Creationism takes less faith

Double post

ServantOfTheLamb
Macro-evolution is the transition from one species to another. This is not an observable fact, and probably never will be.

I gave the example of the donkey and horse, where they are close but right at the edge of being two separate species. How does this happen other than with no interaction over a long period of time.

Another example are the Spotted owl subspecies that live in different geographic locations that show some genetic and morphological differences. This observation is consistent with the idea that new species form through geographic isolation over time. If they continued they would become separate species.


All this is referred to as allopatric speciation, so explain why this doesn't work, or why it can't work as observed?

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Double post

edit on 17-9-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: (no reason given)

See what I mean? hehe

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by Greylorn

 

Ok, so why did you decide God was the less logical option of creation of the universe? What about physics contradicts the idea of a creator? What am I missing ?

Which creator?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Ok, so why did you decide God was the less logical option of creation of the universe? What about physics contradicts the idea of a creator? What am I missing ?

Something cannot come from nothing. And as far as I am aware, the birth of your god has never been explained. He simply has "always been". That doesn't work when the laws of physics are applied. He had to have been born from something, which begs the question of what that something is or was. And then the question becomes, where did that something come from?

Those answers are what we are all missing, apparently.

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by Greylorn

Ok, so why did you decide God was the less logical option of creation of the universe? What about physics contradicts the idea of a creator? What am I missing ?

You are missing that they are mutually exclusive. One has no bearing on the other.

You can be completely ignorant or disbelieve in all of science, and still that does not mean you have to believe in the god hypothesis.

To re-address the ridiculous assertion in the OP -

I'll tell you what takes less faith than believing in creationism; Not believing in creationism.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Ok, so why did you decide God was the less logical option of creation of the universe? What about physics contradicts the idea of a creator? What am I missing ?

Something cannot come from nothing. And as far as I am aware, the birth of your god has never been explained. He simply has "always been". That doesn't work when the laws of physics are applied. He had to have been born from something, which begs the question of what that something is or was. And then the question becomes, where did that something come from?

Those answers are what we are all missing, apparently.

God is eternal. Outside of the third and fourth dimensions. So the laws of physics and time have no effect on him? You don't believe the universe had a first cause. If you don't believe in God you believe matter is eternal, and that definitely doesn't work when the laws of physics are applied now does it.

It does take faith in science, in people, but that's better
than faith that what you claim is true sans evidence,
faith in people who get paid just to tell you that you
are correct not to find the truth and tell you that,
faith that your religion out of all the hundreds on earth
is the correct one, faith that out of all of the interpretations
of that sect of your religion, you chose the right one.......

Faith that a god can tell you to murder your own child
and still consider him somehow moral.... Faith that
slavery is A ok and we should still be doing according
to the bible at least..... Yes i do have faith that we
can become more moral than your religion would allow.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

You're right, that was an assumption on my part. Because it makes sense that a YEC would think that way. I was actually being kind of generous in an odd way..

Okay, so you accept the time periods involved. Then use that grey matter. If small changes to organisms can occur over short spans of time, what happens over seriously long spans of time?

If evolution, in your view is constrained to micro evolution only, then how do the organisms know to cease changing? Did God just say "Thou shalt vary over time, though only within a species"?

edit on 17-9-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: ?

Organisms don't cease changing until they die. Based on the evidence however it appears that organisms genetically adapt to certain conditions of their environment, but certain genetic barriers exist that keep them from transcending into a new species. For example you like to use the horse and the ass. We might see a variety of horses and a variety of asses, but you have never seen a horse give birth to a donkey, or vice versa. They aren't animals that stemmed from one another and their is no proof that was ever the case.

Did God just say "thou shalt vary......Um I dunno. The Bible wasn't written to be a Science book. God didn't have it written to tell you how a cell works or how organisms change over time...he wrote it so you would know Jesus Christ came and died for your sins and that your need a savior.

ServantOfTheLamb
Organisms don't cease changing until they die. Based on the evidence however it appears that organisms genetically adapt to certain conditions of their environment, but certain genetic barriers exist that keep them from transcending into a new species. For example you like to use the horse and the ass. We might see a variety of horses and a variety of asses, but you have never seen a horse give birth to a donkey, or vice versa. They aren't animals that stemmed from one another and their is no proof that was ever the case.

What a poor choice for an example. You can cross a horse with an ass and end up with a mule. It isn't a horse or an ass. Pretty much tears down your point about genetic barriers.

daskakik

ServantOfTheLamb
Organisms don't cease changing until they die. Based on the evidence however it appears that organisms genetically adapt to certain conditions of their environment, but certain genetic barriers exist that keep them from transcending into a new species. For example you like to use the horse and the ass. We might see a variety of horses and a variety of asses, but you have never seen a horse give birth to a donkey, or vice versa. They aren't animals that stemmed from one another and their is no proof that was ever the case.

What a poor choice for an example. You can cross a horse with an ass and end up with a mule. It isn't a horse or an ass. Pretty much tears down your point about genetic barriers.

edit on 20-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Ok now you are talking about cross breeding species, which most of the time turns out to be a sterile animal. This is not a vertical evolution, and is actually evidence against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't rely on cross breeding anyways, it relies on mutation of the gene pool.

ServantOfTheLamb

daskakik

ServantOfTheLamb
Organisms don't cease changing until they die. Based on the evidence however it appears that organisms genetically adapt to certain conditions of their environment, but certain genetic barriers exist that keep them from transcending into a new species. For example you like to use the horse and the ass. We might see a variety of horses and a variety of asses, but you have never seen a horse give birth to a donkey, or vice versa. They aren't animals that stemmed from one another and their is no proof that was ever the case.

What a poor choice for an example. You can cross a horse with an ass and end up with a mule. It isn't a horse or an ass. Pretty much tears down your point about genetic barriers.

edit on 20-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Ok now you are talking about cross breeding species, which most of the time turns out to be a sterile animal. This is not vertical evolution, and is actually evidence against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't rely on cross breeding anyways though, it relies on mutation of the gene pool.

edit on 20-9-2013 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

ServantOfTheLamb

Organisms don't cease changing until they die. Based on the evidence however it appears that organisms genetically adapt to certain conditions of their environment, but certain genetic barriers exist that keep them from transcending into a new species. For example you like to use the horse and the ass. We might see a variety of horses and a variety of asses, but you have never seen a horse give birth to a donkey, or vice versa. They aren't animals that stemmed from one another and their is no proof that was ever the case.

This is a straw man argument. Evolution doesn't work like that. You don't have one animal that just miraculously gives birth to a completely different species one day. Instead the two species in question have a proto-ancestor that is similar to both animals but is also neither. This species mutates one way in one environment to create the first animal over millions of years and then in another environment it mutates in a different direction to create the second species over millions of years.

I'm going to preempt your response about transitional fossils and post this link to a list of transitional fossils.
List of tranistional fossils

Krazysh0t

ServantOfTheLamb

Organisms don't cease changing until they die. Based on the evidence however it appears that organisms genetically adapt to certain conditions of their environment, but certain genetic barriers exist that keep them from transcending into a new species. For example you like to use the horse and the ass. We might see a variety of horses and a variety of asses, but you have never seen a horse give birth to a donkey, or vice versa. They aren't animals that stemmed from one another and their is no proof that was ever the case.

This is a straw man argument. Evolution doesn't work like that. You don't have one animal that just miraculously gives birth to a completely different species one day. Instead the two species in question have a proto-ancestor that is similar to both animals but is also neither. This species mutates one way in one environment to create the first animal over millions of years and then in another environment it mutates in a different direction to create the second species over millions of years.

I'm going to preempt your response about transitional fossils and post this link to a list of transitional fossils.
List of tranistional fossils

edit on 20-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

I am quite aware of the gaps within the fossil record but thank you for trying.

I would also like to note that many Atheist claim a mass of energy outside our understanding of time is what caused the Big Bang...Oh so its outside this realm of existence and has the ability to create an entirely new dimension, and does so randomly, and we got lucky and landed the star dust that created us landed in the right place? Well that takes a lot more faith than saying something with intelligence put that course of action into existence and that is why we exist. You are assuming that their is no intelligent life outside this realm of existence, but yet you can assume that their was energy outside this realm of existence...if it was just a mass of energy(Spirit) could it not have a will?

I would like to also add that I only argue from a Christian stand point.

I would also like to add that there is more evidence of the Big Bang theory than evidence of an intelligent creator.

So in short, no, it doesn't take more faith to believe in something that more evidence exists for.

Case closed.

Nostrenominon

I would also like to note that many Atheist claim a mass of energy outside our understanding of time is what caused the Big Bang...Oh so its outside this realm of existence and has the ability to create an entirely new dimension, and does so randomly, and we got lucky and landed the star dust that created us landed in the right place? Well that takes a lot more faith than saying something with intelligence put that course of action into existence and that is why we exist. You are assuming that their is no intelligent life outside this realm of existence, but yet you can assume that their was energy outside this realm of existence...if it was just a mass of energy(Spirit) could it not have a will?

I would like to also add that I only argue from a Christian stand point.

I would also like to add that there is more evidence of the Big Bang theory than evidence of an intelligent creator.

So in short, no, it doesn't take more faith to believe in something that more evidence exists for.

Case closed.

I would like to point out that I never said I disagree with the Big Bang theory? I said that it is more logical to assume an intelligent being guided the process, rather than assume everything happened by random chance.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

I would like to point out that I never said I disagree with the Big Bang theory? I said that it is more logical to assume an intelligent being guided the process, rather than assume everything happened by random chance.

That's assuming you possess all of the information necessary to make an informed assumption. Personally, I would rather stay away from assumptions period. Stick to informed hypothesis.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


And what does that response have to do with me pointing out that you used a logical fallacy to try to disprove evolution?

Maybe you are referring to the link I posted, the one I posted to preempt your inevitable claim that we don't have missing links or whatever. I posted that link to show you that we have MANY MANY MANY transitional fossils, so lines are so complete you can literally follow it from one species to the next. So no you are very NOT aware of the fossil record. I believe your words were "try again." Please do so.

ServantOfTheLamb


God is eternal. Outside of the third and fourth dimensions. So the laws of physics and time have no effect on him? You don't believe the universe had a first cause. If you don't believe in God you believe matter is eternal, and that definitely doesn't work when the laws of physics are applied now does it.

God is eternal?
Says who?

ServantOfTheLamb

Nostrenominon

I would also like to note that many Atheist claim a mass of energy outside our understanding of time is what caused the Big Bang...Oh so its outside this realm of existence and has the ability to create an entirely new dimension, and does so randomly, and we got lucky and landed the star dust that created us landed in the right place? Well that takes a lot more faith than saying something with intelligence put that course of action into existence and that is why we exist. You are assuming that their is no intelligent life outside this realm of existence, but yet you can assume that their was energy outside this realm of existence...if it was just a mass of energy(Spirit) could it not have a will?

I would like to also add that I only argue from a Christian stand point.

I would also like to add that there is more evidence of the Big Bang theory than evidence of an intelligent creator.

So in short, no, it doesn't take more faith to believe in something that more evidence exists for.

Case closed.

I would like to point out that I never said I disagree with the Big Bang theory? I said that it is more logical to assume an intelligent being guided the process, rather than assume everything happened by random chance.

If you can accept that God can use the Big Bang as a process to create the universe, why can you not accept that He can also use evolution to guide the development of life?