In the USA, 48% reject evolution, 34% of college graduades are Biblical creationists

So why plants before animals?
For food. Also you are making an assumption that the Bible classifies
Created inside of stars, I believe.
That is a conjecture, since you really do not know.
Well, the point is the bible says plants came before animals but that just ain't the way it happened. I wanna see how VRWCA handles it.
You are making an assumption that the Bible classifies bacteria as being life. The only things in the Bible that are considered life in the Bible, according it's definition of life.
 
That is a conjecture, since you really do not know.

We do know, for sure.

wikipedia said:
Without supernovas there would be no life on Earth. This is because many of the chemical elements were made in supernova explosions. These are called "heavy elements". Heavy elements are needed to make living things. The supernova is the only way heavy elements can be made. Other elements were made by fusion in stars. Heavy elements need very high temperature and pressure to form. In a supernova explosion the temperature and pressure are so high that heavy elements can be made. Scientists call this supernova nucleosynthesis.

wikipedia said:
Oxygen is the third most abundant chemical element in the universe by mass, after hydrogen and helium (see chemical element). Some of this oxygen was produced during stellar nucleosynthesis as a step in the CNO-II branch of the CNO cycle. However oxygen is primarily produced in massive stars. In stars with at least four times the Sun's mass, 16O nuclei are produced during the Carbon burning process. 16O can also be produced in stars with at least 8 times the Sun's mass as a result of photodisintegration during the Neon burning process
 
That's what you get for saying "I believe" instead of "if I remember correctly" . . .

At any rate, I find the idea that God created heavy elements by blowing up stars much cooler than simply waving his hand and making it so. Plus it fits better with actual observations.
 
Hey, c_h, nice to see you back arguing about evolution. Do you remember the questions about fossil whales? Would you mind answering them?


And could you please explain what this is supposed to mean?
The only things in the Bible that are considered life in the Bible, according it's definition of life.
 
That's what you get for saying "I believe" instead of "if I remember correctly" . . .

At any rate, I find the idea that God created heavy elements by blowing up stars much cooler than simply waving his hand and making it so. Plus it fits better with actual observations.

General rule of thumb: The cooler a phenomenon is in science, the more likely that it is true. :p
 
Yeah, especially:

Blowing. Up. Stars.

:lol: :thumbsup:

Though fusion is not that complex or hard a process. We're inches away from being able to do it pretty easily ourselves. It's sad that you have to blow up a planet in order to do the same thing a properly-funded laboratory can do. I'm pretty sure we'll be creating oxygen from our own star in a very little (relative) time.

I'm looking forward to the stage where we're creating baby universes, personally.

Classical Hero: the Bible states that fruit-bearing plants came before animals. I'm pretty sure that's not true. And livestock before people is only true in a weaker sense (in that the animals weren't livestock yet). There's no way that an apologist should get away with stating that the Genesis account is a close approximation of real events.
 
Xanikk999 said:
Mutations ARE evolution.

Yeah, but have you ever seen/heard of a mutation that has actually added information and resulted in a...erm...higher state? All mutations result in losses of information. I challenge you to think of any mutations you believe are evolution working, and decide whether they added or lost information.

As for God kick starting evolution, I think it would have been simple enough for that to be explained in the Bible. It is made so clear in the wording of "six days" that it is as it says. How do you explain "And the evening and the morning were the first day" Gen 1:5 ? This is as clear as it needs to be that the days were literal 24 hour periods. How can it be made clearer?! Really, if you cannot believe this is literal, then how can you believe the rest of the Bible literally, including any fundamental parts to the Christian belief? Jonah was in a fish for 3 days? Or maybe 5 million years going by some people's logic? :lol:

God also did not use the big bang theory, because it says in Genesis 1:16: "And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also." That was in Day 4, after the earth had been created. Some people ask where the light was from "let there be light", and that could well have been God's (God is described as light).

I don't want to offend anyone here (although that is probably inevitable), but this is what I believe, and I'd like you to think about it! Evolution vs Creation debates always get heated, unfortunately, but they are also very interesting.
 
Yeah, but have you ever seen/heard of a mutation that has actually added information and resulted in a...erm...higher state? All mutations result in losses of information, and that is never for good. I challenge you to think of any mutations you believe are evolution working, and decide whether they added or lost information.

Your challenge has already been debunked, here
 
Graduation from college does not necessitate intelligence.

Also, having a few inane, unexamined beliefs doesn't imply stupidity.

Precisely, you need not a piece of paper to tell prove you're smart. Some of the smartest people I know have only High School Diplomas. And working knowledge (apprenticeships and such) and/or street smarts is far more important (and better) than book smarts.
 
No, some evolutionists and highly regarded scientists have said that mutations do not produce new information, which is required for evolution. It has never been witnessed. I am not saying that mutations are bad, because they can have good outcomes, but they are still a loss of information.
 
No, a mutation is just a change. So going from GTC to GTA, for instance, is a mutation. But if this is a loss of information, then logically speaking, going from GTA to GTC, the exact opposite, gains information, yet it is also a mutation.

And name one of these alleged "evolutionists".
 
No, some evolutionists and highly regarded scientists have said that mutations do not produce new information, which is required for evolution. It has never been witnessed. I am not saying that mutations are bad, because they can have good outcomes, but they are still a loss of information.

read my link much?
 
Yeah, but have you ever seen/heard of a mutation that has actually added information and resulted in a...erm...higher state? All mutations result in losses of information. I challenge you to think of any mutations you believe are evolution working, and decide whether they added or lost information.

Howdy Mr. DS :) ; I'm going to assume that you've been briefed on the 'falseness' of evolution by someone you were lead to respect. I hope this is a fair assumption.

One of this person's assertions is that there are no mutations that lead to 'information gain', and you believed this claim. He then added to this assertion with various other facts, in order to build a cohesive picture of how evolution was false. Again, I hope this is a fair assumption.

However, please consider that this one assertion ("there is no information gain, ever") is false. Outrageously so. And please accept that modern science is well assured of this fact. I mean, we can now sequence a disease (such as SARS) in less than a couple months. We have powerful, powerful technologies with which to test evolutionary theory.

For decades (decades!) we have proven again and again that there are a host of mutations that lead to 'information gain'. And there is new evidence being discovered all the time.

This assertion by your instructor is so blatantly false that people who know the science are boggled that it is being made. It would be as crazy an assertion that the sun only emits visible light, because that's all that's been detected: outrageously false, and provenly false for decades.

I've watched Hovind's presentation (taking him as a sample instructor), and he states so many false things that I cannot even think of him as an honest man.

You're being tricked. Please realise this. Please realise that you shouldn't trust very many statements from this group of instructors. If you present each claim, as an individual topic, people will be happy to explain how a false statement is not true.
 
One cannot look at the definition of mutation to determine its scientific meaning and workings. It is possible the word was invented long before it was ever used in its current evolutionary context. Yes, an immediate change back to the original state would be mutation, but that has never happened. As I said, many scientists who have studied this have said that mutations haven't been seen to generate new information.
 
One cannot look at the definition of mutation to determine its scientific meaning and workings.

Huh?

It is possible the word was invented long before it was ever used in its current evolutionary context.

No, in its current context it means "change" as well. What do you think it means?

Yes, an immediate change back to the original state would be mutation, but that has never happened.

How do you know?

As I said, many scientists who have studied this have said that mutations haven't been seen to generate new information.

Name one.
 
One cannot look at the definition of mutation to determine its scientific meaning and workings. It is possible the word was invented long before it was ever used in its current evolutionary context. Yes, an immediate change back to the original state would be mutation, but that has never happened. As I said, many scientists who have studied this have said that mutations haven't been seen to generate new information.

Which scientists? If credible scientists discovered this, the theory of evolution would be long gone and replaced with something else.. so why hasn't this happened? Hmmm I wonder...
 
Top Bottom