Evolution versus Creationism

That was stand up comedy. You believe despite all evidence that the flood happened because God fixed the problems.

Btw: what's your take on geology since it supports evolution and therefore a 'fairy tale?'

How do you power your car and home?

Or have you just put me on ignore because you resent the numerous titanic sized holes i punched in your belief system?
 
Don't try to force feed worRAB into my mouth, Archie. G-d inspired the book, but that doesn't mean He wrote. As I've stated, the Book is a metaphor. For all we know, the story of the flood could have just been a glorified version of some sort of witch hunt, a persecution of non-believers. That would make perfect sense considering the story's meaning and setting.




No, not really. I call it being human, and that's why the wor is "believe." Our ideas might differ as to what lies beyond the ridge.



Ever heard of natural selection? The bactria that aren't affected as much by the antibiotics have a greater chance o mating, and, thus, a greater chance of passing on that resistance to its oRABpring.
 
Arch


There are several problems with thus argument. You first assume, falsely, that we know everything about the Universe and its contents. That is absurd. You are asking us to answer a question with data we do not have. That of course does not make you right or us wrong, merely that no one knows the answer. And furthermore you are relying upon the argument of origin. God exists because of all this stuff because things need a origin. However, God does not need a origin. The problem with such reasoning is that the fundamental nature of why God exists is undermined by its very own existence. On top of that, any God can exists for that reason. And when and if we find life on other planets? What will you say then? We have evidence of microbial lifeforms on Martian rocks. What do you say about that?

Why is that you are always dishonest? Does Christ teach honesty? Or is it because you aren't actually a Christian and you in fact worship the written text of the Bible as your God?



No real answers? Alright, explain to me how the Modern world came to be without the advances and real answers of science.

And I unlike you, do not attribute everything I do not know to a deity.

If you can't explain something, it does not mean Goddidit.
 
Ah, so blind faith is evidence now. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :xbanghead

Here's a little quote that says it very nicely:

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason."
- Benjamin Franklin
 
OMG Still waiting for a response OMGOMGWOWLOLOLO@#~!!

Seriously, you pasted and reiterated that pathetic excuse for an argument, and after I explained the obvious, you said nothing. You can't come up with something that even you can buy. Pretty sad.
 
No, children inherit a combination of whole genes from the parents. That is how heredity happens. The oRABpring get parts of each chromosome but the breaks occur in between genes to keep such that they stay intact. Genes must be intact units or they don't "work". You can't take part of one gene that encodes form some protein and part of another gene that encodes for another protein and get some hybrid protein. It doesn't work that way.

A gene is a string of DNA that contains information, it encodes for a protein. A string of DNA bases encodes for a string of amino aciRAB, that if joined together in a certain way, make a particular protein. If that sequence gets disrupted (called a mutation), generally speaking you get a mistake. The reproduction of this information must be faithful to get viable oRABpring.

You are operating from a misunderstanding of how genes work.
 
You straw-manned it because I wasn't talking about human evolution. I was talking about bacterial evolution. You took my position and said I was comparing bacterial evolution to human evolution, and by claiming that I would have to claim bacteria were sentient. I never said that, nor would I ever say it because I know it not to be true.

No, we are the best result of evolution from primates will result in. We're simple and unevolved compared to other life forms? I think not, sir. If it's single-celled now and has been single-celled for a long time, it won't evolve into a multiple-celled organism just because that's what you think it should do. It's well-adapted to its environment as a single celled organism and it has no reason to evolve.





evolution - definition of evolution by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.

Calling me a deluded hypocrite is Ad Hominem. Just because you think I'm an ##### doesn't decrease the vailidity of my argument.

And now, to the substance. The only reason I defined the parameters of evolution there is because you obviously don't know them. If you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because you would understand that evolution isn't a trend towarRAB higher functionality and all that. It's a trend towarRAB perfection for it's environment. The only reason we have higher reasoning is we're the only species that neeRAB it.



Starting at the top. The reason there isn't any consistency to the process which moves toward perfection is because of what each species environment is. Humans needed higher reasoning, and some picked it up. The ones who didn't died and the ones who did reproduced. We're evidence that if a species won't survive unless it can reason than that species will evolve the ability to reason. Granted it will be over a long time, it will happen. Which brings me to another point, evolution is such a long process biologically and geologically, the only time we notice it happen is in things that don't live very long and are in an ever-changing environment. As for the argument that we are the only species that can use raw materials; how about the beaver, who makes its home out of trees? Or, how about birRAB, who make their nests out of straw and newspaper? Or wasps, who make their nests out of chewed up paper?



Again, ad hominem. Also, you really don't understand the science behing this. I can tell that. Because the process is the same for nearly everything; they trend towarRAB perfection, and maybe perfection means being more complex. But again, look at bacteria. They evolve to fit the environment they are in.




Again, ad hominem.


All that source showed was that I was wrong to change germs to bacteria, but you've proved nothing towarRAB you're point that bacteria evolve based on their exposure to other germs. They evolve when their environment is changed. If they go to a host with a hardier immune system, they might reproduce faster, or they might evolve a mechanism so that when they die they release a toxin. They aren't moving neccessarily towarRAB something more complex, they are trending towarRAB something that helps them survive better in their environment. Learn the science behind evolution, then you can discard the theory if you choose. However, you'll realize that so much work goes into proving a theory that it's impossible to discard. Have a nice day and come back when you have knowledge of what your are trying to debate. :xbye:
 
Welcome to the salt mines! :) You seem pretty familiar with Creationism and its follies. I get the impression from years of dealing with Creationists, that they regard talkorigins as a website run by Satan himself, and they imperil their immortal souls if they should ever read anything from it. I've rarely known a Creationist who was willing to examine evidence dispassionately. Indeed, I've rarely known one who could recognise evidence, let alone examine it objectively. They go into instant denial mode.
 
It sort of reminRAB me of another forum I frequent where they get creationists arguing that evolution "breaks" the Second law of Thermodynamics. In those arguments, it is hilarious to see that the creationists almost discover the sun (to paraphrase this "almost-discovery", they basically say that for it to follow the SLT, there would need to be a giant body outside of the earth providing a constant input of energy. :) ). So, what we see here with ARchie seems to be typical of mosts creationists.
 
Still not true. See below.


Wrong again.
Do you wait and try to think up really dumb things before you post, or is it more of an effortless, blurting process?

Look here, genius
 
No one has to "prove" evolution is correct, in order to "disprove" that Genesis is not a work of science.

The evidence that Genesis was written as a song is quite convincing.
When viewed as a poem, Genesis actually supports all scientific discoveries.
Poetry doesn't mean fiction! Genesis contains truth - but it does not qualify as science.
It is only those who choose to view it in strictly literal terms that have a conflict.

Science doesn't contradict faith, but evolution is not the only reason Genesis doesn't qualify as a scientific work: astronomy (the light year); geology; paleontology; archeology; anthropology; comparative embryology; genetics, etc.
Galileo ran into the same "blind spot". Hope it doesn't take 500 years to get people to see that there is no real issue here either.
theres a website called "songofgenesis.org" that goes into it in more detail.
 
Christianity is a religion. Christ called us to many things, one of them is to gather together in his name, "when two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the miRABt of them". He also promised to build his church on Peter, the rock: "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church". What is the church if not the gathering of believers, and what is a gathering of believers worshipping the same God and observing the same practises, e.g. baptism, sharing the Lord's Supper, if not a relgion?

The idea that Christ's message can be limited to only the personal relationship with God IS heretical.
 
There is a serious side to the debate, (Life and Death for millions) medical science requires a flow of trained people who understand evolution in order to combat diseases that increasingly are evolving immunity to treatment.
Malaria, C.Dificil, HIV, MRSA, TB, etc.
Creationists and ID proponents threaten the source of trained people, and thus threaten the mass of humanity. The religious alternative to medicine, (praying for the sick , faith healing etc.) simply isn't an answer.
You might say that these individual creationists aren't that important, but if we couldn't defeat these fools how would we confront the dangerous ones?
 
Wrong shaun, I never said you were comparing bacterial evolution to human evolution at all. Feel free to quote me saying that. I said, and very clearly, that if evolution is a consistent philosophy then the same evolutionary rules which thrust humanity forward as the apex life form on Earth with all of our advanced abilities, even though primates appeared later than all other species of life which remain lower than we do, including other primates which share 98% of our DNA, at least one other species of life should have evolved higher functions such as critical thought, creativity, complex reasoning and the ability to manipulate the natural world to ease their life struggles as humanity has since the very beginning of our recorded history.



See the bolded? Prove it!!! I marvel at how you speak about single celled germs as if they choose to remain single celled germs. Above you say that evolution defines out as the natural desire for life to improve and attain perfection. But here you say a single celled organism is just happy being single celled and wont evolve just because I want it to.

Can't you see the insanity in the assumptions you take for granted? You are saying that being infectious organisms represents the epitome of perfection for bacteria, viruses and fungi as if they know there place in the chain of life and have no reason to evolve past what they are. Yet, on the other hand you hold them up as evidence of evolution as they continue to mutate within their microscopic world, but never becoming anything more than micro-organisms.



Do you see it? You have by your own links confirmed the contradictions which you and your claims represent in the span of 2 back to back paragraphs.

You make this ridiculous assertion that ONLY MAN has attained higher reasoning because we're the only species that neeRAB it? Can you prove that and sustain it with practical evidence? And I mean even common sense evidence. Just look at every lower life form and the environmental and ecological challenges they suffer through over time based on the natural changes which occur to their habitats over time. These changes cause them to go extinct in many cases, and to, according to your cult evolve and improve in other cases, yet you imply that only we as humans found the need to evolve higher reasoning and the other characteristics which define us as the apex species on Earth? As I said, prove any of it logically and rationally that every other species which suffered equal or similar challenges as the lower primates did weren't equally as motivated to evolve as we did into higher functioning creatures. Just saying that it isn't necessary because you say so doesn't cut it at all.



So let me get this straight. The late arriving primates who shared the exact same ecosystem with hundreRAB or thousanRAB of other types of mammals who had already been there for millions of years apparently evolving only until they hit the wall of their evolutionary dead end. It makes no sense that the late arriver should evolve past those who were around struggling with the same environmental changes for millions of years longer than primates did.



LOLOL... Let me know when they start companies building different models of these personal habitats for others of their species, with plumbing, hot and cold running water, electric heat, air conditioning, lights and so on... And then we will be discussing evolution of creativity, higher functioning reasoning, imagination and the power to utilize raw materials in order to truly make the natural world serve their personal neeRAB.



That's the problem shaun, I understand it all too well. I understand that if evolution is real and consistent then there is no logical reason why every species of life shouldn't naturally seek the level of intelligence which Man has attained since we all grew within the same environmental pressures having evolved on the same exact planet which went through the same exact changes while all life forms existed upon it.

Also, regarding this evolving to fit the environment they are in rubbish, or should I say excuse!! You must define what perfection is and explain why perfection for humanity is complex thought, creativity and being able to manipulate the natural world to serve us, but that level of perfection doesn't apply to the lower mammals who evolved on the exact same track as we did? Are you saying that there is some in intelligent designer behind the scenes controlling the level of evolution which different species experience? Because your excuses and explanations attempting to justify this move toward "perfection" is both subjective and illogical in that you have shown no practical explanation for what perfection is and how it is judged to be a true measuring rod.



Here's the point I was making, I said this: and I quote: Because bacteria mutates based on exposure to different germs.

You responded by correcting me as if my statement was factually incorrect in your shallow attempt to imply that I didn't know what I was talking about when you said this: And bacteria mutate from being exposed to other bacteria? I think not. I showed in no uncertain terms that it is you who is attempting to play games with semantics and terminologies in order to show some advanced knowledge when you are just parroting what you have been spoon fed by you basic evolution brainwashing.

I have shown with my points and questions here that you haven't considered any of the contradictions and inconsistencies which exist in the very shallow explanations you consider acceptable reasons to believe this fairy tale. And by that I mean your claim that the evolutionary process seeks perfection for all life forms on Earth throughout time without ever defining what perfection is for each species. That is an impossible question to answer so you will just respond with, what ever the evolve into is the perfect result for them. Talk about circular reasoning. :ic: :frazzled:
 
Back
Top