 4 other books I can't remember the name of, lots of articles in peer reviewed journals, have a university degree in science and we don't teach ID here in Aus. I also have a Diploma of Theology. I don't see a conflict between Genesis and science, other than the evolution of one taxonomic family (approximately) to another. I believe every word of Genesis but I dont believe in the 6 days being literal 24 hour days and I dont believe the sun was created on day 4 but day 1 ("let there be light"). I am what they call an Old Earth Creationist, as opposed to a YEC. Out of the old earth creation streams I am more of a progressive creationist and strongly reject the other forms (well, maybe gap creationism might be true, would explain a lot like ooparts and alien gods).

en.wikipedia.org...en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cinrad
The Selfish Gene, The Evolution of Plants, 3 or 4 other books I can't remember the name of, lots of articles in peer reviewed journals, have a university degree in science and we don't teach ID here in Aus. I also have a Diploma of Theology. I don't see a conflict between Genesis and science, other than the evolution of one taxonomic family (approximately) to another. I believe every word of Genesis but I dont believe in the 6 days being literal 24 hour days and I dont believe the sun was created on day 4 but day 1 ("let there be light"). I am what they call an Old Earth Creationist, as opposed to a YEC. Out of the old earth creation streams I am more of a progressive creationist and strongly reject the other forms (well, maybe gap creationism might be true, would explain a lot like ooparts and alien gods).

en.wikipedia.org...en.wikipedia.org...


So, if i'm to get this correct, you believe god created the Earth, and placed the life on it from it's primitive form, and let it evolve up to what we have today. Would that be accurate?



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

No, that is theistic evolution. I believe in adaptation that means one kind of finch can adapt into 20 kinds of finches. I believe that ostriches, emus, cassowaries and rheas might have come from a common ancestor, or camels, llama, alpacas and vicunas might have too, but not that parrots, kingfishers and ostriches came from a common ancestor.

The definition of "species" has changed to accommodate evolution. The twenty finches on the galapagos were always going to remain finches, in fact they are able to cross breed, therefore they are the same species. When environmental pressures require it, these "species" will interbreed, thus crossing their genes and cancelling out any "species" variation in a few generations of their offspring. It is only when you have a chromosome number or organization change that you can truly say you have a new species. Horses and donkeys are an interesting case, same common ancestor (I say no) or did God create their ancestors separately?
edit on 28/11/15 by Cinrad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cinrad
a reply to: Ghost147

I believe in adaptation that means one kind of finch can adapt into 20 kinds of finches. I believe that ostriches, emus, cassowaries and rheas might have come from a common ancestor, or camels, llama, alpacas and vicunas might have too, but not that parrots, kingfishers and ostriches came from a common ancestor.


Ah, I see.

In your first comment you mentioned that you didn't believe that earth was created in the past 12,000-6,000 years. In your view, how old is the Earth?



originally posted by: Cinrad
a reply to: Ghost147
The definition of "species" has changed to accommodate evolution.


I don't mean to sound snide, I'm just trying to clarify precisely what it is you believe. So in your view there is no such taxonomic group above a species level? No genus' and so forth?



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The Earth is about 4 and half billion years old at our best guess. I have no reason to question it (nor have I tried), Genesis does not preclude it.

Any organism that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are the same species, this was the original definition of species (current taxonomy has it very different). There is good reason for this, as long as two populations can interbreed then their genes will mix, sooner or later, so they will not differentiate. Only when their genes change so much that they cannot interbreed will you truly get a new species. I don't believe this change happens. So for example the horse and donkey, they had to come from different created lines.

Gen 1:25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

This word "kind" does not mean species necessarily. It could almost mean genus but it does not have to, these taxonomic levels are a recent invention, Genesis is an old book and not a science book at that. The people of the time were more interested in the use of the organism than its relation to other organisms.

ETA: Its late, and I have church in the morning ha ha, maybe we can continue it tomorrow.

edit on 28/11/15 by Cinrad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

uuuuhhh ok did u have like anything scientific to add or like i said just god bashing.
Nothing to add of course just wanna bring up god people dont know things huh lol
AND I graduated from university of cincinnati with a 2yr chemical engineer degree thats where I
lerned thermodynamics .
Not lets see how did you say (We could do that if folk did some honest research instead of spouting the same debunked nonsense found on creationist websites....)lol

I mean have you done any honest research to you have anything to add to the group.
Or is it gonna be more of that ....................hey dem der god luvvin folks is ignerant lol .



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Prezbo369

uuuuhhh ok did u have like anything scientific to add or like i said just god bashing.


Playing the victim already.....I was bashing your debunked creationist claims.

Didn't you bother to check the links?


Nothing to add of course just wanna bring up god people dont know things huh lol


Links homie


AND I graduated from university of cincinnati with a 2yr chemical engineer degree thats where I
lerned thermodynamics .


And yet you parrot the incorrect claims regarding thermodynamics and evolution...hmmm


I mean have you done any honest research to you have anything to add to the group.
Or is it gonna be more of that ....................hey dem der god luvvin folks is ignerant lol .


Hey if it walks like a duck...



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Of course many of us have, we all went to science class in school, for one. What exactly do you think most schools teach? I sure don't remember hearing anything about creation in school and it was barely really addressed as more than a lesson in Sunday School in all my years of attendance.

So, yes, I have read a book on evolution. I understand how it works. I agree there is good evidence for it, and I think God set it up to work that way. Since the world is a dynamic, ever changing place, animals need to be able to adapt and this is one way they do it.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Read plenty, can't not if you receive a western education
How did sexual reproduction evolve, never read a decent answer, ever


a reply to: Learningman



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

huh ?................luv ya remeber jesus saves



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cinrad
a reply to: Ghost147

The Earth is about 4 and half billion years old at our best guess. I have no reason to question it (nor have I tried), Genesis does not preclude it.

Any organism that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are the same species, this was the original definition of species (current taxonomy has it very different). There is good reason for this, as long as two populations can interbreed then their genes will mix, sooner or later, so they will not differentiate. Only when their genes change so much that they cannot interbreed will you truly get a new species. I don't believe this change happens. So for example the horse and donkey, they had to come from different created lines.


It was late and I made a mistake, one species can evolve in to two if a population gets isolated long enough like horses and donkeys. What the creationists are saying is that this will never lead to another kind, you wont get dogs, cats, bears, otters from the same common ancestor and definitely not reptiles and birds from amphibians. You night have got all bears from a common ancestor, maybe foxes, hyenas and wolves from another, or maybe not. We don't know what the borders are and it definitely wouldn't fit in to today's definition of species. If we did know, it would make a great basis for taxonomy.



This is how I read Genesis, bearing in mind that a day is just a period of time.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The big bang or however He did it. Then 10 billion odd years later, when the universe had progressed enough to make rocky planets with a good mix of elements he turned His attention to the Earth

Gen 1:2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
The sun gets to critical mass and nuclear fission start, probably blowing all the dust outwards leaving only the heavy rocky planets in their orbits
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (firmament is the "sky" whatever that is), so the Earth cooled to a point where there water condensed and formed an ocean and clouds and there was an atmosphere, but the atmosphere was still dense and thick.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Dry land appears, light continental crust as opposed to dense sea plates.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Plants, probably starting with algae and seaweed,and He progressed to grass and trees

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
Gen 1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
The Earth got to its current spin cycle of 24 hours, more or less, and the atmosphere cleared enough for the stars to be seen and the sun and moon clearly distinguished (when it wasn't cloudy)
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.
Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
Birds and fish, maybe insects, probably not, more likely that insects and bacteria and viruses and prions are not mentioned

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
Amphibians, reptiles, monotrenes and mammals

Notice something? It is pretty much exactly the same sequence science has found evidence for. How would they have known this 5000 years ago? What are the chances of this being sequence being chosen by chance? And remember this is not a science book, it was written to tell us why we are here, which answer is in there if you look.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
So in other words, the answer is NO. The majority of creationists have not read anything at all about evolution outside of religious propaganda websites. It's kind of funny how they always start out saying they have researched evolution extensively and then proceed to use every misunderstanding under the sun about it.

Why try to reconcile Genesis with science when it conflicts in more ways than just the age of the earth and evolutionary timeline? For the Genesis account to be accurate you pretty much need to throw away the sciences of geology, biology and the laws of physics. The only option to reconcile Genesis with reality is to interpret it completely as a metaphor because there are numerous conflicts with the timeline and order of creation (not just the sun). According to the bible, whales were created before the rest of mammals. This is completely bogus.

Also people are STILL straw manning evolution by claiming it can only happen on the short term, within species and calling it "adaptation." This is completely false, but if you wish to believe that, then surely you can answer why the accumulation of mutations is not enough to have caused the diversity of the various families and genus'. I was hoping that any creationist ever could address this and explain why the accumulation of traits wouldn't result in what we see as big changes when happening over a longer time period.
edit on 11 29 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join