Evolution vs. Creation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
103

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I will not imply then, I will clearly state: Making a cell is more difficult than making a virus.

Because it’s too hard right now. We can make viruses quite readily, and the bacterium (cell) is the next step. It will happen if there is grant money in it.[/quote]

Wow, you have already come to the conclusion that making a cell is more different than making a virus, yet nobody can even do it because it’s “to hard”. Why not just say “we can do it but we can’t”? By the way, you can not readily “make” viruses. You can tinker and swap parts that were already in existence. Besides, a human being that tinkers and manipulates something that he didn’t create in the first place does not in any way prove that your hypothesis of evolution is slightly true in any way, shape or form - period.

[quote]
A cell is not a simple thing. You might have learned (I don’t know) that cells have organelles which function just like the organs in your body. One of these organelles, the mitochondrion, is like the power plant for the cell, and it has its own DNA. Fabricating a mitochondrion is going to be a pain in the ass.

Mother nature had several billion years to do it… give us a little more time.[/quote]

A cell is not a simple thing? Well no kidding! There is more going on in one cell than New York City at rush hour.

Mother nature had several billion years to do it? What is your definition of mother nature. Is that your kind of god without actually saying that you believe in God? How did “mother nature” create DNA and cells out of nothing? How? Also, beings “mother nature” is not God or intelligent, how would something so incredibly complex as a cell and DNA form out of nothing with no intelligence? Not to mention human beings with cardiovascular systems, respiratory systems, nervous systems, endocrine systems, etc. I suppose you think that no intelligence went into that either. It all just sort of oozed out of the ocean somehow with absolutely no designer? Is that what you really think happened?

104

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
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?

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.

Intelligent design = God

God is the logical answer.

[/quote]

Sorry dude but intelligent design does not automatically mean GOD. Just as we are the most intelligent beings on earth there could be plenty more intelligent beings outside of earth that used earth as a petrie dish if you will. So even if you can prove that things were placed here in an intelligent manner, does not necisarrily mean that GOD did the planting. After all I think there is more evidence of UFO’s and aliens than there is of GOD.

V

105

I just knew that aliens would come up sooner or later. Doesn?t change the problem though as long as as you don?t explain where they came from.

Did they -horribile dictu- EVOLVE on another planet? :wink:

106

I was in Russia last month and I was asking my tour guide, Igor, what it was like when the Soviet Union collapsed. He told me that people were very concerned because the state had always provided everything for them. After about a month though, people started to get cable TV from America. Igor said “suddenly everyone realize that we had been duped all these years. Russia did not have the best houses, cars, clothing, etc.” When people saw how others in the world lived their eyes were opened.

The point of my little story is that there are an awful lot of intelligent people on this thread who have not taken a fair and objective look at both sides of this argument. It seems that when someone states they are a creationist they are first called stupid, mindless, and brainwashed, then they are told that there is no God.

Certianly there must be a more intelligent way to prove your belief in evolution than simply denying the existance of God and claiming that having faith means having no mind of your own. Do the evolutionists not put faith in the scholars who claim to have solved the riddle of how life came to be? You did not do the research on the fossil record, you did not publish the research papers, you did nothing to validate the authenticity of the information presented to you. You merely believe it. You have faith that it is correct.

What is worse is that you refuse to accept information from the other side of the argument. Have you read any of the papers published by creationists? Wouldn’t looking at both sides of an argument provide a more objective viewpoint?

Here is an excerpt from a paper by Dr. John Ankerbery and Dr. John Weldon.

"…Virtually all the fundamentals of the orthodox evolutionary faith have show themselves to be either of extremely doubtful validity or simply contrary to fact… So basic are these erroneous (evolutionary) assumptions thta the whole theory is now largely maintained in spite of rather than because of the evidence… As a consequence, for the great majority of students and for that large ill-defined group, ‘the public,’ it has ceased to be a subject of debate. Because it is both incapable of proof and yet may not be questioned, it is virtually untouched by data which challenge it in any way. It has become in the strictest sense irrational… Information or concept which challenge the theory are almost never given a fair hearing…

In fact… 'Evolutionary philosophy has indeed become a state of mind, one might say a kind of mental prison rather than a scientific attitude…

If evolutionary theory was scientific, it should have been abondoned long ago. But because it is more philosophy than science, it is not susceptible to the self-correcting mechanisms that govern all other branches of scientific enquiry."

They echo what I stated earlier in this thread. Creationists in this thread are being called “brainwashed” because they have faith. But I say that the evolutionists are no less dogmatic than we are.

Both sides of this argument have valid points. Further both sides of this argument have put their faith in men who have written books or papers. How is faith in a God you claim you don’t know so different than putting faith in some evolutionary schorlar you don’t know?

Thare a great deal of strong opinions on this thread, but who really is qualified to state authoratatively that they have researched the issue of evolution thoroughly from both sides?

I can honestly tell you that before I began studying the Bible I believed very strongly in evolution. Mostly because it was indoctrinated in me in every grade school, high school, and college science course I had. Like my Russian friend Igor, it was all I had ever known. When I began to study the Bible, evolution was one of my biggest sticking points. I just couldn’t accept creationism. So I went to the library, went online, and I started to look at both sides of the argument.

When I really started looking into the issue I was shocked at how truly incomplete the theory of evolution is. I probably spent 9 months reading up on it before I decided that the theory of evolution raises far more questions than it answers.

Again, a personal decision but at least I can say I looked at the issue from both sides. Which is more than I can say for some of the ill-bred individuals who have chosen to grace this thread with insults rather than intelligent contributions.

107

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.

108

the fundamental belief of Christians that behind everything there is the divine, and that the divine is concerned for and involved in the universe He has created, and that God reached out to his creation in Jesus Christ to lead us back to him.

From these fundamental beliefs others flow. One is that the relationship between God and his creation is one of self-giving love. Christians see this most clearly demonstrated in the death of Christ at Calvary : they also see it in the faithfulness and generosity of the creator. A second belief is that there is mind behind creation, and therefore purpose, and that the purpose is somehow concerned with the creation of love.

these beliefs are the non-negotiables of Christianity, if scientifically derived world views do not fit with these then either the Christian must abandon his faith or he must reject what the scientist is saying.

109

In 1996 no less a religious authority than Pope John Paul II declared, “New knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis.”

In addition, I think Urban hailed the formulation of the Big Bang theory. Which was started by a Belgian priest.

So Catholics shouldn’t have a problem with these things, since infallible religious leaders have already weighed in.

110

And hey, why not Unintelligent Design?:
http://www.theshrubbery.com/udn/

111

An excerpt from a NY Times article by Jim Holt:

"From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test. Old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims – that the earth was created before the sun, for example. Intelligent design, by contrast, leaves the purposes of the designer wholly mysterious. Presumably any pattern of data in the natural world is consistent with his/her/its existence.

But if we can’t infer anything about the design from the designer, maybe we can go the other way. What can we tell about the designer from the design? While there is much that is marvelous in nature, there is also much that is flawed, sloppy and downright bizarre. Some nonfunctional oddities, like the peacock’s tail or the human male’s nipples, might be attributed to a sense of whimsy on the part of the designer. Others just seem grossly inefficient. In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.

Such disregard for economy can be found throughout the natural order. Perhaps 99 percent of the species that have existed have died out. Darwinism has no problem with this, because random variation will inevitably produce both fit and unfit individuals. But what sort of designer would have fashioned creatures so out of sync with their environments that they were doomed to extinction?

The gravest imperfections in nature, though, are moral ones. Consider how humans and other animals are intermittently tortured by pain throughout their lives, especially near the end. Our pain mechanism may have been designed to serve as a warning signal to protect our bodies from damage, but in the majority of diseases – cancer, for instance, or coronary thrombosis – the signal comes too late to do much good, and the horrible suffering that ensues is completely useless.

And why should the human reproductive system be so shoddily designed? Fewer than one-third of conceptions culminate in live births. The rest end prematurely, either in early gestation or by miscarriage. Nature appears to be an avid abortionist, which ought to trouble Christians who believe in both original sin and the doctrine that a human being equipped with a soul comes into existence at conception. Souls bearing the stain of original sin, we are told, do not merit salvation. That is why, according to traditional theology, unbaptized babies have to languish in limbo for all eternity. Owing to faulty reproductive design, it would seem that the population of limbo must be at least twice that of heaven and hell combined."

112

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
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.[/quote]

Your statement in itself goes to show that you believe to a certain extent in a higher being. Let me explain.

First of all, the argument for any evolutionist is that we came from the muck and grime of the earth. If we go from your view on life, people are nothing more than a random collision of molecules that just happened to turn into something. People would just be an accident. A random event of life. Nothing more important than the dog you feed every morning or the rug you wipe your feet on. People are then lowered to the level of everything else. To kill a plant is the same as killing a person. That burger at the fast food place doesn’t look the same anymore. In fact, from the evoluntist point of view, nobody has any real purpose, significance, importance or value. So the argument remains, who cares if someone is killed? I mean, all they are is an accident. No value or real worth. If anyone dies, well, there’s plenty of other accidents afterwards to replace it.

But that doesn’t jive does it? And if murder angers you, then you’re normal. And you already realize that people really do have purpose, significance and a value to them. Only then would it bother you to have someone else taken away into death. So unless we were created from a higher being, you or me are no better than the two hump crazy dogs in the back alley. We’d just be animals and nothing more. This certainly shows that within our own beings we know that we are worth more than nothing or accident. Only God could give human beings such significance.

113

The only character in the first part of the book of Genesis who tells the truth is the snake. Not God, God lies. Not Adam and Eve, they lie to God. Only the snake tells the truth.

114

[quote]dmharper wrote:
The only character in the first part of the book of Genesis who tells the truth is the snake. Not God, God lies. Not Adam and Eve, they lie to God. Only the snake tells the truth.[/quote]

Interesting statement. Perhaps you could elaborate on you have come to this conclusion?

115

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Just don’t teach the hypothesis of evolution in science class. Teach science FACTS in science class.
[/quote]

And then further:

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Just because I realize God and the Bible are true, it doesn’t mean that I disregard true science.
[/quote]

Science is not just a bunch of facts. It develops explanations for those facts. Gravitation is just another theory. It explains what we observe. Evolution is just another theory. It explains what we observe. Science is the theories. The facts we call “data”. There is no “true science”, just reproducible science.

You’ve been dissing the real science with everything you’ve written here. As far as anyone can tell - who actually looks - the Bible is full of lies. It’s incompatible with everything science stands for: free enquiry. It says “You must believe me: the answer is in here. Looking outside me and seeing for yourself is a sin.” In its majority it is a deceitful little book, often used to create evil, and the product of men, not God.

The belief that there is a God, on the other hand, is perfectly compatible with all of science’s explanations.

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.

116

[quote]Tank53 wrote:
So unless we were created from a higher being, you or me are no better than the two hump crazy dogs in the back alley. We’d just be animals and nothing more. [/quote]

I think you should try to have a little more respect for animals. Yes, we’re the same thing as the animals, and that is wonderful enough.

117

Don’t waste your time with creationists.

All their claims are easily shown wrong, but they won’t listen. When they ask for proof and you show them proof, they will pull and ad-hominem, a straw-man argument, or come with an insane explanation, e.g., they say that fossils are rocks made by the cristian god to test your faith in him (how can science compete with magical thinking?).

It is impossible to reason with a creationist. If they were capable of reasoning, they would understand that evolution is real.

Only step in if they are trying to misguide a young kid. They haven’t lost the ability to reason, and they will understand why creationist are wrong and evolution is real.

By the way: http://talkorigins.org

118

[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
As a consequence, for the great majority of students and for that large ill-defined group, ‘the public,’ it has ceased to be a subject of debate. Because it is both incapable of proof and yet may not be questioned, it is virtually untouched by data which challenge it in any way. It has become in the strictest sense irrational… Information or concept which challenge the theory are almost never given a fair hearing…

[/quote]

Ha ha, I scanned what your wrote too fast the first time: I thought you were talking about the Bible.

119

[quote]Tank53 wrote:
If we go from your view on life, people are nothing more than a random collision of molecules that just happened to turn into something. People would just be an accident. A random event of life.[/quote]

Thats EXACTLY my point. We are nothing but chance i.e. “random collision” that just happened to work out.

Wouldnt the fact that every living thing is made up of the same 4 neucleotides spark a “hmmmm” from the religious community?

120

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
It all just sort of oozed out of the ocean somehow with absolutely no designer? Is that what you really think happened?
[/quote]

Yep. Isn’t God’s manner of working truly amazing?

121

First off TUffloud I think you should look at some of the posts by Gregus cause he is right when he says that there are things missing in the full explanation of Macro-Evolution. And if anyone hasn’t already told you, A theory is not a fact.

A theory is similar to a hypothesis, except that while a theory hasn’t been proven, all the evidence at hand says that it is probably right. So Evolution is not a fact, but the scientific evidence at hand supports evolution as an explanation for the development of life on Earth. There is no scientific backing for creationism or God. God is a supernatural being, which right there explains that if such a creature does exist it violates all known laws of nature and could never be studied or properly identified. Anything that is supernatural is not bound by the same laws we are because it above those laws and could never be quantified.

In an earlier post you also said that it is not your responsibility or the responsibility of those that share your beliefs to explain God or provide the evidence for his existance, and that is where you are dead wrong. Since you and your ilk profess that this being exists and that you have a belief in his existance, then the burden of proof is on you to validate his existance to those that don’t believe in him. Those that don’t believe in him would never know of him if you and your kind didn’t bring it up, but once you do and try to get them to hold the same beliefs, you need to provide the evidence for his existance, and a pile of dung, (Ben Franklin’s word for it.) written by tribal hashheads who were starving themselves in the desert and becoming delusional from lack of sleep is not good enough. So until you can validate creationism using the scientific method , how about you stuff your head back into that pile of dung and don’t come out until you are ready to use the same methods that are being used to support the theory of evolution, to support creationism and the possible existance of YOUR god.

122

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0102.pdf

Try this link. It may not make you change your mind but it may at least provide you some insight as to argument against evolution. The article is written by far more qualified and intelligent people than me to speak on the topic.

As for the people that are really bitter against the Bible, I’m sorry that you haven’t had a positive experience with religion. I would hope you wouldn’t stop coming to T-Mag’s site because someone flamed one of your posts, or the moderator wouldn’t allow one of your posts. In the same vein, I hope you wouldn’t be turned off to the Bible because some overzealous Bible thumper beat you over the head with it while shouting “Die Sinner… Repent from your evil ways!” The fact of the matter is that anyone who has read it with a clear objective mind has to admit that it has practical if not spiritual value. Even Ghandi said “If all men followed the teachings of Christ, there would be no war.”

I’ve grown wear of the sensless war in this site. For the few rational people on the thread, thanks for the intelligent interchange.