There is evidence, of a nature that can be examined and have conclusions drawn from it, to support evolution.
There is no evidence of non-human origin that supports creationism. Sure, you can claim we exist, but that doesn’t prove how we came to exist.
Evolution is a theory that has been put together precisely because the evidence in the world supports this theory.
Creation is a theory that has been put together because someone said so, in writing.
Now, you don’t have to believe in evolution, that is for sure. But you do have to realize that according to the English language, there are material differences in how evolution and creationism are studied.
Our knowledge of evolution grows slowly but truly.
Our knowledge of creation, assuming it is correct, is static.
We have brains for a purpose. Perhaps that purpose is to put them to use and to enquire as to the cosmos around us? Surely it was put here for us to explore, according to your religion?
[quote]vroom wrote:
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.[/quote]
Cult? Religious freaks? I have no idea what I’m arguing against? Brain washed crappy internet sites? I think I know everything?
Why don’t you start by telling me how you came to these conclusions?
[quote]graphicsMan wrote:
The difference is that evolutionism has been continually, and is still undergoing, the scientific method. It is impossible to prove that the theory is correct, but it IS possible to prove that the theory is wrong. The theory is then adapted to reflect our current knowledge to the fullest.
[/quote]
You don’t understand the scientific method. The process of scientific inquiry involves a hypothesis that is proved or disproved. When the hypothesis is tested it must account for ALL results. If it cannot account for all results it must be revised. THIS is the problem.
Evolutionists continue to have their hypothesis of marco-evolution tested and proven false, but instead of revising the basic hypothesis of marco-evolution they continue on with that same hypothesis and just come up with another theory. THIS is NOT the scientific method! The fact that the hypothesis is not thrown out and a new one developed strongly suggests a biased inquiry.
So, long story short, evolutionists never rethink their position as being wrong even after hundreds of false validation inquiries. They proceed as if they know evolution is fact (without any facts) and just continue on revising their theories without even truly following the scientific method, which would be to start with a new hypothesis.
So the evolutionists process of scientific inquiry is flawed and therefore not any more or less scientific than creationists.
[quote]
Certainly you are correct in saying that both are theories. No one should argue that. The difference is that evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is a theory based on simple faith. As such, evolution should be taught in science class, and creationism can be taught in church, if the religion has faith in creationism.[/quote]
I don’t think you read the post of the guy who stated this thread. Because if you did you would have seen that the hypothesis has Been put through scientific inquiry and have some supporting theories. And in fact, creation scientists seem to have as much scientific basis for their theories as evolutionists.
So the point is that creationists never revise their hypothesis that the world was created and evolutionists never revise their hypothesis that it evolved. Both are supported by scientific inquiry and neither revise their position when proven false.
So the fact is that they are both the same in every aspect.
[quote]vroom wrote:
See, this contains that same old logic flaw.
There is evidence, of a nature that can be examined and have conclusions drawn from it, to support evolution.
[/quote]
The fact is that this same evidence has been shown to support creation to the same level of validity that it supports evolution.
It has been proven to the same extent evolusion has been “proved”.
If this were true the hypothesis itself would be revised when tested false. Yet it has been tested false with many different theories and yet the basic hypothesis remains.
So No, my faithfull humanist friend, the hypothesis came first and then the attempt to prove it though nature. (You have a strong faith in the humaist cause Obi-wan, the elders would be proud of you!)
True, but like evolusionists, scientific inquiry did follow. Also, evolustionists started the same way in the “writings” of Darwin. (All hail Lord Darwin!)
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Evolutionists continue to have their hypothesis of marco-evolution tested and proven false, but instead of revising the basic hypothesis of marco-evolution they continue on with that same hypothesis and just come up with another theory.
[/quote]
I’m totally in the dark what it is you’re referring to about evolution having been proved false. As for macro evolution, what is that? Everything except bacteria? Don’t make me laugh.
Just because a result is very nice doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been produced by evolution. Unlike God, evolution has time on its side. Millions and millions of years worth of time. It has death operating on its side, to cancel the mistakes. It has the fight for survival to elevate the advantaged mutations into prominence. With time, death, and the never-ending struggle to survive all on its side, evolution may as well be a god, from human point of view.
Intelligent Design aka Creationism, on the other hand, has primitive savages, superstitious people through the ages, and brain-dead ecclesiastical bureaucrats on its side.
How was the morphological gap from uni-cellular to muti-cellular organisms bridged? Through the development of multi-nuclear cells, then to partitioned cellular organisms, and then voila multi-cellular organisms. Check out a class of organisms called ‘slime molds’.
Scientists are indeed committed to limit themselves to theories that do not include God. The reason is not that they are against God or the abstract notion of a god, but because theories involving God a) are scientifically useless because they cannot be validated ever, and b) are improbable on the face of it, because they violate what is called the Principle of Least Hypothesis.
In the end, evolution wins out over creationism because evolution is the simpler theory.
The Second Law applied to the whole universe is the death-knell for any proposed evolutionary scheme. (see part 1)
No biological order can arise without pre-existing coded mechanisms?the formation of the first cell from naturalistic processes is a thermodynamic impossibility.
After the first cell, mutation/selection do not appear to be adequate candidates for the ordered mechanism required to locally overcome the effects of the Second Law in an open system.
[/quote]
The second law means NOTHING in a system as small as the speck of dust that is the earth. In a glass of water at 99 degress celcius, there are tiny regions of ice crystals-so long as the overall (closed) system does not gain organization it has nothing to do with the second law.
I believe in God, but to say that evolution and creation by God cannot coexist greatly overestimates the human capacity for understanding. Evolution is true.
Species (by the scientific definition at least) HAVE been observed to separate into two different species. We have observed populations of insects that were once the same species which now have been sexually selected and after this have diverged into distict sexual species. You will have to change your definition of species.
Regarding these bullshit thermodynamic arguments, I’m afraid they don’t apply. Evolution, and life itself on this planet, are temporary, ephemeral phenomena in a non-closed system.
At some point, according to thermodynamics, the entire universe will run down, and everywhere it will be the same temperature. Even before then our sun, which currently powers the biosphere and makes life and evolution possible, will nicely sterilize this planet by briefly becoming a red giant. At that point evolution will be over.
Thermo says evolution can’t go on indefinitely. It doesn’t say evolution can’t happen. Going at it the way you’re going, you’d say thermodynamics shows that life itself is impossible.
I don’t understand how a creationist will listen to a molecular biologist when the biologist comes up for a cure for whatever disease the creationist’s family is facing, but will disregard the same biologist when they explain that evolution is scientifically sound.
What’s wrong with God creating evolution? If anything seems infinitely subtle, I’d say evolution is it.
As I see it, evolution is creation. Everything that evolves has a starting point. That I beleive God created, God also has the power to change things overtime.
If you look at a car, I beleive that it is something that God created. My logic is this:
“God created all living things. These ancient living things that he created turn into oil.
Therefore, God created the oil and gas in my car.”
Also God made other materials that when man mixes them, they become things that make up a car.
So I believe that both creation and evolution are possible.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Species (by the scientific definition at least) HAVE been observed to separate into two different species. [/quote]
Here is the definition of species:
NOUN:
pl. species
Biology
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See Table at taxonomy.
An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.
Logic A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.
Now give me an in depth example of a species that has seperated into two seperate species and back it up with facts. Give me some facts, no hypothesis.
Anyone else notice that creationists never try and “prove” creation but instead try and bring down evolution instead? Do they not realize that even if they somehow disproved evolution that there still isn’t any evidence to support creation?
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
I don’t understand how a creationist will listen to a molecular biologist when the biologist comes up for a cure for whatever disease the creationist’s family is facing, but will disregard the same biologist when they explain that evolution is scientifically sound.
[/quote]
I am not and have never been in the situation that you are speaking of. Nonetheless, coming up with a cure for a disease and explaining where life as we know it came from are two completely seperate issues. I would hope that you know that.
[quote]
What’s wrong with God creating evolution? If anything seems infinitely subtle, I’d say evolution is it.[/quote]
If you understand that the Bible is fact, then you wouldn’t be asking that question.
[quote]JonP wrote:
Anyone else notice that creationists never try and “prove” creation but instead try and bring down evolution instead? Do they not realize that even if they somehow disproved evolution that there still isn’t any evidence to support creation?[/quote]
The problem is that you are blind and close minded.
Look all around you. Your proof that God created us is all around you. You breathing air into your lungs is proof. Think about it.
Evolutionists try to argue that people that believe in creation are not logical. Well if they are so logical, then they should explain to me where something as undeniably amazing as DNA came from. DNA is so far beyond human comprehension and nobody can deny that. How can anyone possibly deny that there is not intelligent design in DNA?
I have given my answer to where it came from - God. God created it all. Why can’t scientists create one simple cell? Why? Because God is the only one that can do it, period.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Species (by the scientific definition at least) HAVE been observed to separate into two different species.
Here is the definition of species:
NOUN:
pl. species
Biology
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.
…
Now give me an in depth example of a species that has seperated into two seperate species and back it up with facts.
[/quote]
The proof you are seeking lies in the vast commonality of genetic sequences shared among so many species. By this observation we see directly that all species are the result of such splitting from a common genetic heritage.
Sure you can say God did it that way, just like you can say God did the fossils that way. It leads to a kind of science where all questions have the same useless answer: things are the way they are because God did it that way.
Some of us are trying to get away from magic. Some of us are trying to get back to magic. At least until they need a prescription filled.
Increased amounts of DNA don?t mean increased function. Biologists have discovered a whole range of mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information?these mechanisms create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example), yet people who believe what you do completely miss this simple distinction:[/quote]
Ugh. Genetic mutation doesn’t explain evolution? Oh man. Reading your post is giving me a headache already. Not to whip out the straw man, but just an analogy of your thought processes:
2+2 isn’t 5, therefore it can’t be 4.
You are making an argument that since a few genetic errors lead to a loss of functional information, then all genetic errors lead to loss of information. Did you know that some genes control others?
What happens when we cut out the “master swith” for an genetic sequence that makes an eye? One gene swithced off = no expression of 2000+ genes afterwards. Cool, huh? But as Walter Gehring found out, you can activate these genes by switching that one sequence back on, even if you use DNA from another animal! Can mutant DNA cause expression of new genes and different expressions of existing genes! Yes! But even more important than mutation (I was holding off on this because it’s kinda technical) is the idea of gene transfer from one organism to another:
As we see in the microscopic world of viruses, plasmids, and bacteria, DNA transfer does all kinds of neat things. We find that the DNA library is most likely expanded upon in chunks, not single pages. If you scroll down the page I linked above, you will find an article from a human gene researcher that reveals that some of our genes are made up almost entirely of human retrovirus genes. We are partly virus? This is no lie.
This field is still in its infancy, and we are only barely scratching the surface of what there is to DNA and all of the ways in which it may be grown, shrunk, activated, deactivated, etc. It is not unreasonable at all to assume that the basis of evolution as a result of mutation (by whatever mechanism) and natural selection, given the billions of years that we have had on this planet could quite easily explain the origin of species and indeed, life itself.
See link above. New information happens all the time. Even in that very same page I linked, we have one of the two research teams from the Human Genome Project publishing a paper that shows QUITE PLAINLY what your researcher claims above as impossible. The excerpt is about halfway down the page, look for the picture of the orange book cover. Next!
[quote]The evolutionist?s “gene duplication idea” is that an existing gene may be doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is redundant and non-expressed. Therefore, it is free to mutate free of selection pressure (to get rid of it). However, such “neutral” mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information. Dawkins and others point out that natural selection is the only possible naturalistic explanation for the immense design in nature (not a good one, as Spetner and others have shown). Dawkins and others propose that random changes produce a new function, then this redundant gene becomes expressed somehow and is fine-tuned under the natural selective process.
This “idea” is just a lot of hand-waving. It relies on a chance copying event, genes somehow being switched off, randomly mutating to something approximating a new function, then being switched on again so natural selection can tune it.
Furthermore, mutations do not occur in just the duplicated gene; they occur throughout the genome. Consequently, all the deleterious mutations in the rest of the genome have to be eliminated by the death of the unfit. Selective mutations in the target duplicate gene are extremely rare ? it might represent only 1 part in 30,000 of the genome of an animal. The larger the genome, the bigger the problem, because the larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate that the creature can sustain without error catastrophe; as a result, it takes even longer for any mutation to occur, let alone a desirable one, in the duplicated gene. There just has not been enough time for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.[/quote]
Genome project = Good for evolution argument. Already debunked above. Next!
[quote]Dawkins and others have recognized that the ?information space? possible within just one gene is so huge that random changes without some guiding force could never come up with a new function. There could never be enough “experiments” (mutating generations of organisms) to find anything useful by such a process. Note that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 41,000 possibilities?that is 10,602 (compare this with the number of atoms in the universe estimated at “only” 10,80).
If every atom in the universe represented an “experiment” every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of the universe, this could only try a maximum 10,100 of the possibilities for the gene. So such a “neutral” process cannot possibly find any sequence with specificity (usefulness), even allowing for the fact that more than just one sequence may be functional to some extent.
So Dawkins and company have the same problem as the advocates of neutral selection theory. Increasing knowledge of the molecular basis of biological functions has exploded the known “information space” so that mutations and natural selection?with or without gene duplication, or any other known natural process ? cannot account for the irreducibly complex nature of living systems.[/quote]
So what it boils down to is that your position is presupposed on the idea that evolution can’t be right, because we can’t figure out how to mathematically model it properly?
This is very similar to saying that tornadoes can’t exist because we can’t predict them.
I will say that we don’t not have all the answers when it comes to evolution, but we discover more and more every day. And the fact that we don’t have every single tiny answer doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution carries any less weight. Taking a contrary position on evolution is very much like pushing against a bulldozer. It will keep gaining ground, inexorably, despite your best efforts. Every passing day, creationism loses a little more ground. As it should. I would hope that we stopped believing in fairy tales by now.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Species (by the scientific definition at least) HAVE been observed to separate into two different species.
Here is the definition of species:
NOUN:
pl. species
Biology
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.
…
Now give me an in depth example of a species that has seperated into two seperate species and back it up with facts.
The proof you are seeking lies in the vast commonality of genetic sequences shared among so many species. By this observation we see directly that all species are the result of such splitting from a common genetic heritage.
Sure you can say God did it that way, just like you can say God did the fossils that way. It leads to a kind of science where all questions have the same useless answer: things are the way they are because God did it that way.
Some of us are trying to get away from magic. Some of us are trying to get back to magic. At least until they need a prescription filled.[/quote]
It’s interesting how you call the idea that God created everything magic. You really need to just slow down for one minute and look at how amazing everthing around you is. Do you realize just how incredible the human body is? How amazing the universe is? Think about it. Intelligent design everywhere you look. A planet perfect for us to live on. How does all this intelligent design and order come out of random chance and chaos? How did your idea of a hot molten earth, impossible for even bacteria to live on spawn every plant, animal and human being out of nothing?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
graphicsMan wrote:
I believe none of the people arguing for evolution have suggested that all mutations are beneficial. In actuality, most are harmful, and this is also part of Darwin’s theory. Normally, these creatures die quickly and leave no offspring.
Actually,
lothario1132 was using genetic mutation and Down Syndrome as a means of explaining evolution and the possiblitly that life on this planet has miraculously “mutated” over billions of years out of nothing and is what it is today.
[/quote]
Actually I used Down’s Syndrome to show you with just one example we see today how someone’s DNA could expand. You asked me to show you how the DNA library could ever grow, and I did. I used as simple an example as I could.
Would you rather I whipped out the plasmid absorbtion concept for increased resistance to drugs found in the Shigella bacterium?
If you and all the other atheists think you know so much about how we came to be, why is it that a scientist cannot create one simple cell, just one simple cell?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So, long story short, evolutionists never rethink their position as being wrong even after hundreds of false validation inquiries. They proceed as if they know evolution is fact (without any facts) and just continue on revising their theories without even truly following the scientific method, which would be to start with a new hypothesis. [/quote]
Wow, do you not understand research or what? The theory of evolution has not been debunked. What we are testing right now are the micromechanisms of how genes are changed, etc. to produce evolutionary effects. Give us a friggin’ minute to do this. Donate a dollar to the Human Genome Project.
The suppostition that species arises from each other (darwinism) is easily shown by the reptile and amphibian fossil record. See my first post on this thread. What we don’t know is how exactly at the scale of the individual genes this happens.
This is absolutely NOTHING like creationism at all. At all. Creationism is not a theory, it is a dogmatic belief. It is not testable, nor refinable, nor observable… which the theory of evolution is. Sorry.
I do not want my two children taught in their public school that some invisible superhero floating out in space magically created everything all at once. They can go to church to learn about your cult, I do not want my tax dollars further subsidizing your religious belief anymore than they already do.
It’s interesting how you call the idea that God created everything magic. You really need to just slow down for one minute and look at how amazing everthing around you is. Do you realize just how incredible the human body is? How amazing the universe is? Think about it. Intelligent design everywhere you look. A planet perfect for us to live on. How does all this intelligent design and order come out of random chance and chaos? How did your idea of a hot molten earth, impossible for even bacteria to live on spawn every plant, animal and human being out of nothing?
So I guess you could call it God’s magic.
[/quote]
Beware of falling into the anthropocentric fallacy. Evolution offers also the explanation that human beings naturally evolve only on planets suited to them. With an infinity of potential planets to choose from, there is at least one such: the Earth. It is not really such a remarkable result. When the dice get rolled innumerable times, wonderful things can happen. That’s how these things come out of chaos. Time and space and interaction are more extensive than we are capable of imagining. Thinking about a nice guy with white hair and a beard is less of a strain.
I would argue it is you who fails to fully appreciate the beauty and the grandeur, not I. I find it would be very tiresome for God to have to design everything in its details. It is fantastically more elegant of God to have established certain physical constants so that we wind up with a periodic table of elements wherefrom the chemistry among them produces self-replicating chemicals, adding maybe a single big bang (touch of the finger?) that generates everything else (let there be light?)
The God who uses evolution is thus incomparably cooler than the god who uses the brute force approach of intelligent design, because He doesn’t have to run around sweating small details like how many fins to put on fish.
Perhaps if you didn’t have the silly Bible hung around your neck, you’d see the beauty of evolution.