Evolution versus Creationism

T

taty85cr

New member
It comes to something when we have to educate the creationist about what creationism says...
With regarRAB the observed instances of speciation, the current creationist codicil is that the scientific definition of a species isn't the the same thing as a "Biblical type", (A term which they leave rather vaguely defined) and thus maintain that "macro-evolution does not occur".
Though of course the ID proponents do cross that line and will state that speciation occurs.
Finally of course there is Theistic Evolution as proclaimed by the vast majority of Christians who see little or no merit in "God of the Gaps" theology.
 
Amen to that. The atheists believe that we are really no better than animals, and deny that our spirits put them well above them. Their Faith in Evolution is the antithesis of Christianity.
 
Sure. However, the likelihood that Shiva, Thor, and Pele are doing the same is just as likely. Or that no God exists.



Well on that logic, we cannot ever truly know anything 100%, including our very own existence. Debating genesis over natural occurrences is rather pointless under that framework.



Except that literal creationists are ignorant, willfully most of the time.

They ignore that the common sciences that bring us the modern world are the same sciences that validate Evolution. How can you not be willfully ignorant when you accept that geology brings us gasoline yet deny evolution when the same processes for finding areas of petro are the same for dating fossils?

You cannot have one without the other unless you are deliberately, willfully ignorant.
 
You realize that everything you say above is nothing more than the party line and is assumed to be right today but can neither be proven or relied upon as factual. And even by your own rules, these so called facts are different than they were 10 years ago and will change and adjust again according to what is learned in the next 10 years.

My question is, are there any absolutes upon which the science of evo is based upon ? Or is make it up as you go science.

I Googled Lascaux's authenticity and came up with this link. Is this what you're referring to ? Cuz the artwork in Nevada ages out to around 10,000 years old. http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2006/06/29/local_news/news02.txt

Here's a great link for the Paleolithic art work estimated to be 30,000 years old. http://www.hollanderart.com/sitepages/pid34.php

2 questions please. 1) How did they date the art ? By carbon dating the rocks of the cave walls ? And shouldn't they age out to around 4.57 to 5.1 billion years old ? According to at least one pseudo intellectual around here. And have the animals evolved at all in the past 30,000 years ? Or are they as they were then. And prove to me beyond question that the 30,000 year date is absolutely right without question. scientifically of course. You can't at all. You must admit that it takes more faith in science to believe as you do based on the incredible assumptions evo boldly makes than believers need to have faith in the God of Israel.
 
They have gills and air sacs derived from the oesophagus. They mostly use the lungs when water levels are low, or they are engaged in strenuous activity such as courting and mating.

Lungfish are very useful as a multistoried illustration of what it means to be a transitional. Modern lungfish species, of course, are as evolved as any modern living organism, and aren't (yet) transitional themselves to anything, because their descendants aren't born yet. However, their ancestors and evolutionary history do illustrate how a lung could evolve from oesophageal pouches in an aquatic organism, initially as a means of gulping air when gills alone weren't able to provide a sufficient supply of oxygen.

Modern lungfish have two large air sacs that are derived from the same ancestral anatomical feature for gulping and storing atmospheric air that later also gave rise to lungs in terrestrial vertebrates, and swim bladders in fish. Thus, they can be seen as an evolved example of a transitional to two completely separate lineages of descendants, and show how a complex feature like a lung or swim bladder could evolve gradually where there was none before.

More, they also provide an elegant example of transitionals within their own lineage. There is a classic study by a guy called Westoll in 1949, who looked at 21 derived traits in lungfish fossils, and plotted their gradual change with time in fossils found over a 350 million year span.

The resulting graph of accumulated change with time is illustrated in this link: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/Rates_of_evolution21.asp



The graph clearly shows that the cumulative evolution of all the traits was gradual and its rate increased rapidly over the first 50 million years, followed by a drop in rate as the modern form was approached, and persisted stably over the last 100+ million years.

This is precisely an example (and by no means the only one in the literature) of a whole sequence of transitionals that Archie claims have never been discovered. Archie can make this claim, because he's careful never to examine the evidence, just throw a tantrum and yell that it's all lies.
 
Pick one, and only one. I know that some people fall closer to the middle ground here, but for the purposes of this poll, please choose which you believe in more.

If you would like to explain your beliefs please do.
 
Because bacteria mutates based on exposure to different germs. Mutation doesn't equate to evolution since you can't produce one bacteria today that is any more intelligent or sophisticated a life form than any bacteria which existed even a million years ago.

Do viruses and bacterium deserve rights as sentient beings? I think not. Do they deserve human or civil rights, or rights of survival against attack by scientists who create those antibiotics in order to kill them? I think not. So to equate the mutation of germs with evolution when these germs never evolve into anything more than different types of germs is ridiculous. But hey, welcome to the forum anyway. :xgood:
 
Impressive, I suppose. You've managed to not only avoid the question in its entirety, but to shift the burden of proof to the party that has advanced no argument whatsoever.

The burden of proof is always on the party claiming possession of an answer.

So, to frame:

If this world is indeed the product of an intelligent, purposed creator, why the rest? Why the remaining 99.99% of universal matter that falls short in various stages of incompletion/failure. Mars, as we're finding out, might have come a little bit closer than we'd thought. Why did the intelligent creator conjure all of the elemental specifics necessary for water, created an atmosphere conducive to water and bacteria growth, and then stop?

Without, using the Bible as your sole authority (I am not using any extraneous source as integral and authoritative to my question), and also without refuting an illusory argument that I have not yet put forward - tell me why the Spaghetti Monster noodle-arming the planet into existence is the answer.

Intelligent DESIGN denotes connotes sentient purpose. I am to deduce that that purpose is life, more precisely - man. If life as we know it is the ultimate purpose of this God-head, then why is life only found in the tiniest corner of a tiny system in a tiny galaxy in an infinite universe?

I smell narcissism.
 
Nice links, posting alot of them always makes it look like you're blowing the opposition away. Unfortunately no where do any of them state that an evolutionary scientist discovered the next great drug due to his knowledge of anything. And what about this ?



No evidence that christians don't contribute to the advancement of science huh ? And can anyone imagine a more sweeping statement of classifying a complete segment of the population in a more bigoted way ? Shame on you, you hate mongering, christian fear promoting bigot.
 
Twelve transitional fossil sequences on one poster:

Actually, there's a very nice poster (PDF format) on rates of morphological evolution and "living fossils" that re-examines and improves on Westoll's data, then adRAB additional data for comparison on transitionals from eleven other lineages including mammals and reptiles.

http://graemetlloyd.com/2005PA.pdf

The neat feature is that in every case, it's possible to visualise the gradual change in a set of traits over time, and show that rates of evolution of a trait can vary, with both rapid bursts and slower change being evident.

No transitionals?

You gotta be kidding, or plug ignorant.
 
That's right! Carbon dating, the Big Bang, and five of the six types of evolution (excluding micro-evolution) have all been disproved. If you don't believe me, I would love to start a head-on debate in the 'tounament' section.
 
Oh really, how do you spell faith Otto ?



My faith isn't blind at all. It's an act of my will though. It is understanding that I don't understand everything and am not so pompous as to believe I can explain every jot and diddle in either the bible or in the world through science. What you don't understand as a Natural Man is that each person has a god, even when they claim atheism. We worship that which we place our faith in. So your faith is in your god which is science, specifically evolution as an explanation for who man is.

The problem is that your answer for our origins makes us nothing more than an animal, a soulless beast of burden with no higher calling. I know that is wrong and that we are above the animals of the World. At every possible level we disagree about who and what Man is and why we exist. And sadly that reality will continue to be. But don't expect me to degrade my standing as a human being just to be considered a pseudo intellectual in your club of humanists.
 
I repeat, What an irrational mishmash of delusional reasoning. You are asking me to explain to you why God chose to ONLY create life here and on no other Planets in Time and Space? And if I gave you an answer, as if I could actually know such an answer, would you accept it as rational or reasonable or would you just scoff that i have no way of knowing whatever answer I gave. The fact is you would be right because I have no way of knowing His reasons for only creating life here and no place else. And you say that the you are the party that has advanced no argument what so ever? Are you then admitting that evolution makes no claims about Mans origins? I think not. Not until it's convenient in an argument anyway. Why is that no surprise at all.

But I can tell you this much. He did create life here according to His perfect will, and He created Man in His image according to His perfect Will for fellowship and because He loves us. And after knowing what you hatemongers represent, I marvel that God can love such a rabid lot. And yet He does. Go figure huh?

But how obvious child like of you to handle it by completely evading the valid question that if no God exists, then why in all of the billions of years that Time and Space has existed and expanded to the size that it is; and with all of the uncountable Planets in all of the uncountable Galaxies that envelop all of the uncountable Solar Systems, why oh why hasn't life spontaneously erupted on any other Planets except this one? I know you will in typical fashion evade the question like the philosophical coward that you are but I would hope that for once you would at least try to honestly answer a question rather than just maneuver yourself into feeling like you won something. But I understand that you can't answer it without admitting that you worship at the feet of a man made false science that has no real answers at all. :smile:
 
I believe that the events that make up the Bible are mostly metaphors for what really happened. A flood that covered the whole earth? Please. Where did all the water and fossil evidence go? A flood that big and only a couple thousand years ago would have left fosils all over the world, buried no more than a few feet under the surface.

Maybe one "day" in G-d's creation really spans millions of years. It would certainly make sense that way, considering that creation as described in the bible happened in the same order as the earth's formation. Maybe we're still in the sixth day, and the seventh day is when the Messiah comes. "Then nation will not threaten nation, and mankind will not again know war." ~The Bible.

As for my assumption that G-d really does exist, you could call it blind faith. Heck, even I could call it that. But without faith, we'd all be lonesome and afraid. Where's the fun in looking before you leap every single time?:xhoho:
 
Prove it! Prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Earth is without question 4 billion years old. Men of good repute insist that the Radiometric dating methoRAB are totally unreliable when dating at 50,000 years and beyond so on so many levels that the results cannot be trusted or verified at all. So no matter how you cut it, you must rely on unreliable evidence in order to believe what you believe. So how you can claim dogmatically that the Earths antiquity is a reality is incredible.

How the carbon clock works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonRAB, and the graphite in​
 
Evolution is a type of adaptation.
An adaptation is anything that helps an animal adjust to new conditions, whether it be changes to an animal's genes, behavior, or otherwise.
Evolution is a type of adaptation in an animal that changes some of the genetic codes in that animal over many generations. This usually occurs because of natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest.

Take the evolution from brown bears to polar bears, for instance. When the brown bears' hunting grounRAB started moving farther north, some bears were born with a mutation that gave them lighter fur. These bears were able to hunt better without being seen, and, thus, were able to survive and pass on their genes, eventually creating a new species.
 
I just love that some Christians here have been calling atheists selfish and self-indulgent when they post tripe like this, pretending to know what atheists think and feel... How about you ask a theistic evolutionist about your ridiculous contrast of evolution and Christianity?
 
Back
Top