Evolution vs. Creation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
363

wow, that?s a hell of a post…

As I posted earlier a lot of your assumptions about darwinism are just wrong…

For example:

There is no explanation for the appearance of the first living cells (Abiogenesis).

Oh yes, there is! As the miller experiment has shown, given the right conditions organic molecules start to appear. Just ONE of them needs to be able to replicate. It does NOT need to be alive, it does not have to have DNA, it does not have to be a cell, it only has to replicate (allmost) perfectly. Since it does not replicate perfectly different kinds of replicators will soon start to compete for the organic molecules left. Single cells, DNA, etc will now, in time, evolve.

Is it likely that such a replicator emerges? Actually, no. But given the fact that there are gazillions of organic molecules in this soup and that there is an allmost infinite amount of time, sooner or later it probably happens anyway. And it only has to happen ONCE.

See, evolutionists don?t claim that the first cell suddenly popped into existence. You just think they do.

Living systems are irreducibly complex.

Yes, they are. So? If an organ A was able to function on its own, an organ B might develop that helps organ A. In the course of time organ B then takes over some functions for A, because it is beneficial for the organism as a whole. (maybe organ B can do it at less “cost” for the organism?) The ability of organ A to do it for itself atrophies because it is “costly” to maintain this ability, organ B does it better anyway. Now you have an irreducibly complex organism that was shaped by evolution.

Anatomical homology does not always relate to similar genes.

No, it doesn?t! But that is actually a a pro-evolution argument. Fish and dolphins(mammals) and penguins(birds) look very much alike bodyshapewise because they live under similar conditions and had to adapt to similar evolutionary pressures. Form follows function. Elegant, isn?t it?

Again, you are bashing a straw-" theory of evolution". This theory is much more complex and advanced than you think, and every one of your questions above is answered in one of Dawkins books. Read them. The wonder of creation will blow your mind.

364

[quote]ConorM wrote:
Just spent an HOUR reading posts ugh.

Anyway a major point with the creationists seem to be their inability to accept DNA being passed down from generation to generation can change over time.

You want evidence of a creature turning into another creature. Well it simply doesn’t work that way.

When a creature is in an environment there will be variation between members of thr species. You’re different from your neighbours and people in other countries for example. If an environmental factor become advantageous, for example an animal with more fur to survive the cold. The selection pressure will be pushing towards an animal with more fur. The individuals with more fur as a random variation will tend to survive better. As DNA is passed on from generation to generation, their offspring will tend to have more fur than offspring of a less furry individual. So in this manner, over MILLIONS of generation the creature slowly evolves until eventually it is so different from the original as to be a whole new species.

When you look at it on as large a timescale as life on Earth, it is easy to see how all animals who seem perfectly adapted for their own little niches in their environments, got that way. There was no intelligent force (mother nature) adapting them like magic, it was simply a selection pressure extending through millions of generations that allowed only the fittest and most suited creatures to survive. It may not be a theory that is provable to the extent it can be called fact, but then again almost nothing we know can. Everything is still pretty much ‘just a theory’ as the creationists love to say. The facts that we have however prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is true, though we cannot explain every single minute aspect of it.

Evolution can be clearly seen in the modern world. Bacteria replicate at such a rate that we can see mini-evolution due to the sheer number of generations which exist in a short space of time. Bacteria that resist antibiotics, survive better than their counterparts, so only they survive to pass on their genes. Eventually all the bacteria are resistant becuase those that weren’t were wiped out. This simple example shows evolution in action, it doesn’t prove how we came from single celled organisms exactly but it proves the mechanism which tufflouds is so fond of, does exist.

The burden of proof is not on us, the burden of proof must always lie on both sides of the fence and whilst science is pushing towards greater knowledge and understanding of our universe, religious closed minded people like yourself are still stuck, trying to go backwards. “You can’t explain it therefore God must have done it” logic just doesn’t wash with me. [/quote]

I believe you are wrong. Most Creationists I know including myself believe in evolution, though not to the degree of bacteria climbing out of the ocean. I believe we were humans but that we were not evolved to the degree we are today.

365

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I believe you are wrong. Most Creationists I know including myself believe in evolution, though not to the degree of bacteria climbing out of the ocean. I believe we were humans but that we were not evolved to the degree we are today.

[/quote]

That seems like a contradiction to be a creationist and believe in Evo?

IIRC even OEC’s don’t beleive in evo(could be wrong though).

You sound more like a TE (theistic evolutionist).

I can’t believe this subject keeps coming up. This was a hot and heavy debate back in December. I really can’t believe Lothario has not got tired of this.

I know Prof X has, and from what I can tell mertdawg has not posted in a while either.

This is a long, long debate, that with the rise of TE is not even an issue with Christianity any more.

I personally have not decided what the Bible’s position is on it, and I have not decided my position on it either.

for tuffloud(sp?) I suggest you spend sometime at theologyweb.com there are Atheist, Christians, Scientist, and all other religions that post there. It will give you a chance to post and talk with Christians that have differing opinions, and have done some serious research on those subjects. To me it would be a safe environment for you to learn about other peoples opinions on the subjects you are interested in. It will also give you a Biblical interpretation of those ideas.

Keep the faith

As for non-believers

I doubt anything I could say would convince you to change your mind. So I won’t bother. I commend you for holding to your stance and seeking knowledge about this. All I ask is that you keep learning, and seeking more information. (even if it is skeptical).

For the fence riders on these topics.

Not all Christians have people skills. Not all Christians represent the true message.

Not all Atheists are condescending.
Not all Atheists represent other atheists.

For anyone wanting to respond back in a negative way

The only thing I have given away about myself is that I am a Christian. I have not posted my views on anyone part of this topic in this post.

Later
Haney

366

[quote]tuffload spewed:
Please!! I have had this last week as spare time because I am on paid family leave and I’m at home the whole time.[/quote]

Oh thank you thank you thank you! There is a God!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
… because paid leave will eventually run out.

[quote]tuffload spewed:
If any of you that are true Christians out there that have been regularly reading this thread, have I made you reject anything? Please post and let us know.[/quote]

If any of us out here are “true Christians” as you call it, why are you bothering to preach to us. Why don’t you preach to the unwashed masses who so badly need your preaching.

Chump.

Either spread the word by engaging in a real conversation, or shut the hell up because you are supposedly preaching to the choir anyway.

I can’t really believe anybody who thinks he is a “true Christian” has as his lifelong goal the ambition to turn as many people away from Christianity as possible.

Way to go ass clown, drive everyone away from Christianity, I’m sure that will do you well in your afterlife goals.

Stick a thermometer in his ass, he’s done!

367

[quote]vroom wrote:
tuffload spewed:
Please!! I have had this last week as spare time because I am on paid family leave and I’m at home the whole time.

Oh thank you thank you thank you! There is a God!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
… because paid leave will eventually run out.

tuffload spewed:
If any of you that are true Christians out there that have been regularly reading this thread, have I made you reject anything? Please post and let us know.

If any of us out here are “true Christians” as you call it, why are you bothering to preach to us. Why don’t you preach to the unwashed masses who so badly need your preaching.

Chump.

Either spread the word by engaging in a real conversation, or shut the hell up because you are supposedly preaching to the choir anyway.

I can’t really believe anybody who thinks he is a “true Christian” has as his lifelong goal the ambition to turn as many people away from Christianity as possible.

Way to go ass clown, drive everyone away from Christianity, I’m sure that will do you well in your afterlife goals.

Stick a thermometer in his ass, he’s done![/quote]

How have I affended you personally? I am stating my views just like everyone else. You talking this way to people proves nothing. You are sitting here telling me to engage in a real conversation, which is what I am doing. Yet, you are sitting there disrespecting me like that.

Also, stop using my faith in God and the Bible against me. Even if the Bible never existed, I would still believe that a higher power created us. That is why I have stated over and over again - I was raised to believe in human evolution. This is what I was always taught, before I even read the Bible. Yet, even before I read the Bible, I questioned evolution.

368

Learn to wield your weapon of choice in the proper manner and it won’t be used against you.

369

tuffloud:

This is how liberals express themselves, especially when the debate turns to religious matters. Don’t let it bother you. Without personal attacks they would not have much to say on the topic. At least nothing that is anything close to accurate.

Keep smiling and keep typing ;)…

370

[quote]vroom wrote:
Also, stop using my faith in God and the Bible against me.

Learn to wield your weapon of choice in the proper manner and it won’t be used against you.[/quote]

vroom:

Who the heck are you to tell him to “Wield your weapon of choice in the proper manner.” You have a hard time getting through a post without name calling and personal attacks …LOL what a joke!

371

[quote]vroom wrote:
Also, stop using my faith in God and the Bible against me.

Learn to wield your weapon of choice in the proper manner and it won’t be used against you.[/quote]

Did you read that extremely long post? That was me wielding a few of my “weapons of choice”.

372

Dolt! Those are my weapons…

373

ZEB,

I have read a lot of your other posts. I have much respect for you and appreciate your support. Thank you sir.

374

[quote]vroom wrote:
Dolt! Those are my weapons…[/quote]

What did I tell you! He types only five words and one is a personal slam. You have to at least admire his consitency. If nothing else…

375

I smell a crusade! Who’s with me?

376

Zeb,

Did you actually read the four words after the word “dolt”?

It’s pretty useless to claim someone is doing X, when they themselves say X is what the heck they are doing.

Maybe you are a dolt?

377

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
orion wrote:
Ok, no evolution, creation. Since that is not a scientific theory I have nothing against it.

As a scientific theory it would be completely worthless because it doesn?t explain anything.

The theory of evolution explains how infinitely complex organisms evolved, because of the competition of replicators (genes).

You do not gain anything by introducing an even more complex being “God” that creates everything, because now you would have to explain how such a being entered the scene.

Now you are pretty much back where you started.

The theory of evolution explains nothing. Did you even read my post. There has been absolutely no proof given that a species can jump from one species to another. Where is YOUR proof? It is a theory, period. Explaining how God got here is not for us people to explain.

I have a big question for all the evolutionists:

Which came first the child or the adult?

[/quote]

You know what else is “just a theory”?..Gravity, but it seems to work pretty damn well in the reality I’m living in.

378

[quote]lesboporn wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
orion wrote:
Ok, no evolution, creation. Since that is not a scientific theory I have nothing against it.

As a scientific theory it would be completely worthless because it doesn?t explain anything.

The theory of evolution explains how infinitely complex organisms evolved, because of the competition of replicators (genes).

You do not gain anything by introducing an even more complex being “God” that creates everything, because now you would have to explain how such a being entered the scene.

Now you are pretty much back where you started.

The theory of evolution explains nothing. Did you even read my post. There has been absolutely no proof given that a species can jump from one species to another. Where is YOUR proof? It is a theory, period. Explaining how God got here is not for us people to explain.

I have a big question for all the evolutionists:

Which came first the child or the adult?

You know what else is “just a theory”?..Gravity, but it seems to work pretty damn well in the reality I’m living in.[/quote]

So, because something is a scientific theory, that must mean it is correct? What in the world does gravity have to do with human evolution?

379

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
lesboporn wrote:
You know what else is “just a theory”?..Gravity, but it seems to work pretty damn well in the reality I’m living in.

So, because something is a scientific theory, that must mean it is correct? What in the world does gravity have to do with human evolution?
[/quote]

Because you are confusing what a theory is and what a fact is. So when you say - “how come the theory of evolution is a theory and not a fact” - it makes you look silly. Basically - then you could say that the Bible says the earth is the center of the universe and that it’s just “theory” that it’s not. How come gravity is “just a theory” and not a fact?

And yes, when something becomes a scientific theory it is accepted as correct. A theory is actually a quite complete induction, unlike how we use it in layman’s terms.

380

with all this talk of evolution vs. creationism, I have a question for both camps out there…

did homosexuals ‘evolve’ or were they created?

381

From now on, leave the Bible out of this. If the Bible didn’t exist, I would still not believe in human evolution. There is mountains of scientific evidence that I have already stated against human evolution.

382

Sigh, your evidence is not against evolution… look closely.