Creation vs Evolution

[The Troquelet]

I would hardly call 3 billion years between the first plant life and the first homo sapiens either abrupt creation or static nonchange.

I'd also like to remind that we have little or no idea of the molecular concepts of biology - there are phenomena we cannot explain yet - the equivalent of the photoelectric effect, in physics.

All the posts here so far have made one thing clear, which I [and, if I remember correctly, I alone] stated in my very first posts on this thread: firstly that evolutionism is not hard fact but a theory, and secondly that it is a working model and changing every day to fit new evidence. Those who accept it as a rigorous world-view [I don't know why that word was bandied about in the first place] are incorrect.

The fact is, it does not matter, because the only alternative thus far presented versus evolutionism is creationism [or religion in general] - and religion, as Perfection, Fallen, Fred, and I have many times demonstrated, is neither coherent nor logical.

I made an analogy before on this thread I want to bring up again. We were discussing the phenomena of a pencil falling when dropped, each of 100 times; well, to explain our data we have several choices. One is to be a scientist, and invent a natural force or cause to explain the data - a natural force called gravity. From there we can examine and quantify the force [how fast will the pencil drop? Does this relate directly, inversely, exponentially with the size of pencil? With the mass? With the density of air dropped through?] After collecting more data, we can make a guess at the reason or cause of the force [what causes gravity?] and test various hypotheses to see which best fits the data given.

One of the other possibilities is to be a mystic. For example, the phenomena is caused by an underground deity who has pencil magnetism. We know this because he sent an angel emissary in a dream to tell us. There is thus no need to explain any other data, such as the fact that rocks and people fall as well, because the explanation of the deity suffices. As for seeking proof - digging under the ground - it is strictly prohibited because faith is the essence of belief in this pencil deity and faith explains all things.

Evolution is a search for truth to fit facts [wherever they may lead], creationism - and faith in general - is a search for facts to fit truth [bible, in other words]. This is not sarcasm. We know the latter is true because creationists have brought up evidence to support the bible - even the bible itself in some cases.

For a creationist there are two kinds of Fact - the "incorrect" kind, to be ignored and ridiculed, and the kind that supports the Holy Bible. For an evolutionist there are two kinds of Fact - the kind which proves another theory, and the kind which proves his theory. Pile enough of the former Fact on a creationist and he may go insane, but he'll still believe in creationism. Pile enough of the former Fact on an evolutionist and he will change his theory.

Between the two we must all choose. And I have. So see you all around

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Cool, I think I actually killed this thread...

CG

Well, I think it's fair enough to say that the lethal shot was an act of compassion .

Regards .

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by puglover




Well if you're not going to post any "evidence" get out of the thread!

Unless you have moderation powers you can't give me orders, puggy.

Let's see your hard evidence that a big guy with white hair created humankind and earth...

Come on, let's see it! The hard cold facts!

I'm sure the rest of the planet will be interested to see you prove once and for all, that a mythical figure created us.

 

[CurtSibling]

"Between the two we must all choose."

I have.

And I have no need of Puglover's evidence, I was only putting pressure on him.
There is no evidence of creation...none at all.
Myths do not count.
(I am not belittling any religion here.)

Faith and Theory can never best each other on this thread.
No-one here is educated to the level that can really win the argument.
(I don't mean that in an unfriendly way.)

Even if Evolution was finally proved and all loose ends tied up,
The creationist will never back down from their myths that they hold dear.
(People will always cling to what is familiar to them.)

Ah, the same old conclusion to this thread, it's like deja vu!

 

[Tyrus888]

Originally posted by Perfection
THIS IS UTTER CRAP!!!
It takes ONE SLIGHT change to change the entirity of a structure. You have thousands of genes in every cell, muations are highly likely, whast you end up with is a slight genome change, and thats only for one cell in an organsim, it takes hundreds of divisions to create sex cells, all these have a probobilty of change and than we have different organsims doing the same thing. ITS NOT IMPROBOBABLE ITS PROBOBLE. Don't base the entirity of you arguement on bad math.

Yours is a typical non-scientist pro-evolutionist denial of reality. To protect your pet theory "Evolutionism", which is the cornerstone of your religiously held worldview- materialism- you simply wave your magic wand, deny reality, and deny the science itself.

I refuted everything you posted and you had not a legitimate response to any of my scientifically supported and accurate refutations. Unsubstantiated declarative statements, denial and incredulity, are all you have to offer in support of your religiously held and apparently undefendable evolutionary materialistic views.

If you are referring to HOX genes above, they are of no help to you. Hox genes greatly increases the incredibility of evolution. Their origin can not be explained because they are far far removed from coming into being by any gradual processes. Their existence can only be accounted for by the constructive efforts of an Intelligent Designer using something evolution can never have, "Know-How" in arranging molecules into very highly specified configurations to act as a factory in producing intended morphological results.

I challenge you to give us even one known major evolutionary morphological transformation that is demonstrably known to be caused by mutations. I know I cant lose this this challenge because the laws of physics and of probability declare this could never happen.

Your materialism is devoid of any scientific foundation. Your dogmatic beliefs in evolution have no mscientific merit. The only reason why they persist is because there are too many people like you who reinforce one another with the same evolutionary propaganda that they need to hear in order to reinforce their "God-Less" materialistic worldview. The evolutionists on these type forums have become the very charicature the creationists that they like to typecast as holding onto beliefs by blind faith despite the enormous evidence to the contrary.

I have read your posts "Perfection". You have yet to write one thing that scientifically substantiates your belief in Evolutionism. If you think you have, just repeat that one thing in your own words and I'll deliver you from that delusion. Anyone else may reply in like manner.

"The speculations of 'The Origin of Species' turned out to be
wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the
scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley ...
still in the tournament with a chance to be the ultimate winner."
(Evolution From Space,1982, P. 96).
Famed scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramashinge.

 

[Tyrus888]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
I would hardly call 3 billion years between the first plant life and the first homo sapiens either abrupt creation or static nonchange.

What should I believe, your incredulity or the strong scientific confirmation given to abrupt appearance by the scientific facts and the acknoeldgements of these facts by the paleontologists? I'm going to go wit the science and scientists on this

The scientific fact is that the fossil record clearly one of the abrupt appearance of each type of significantly different morphologically type of creature followed by stasis (i.e. no observable evolutionary change for the remainder of tany creatures tenure in the fossil record). All paleontolgists agree that abrupt appearance followed by stasis is a fact of the fossil record. I gave an example of this from the Chicao conference earlier, and am willing to supply more upport for this if requested.:

"Lewin reports that the [120 top pro-evolutionary] scientists mood swung in favor of accepting stasis as a real phenomenon. e.g. Cambridge geneticist Gabriel Dover felt strongly enough to call species stasis "The single most important feature of macro-evolution." And that in a generous admission, Francisco Ayala,a major figure in propounding the modern synthesis in the United States said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologist say that SMALL CHANGES DO NOT ACCUMULATE."

Originally posted by The Troquelet
For a creationist there are two kinds of Fact - the "incorrect" kind, to be ignored and ridiculed, and the kind that supports the Holy Bible. For an evolutionist there are two kinds of Fact - the kind which proves another theory, and the kind which proves his theory. Pile enough of the former Fact on a creationist and he may go insane, but he'll still believe in creationism. Pile enough of the former Fact on an evolutionist and he will change his theory.

Between the two we must all choose. And I have. So see you all around

This statement is all evolutionists on these type forums ever offer in support of Evolution: Ridicule, browbeating, insults and personal attacks. Funny, I see no science here. Just another vicious ad hominem attack.

 

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Tyrus88
Yours is a typical non-scientist pro-evolutionist denial of reality. To protect your pet theory "Evolutionism", which is the cornerstone of your religiously held worldview- materialism- you simply wave your magic wand, deny reality, and deny the science itself.

I refuted everything you posted and you had not a legitimate response to any of my scientifically supported and accurate refutations. Unsubstantiated declarative statements, denial and incredulity, are all you have to offer in support of your religiously held and apparently undefendable evolutionary materialistic views.

But your refutation is inccorect, Its more probobable than you state, sure 5 specific genes being created within a single cell of a single organism is unlikely, but thats not how evolution works, changes in the genome could be as little as one letter to make a major change in the structure of an organism. We have many cells that divide into reproductive increasing the number of mutations and thats only for one organism. They happen a lot more than you think. Just because a scientist is bad at math doesn't mean he's correct.

 

[Tyrus888]

Originally posted by Perfection
But your refutation is inccorect, Its more probobable than you state, sure 5 specific genes being created within a single cell of a single organism is unlikely, but thats not how evolution works, changes in the genome could be as little as one letter to make a major change in the structure of an organism. We have many cells that divide into reproductive increasing the number of mutations and thats only for one organism. They happen a lot more than you think. Just because a scientist is bad at math doesn't mean he's correct.

My refutation is correct, your response is a reduction absurdum and your unqualified attack on a fellow evolutionist who is a well known and respected scientist is duly noted. Evolutionists are known to turn their fellow evolutionists if they do not march in step with the dogmatic evolutionists whose world views depend on evolution being true.

Evolution (i.e. All creatures extant and extinct share a common ancestry), in order to be true, must account for major morphological transformations such as the wings on the fruit fly. Professor Ambrose acjnowledges that it tales up to forty genes involved in the manufacture of the fruit flies wings. If evolution be true, the fruit must haved evolved from some dancestor that had no wings at all. He correctly points out that it is necessary for all mutations in the lineage from nonwing to wing must be collected into and passed on through single individuals in the lineage because only an individual can evolve and after evoling spread the changes throughout the population. Professor Ambrose takes two approaches: the first that all mutations succesfully collected in an individual during its life cycle; the 2nd that the necessary mutations occur in a population over many generations and eventually managed to collect in a single individual. To greatly simplify matters to the extreme, he assumed a case in which a mere fice mutations would be sufficient to bring about a significant transformation. The applied math indicates zero chance in the first case and extremely improbable in the 2nd. Professore Ambrose even ignored the fact that many mutations collecting in a population would tend to be deleterious to the species as nearly all known mutations to the genetic that cause morpholocical changes to to individuals of a species are harmful to the individuals having them.

Again, since you are so convinced that mutations can account for the major evolutionary transformations required for Evolution, please provide the scoientific data of this occuring in nature. Failure to do so simply implies that your claim concerning mutations is fallacious.

 

[cgannon64]

I thought the OT forum had a thread limit of 300 posts! Have I missed on some new announcement, has a mod missed this thread, or are they letting it go on?

CG

 

[FredLC]

Hehehehe... I was wondering the same. Now I am just in the spirit of seeing if this thread will manage to get 20 pages long...

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by cgannon64
I thought the OT forum had a thread limit of 300 posts! Have I missed on some new announcement, has a mod missed this thread, or are they letting it go on?

CG

I will get their attention by adding another post (I am under scrutiny these days...)

My post is to say that I hope this thread isn't restarted or revived. Creationism vs. Evoltion is really a hollow intellectual game that saps the energy of folks who could be doing more useful things.

If you are arguing evolutionism, do it in the corn belt school districts and not in this forum. There is no need to waste your energy trying to convince the unconvincable, and meanwhile science moves forward with evolution as safely in it's toolkit as gravity and relativity.

If you are arguing creationism, stop and figure out why. If you are arguing it out of deeply felt religious beliefs, think about your religion and what it enjoins you to do: the time you spend wasting your energy arguing here should be spent helping the poor and the indigent, or perhaps teaching Sunday school to a new crop of victims. If you are arguing creationism out of anything other than religious beliefs, you need to spend more time reading books.

Either side, this debate is moot. Diseases, insects, even fish are busy evolving right outside your door this very minute. But no matter how much evidence you gather, you will have to build a time machine if you are going to claim that you are sure even of your scientific theory.

 

[Perfection]

Tyrus, You assume that all changes must take place rapidly and not slowly over succesive generations, A wing doesn't need to start out as a wing. Also genes can be reused in different circumstances, such as the human Earwax Gene also affecting the nature of sweating, and remeber over the course of billions of years and an uncountable number of organisms the improbobable becomes the mundane

 

[CurtSibling]

Sultan,
A better argument for reason I could not have said myself!

Nicely put.

Could a Moderator kindly fire his magic missile at this dying thread?

 

[Archbob]

You can refute microevolution all you want but micro and macro work off the same basis--which is natural selection or survival of the fittest.

The fittest doesn't mean the stronger or biggest, it just means the one that can suit the environment better.

Think about major changed within a body structure Tyrus. You know some humans have 6 toes or six finger, this is an example of an unwanted mutation. But once in a while in the line of millions of years, beneficial mutations will occur(and don't say they can't) and that gene will pass on.

Evolution can fit into creation as in God created the universe and let it run on its own.

As for natural selection, we can do an experiment to find out, grab some grasshoppers and some pesticidies. Separate the ones that are more resistant from the ones who are less resistant and see which one survives, I think the answer is self-explanatory, natural(or in this case man-made) factors weed out the weak.


If its possible for a human to suddenly get 6 or more toes, can't it be fathomable that over millions of year that a paw would eventually change into the flipper or something like that is the conditions are favorable for the flipper. Over tens of thousands of generations, the more flipper-like bone structures would win out and eventually a paw could turn into a flipper. Its why snakes came about from lizards, you can't refute the evidence that snakes still have leg segments where the legs once where when the species were lizards.

 

[Tyrus888]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Tyrus88. Perhaps you should explore the merit in accepting something simply because it is necessary for a world view. The way things are today, it is impossible to live entirely by the scientifically proven facts. To do so would be contrary to civilization. Alot of these debates hover around such cognitive blocks. People argue for what seems right, yet cannot support their arguments logically. They carry a socially useful illusion.

Which belief is better for humanity: evolutionism or creationism?

Creationism of course. Materialistic Evolution is a tale of ultimate death. Everything dies off eventually and our lives are are but a shadow that exist very briefly. The ultimate cause of death, if disease, accidents, or killing do not do you in, is mutations. Mutations Gaurantees that we will live at most, a hundred and twenty years.

On the other hand, everone here should be hoping that I am right about Creation being true. Then this body is but mere clothing on us and we can live forever through our Creators love and good will toward us.

"I have immortal longings in me." WS

But the materialist alternative:

"Out Out brief Candle. Life is but a dream. A poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more. Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." WS.

 

[Tyrus888]

Originally posted by Perfection
Tyrus, You assume that all changes must take place rapidly and not slowly over succesive generations, A wing doesn't need to start out as a wing. Also genes can be reused in different circumstances, such as the human Earwax Gene also affecting the nature of sweating, and remeber over the course of billions of years and an uncountable number of organisms the improbobable becomes the mundane

I make no such assumption, a trillion years would not help evolution any, science knows nothing at all about Evolution. I had only begun to show how evolution has been scientifically falsified. Broad statements as the above are not scientific and do not hold when one examines the scientific details. I encourage all to reread my posts for there is genuine science therein that is very applicable to this discussion. I have even stronger scientific data that destroys Evolution, but it seems that I posted a lot already and time is running out.

It appears from what I'm reading that this thread ought to be coming to an end. So I thank all who participated. I appreciate the overall civility of the discussions and the courtesy extended to me. I am pleased to have made all your acquaintences and I extend my fondest best wishes of peace, joy and true happiness to all.

Special thanks to Fearlessleader 2 and puglover for joining me on behalf of Creation.

Goodbye for now.

 

[Perfection]

But Tyrus you claim that there is a chance of mutations so doesn't that validate evolution to some degree?

 

[Maj]

On the other hand, everone here should be hoping that I am right about Creation being true. Then this body is but mere clothing on us and we can live forever through our Creators love and good will toward us.

This is where I raise an eyebrow. There is no evidence of ANY creator, nor one so specific that it loves and cherishes our species. Even if you were to decipher through the data a logical argument of Creation, how could you ever prove this god gave a fig about us? How could you show ANY of this using science?

As contradictory as it may sound, are there any atheist Creationists?

 

[The Troquelet]

You called?

I believe in God solely as a force we can't understand/detect which created the universe and set in motion all natural forces [including evolution]. I call myself a Deist because nominally I believe in a God, but by the Christian standards of someone like puglover I would be an Atheist.

It's a small world, Maj

 

[puglover]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
"Between the two we must all choose."

I have.

And I have no need of Puglover's evidence, I was only putting pressure on him.
There is no evidence of creation...none at all.
Myths do not count.
(I am not belittling any religion here.)

Faith and Theory can never best each other on this thread.
No-one here is educated to the level that can really win the argument.
(I don't mean that in an unfriendly way.)

Even if Evolution was finally proved and all loose ends tied up,
The creationist will never back down from their myths that they hold dear.
(People will always cling to what is familiar to them.)

Ah, the same old conclusion to this thread, it's like deja vu!

Well whenever you want some... Why don't you look back a few pages full of my evidence of Creation. "Evidence" of Evolution is back there too. If anybody on either side wants evidence, they should look back. Let's stop here so we don't end up saying the same evidence over and over and over again. Let's not make this 20 pages! Okay?