Evolution Vs. God

Originally posted by seabag

I have a mind and logic of my own. Creation is rubbish....

That’s simply your opinion. 84% of the world population has faith (1/3 are Christians). You’re in the minority, friend.

Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they reject science based on their faith. The majority would fall in the evolution camp. Just because a few people feel they need to justify their religion by attacking science doesn't discredit the scientific research.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


The Darwin Evolution promoters are so desperate for anything to promote the pathetic 100+ year old fairy tale.

Modern scientific findings, such as: Complexity of DNA coding, The complexity of the "simple cell", The impossibility of random chances creating the universe let alone life, Strong evidence of a young creation (comets, size of sun, etc), Life can not come from non life, Lack of Transitional fossils, Natural mutations are a Loss of DNA information, No new life created even from experiments forcing mutations,etc, etc..
They go to any lengths to deny God, no matter how absurd the alternative idea is.

Really any person with even average intelligence having knowledge of ALL the information from both sides of the argument, can't honestly believe in Evolution or that everything created itself from nothing.

reply to post by old_god


The you are saying this microbe just happened to be on a rock in the middle of the African dessert at the right time for me to come by, "dying of thirst", so I could learn it is better to go ahead an die than to relieve my thirst.

Just where is this "all loving and caring Creator"?

reply to post by King Loki


You must be a Zeitgeist fan. It's been well proved that the supposed ancient stories that depict the same facts about Jesus/ Yeshua's life are in fact baseless because their only "proof" is from 150 AD and after. The Horus story while having some similarities does not duplicate the Messianic prophesies.

Free offer to make some money if your claims are true. Have you collected it yet?

Originally posted by Kaboose
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

The Darwin Evolution promoters are so desperate for anything to promote the pathetic 100+ year old fairy tale.

Modern scientific findings, such as: Complexity of DNA coding, The complexity of the "simple cell", The impossibility of random chances creating the universe let alone life,

This has nothing to do with evolution and is called abiogenesis and the Big Bang Theory. Please don't mix up your scientific theories Mr. "Person With Even Average Intelligence".

Strong evidence of a young creation (comets, size of sun, etc), Life can not come from non life, Lack of Transitional fossils,

There are plenty of transitional fossils. You guys seem to think that evolution works in steps. It doesn't work that way, it works with many branching paths. Most of which die off.

Natural mutations are a Loss of DNA information, No new life created even from experiments forcing mutations,etc, etc..
They go to any lengths to deny God, no matter how absurd the alternative idea is.

If evolution is incorrect it doesn't necessarily prove that Creationism is correct. You need to provide proof of Creationism for it to be true. This is a huge breakdown in logical arguing that many Creationists make.

Really any person with even average intelligence having knowledge of ALL the information from both sides of the argument, can't honestly believe in Evolution or that everything created itself from nothing.

For someone with this hypothetical knowledge of both sides, you seem to make a bunch of errors about the Evolution theory. I haven't even pointed out all the errors in this post.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Can you explain to me exactly what is meant by "... a species changing kind"?

Does it mean Rover the "dog" growing extra eyes or becoming a cat within its lifetime?...

... or does it mean one species of organism "developing" into another over a number of generations?

Ok, kinds would be a difference of going from say fish to lizard or lizard to bird or bacteria to animal with fully functioning systems to reproduce, digest, see, hear etc. Showing finches beaks changing as if that proves we come from common ancestors is not changing species. It is a change WITHIN a species which no one is refuting because that is adaptation and natural selection.

Changing colors is not changing species. Lizards are still lizards, fruit flies are still fruit flies and finches are still finches. I hope that helps.

Showing similarities between kinds is not evolution otherwise pro-Darwin types could show this and say, "SEE EVOLUTION!"""

Every time I come across thread like these, I always ask the same question. “Where did the big bang come from”? Of course, I always get derailed from the question or someone throw in a question of their own to counter the question I’m asking.

Is there anyone of you genius’s out there who can answer this one for me?

Many believe there is no such thing as creationism. If so, than what created the “Big Bang”?

Originally posted by Propulsion
Every time I come across thread like these, I always ask the same question. “Where did the big bang come from”? Of course, I always get derailed from the question or someone throw in a question of their own to counter the question I’m asking.

Is there anyone of you genius’s out there who can answer this one for me?

Many believe there is no such thing as creationism. If so, than what created the “Big Bang”?

I don't think anyone has made any "defivitive" statements about exactly what was present before the "big bang".
I have often found it amusing that those who deplore this "theory" don't realize it was first proposed by Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître. He is credited with being the originator of theBig Bang Theory.
Yes, a Catholic Priest is responsible for what most religous people oppose.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Well, that's a rather simplistic video and you do find fossils outside of their place in the geological table which I have shown elsewhere that the geological time table is a circular argument. They say, the table tells us the age of the fossils and the fossils tell us the age of the table. Thus some person digging in the ground finds X known fossil and says, because it's this fossil this is from X period. Then they start dating tests and get wildly different dates and throw out the ones that don't match their table and voila, it's proven from this time period!

Note that things found in the same space coming from other accepted periods of time are discarded as anomalies! Let's not ask the question of why would you find a modern horse skeleton in a table that says they did not exist yet. Let's just line up similar looking fossils, and say they are from this time and that time and then present it to the world as fact when it's been proven not to be accurate.

He talks about primitive mollusks. He shows the famed trilobite, which has anything but a primitive eye. Where my dear is the one with the not so advanced eye evolving into an advance eye? Did you know they find trilobites alive today? Oh, they name em something else, but it's the same species. Please show me evidence of one animal KIND evolving into another kind. Darwin's finches adapt, but they are still finches. Please show me a bird becoming something other than a bird. Since it takes billions of years for this then surely there is evidence of that change happening incrementally.

The documentary I posted demonstrates that per science you have to be able to observe the theory in action and the macro-evolution cannot be observed and thus is accepted on faith. They have every right to believe it, but they cannot prove it via observation.

Here we go again. I see you still haven't grasped the concept that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.

And, in one of your previous threads i provided you with a link to a peer reviewed paper about common ancestry in marsupials which you completely ignored. Here it is again:

www.plosbiology.org...

Seriously, if you want to argue that evolution is fabricated then please educate yourself so you have at least a basic grasp of biology and chemistry.

It seems to me that you ridicule evolution because no fossil has been found that has a photoreceptor on one side of its head and a complex eye on the other. You demand proof of a crocoduck or somesuch!

I honestly think that in any developed country people should be held criminally responsibly for religious brainwashing that you seem to be a victim of. I don't mean to offend but if there's ever a person/s in someones life who has influenced their beliefs to this extent then they should be done for abuse.

reply to post by helldiver


My comment had nothing to do with abiogenesis. It had to do with geologic table. Besides, Abiogenesis was proven false a long time ago. Do some research.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Evolution + formative causation from a first/last cause with intent (design) = Evolution via God. It's part of the process of creation by design or with intent.

What we see in all of it's variety in regards to the differentiation of forms did not just suddenly POP into being fully formed as is, that's absurd.

A formative causation OTOH aided by an evolutionary process with some sort of x-factor (by design), that works.

It's not either/or. Please don't let a literalist fundamentalist conservative Evangelical understanding hold up Christianity and the Bible to ridicule, that's doing the work of the devil who would love to see the Bible struck down like a strawman.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and journey with me. You know, it is a simple fact in most science that order does not come from chaos but order can devolve into chaos, and our world is devolving from it's beautiful and perfect creation. Man is getting sicker and sicker, the world is literally falling apart and yet, so many think it's just mans fault.

I like the example that believing in evolution with its vast improbability is the same as believing a tornado could hit a massive junkyard and when it leaves an hour later a perfect able to fly 747 would be left in it's wake. Most pro-evolution people hate this example because it is exactly what they believe happened millions of years ago. How can you create something from nothing? How can you get life from non-life. And if we being so intelligent cannot create life, then how can it just happen by accident.

You cannot observe evolution from one kind to another and yet, they believe it on faith, and have such a hard time admitting it. Yet, they ridicule all who believe in the glorified creator God because it's not science which demands observable things that you can prove and since we cannot observe God in action creating then it's a fairytale, but isn't that exactly what the evolutionists are doing?

We can observe the incredible order in nature, the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio. We can see the incredible order of the universe and our world and yet because we don't like rules we don't want to be held to any standard, we reject the idea of God who has rules and expectations resulting in our blessings and good for the world, we reject God to do as we please, and just look what has become of our world over these last 200 years!

I did not really plan to write all that, but it just came out. I hope many watch this and realize if they are a believer in evolution that it is simply based on faith and their choosing to believe it and reject any idea of a supreme and loving God.

Nope, you are clearly mixing abiogenesis with evolution here. And abiogenesis hasn't been proved false, its been in the spotlight a lot only this week.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by King Loki

 

How can a THEORY be proven fact? So Creationists don't understand Science? Look up a man named Kent Hovind... he is a Creationist and has forgotten more about science than you will ever know

You are seriously not going to use Horvind as a credible source?!?! He's no different than siting the World News Daily as a credible publication. There are several threads on this site throughout the years showing him to be nothing more than a con-artist.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by helldiver

 

My comment had nothing to do with abiogenesis. It had to do with geologic table. Besides, Abiogenesis was proven false a long time ago. Do some research.

Fossils are very rarely used to date anything geologically and only then it is used as corroborating evidence.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by helldiver

 

My comment had nothing to do with abiogenesis. It had to do with geologic table. Besides, Abiogenesis was proven false a long time ago. Do some research.

False or not, it still isn't evolution. To mix up the two muddies your argument. Stick to one thing. If you want to argue Abiogenesis, create a thread about it. Your thread here is about evolution.

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Please show me any mutation that is beneficial. Studies of fruit flies and mutations show that mutations do not produce a better fly but ones that are sterile or severely handicapped. Cancer is a mutation is it beneficial? As far as my other question on the Cambrian exploision you never did explain how the lack of such as eyes, heads, mouths, guts, and spinal cords. Where not present in the precambrain age yet they apear in the post cambraian age so where did the eyes heads mouths and soforth came from? What came first yur mouth or your ass?

well, not all mutations are beneficial, but those that are are successful, and so do not die..

humans are "mutated" apes, i think its a pretty beneficial mutation, personally..

my mouth and arse came to be because they are required for the efficient conversion of the energy my lifeform survives on..

the "explosion" of adaptation you refer to is just a natural consequence of the evolution of life.. you might as well ask where your soul came from, as ask where all the heads and eyes and mouths and such came from..

edit on 29-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

If he wants a beneficial mutation, look at sickle cell anemia. Resistant to malaria. Ancestors of people showing the disease are largely linked to regions with high risk of malaria outbreak.

Want another one? There are villages, in Europe, that showed abnormally high survival rates during the second outbreak of the black plague. Genetic testing showed a common genetic mutation in descendants from those villages that is resistant to the bubonic plague.

Verum1quaere
and we do have a choice in the matter: choose Godlessness and you choose immoral technocratic enslavement.
it is just human pride in the way of happiness here.

I think you're so focused on you magic book of spells that you've either completely ignored or completely forgotten anything that Jesus "taught". If you live your life as a good person, you can actually live with "Christian values" by doing the right thing and treating people kindly and with respect while still accepting the lack of a divine creator. Not believing in a god does not make a person immoral. Judging people you don't know based on a skewed interpretation of their internet postings... now that's a little immoral and not very Christian of you. And while I'm at it, why is your book superior to and more enlightened than the Talmud, the Torah, the Vedas or even the Greco-Roman pantheon?

UnifiedSerenity

Yes, please do show us the observable change in kind and since you cannot observe 60 million years ago, please show it happening today. Finches are still finches, fish are still fish, and bacteria are still bacteria.

I love when people ask for current examples of evolution, because then I simply site this example: Are you aware that due to the over use antibiotics various forms of bacteria such Staph, Salmonella, and Ghonorrhea, have become immune to many anitbiotics. Do you know how that happens? I'm glad you asked. Bacterial DNA sometimes can undergo mutations, just like the ones that cause tumors in our cells. Sometimes those mutations can result in abnormalities result in antibiotic resistant qualities, which are passed on to the next generation, as the use of anitbiotics increase, only bacteria that have the mutation which makes them antibiotic resistant are able to survive and thrive, (survival of the fittest anyone?) and that drum roll, gong is an example of modern day evolution. No applause necessary. How's that for a first post?

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by helldiver

 

My comment had nothing to do with abiogenesis. It had to do with geologic table. Besides, Abiogenesis was proven false a long time ago. Do some research.

Like recent research where abiogenesis was recreated in lab?

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

www.wired.com...

Phenom187

UnifiedSerenity

Yes, please do show us the observable change in kind and since you cannot observe 60 million years ago, please show it happening today. Finches are still finches, fish are still fish, and bacteria are still bacteria.

I love when people ask for current examples of evolution, because then I simply site this example: Are you aware that due to the over use antibiotics various forms of bacteria such Staph, Salmonella, and Ghonorrhea, have become immune to many anitbiotics. Do you know how that happens? I'm glad you asked. Bacterial DNA sometimes can undergo mutations, just like the ones that cause tumors in our cells. Sometimes those mutations can result in abnormalities result in antibiotic resistant qualities, which are passed on to the next generation, as the use of anitbiotics increase, only bacteria that have the mutation which makes them antibiotic resistant are able to survive and thrive, (survival of the fittest anyone?) and that drum roll, gong is an example of modern day evolution. No applause necessary. How's that for a first post?

No, no. Surely that must be satan trying to snuff out people who fail to bleach their countertops.