Evolution vs. Creation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
443

Wow the old “Lady Hope Story”… Darwin’s own family and children reported it as false, and the words attributed to Charles Darwin by Lady Hope are completely contradictory to statements he made in his writings and conversations with others. Of course it is hearsay, nobody can verify her claim, and Darwin was dead when the story circulated, so it is an story that has lingered around for ages. It just shows the type of lame arguments that creationists will put out.

The good thing is this-even if the story WERE true (which is highly doubtful), it has NO relevance to the validity of evolution! Darwin is a man, and despite attempts by creationists to muddle the debate, Darwin is absolutely not considered some kind of god by evolutionists.

Darwin was a man that proposed a theory. The theory was tested and advanced by scientific research. The theory has changed as new discoveries have been made. Scientific people do not accept Evolution because “Darwin said so”, they accept evolution because of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

It also should be noted that just because Darwin’s theory was not complete when he first proposed it, it does not invalidate evolution! The Origins of Species was just the start of a theory that has advanced significantly since Darwin’s time.

444

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
juerocalvo wrote:
Genetic drift, random mutation, and natural selection, not just time alone caused some early form of an amphibian to gradually evolve into a form of mammal over a huge number of generations.

juerocalvo,

You have better odds of winning California Super Lotto every week for 11 years than the odds of one protein in your body having the amino acids being properly aligned by chance. The odds are really much worse because the amino acids must be left handed, they must form a chain “in series,” no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are wound up like a ball of yarn) is crucial, you need an oxygen free environment, etc, etc. And remember, this is for just one protein. Your body has countless trillions of proteins. The model that a brilliant designer made proteins requires much less faith than to trust random chance and natural processes. Are you willing to trust this kind of chance? I hate the extremely low probability of winning the lotto. The odds suck, quite frankly. That’s why I don’t play.[/quote]

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that evolution is NOT a truly random process and an evolutionary event is not an independent, random event. It is a chain of events that are governed by certain ordered interactions. Although random mutation is a part of evolution, the formation of a species, cell, amino acid, etc. is not the result of one “random” event.

Your analogy of the lottery is a poor one, because each lottery drawing is an INDEPENDENT event. Also, what is the methodology of determining these odds taht you are discussing? Seeing as we have no exact way to calculate those odds at the present time, how can this probability be used as proof or disproof of evolution? The fact is, it cannot.

445

Still beating that horse huh tuffloud? Beating it good and dead.

446

Tuffloud, prove we arent reincarnated, cause there are a whole lot of people who say we are.

With them, why would being reincarnated go against creationism? We are re-created into a slightly more evolved form each time we are born. Disregard Hevean and Hell and know that planet Earth is where Humans dwell.

Know that unless you’ve seen a ghost you dont know you’re going anywhere after you die. Logically, bieng reincarnated is only possible if the reincarnated life form has progressed with the ‘soul’. This proves that evolution is a great factor in human development.

We are different people then our great grandfathers and generations before that. Better or worse is questionable, but facts are the same. The Human Animal is evolving as science is proving that. But the world changes, and we with it, not the other way around.

Besides, God and Nature do not work togther in vain. And I truly believe this.

447

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
on what juerocalvo and others wrote:

“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.

Please tell me what the conclusion to this quote is?

Why don’t you click on this link to learn more about the works of the Leakey family.

http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/foundation/

Why do you keep going back to this quote? Are you saying that what he said (it is in fact documented) doesn’t matter because you say it doesn’t matter. Now that is a poor argument. You still haven’t proven that this quotation has a different conclusion.

[/quote]
I simply pointed out that your use of selective quotes to try to make your argument is fallacious. For one thing, you are quoting generalized statements, instead of citing EVIDENCE or ANALYSIS. There is a huge difference between the two. To make an argument scientifically, you quote the actual evidence or you quote the FULL analysis and conclusion that teh author is making.

I posted a link to an ENORMOUS compilation of misquotes by creationists. In fact, when I was looking at that compilation of misquotes I was able to find 3 quotations that you (or the author you cut and pasted from) cited in that long post of yours in a short period of time. I am sure that more of the quotations in taht post can be found, I just did not take the time to go through the entire misquote compilation.

Seeing that it is a demonstrable fact that creationists are notorious for taking quotations out of context, it casts serious doubts on the validity of your arguments based upon short generalized statements quoted from scientists.

It is even more questionable when you use quotations from scientists that are short, generalized statements taht are absent of context, and you try to use them to imply that these scientists support conclusions that go against their own p
published writings!

I call BS on that. In the original post, you (or the author you cut and pasted from) used that quotation to imply that Dr. Leakey believes taht there is no fossil evidence for evolution and taht he believes that there is more evidence for creationism. You then mentioned taht he is the “worlds most famous paleontologist” as an attempt to use his authority to prove your argument. Yet even teh most cursory look at the writings of Dr. Richard Leakey show that he is a strong evolutionist and has never endorsed creationism.

I have just spent all of this time explaining how argument by selective quotation is fallacious and intellectually dishonest. Why would I use the same tactic?

[quote]
Why don’t you try paying attention to any of my other posts? You keep debating with me on my methods of debating. Is that all you can do? Why don’t you try focusing on the actual topic and information that I provide, not my techniques in debating?[/quote]

I have responded to your posts, yet you always respond by going off in tangents or repeating the same unfounded assertions ad nauseum. Your favorite two seem to be:

1)Life is irreducibly complex. What exactly does that mean? What is your factual basis for that statement? Where do these probability calculations come from? You keep using the “tornado in a junkyard” analogy. Did you read the responses that I made explaining why this analogy was incorrect?

  1. There is no fossil evidence. Everyone keeps posting huge compilations of fossil evidence, yet you ignore it. At least change your statement to “The evidence is not complete enough to disprove evolution”. At least then you wouldn’t sound like a complete idiot.

Your latest long post tried to advance your argument by taking out of context quotations from evolutionists to try and give the appearence that evolution is not accepted by scientists and is actually a theory “in doubt”. That is when I attacked that type of argument.

Seeing as how you cut and paste others writings and post them as your own, I guess that maybe I should not expect you to understand how quoting somebody out of context is intellectually dishonest.

You claim that you are a “former evolutionist”. Why is it that you don’t even understand teh basic tenets of evolution? Have you ever even taken a college level science class?

448

When I saw the title I thought it was Evolution vs Creatine…

449

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Oh…I don’t think that suggesting an adult refrain from peronal attacks on an Internet forum is such a bad idea.

Give it a shot :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Watch out Zeb, or you’ll get a rep for being sarcastic.

450

From a recent post of Lothario:

tuffloud stated:
2. No biological order can arise without pre-existing coded mechanisms? the formation of the first cell from naturalistic processes is a thermodynamic impossibility.

Lothario stated:

Oh really?

http://www.answers.com/...2_1&sbid=lc01b

The classic Miller-Urey experiment… good ol’ 1953. We’ve found out quite a bit since then, you know. And damn it all it sure put a few holes in your entropy problem, too. I suppose that God reached into those flasks and made all those organic molecules, right? And that was only in a week.

OPEN THAT BRAIN!!!

…

Here is my response to this. Many people think life was once created in a test tube from chemicals and energy in this 1953 project. Here is what happened:

They sparked ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water, condensed it, and ran it through a trap (do you think the early earth had traps and condensers? The samples had to be isolated from the spark because a second spark would have destroyed any molecules that were formed). The results of these experiments were mostly tar and carboxylic acid, but a few amino acids were formed. Amino acids may be called the building blocks of life. But it is either gross ignorance or a lie to say they created life in this experiment.

Life requires many things. Long amino acids chains make proteins, chains in the proper order and shape. Miller’s experiment did NOT produce any chains. Life also requires DNA, RNA and never has any experiment produced DNA or RNA from base materials. Never have chains of DNA or RNA been produced. A cell membrane has never been produced.

The faith that even one protein arose by chance is tremendous. Look at statistics. Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids, just like a train is made up of box cars. A chain of box cars makes up a train. A chain of amino acids makes up a protein.

Humans have 20 different types of amino acids that make up our proteins, and the average human protein is 400 amino acids long. Remember, the arrangement of these amino acids is crucial to the function of the protein. If it is the proper arrangement it does its job, if the order is mixed up, it is worthless chemical junk.

Imagine many box cars at a train station, and these box cars are made up of twenty different colors. The owner of the station tells you he wants a train to be 400 box cars long, and you are to pick the combination of colored box cars, but if it is not the order he has in mind (and he didn’t tell you it) he will fire you. What are the odds you will get the box cars in the right order? They are the same odds the amino acids will align themselves by chance to make one protein in you.

The odds are 20 to the 400th power! This is the same as 10 to the 520th power, that is a 1 followed by 520 zeros!

451

juerocalvo,

Since you can’t seem to get off that quote. I will ask the same question again.

What has turned up in the last 15 years that completely proves this guy’s statement wrong? Specifically.

Also, either stop saying this quote is out of context and incorrect or proove what you claim.

452

On what tuffloud wrote:

That little calculation is meaningless, because evolution does NOT claim that proteins, amino acids, bacteria or anything else spontaneously emerged from randomness. Modern theories of abiogenesis state that the evolution from simple peptides to bacteria occurred in small gradual changes. Your calculation with the train cars is based upon a random, independent event. Evolution follows the laws of chemistry and physics, things don’t just randomly and spontaneously appear.

more on abiogenesis:

453

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
juerocalvo,

Since you can’t seem to get off that quote. I will ask the same question again.

What has turned up in the last 15 years that completely proves this guy’s statement wrong? Specifically.

Also, either stop saying this quote is out of context and incorrect or proove what you claim.[/quote]

You really don’t get it at all do you?

Really… you don’t seem to understand most of this discussion. I’ve already explained the problems with your attempt to make an argument by using selective, general quoting instead of citations of evidence.

I am sure that if you look on your creationist web page you can find Charles Darwin’s quote about the complexity of the eye. That quote doesn’t mean that Darwin rejected evolution or supported creationism. Are you going use that one too?

454

Tuffloud: Go back to your long post on page 15. Use the link below and use “contents sorted by author”. Then look for the quotes that you cited in that passage and check out the error or the context of the original passage to see how it misquoted. There are a LOT of them in your post. I stopped counting at 10. It is further proof of how your argument by selective quotation method sucks.

455

[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
juerocalvo,

Since you can’t seem to get off that quote. I will ask the same question again.

What has turned up in the last 15 years that completely proves this guy’s statement wrong? Specifically.

Also, either stop saying this quote is out of context and incorrect or proove what you claim.

You really don’t get it at all do you?

Really… you don’t seem to understand most of this discussion. I’ve already explained the problems with your attempt to make an argument by using selective, general quoting instead of citations of evidence.

I am sure that if you look on your creationist web page you can find Charles Darwin’s quote about the complexity of the eye. That quote doesn’t mean that Darwin rejected evolution or supported creationism. Are you going use that one too?[/quote]

He said what he said, get over it. You can’t go back in time and change that, nor can you now.

I don’t care if you don’t agree with the way I debate.

It’s great when a top man in your belief system says something like this.

The Darwin topic of the complexity of the eye is another great topic.

456

[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
On what tuffloud wrote:

That little calculation is meaningless, because evolution does NOT claim that proteins, amino acids, bacteria or anything else spontaneously emerged from randomness. Modern theories of abiogenesis state that the evolution from simple peptides to bacteria occurred in small gradual changes. Your calculation with the train cars is based upon a random, independent event. Evolution follows the laws of chemistry and physics, things don’t just randomly and spontaneously appear.

more on abiogenesis:

Did you catch the explanation for the Miller-Urey experiment 6 posts up?

All recognized life forms are produced by preexisting organisms known as biogenesis, and the scientific community can not demonstrate abiogenesis under any conceivable conditions.

Despite the absence of proof, abiogenesis has become accepted by nearly all practicing scientists. The theory remains virtually unchanged since its inception in the 1920s, and assumes that life originated at some point in earth’s past under conditions no longer present. The tenet of evolution can be summed-up by the phrase “abiogenesis at first biogenesis ever since”.

It is taught today as a certainty although the exact mechanisms remain theoretical. Discussions in evolutionary biology textbooks go to great lengths to demonstrate how abiogenesis could have occurred under multiple primordial scenarios.

457

tuffloud,

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
makkun wrote:
CDarklock,

you bring a nice sense of … sense into a dreadful debate. I’ve grown up christian in a family full of scientists who saw no conflict in god’s existence and evolution.
They still don’t, as they tend to see nature and its laws (including evolution) as god’s creation. If that were the basis of the intelligent design / creationist argument, I would not have a problem with it.

Makkun

You guys just keep bringing up God. Why? I have given information that is “scientific” despite what all the “no it all” evolutionists want you to believe.[/quote]

Why not bring up God? He pops up in the argument a lot. Concerning the scientific value of your argument - I will not get to into that discussion, as I tend to stick with the scientific consensus; and that is on evolution. My sole point was to indicate that there are loads of christians who are also scientists, who have no problem with combining both.

[quote]Also the Bible does teach that nature and its laws are God’s creation. The problem is that the entire “primates evolving into human beings” does not in any way fit into nature or it’s laws despite what these evolutionists would love for you to believe.

For Christians, the concept of an ape turning into a man is completely against Christianity and the Bible. This ape man idea does not in any way coinside with anything in the Bible what so ever.[/quote]

It is for every christian to decide him/herself what they see in the bible. Being prescriptive as to what to believe in is a very problematic fallacy in my view.

Makkun

458

[quote]makkun wrote:
tuffloud,
tuffloud wrote:
makkun wrote:
CDarklock,

you bring a nice sense of … sense into a dreadful debate. I’ve grown up christian in a family full of scientists who saw no conflict in god’s existence and evolution.
They still don’t, as they tend to see nature and its laws (including evolution) as god’s creation. If that were the basis of the intelligent design / creationist argument, I would not have a problem with it.

Makkun

You guys just keep bringing up God. Why? I have given information that is “scientific” despite what all the “no it all” evolutionists want you to believe.

Why not bring up God? He pops up in the argument a lot. Concerning the scientific value of your argument - I will not get to into that discussion, as I tend to stick with the scientific consensus; and that is on evolution. My sole point was to indicate that there are loads of christians who are also scientists, who have no problem with combining both.

Also the Bible does teach that nature and its laws are God’s creation. The problem is that the entire “primates evolving into human beings” does not in any way fit into nature or it’s laws despite what these evolutionists would love for you to believe.

For Christians, the concept of an ape turning into a man is completely against Christianity and the Bible. This ape man idea does not in any way coinside with anything in the Bible what so ever.

It is for every christian to decide him/herself what they see in the bible. Being prescriptive as to what to believe in is a very problematic fallacy in my view.

Makkun[/quote]

I am a Christian and believe in God and the Bible fully. However, for the non God believers on this thread that participate, I don’t feel that there is anything I can say that will change their mind. I am mostly still debating so people who are following this thread that haven’t come to their conclusion can see the truth. I’m not sure how long you have been reading this thread but I have reasons for not wanting to use God as direct evidence anymore. If you use God for anything in an argument, the evolutionists will try to belittle your faith. Without attacks on God and the Bible, these people wouldn’t have much to say about this topic, at least nothing that is even close to being accurate.

Here are some of the examples of the off the wall, rediculous things people say when God is involved:

posted by vroom:

Tuffloud has been adopted by a cult of insane religious freaks!

Anyway, it’s great that you think you know everything, when you don’t even understand what it is you are arguing against, but you are wasting your time.

Go back to your brainwashed crappy Internet sites that offer stupid twisted logic claiming creationism is provable in some way.

You have your faith. Good for you. Now go be happy and stop torturing everyone with your psychotic babble.

posted by: PGA200X

For all of the god fanatics out there…

If god existed and was this almighty being why would he allow innocent people such as children live life of torment and pain? Why would he let children get molested. Why would he let random murder occur?

And dont give me that bullshit about “free will” and the “original” sin. If god is so shallow that he cannot differentiate between the “original sinners” and innocent and helpless children then he needs to fucking reevaluate his system because its fucked up.

Its funny how people belittle evolution because they claim there isn’t enough to prove it. Where’s the proof there of a god? O wait, there isnt any, other than peoples “faith” and a few grilled cheese sandwiches and leaky statues.

No, Jesus existed. I’m certain of that. He was a genius. I mean 2000 years after he died people are still talking about him. If he was alive today marketing departments would be going gaga over his talent.

Show me ONE, JUST ONE instance that proves there is a god. Ya can’t NOBODY can becuase its and IDEA/BELIEF not a theory. There is ZERO evidence that backs up the idea of Crutch err I mean god. I like how the Gawd lovers dodge questions by asking questions.

Wow sounds firghteningly like the catholic religion doesn’t it? Except I’ll add a few more…Rape, murder, war, theft! “Please donate us money each week so we can afford this solid gold chalice.” I’m sure god wants priests to spend this amazing amount of money on materialistic stuff when there are dying children on every continent.

posted by endgamer:

If you believe in God’s truth, carefully extract Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from your Bible and set them aside for further reference. If you dig poetry, save Psalms too. Then just drop what remains of that Bible on the floor, stomp on it and drop kick it across the room. Flush it, if you think your plumbing can handle that much shit at once (Gitmo must have industrial grade crappers). All the while say a prayer of thanks to God for your deliverance from mortal error. He’ll understand.

Sure, no problem. The Bible sez beware of witches, and they need to get burnt. There are no witches. The Bible is wrong.

posted by: gojira

Creation = FM*

*Fucking Magic
…

Also, you keep mentioning that it is for the people to decide what the Bible means. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that gives the slightest hint that man evolved from something lesser. God created us in His image.

459

tuffloud,

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
makkun wrote:
tuffloud,
tuffloud wrote:
makkun wrote:
CDarklock,

you bring a nice sense of … sense into a dreadful debate. I’ve grown up christian in a family full of scientists who saw no conflict in god’s existence and evolution.
They still don’t, as they tend to see nature and its laws (including evolution) as god’s creation. If that were the basis of the intelligent design / creationist argument, I would not have a problem with it.

Makkun

You guys just keep bringing up God. Why? I have given information that is “scientific” despite what all the “no it all” evolutionists want you to believe.

Why not bring up God? He pops up in the argument a lot. Concerning the scientific value of your argument - I will not get to into that discussion, as I tend to stick with the scientific consensus; and that is on evolution. My sole point was to indicate that there are loads of christians who are also scientists, who have no problem with combining both.

Also the Bible does teach that nature and its laws are God’s creation. The problem is that the entire “primates evolving into human beings” does not in any way fit into nature or it’s laws despite what these evolutionists would love for you to believe.

For Christians, the concept of an ape turning into a man is completely against Christianity and the Bible. This ape man idea does not in any way coinside with anything in the Bible what so ever.

It is for every christian to decide him/herself what they see in the bible. Being prescriptive as to what to believe in is a very problematic fallacy in my view.

Makkun

I am a Christian and believe in God and the Bible fully. However, for the non God believers on this thread that participate, I don’t feel that there is anything I can say that will change their mind. I am mostly still debating so people who are following this thread that haven’t come to their conclusion can see the truth. I’m not sure how long you have been reading this thread but I have reasons for not wanting to use God as direct evidence anymore. If you use God for anything in an argument, the evolutionists will try to belittle your faith. Without attacks on God and the Bible, these people wouldn’t have much to say about this topic, at least nothing that is even close to being accurate.[/quote]

Just to clarify: I am an atheist, but I was raised christian. I am also what you would call an evolutionist, as I was also raised in a family of scientists. What I did point out, is that for them, and for me, while I was christian, it was never a problem to believe in god and evolution. Now I don’t believe in god anymore, and I do think that evolution offers the best theory so far for the development of life on the planet; a view that I would even uphold if I did still believe in god, as it is not much of a task to combine both.

I am not convinced by the arguments you provided. But my beef is with the assumption that if you are christian, you should/must not believe in evolution - your initial premise. This, I think, is wrong from a scientific point of view (use of a preconception to interpret your facts) and from a religious point of view (prescribing to others what they should believe in).

I have read the thread from the beginning (skimming through it from time to time, when it got longish I admit), and what has happened in here is what happened in most of the threads where strong oppinions (mixed with personal beliefs and morals of the debaters involved) clash: discussion becomes debate, with no movement, and people get personal. That is why I have not taken part so far. CDarklock offered quite a sensible insight. That is why I chimed in, trying to support what I see as a voice of reason.

[quote]Here are some of the examples of the off the wall, rediculous things people say when God is involved:
…[/quote]

This is an internet forum, and there will always be a lot of ridiculous stuff people will say. Try not to take it personal.

Makkun

460

Tuffloud:

You have to realize that it is most popular for some to attack God and Jesus Christ. Since they do not believe they feel that it is not only their right, but duty to denigrate you and your belief. These are (some of) the same people who claim that everyone has a right to a lifestyle they wish without harassment. I so agree with that statement. However, it seems they really mean everyone except Christians!

As soon as you mention that you are a Christian It’s perfectly acceptable to use “hate speech” during the debate. It no longer becomes an exchange of ideas based upon your belief system vs. theirs. It becomes, for some, a green light for personal attacks and name calling! Instead of relying on pure facts they somehow feel that attacking you personally serves to promote their “theories” over your own.

To the few on the thread who have not resorted to attacking Tuffold personally, I salute you. You are true T-Men! To those who have only jumped in for the sole purpose of attacking this man personally; I’m sure you wouldn’t do it if you could honestly see how closed minded and cowardly it looks.

Tuffold, you too have proven yourself a true T-Man!

You have the courage to debate an issue against multiple opponents over a fairly long period of time. I wonder how many of them would have stood in here as long as you have? And you actually have the conviction of your faith and ideas (just as some of your opponents do).

No one ever “wins” an Internet debate in the truest sense. The other person whom we are debating with is just as convinced of their rightness as you are. All either party can hope to do is move their ideas across this great landscape we call “the Internet.” In doing this sometimes we convince others. Not the people we are debating with, but the silent majority who simply tune in to read a particular thread and then move on with their days activities.

If you can do this and do it without using personal attacks, name calling and basic “Internet courage” then no matter what, you have already won!

461

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
They are the same odds the amino acids will align themselves by chance to make one protein in you.

The odds are 20 to the 400th power! This is the same as 10 to the 520th power, that is a 1 followed by 520 zeros![/quote]

Your arriving at this “probablility” unfortunately shows your ignorance. It only proves the odds of that specific order of amino acids once they have all become connected.

Its like saying that the odds of a straight flush are 1 in 500,000, so there is no chance anyone has ever gotten a straight flush in the history of the world.

462

Also, intelligent design IS an alternate theory OF evolution-that evolution occured, but was pre-programmed. You say you believe in intelligent design and then try to disprove things that intelligent design proponents believe.