DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by vasaga

 

Tell me again how you know (that I am not interested in learning how evolution works) exactly...?

It is patent in every sentence you write, including the entirety of the post here quoted.

You only see it that way because the challenge to your ingrained beliefs puts your mind into defense mode.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Look under The Big Issues, it says this:

This is a perfect example of the deceitfulness and casuistry that is so characteristic of your participation in this forum. Quoting that section out of context, you make it appear that a UCLA Berkely web site is claiming that scientists don't know how evolution happens. Nothing could be further from the truth. I referred you to that web site if you wished to learn about evolution; instead, you fine-combed it for something that would support your anti-evolutionary propaganda campaign and posted that. What a master-stroke! You must be well pleased with yourself.

Explain to me how it's out of context.

Originally posted by Barcs
Come on dude. Stop twisting my words around, and crediting me with things I did not say or even insinuate. It's getting old. Yes, it is the scope, but it's not everything there is to know about the theory. You are ignoring millions, if not billions of separate transitions. Single cells did not transform into a conscious human being. They transformed first into something that would seem very simple and it very gradually changed.

Whether it was gradual or not is kind of irrelevant to the point. But.. Forget it.

Originally posted by Barcs
If you are going to nitpick modern synthesis, you need to explain which part of the theory you take issue with. Which transition are you referring to? You are just sticking your finger in your ears and singing so loud you can't hear me. I can't believe you still don't see how that is a hasty generalization. Keyword, HASTY.

A hasty generalization is when you draw a conclusion based on too small a sample. I'm requesting answers to questions, thus I'm not the one performing the hasty generalization. Maybe you should read into the fallacies properly before throwing them around.. Here, read this. Again... The hasty generalization is concluding that the few mutations we know about are enough to explain how life changed in all those billions of years. But scientists suck at logic, which is why we really need philosophers to challenge their theories. But that's another discussion.

Originally posted by Barcs
I'm not over simplifying anything, I'm asking you to be specific. It is intellectually dishonest to use a fallacy as your prime argument. You are just saying you don't believe the whole thing and calling it a day and you haven't referenced the actual theory once yet.

Uh... I'm saying it's up to the one stating the claim to show it's true, and until then I have the right to question it.. But, forget it.

Originally posted by Barcs
Everything in life isn't black and white. He gave his opinion, and that's that. If he cited research, it might give his opinion credibility, but he didn't.

Underlined: You really aren't that open are you..? So you really do believe there’s only ‘research’ and ‘opinions’. Let me explain something to you. A statement of something being there is either true or false. There is no ‘opinion’ in there. If there’s a closed box, and I say there’s a ball in it, that statement is either true or it is false. It’s not an opinion. It’s the same thing of what he said. It’s a statement about what is (or isn't) there. It’s not an opinion. He’s either right or wrong. If you can’t accept that, that discussion ends here.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
Really? The question essentially is: Could you show me detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system? That, is not proving a negative.

You asked me to prove him wrong. Yes, that is proving a negative.

No… Now I see you don’t really get the point about proving a negative… Proving something/someone wrong is not proving a negative. Just because the word ‘wrong’ sounds negative, doesn’t mean it’s a negative. Proving something wrong is comparing a statement to what you are able to measure, and is independent of whether the statement is positive or negative. A negative is the absence of something. But you can only prove the presence of something. Say you want to prove my car is dry. The sentence is a positive, but, it’s actually a negative. Why? Because when you want to prove that the car is dry, you need to actively search for the presence of water. But, forget it.

Originally posted by Barcs
Again, I never said it was impossible or that it was definitely wrong. I said it was an opinion, not backed up by any facts or research.

Read above.

Originally posted by Barcs
That is the appeal to authority fallacy. I already explained it. Science is based on research and facts obtained through experiments. A scientist is somebody that works in a certain field of scientific research. He can have an incorrect opinion just like anybody else, but the scientific research is what speaks for itself.

No disagreement here. But I guess you missed the point of why I do it. Forget it.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
Dogma might be too strong a word. Maybe it's more passable if I call them non-investigated assumptions. Basically, science has held some things as true for so long, that they forgot to look if it really was true in the first place.

For example?

For example, reductionism, which is that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.

Originally posted by Barcs
I don't see how your Malaria argument has anything to do with science supporting ID. Genetic mutations are not always beneficial, why would you expect this?

I don’t expect them to always be beneficial, but, I still haven’t seen a good enough example of a beneficial mutation in animals (or us), that did not have degenerative side-effects. If all the mutations we see have degenerative side-effects, it’s only logical to conclude that the biological systems are slowly being broken down, just like any machine slowly degenerates after usage, thus also logical to conclude that it's not a mechanism of natural selection & mutations, but rather, a different process requiring intelligence.

Originally posted by Barcs
Of course species have mutations that lead to their extinction. Extinction is a very big part of evolution, and environments change all the time. If certain humans are resistant to Malaria with the risk of sickle cell, and Malaria becomes a non factor because of environmental changes (aka changes in medicine or treatment) then the mutation becomes irrelevant and will end up hurting the ones who have it, more than it helps them. But then again, mutations will keep happening, environments keep changing, and that entire situation could end up changing.. or the ones with the mutation could simply die out while the ones without it prevail. That's evolution 101.

Yeah… I know. So… You really do think that many of these changes, over long periods of time, do let single cells evolve to modern day animals, as suggested by modern synthesis?

Too me evolution as a theory must be incorrect because every species that has 2 sexes evolved 2 different varieties of the same species male and female at exactly the same time in perfect synchronization right across the entire spectrum of all life on earth. It is a topic evolutionists very rarely address, because it is hard to answer.

The questions:
How were these species reproducing while their sex organs were developing over millions of years ?
How did every species suddenly know when to begin physical procreation, something they had never done before ?
How do hundreds of different species if only within there own genus group evolve in perfect synchronization two different biological sexes ?

Then you have abiogenesis, the very foundation of the entire theory of evolution, it is like tying to build a house with no foundation in an frequent earthquake zone, an epic fail. Sooner or later that entire house will collapse.
As will evolution, in the distant future it will be laughed at, as stupid intellectual folly of an ignorant time.

Originally posted by ICanHearTheTrumpets



Why cant you show me one example on us humans or an animal around us evolving? When mutations happen thats how evolutionists say we evolve.. again show me some examples we see today of a beneficial mutation.
A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene. You wont find an example that these damages to a DNA gene is what made us into the superior beings we are today, it just doesnt happen.

Boncho already mentioned the evolutionary changes that Tibetans have undergone in relatively recent times.

Tibetans live at altitudes of 13,000 feet, breathing air that has 40 percent less oxygen than is available at sea level, yet suffer very little mountain sickness. The reason, according to a team of biologists in China, is human evolution, in what may be the most recent and fastest instance detected so far.

Source: New York Times

Got Lactase ?
I myself am a beneficiary of a mutation that allows me to digest milk into adulthood.

Couldn't it possibly be both?
We were intelligently created, but created in such a way that we 'evolve' (or change over time) naturally? Just curious. Is there anything that definitivly says this isn't possible?

Originally posted by jjsr420
Couldn't it possibly be both?
We were intelligently created, but created in such a way that we 'evolve' (or change over time) naturally? Just curious. Is there anything that definitivly says this isn't possible?

Of course not. But everyone has to have it their way or no way at all. So don't expect anyone to realize, "hey, maybe we don't know everything".

"Can't we have both?" is God of the gaps thinking.

If God created man perfectly - in his image - why did he have the foreskin removed after? Oversight?
A wish to have his people mutilate their children in his name?

How's the theory of gravity working for you?

Originally posted by Badgered1
"Can't we have both?" is God of the gaps thinking.

No it's not, that doesn't even make sense. It's perfectly reasonable in this instance.

If God created man perfectly - in his image - why did he have the foreskin removed after? Oversight?
A wish to have his people mutilate their children in his name?

Theologists are unintelligent, that's why.

How's the theory of gravity working for you?

What?

reply to post by vasaga


Your claim is a hasty generalization because you are indeed basing your conclusion on a small sample size of the evidence; ignoring the theory and countless pieces of evidence that support it. You are essentially saying, "To go straight from A to Z seems impossible, because it requires too many moves and A couldn't possibly get to Z", while you ignore BCDFGHIJLNOPTWXY. It fits the fallacy, although I'll admit 'broad generalization' is probably the better term.

Have you checked the talkorigins link yet, the one that NOBODY has ever debunked or attempted to? It provides quite more than a few examples in nature of beneficial mutations, plus others. I have trouble understanding your position, because you agree with genetic mutations that can change morphological and physiological traits in organisms, but can't surmise how those changes would add up over time. What mechanism of nature would prevent that? Why do you believe that mutations cannot add up to cause what would appear to be bigger changes over longer time periods? For example, a very simple reproductive system could become more complex over time if it benefits the organism or helps it survive to pass down genes over others. What's wrong with that? Lets address this directly instead of beating around the bush.

Uh... I'm saying it's up to the one stating the claim to show it's true, and until then I have the right to question it.. But, forget it.

And I posted the link, which you ignored. I'm still waiting for you to show me what evidence you disagree with and why.

For example, reductionism, which is that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.

Could you give me exact examples of where this is being taught as fact, without scientific backing?

I would appreciate if you would give me more details on what you are asking about biochemical systems. Are you wondering how the digestive system originally evolved, how cells first started working together, or what? There are quite a few scientists that have written research papers on it. Admittedly there is a lot we don't know, but scientists are trying to learn. Limited knowledge in certain areas doesn't falsify evolution. It inspires more research.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Too me evolution as a theory must be incorrect because every species that has 2 sexes evolved 2 different varieties of the same species male and female at exactly the same time in perfect synchronization right across the entire spectrum of all life on earth. It is a topic evolutionists very rarely address, because it is hard to answer.

The questions:
How were these species reproducing while their sex organs were developing over millions of years ?
How did every species suddenly know when to begin physical procreation, something they had never done before ?
How do hundreds of different species if only within there own genus group evolve in perfect synchronization two different biological sexes ?

Then you have abiogenesis, the very foundation of the entire theory of evolution, it is like tying to build a house with no foundation in an frequent earthquake zone, an epic fail. Sooner or later that entire house will collapse.
As will evolution, in the distant future it will be laughed at, as stupid intellectual folly of an ignorant time.

edit on 25-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

Sexual dimorphism most likely started with organisms that could pass down genes both asexually and sexually. Sexes didn't just evolve in every single species separately. It evolved in a very simple common ancestor, and since greater variety in genetics was more favorable to long term survival, the trait became more prevalent over time and the sexes became more defined. Originally they were virtually the same.

Abiogenesis is not the foundation of evolution. The foundation of evolution is passing down genes and genetic mutations, coupled with natural selection. It isn't about how life originally started on earth. For all we know a creator could have seeded the planet using evolution as a tool. It could have also arrived via panspermia. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that's being worked on. Genetic mutations can be verified as can natural selection, so evolution is verified. Sure there's still plenty of research to do, but dismissing it because we do not know one aspect of it, is pretty silly.

Just some questions to the OP to help clarify a few things. Where do you base your religious beliefs from? I am assuming The Bible. What exact version? KJV?

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by vasaga

 

Have you checked the talkorigins link yet, the one that NOBODY has ever debunked or attempted to? It provides quite more than a few examples in nature of beneficial mutations, plus others. I have trouble understanding your position, because you agree with genetic mutations that can change morphological and physiological traits in organisms, but can't surmise how those changes would add up over time. What mechanism of nature would prevent that? Why do you believe that mutations cannot add up to cause what would appear to be bigger changes over longer time periods? For example, a very simple reproductive system could become more complex over time if it benefits the organism or helps it survive to pass down genes over others. What's wrong with that? Lets address this directly instead of beating around the bush.

Uh... I'm saying it's up to the one stating the claim to show it's true, and until then I have the right to question it.. But, forget it.

And I posted the link, which you ignored. I'm still waiting for you to show me what evidence you disagree with and why.

The link you provided is a lot of material. I need more time to go through it.

Originally posted by Barcs

For example, reductionism, which is that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.

Could you give me exact examples of where this is being taught as fact, without scientific backing?

I would appreciate if you would give me more details on what you are asking about biochemical systems. Are you wondering how the digestive system originally evolved, how cells first started working together, or what? There are quite a few scientists that have written research papers on it. Admittedly there is a lot we don't know, but scientists are trying to learn. Limited knowledge in certain areas doesn't falsify evolution. It inspires more research.

Are you saying we should believe the theory because they will be able to explain it?

Originally posted by jjsr420
Couldn't it possibly be both?
We were intelligently created, but created in such a way that we 'evolve' (or change over time) naturally? Just curious. Is there anything that definitivly says this isn't possible?

It can easily be both. If anything, that's the only way evolution seems feasible. Mutations + natural selection is insufficient.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Too me evolution as a theory must be incorrect because every species that has 2 sexes evolved 2 different varieties of the same species male and female at exactly the same time in perfect synchronization right across the entire spectrum of all life on earth. It is a topic evolutionists very rarely address, because it is hard to answer.

More like, sex evolved a few times in different lineages and all life that reproduces like this descends from them. Why do you even take part in these debates? You clearly haven't bothered to read/understand even the very basics of evolution. Anyway, now that we addressed this misunderstanding of yours, you must conclude that TOE is, after all, most likely correct. Nice

Originally posted by vasaga
Mutations + natural selection is insufficient.

How is the below insufficient?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Then you have abiogenesis, the very foundation of the entire theory of evolution, it is like tying to build a house with no foundation in an frequent earthquake zone, an epic fail. Sooner or later that entire house will collapse.
As will evolution, in the distant future it will be laughed at, as stupid intellectual folly of an ignorant time.

You honestly think a theory based on hypotheses, proven by facts, is going to be "laughed at" and nonsensical notions arisen out of man made, man edited scripture is going to be considered the go to source for explanations?

As if evolution and evolutionary theory were not already confusing enough, many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis. One common way this is done is to argue that evolution cannot explain how life began while creationism can and, therefore, creationism is superior to evolution.
...
The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.
...
The second possibility is that some creationists do understand what evolution is and do understand that neither the origin of life nor the origin of the universe are really relevant to the truth or validity of evolutionary theory. In such cases, the creationists in question are being consciously and deliberately dishonest with their audience. Perhaps they imagine that by confusing people as to the true nature of evolution, they will be able to gain more support for their own position — a position which is, according to them, more in accordance with the will of God and Christian doctrines.

atheism.about.com...

reply to post by vasaga

Really? There is one very simple scientific question. How does only natural selection with random mutations allow for a single celled organism to become a fully fledges conscious human being, whether it's quadrillions of years or millions of years or any other time frame?


Isn't that what the theory of evolution is proposing? When you can answer that, I will accept neo-darwinism as being true. I wish you good luck.

Oh jeez, you did it too. You should read my first post and go back and read this article:

Link

Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate beasts. That's like saying theories behind gravity are false because magnetism doesn't explain why I'm cold in the winter.



I think the bottom line is that creationists will find a few questions they believe can't be answered with scientific theory, (or they don't even bother to look) and instead of looking for it, or just accepting that certain things are still under investigation, they turn to creationism that will offer an answer for absolutely everything.

Why is creationism able to off an answer for absolutely everything?

Because religious zealots simply make things up as they go.

Nevermind all the contradictory BS that is in the bible, but throughout all the interpretations, creationists simply cherry pick and warp their argument into something convincing, but not based on fact or reason.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

I suggest you wake up.
I'm not saying I agree with every word this man says but he is on the ball for most things he speaks on. If you havnt actually watched his lectures and researched into the powers that be, you have no right commenting on this issue. Your just a sheep.

If your argument, or his argument, is predicated on the notion that the government lies to us, or 9/11 is an inside job, it has no place for any realistic discussion with histories science.

As in:

Dinosaurs are not real because 9.11 was an inside job perpetuated by Cheney and GW Bush.

You see how little sense that makes?

reply to post by boncho


Let me explain what I have learned,


Evolution occurs on a small scale and locally,methods to measure age of objects are flawed.You can petrify wood in the lab in 3 years, Bury it under a creek it will petrify in 10 years....NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS.
The earth was constructed by the creator with an ICE LAYER TOTALLY SUROUNDING THE EARTH ,this is (the firmament above the firmament) genesis.
The ice layer protected humans and animals from all types of terrestrial radiation, cosmic radiation, solar radiation,ect, etc CAUSING the ageing process to almost STOP. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE LIVED 1000 YEARS.
The ice layer compressed the atmosphere many times what it is today CAUSING BLOOD PLASMA TO TAKE ON OXYGEN .This allowed men to run 100miles before they were tired, Bugs, plants and animals grew many times larger than today.The creator became upset at men using technology on his children such as tower of babel, genetics, and perversion .He allowed a meteor TO SMASH INTO THE ICE SHEILD AND IT collapsed onto the north and south poles .Around the equator it melted as it took 40 days and nights to fall.This flooded the entire earth and formed the grand canyon in 25 minutes, not millions of years.

Realism argues that, somehow, unconscious matter ('organic' compounds) magically and inexplicably formed conscious life? Even the earliest and most basic life forms absolutely must have possessed consciousness, or else reaction to external stimuli would not be possible. Realists are basing all their materialistic claims on pure faith, just as they hypocritically judge creationists for doing. It's unbelievable.

Don't get me wrong, creationism is just as ridiculous, claiming that humans are somehow separate from the evolutionary chain and just mystically appeared here one day 'by the will of God'. Come on! Talk about hubris!

Realism argues that, somehow, unconscious matter ('organic' compounds) magically and inexplicably formed conscious life? Even the earliest and most basic life forms absolutely must have possessed consciousness, or else reaction to external stimuli would not be possible. Realists are basing all their materialistic claims on pure faith, just as they hypocritically judge creationists for doing. It's unbelievable.

Nonsense!
It is a fact molecules spontaneously react on their own. Its all according to known physical laws. Biology is just complex chemistry and chemistry is just complex physics. There's no consciousness needed. RNA doesn't have any driver, its just a chemical reaction.