DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

reply to post by kijne

There are billions of people in the world. None of them have the same DNA...none of them have the same fingerprints...everyone has their own unique look and personality. Can that be said for any other living creature out there? The answer to that is no. We have been created by a great and wonderful God whether we want to believe it or not.

If you disagree with me...that's fine. But you won't draw me into any debates or arguments about it.

All cellular organisms have DNA. And all sheep are alike but have unique DNA as well (except Dolly) but I don't know, that somehow means Sheep are as special as us? (Well, I suppose they are. But you were implying we were better right?)

The answer to that is no.
The answer to that is YES.


Just leave it to a creationist to make an error'd fact about science, then say, "I'm not getting dragged into one of your arguments... pfft"

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Have you Ever heard of the Petrified Forest . .. . ?

Or . . .. . .

Fossils .. .. . ?

Fossil, dinosaur bones, those things were all put on Earth by Satan to make us confused. Dinn u know?

Creationism isn't even a valid scientific theory, so why is it on the same playing field as evolution?

reply to post by kijne


That is the exact illogical unreasoned thinking that has allowed religion to continue to fester in human society.

"I am right and don't even care to address the points you raise."

At least it's an improvement on;

"I am right and will put you to death if you say otherwise."

And instead of common sense taking hold in more modern times, some now claim that both god and evolution can be happening. Sure, but there is still no evidence for it. None.

Anyway, since you don't want to debate or argue the points, it won't hurt saying that you're wrong.

reply to post by boncho


Thanks for the Spoiler .. .

With that statement you may have Damn Near Destroyed my Entire Belief System. .. .

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Firstly, Evolutionary theory is an attempt to find a mechanism for explaining what science observes about the variety of life. It, as a theory, has many noble points. It also has deficiencies.

The first problem I have with Evolutionary Theory is that it implies that we must discard the rules of mathematical probability. The probability that a mutation will arise and become successful is very, extremely, low. In a game where you have a low probability of winning, the more you play, the more you loose. If you play billions of times, you simply loose more than if you play a few times. In the game of biological life, the more you run the process, the more assured is the extinction.

The second problem is the poor timing. If a species is being picked off by predators and it is possible that the species may survive by adapting to camouflage itself, how long would it take for that adaptation to occur and how long would it take for the species to become extinct by predation? In the case of the European Peppered Moth, they have a life cycle in sequence with the seasons and so 1 generation equals one year. During the Industrial Revolution, the tree (Silver Birch) that they normally hide against, became darkened by soot. Soon (within 100 years), there were no more silvery moths but all European Peppered Moths had become darker to match the trees. Now the mutation rate of Moths (Lepidoptera) is calculated to produce a viable genetic mutation every 300 to 600 generations. This is far too long a time for the moths to wait as they were being eaten by birds (that they couldn't hide from) from the first generation. There would be no survival of the fittest because the species would be extinct in very few generations.

The third problem that I have with Modern Evolutionary Theory is that heritable genetic changes seem to arise in random "jumps" and happen far too fast to make any sense of the timings that we should expect from our knowledge of genetics. Again, we'll take the example of the European Peppered Moth. It had made its adaption in only 100 generations! It was supposed to take 300 to 600 generations? If you think that this change was just a fluke then you need to know the rest of the story. Changing technologies and emissions rules meant that 100 years later, the Silver Birch bark was again silver because sooting had been much curtailed. Surprisingly, the moths had changed back to their lighter color. Again, it took less than 100 generations, not the 300 to 600 required by genetic theory. Something else caused the rapidity of the change (twice) because Modern Evolutionary theory has no answer as to why the change was so rapid. This is also not an isolated case, there have been many examples of genetic change occurring far too fast for theory to explain (just look at the diversity that arose during the Cambrian Period, which equated to about 1 million new species every year)!

So, as a theory, Modern Evolutionary Theory might be useful to try and understand biological change processes. In practice, things cannot be occurring in that way.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Have you Ever heard of the Petrified Forest . .. . ?

Or . . .. . .

Fossils .. .. . ?

Obviously god did it so we could use oil. But then, this means that god causes pollution. Therefore god set us up to destroy ourselves. He allowed us to evolve into the creatures we are today so that we, in our frail human nature, seek to escape the safety of nature - where bananas and not coke cans grow - and enter into inevitable destruction.

even if I follow the logic of a creationist, I cannot find a god who loves us and wants us to be good.

maybe god is a 15 year old programmer and he's trying to win the prize for the ultimate social media app - reality 1.0 for the god on the go. Want to create an entire history of everything? just swipe down and instant creation.

Seems to have put us on the back burner for now, probably has an assignment due next week...

Originally posted by kijne
I believe in creation although I don't have any absolute proof. I don't want to get into any arguments with anyone about it anyway. But here are my thoughts on it.

There are billions of people in the world. None of them have the same DNA...none of them have the same fingerprints...everyone has their own unique look and personality. Can that be said for any other living creature out there? The answer to that is no. We have been created by a great and wonderful God whether we want to believe it or not.

If you disagree with me...that's fine. But you won't draw me into any debates or arguments about it.

Sorry, but I have to correct you. The answer is yes.

Humans are "hardwired" to instinctively pick up on subtle variations between conspecifics, not members of other species.

Additionally, what about monozygotic twins? They don't have their own unique look at birth (unless micro-environmental influences affect their development in the uterus). If anything, that shows a lack of creativity on God's part.

this isn't a fair arguement.

Only the supporter of evolution has any factual or logical statements.


The fact is is that god only exists in our minds, the ones who choose to believe it.

God is only a lazy excuse to provide a simple answer for those outside of the scientific community to explain things we do not know and even use as a preposterous explanation to the laws of reality.

God is not a sentient being.
God(why am I capitalizing the G in god because god is made up why is it important to people with a sense)
is a human crafted idea of what gave birth to our entire realm of existence.

The mission of explaining this that science is ever battling for helps us understand ourselves and where we exist.
How does that destroy purpose and meaning behind life?

Originally posted by Nacirema
Creationism isn't even a valid scientific theory, so why is it on the same playing field as evolution?

Neither one is a scientific theory. People BELIEVE in each one.

Thank you for the post, OP. It was very interesting. I pray somebody's eyes are opened because of it.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Why do creationists always want to argue a lost cause?
Why are you guys so hung up about other people who don't believe what you believe. You believe in creation, I don't and I feel no need to argue about it with you or anybody else.
As Rhett Butler said; "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".

reply to post by Sailor Sam


Then I am Curious what brought you into here ..

It is Not necessarily a lost cause.

What IF, . . When we die we discover that there is a "HereAfter"?

There are going to be a Whole Lot of Surprised People.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Because I am curious as well and it is still afree world.
Or it is in my neck of the woods (New Zealand), maybe not in the USA or other places.

Originally posted by jeramie

Originally posted by Nacirema
Creationism isn't even a valid scientific theory, so why is it on the same playing field as evolution?

Neither one is a scientific theory. People BELIEVE in each one.

Thank you for the post, OP. It was very interesting. I pray somebody's eyes are opened because of it.

-sigh

How do I deal with scientific illiteracy...

You don’t *believe* in evolution. You either accept it or reject it as a plausible theory that explains the emergence and diversity of life from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms.

Do you not accept the theory of gravity? If you answer yes, then why not try jumping off a ten story building! You won’t find many people discrediting the atomic theory or theory of gravity because it does not lacerate their connection with God; however, devout fundamentalist religious followers discredit the validity of evolution because it places them closer to atavistic great apes, rather than to two human beings who fell from a fixed state of grace into sin.

reply to post by Sailor Sam


Oh, . SO you are an Instigator .. .

Do you also walk 20 ft. out of your way to mash an Ant Hill .. . . ?

How about if you entertain us with your best argument on why Evolution or Creation doesn't matter to you.

Originally posted by jeramie

Originally posted by Nacirema
Creationism isn't even a valid scientific theory, so why is it on the same playing field as evolution?

Neither one is a scientific theory. People BELIEVE in each one.

Thank you for the post, OP. It was very interesting. I pray somebody's eyes are opened because of it.

"Theory" in science, is not the same as the layman term. In other word's, it's not theory but fact. It means that a hypothesis has been tested with empirical evidence and the conclusion therein stands.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.

It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.

It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different.

Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

www.talkorigins.org...

I am ill equipped to debate anything, but I have questions for evolutionists.

If species appear fully developed, because of mutations brought forth from environmental changes, and we see according to science, that it has happened numerous times in the past, how were the mutations that allowed the apparition of new species viable, for every species that appeared? What are the "chances" that it happens millions of time over ( every time a new specie "appears" ) successfully? I thought science said most mutations were non-viable ones.

What are the chances then that a new specie is the product of a single mutation? Wouldn't it involve multiple mutations in a single individual to create a new specie? What are the chances for that to appear simultaneously in a large group of individuals? What are the chances for that to happen, millions of time over, again, successfully?

Are we to "believe" that for every new species, an entire race was conceived from a single individual's mutation(s)?, or were there simultaneous, and similar, favorable mutations in a large enough group to make the mutation(s) a viable trait for survivability? What are the chances for that?

And finally, if evolution is triggered by environmental factors, how did the members of the species not mutating survive the environmental changes stressful enough to create the said mutation(s) needed for the specie to survive under a set of new traits?

Nowan

reply to post by NowanKenubi

And finally, if evolution is triggered by environmental factors, how did the members of the species not mutating survive the environmental changes stressful enough to create the said mutation(s) needed for the specie to survive under a set of new traits?

Another part of the questions you had, and this, can both be answered with the Sherpas. The Sherpas live high up in the Himalayas. Survival of the fittest is one explanation. The Sherpas have genetic material that allows them to have a higher affinity for blood oxygen levels.

Source.

So members of their race, that did not have the mutation allowing them to live in high altitudes, most likely either died off, or left the area.

Why do some species fail to mutate, or why are some different? Not all of everything lives in one isolated place on Earth. You and I are different than the Sherpas. Quite simple really...

The rest of your questions, I think is something you should look into... to be honest. Sometimes I get curious about Creationist ideas, so I go read them. I see the world was created 6000 years ago and dinosaurs never existed. Then I go back to watching a Disney film. It's about the same. You can pick apart scientific theory in your spare time, although it's tougher than Creationism if you actually do it properly.

reply to post by boncho


You did not answer my question... How is it possible that a specie gives birth to a new one, and that they live SIDE BY SIDE? Like monkeys and humans?... What was the environmental stress that created humans, but also left the monkeys as they were while at the same time creating the new specie?

So my hypothesis/belief system is as follows:

I believe in God, therefore I must believe in some form Creationism, however I am not a Christian and do not believe in Genesis. I do agree with the Big Bang theory and the evidence I see for that. My problem is with the singularity and of course it's a bit of a cop out to say that the universe was created by the Big Bang. That's not really an answer to the question. It's just a statement of one process. Of course there is evolution...we see micro evolution and mutation all the time. The real question is what did we evolve from. Was it just a less developed form of ourselves or something much, much more, like a bacteria? In my mind, there are multiverses and our universe was created out of those somehow...the Big Bang...Gods hand was in it, guiding it from the very beginning, yet letting it evolve naturally, so to speak, the universe, the Milky Way, the earth and all of life on it evolving forward even now. Life and evolution as on earth happening billions of times across the universe, across all universes.

I could of course be wrong.

I find it difficult that there are only two sides to the evolution...creation debate. Usually it's an atheist evolutionist against a Christian creationist. What about all the rest of us? LOL