Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Frigidus]

:lol:

If I'm just laughing does that make me a "winner?"

I think it makes you easily amused.

[Juan_Bottom]

:lol:

If I'm just laughing does that make me a "winner?"

I think it makes you easily amused.

Aw it was funny... the one time he doesn't use the rolley eye smiley it gets him into trouble...

[Bavarian Raven]

and it lives again

lol long live evolution

[deceangli]

It seems obvious that this thread was started by a Creationist - only a Creationist would put so much effort into a forum thread.

Why do we never challenge the nonsense of the Old Testament? It's riddled with contradictions, and there are several alternative accounts of much the same mythical material (such as the Koran, with a similar but different take on Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel etc.

It's a collection of MYTHS, guys - no offence intended, but you may as well say that the Epic of Gilgamesh is literally true.

Americans (sigh)- how the hell did they ever get to the moon?

[MeDeFe]

Guess who's back back back
Back again again again


You really can't keep a good thread down.

[mpjh]

necro-bumping at its best

[Bavarian Raven]

Americans (sigh)- how the hell did they ever get to the moon?

that could be all the tech help they got from the germans

nevertheless i knew a good thread would never die

[mpjh]

Americans (sigh)- how the hell did they ever get to the moon?

that could be all the tech help they got from the germans

nevertheless i knew a good thread would never die

No, actually, just really good film production skills.

[PLAYER57832]

We will only have "won" when we no longer have 30% of government officials, even TODAY believing that Scientific Creationism or any of the current Creationist ideas actually present a true and valid alternative.

Do you even hold a small spot in your mind that God created Adam and Eve without evolution? Or is this something that is "impossible" in your highly scientific mind?

Did not respond before, but since this thread has been revived ...

You see science and religion as completely opposing entities. I do not. Science is the method by which we discover what God has done in this world. There IS no disctinction in fact, only in the reason behind it all. So, your point is just irrelevant. God created the universe, the Earth and Adam and Eve. Neither Science nor the Bible give an absolutely complete and full explanation for how it happened. They each approach part of the answer. They are not in conflict.

[deceangli]

There's something racist in this obsession with the Bible, as if nobody else's "holy" book counts. What about The Adventures of Asterix the Gaul? I live by that book and its holy words

[MeDeFe]

There's something racist in this obsession with the Bible, as if nobody else's "holy" book counts. What about The Adventures of Asterix the Gaul? I live by that book and its holy words

You think Romans are crazy?

[Backglass]

There's something racist in this obsession with the Bible, as if nobody else's "holy" book counts. What about The Adventures of Asterix the Gaul? I live by that book and its holy words

Sorry. Only books written by primitive nomads can be considered factual.

[a.sub]

Creationism is for those who refuse to believe logic, and would rather blindly follow a book that has no proof behind it.

and i would like to point out that i am religious, but i use it strictly for morals, to decide what is right and wrong, NEVER as a replacement for science.

[gannable]

I agree with original poster.

I believe in Creation.

and ive come to the conclusion there are nefarious reasons why Evolution is pushed down our throats.

[WidowMakers]

Creationism is for those who refuse to believe logic, and would rather blindly follow a book that has no proof behind it.

I find it interesting that you say creationist refuse to believe logic.

An evolutionist:

• -Says that everything came from nothing by some unknown naturalistic means (but there is no proof and no scientific reason to think so except to deny a Creator)
  -Says that even though EVERY known scientific study has shown things tend to get more disordered (2nd law of Thermo), naturally we evolved and got more complex over time anyway (Again no scientific study can validate this)
  -NO evidence of MACRO evolution has ever been seen. (but it must have regardless because we need it to have happened)
  -Life has NEVER been seen to come from Non-life ( and again it must have regardless because we need it to have happened)

and they still say it is all FACT. Yeah that seems pretty logical to me too.

And when you say the Bible has no proof what do you mean?
No proof in that it does not have mathematical formulas that lay out scientific studies or that it is not consistent with what the actual FACTS of science tell us?

When you look at what and how the Bible says the universe came into being, it fits with all of the things we see and CAN study in the scientific community today.

• -The universe was created and becoming more disordered every second (2nd law)
  -There are so many variables even around a single cell that random chance could not have taken place.
  -Life comes from Life
  -The earth is unique to support life and the moon, sun and other stellar bodies are there to make life work here.
  -Of course things will have similar physical features. They were all designed to live in a similar environment.

And I have said it before that I would change my views if someone could show me how evolution is logically a possibility from a scientific point of view (based on theses things mentioned above and others already talked over). You can call me crazy. You can call me an idiot. You can call me whatever.

All I know is the logic you say I lack has not been used by those who say I am a fool.

WM

[WidowMakers]

I agree with original poster.

I believe in Creation.

and ive come to the conclusion there are nefarious reasons why Evolution is pushed down our throats.

Thanks gannable.

Those reasons are: people not wanting to believe in God and thus justifying to themselves why they are not accountable to him.

But that is a different topic (Jesus Freaks Why do you believe?)

[MeDeFe]

Again? How often have these been refuted already?

-Says that everything came from nothing by some unknown naturalistic means (but there is no proof and no scientific reason to think so except to deny a Creator)

Is no part of the theory of evolution, at all, go ask a physicist

-Says that even though EVERY known scientific study has shown things tend to get more disordered (2nd law of Thermo), naturally we evolved and got more complex over time anyway (Again no scientific study can validate this)

Tenuously related at best... Oh well, earth is not a closed system but gets a continuous input of energy from a nearby stellar body. "Disorder" is not something that increases at the same rate everywhere in the universe.

-NO evidence of MACRO evolution has ever been seen. (but it must have regardless because we need it to have happened)

You mean one species evolving and becoming a different species? First of all, "species" are something we humans made up, they do not follow some border drawn by nature. Just take the numerous examples of crossbreeds: Wholphins, Ligers, Tigons, the Lijagulep, Polar-Grizzly bears, the Toast of Botswana, Coywolves, to name but a few, I believe Neoteny has a nice chart of salamanders around, too, if you're interested. Some of them can interbreed but others can't, it looks sort of like a ring if you sort them according to which distinct species can produce offspring together.
And do you remember those E. Coli bacteria that evolved to be able to digest citrate? That's a new species for you right there.

-Life has NEVER been seen to come from Non-life ( and again it must have regardless because we need it to have happened)

Again, the origins of life are only of minor interest to an evolutionary biologist, certainly of interest, but not their main point of focus, why do you keep harping on about it all the time? Ask a chemist or something.

[WidowMakers]

Again? How often have these been refuted already?

-Says that everything came from nothing by some unknown naturalistic means (but there is no proof and no scientific reason to think so except to deny a Creator)

Is no part of the theory of evolution, at all, go ask a physicist

Well actually it is.
There are three areas of evolution.

• 1. Stellar evolution
  2. Chemical evolution
  3. Biological evolution.

If there was not Stellar evolution (Big Bang and stars forming and such) you could not have Chemical evolution (formation of elements and molecules and basic building blocks of life) and thus not have any biological evolution (the things you are talking about. Marco evolution and such. Life from Non-life).

So by me asking for an answer to "How did all of this (the universe) come from nothing" I am asking about how the building blocks of biological evolution were made. So it is part of the evolutionary theory.

-Says that even though EVERY known scientific study has shown things tend to get more disordered (2nd law of Thermo), naturally we evolved and got more complex over time anyway (Again no scientific study can validate this)

Tenuously related at best... Oh well, earth is not a closed system but gets a continuous input of energy from a nearby stellar body. "Disorder" is not something that increases at the same rate everywhere in the universe.

But the universe is a closed system. And if we treat that as such then the 1st and 2nd laws apply. And if they apply how can you explain the three areas of evolution? (again 1. Stellar evolution 2. Chemical evolution 3. Biological evolution.) Because like I said above, you cant have Biological evolution without Chemical evolution and you can't have Chemical evolution without Stellar evolution and Stellar evolution completely defies the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics.

And even if it does not decrease at the same rate everywhere, it still is decreasing. The only time there is an increase in order is when there are specific set plans of action to that. Life growing, plants, animals and other things that have instructions as to increase order. But again those did not happen first as evolutionist would argue. They are millions of years worth of chance and accidents. Then how did millions of years of chance in a universe with no order that continues to gain disorder make an ordered set of instructions to build more ordered things by chance? That's logical.

-NO evidence of MACRO evolution has ever been seen. (but it must have regardless because we need it to have happened)

You mean one species evolving and becoming a different species? First of all, "species" are something we humans made up, they do not follow some border drawn by nature. Just take the numerous examples of crossbreeds: Wholphins, Ligers, Tigons, the Lijagulep, Polar-Grizzly bears, the Toast of Botswana, Coywolves, to name but a few, I believe Neoteny has a nice chart of salamanders around, too, if you're interested. Some of them can interbreed but others can't, it looks sort of like a ring if you sort them according to which distinct species can produce offspring together.
And do you remember those E. Coli bacteria that evolved to be able to digest citrate? That's a new species for you right there.

First of all the bacteria is still E.Coli. Secondly the Coywolves are just two "dog" animals mating. The Liger and Tigons are two "cat" animals mating. Do you get my point. They were already in a species, if you will, that allowed them to be compatible. Show me the facts or proof that we came from apes. Show me the facts or proof that a creature through genetic mutations gain or lost genetic code that turned it into a completely new animal or plant.

-Life has NEVER been seen to come from Non-life ( and again it must have regardless because we need it to have happened)

Again, the origins of life are only of minor interest to an evolutionary biologist, certainly of interest, but not their main point of focus, why do you keep harping on about it all the time? Ask a chemist or something.

Once again I will say that if you want to talk about how a single cell evolved into a man (eventually), you need to show how that single cell evolved from dirt and rock and whatever else you say it came from.

You can't prove cell-to-man evolution if you cant from non-life to life evolution.

WM

[Neoteny]

Again? How often have these been refuted already?

-Says that everything came from nothing by some unknown naturalistic means (but there is no proof and no scientific reason to think so except to deny a Creator)

Is no part of the theory of evolution, at all, go ask a physicist

Well actually it is.
There are three areas of evolution.

• 1. Stellar evolution
  2. Chemical evolution
  3. Biological evolution.

If there was not Stellar evolution (Big Bang and stars forming and such) you could not have Chemical evolution (formation of elements and molecules and basic building blocks of life) and thus not have any biological evolution (the things you are talking about. Marco evolution and such. Life from Non-life).

So by me asking for an answer to "How did all of this (the universe) come from nothing" I am asking about how the building blocks of biological evolution were made. So it is part of the evolutionary theory.

Eh, that's not very convincing. Biological evolution does not require the first two conditions that you are asserting. It is possible that they occurred, but challenging them has no bearing on the theory of biological evolution. All that biological evolution requires is the process of natural selection, and a substrate to act upon (heredity). Assuming that finding a flaw in the first two hypotheses would damage the third is where you go wrong. You want evidence that evolution occurs? Give me evidence that disproving your first two hypotheses disproves the third. One can very easily hypothesize a supernatural act of creation, and then creation of life, followed by biological evolution. Your argument is quite the red herring.

-Says that even though EVERY known scientific study has shown things tend to get more disordered (2nd law of Thermo), naturally we evolved and got more complex over time anyway (Again no scientific study can validate this)

Tenuously related at best... Oh well, earth is not a closed system but gets a continuous input of energy from a nearby stellar body. "Disorder" is not something that increases at the same rate everywhere in the universe.

But the universe is a closed system. And if we treat that as such then the 1st and 2nd laws apply. And if they apply how can you explain the three areas of evolution? (again 1. Stellar evolution 2. Chemical evolution 3. Biological evolution.) Because like I said above, you cant have Biological evolution without Chemical evolution and you can't have Chemical evolution without Stellar evolution and Stellar evolution completely defies the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics.

And even if it does not decrease at the same rate everywhere, it still is decreasing. The only time there is an increase in order is when there are specific set plans of action to that. Life growing, plants, animals and other things that have instructions as to increase order. But again those did not happen first as evolutionist would argue. They are millions of years worth of chance and accidents. Then how did millions of years of chance in a universe with no order that continues to gain disorder make an ordered set of instructions to build more ordered things by chance? That's logical.

Who said anything about chance? That would be completely illogical. As far as your thoughts on thermodynamics, it's difficult for me to discern where exactly your issue with evolutionary theory lies. I can think of several situations without any "plans" that increase order in a system. Crystallization, for one. Your hypothesis seems flawed in that respect.

-NO evidence of MACRO evolution has ever been seen. (but it must have regardless because we need it to have happened)

You mean one species evolving and becoming a different species? First of all, "species" are something we humans made up, they do not follow some border drawn by nature. Just take the numerous examples of crossbreeds: Wholphins, Ligers, Tigons, the Lijagulep, Polar-Grizzly bears, the Toast of Botswana, Coywolves, to name but a few, I believe Neoteny has a nice chart of salamanders around, too, if you're interested. Some of them can interbreed but others can't, it looks sort of like a ring if you sort them according to which distinct species can produce offspring together.
And do you remember those E. Coli bacteria that evolved to be able to digest citrate? That's a new species for you right there.

First of all the bacteria is still E.Coli. Secondly the Coywolves are just two "dog" animals mating. The Liger and Tigons are two "cat" animals mating. Do you get my point. They were already in a species, if you will, that allowed them to be compatible. Show me the facts or proof that we came from apes. Show me the facts or proof that a creature through genetic mutations gain or lost genetic code that turned it into a completely new animal or plant.

When does E. coli cease being E. coli? What differences would there have to be for you to conclude that one bacteria is really that different from another? Are the citrate digesting bacteria still E. coli? Why? How do you know? It's not an easy question to answer (though I have a few suggestions, if you like, all of which are superficially applicable, but break down miserably upon lucid inspection. Species boundaries, particularly in bacteria, are fragile descriptors that are severely lacking in the clarity department), yet you seem so confident that the bacteria are "still E. coli."

To illustrate:

Why are Staphylococcus aureus and S. epidermidis different species?

Aureus


Epidermidis
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio14 ... staph.html

Need help? How about this?

Click image to enlarge.

That's a little easier, but my point still stands. All that separates these two species are a few differences in a couple of chemical pathways. That really is it. And that's all that separates E. coli from citrate-metabolizing E. coli. Are they the same species? Can you really say they are when one of the defining characteristics of the species is an inability to metabolize citrate? A citrate-metabolizing bacteria is not E. coli simply because E. coli cannot metabolize citrate. So what is this bacteria?

[MeDeFe]

And the toast of Botswana? A sheep and a goat producing offspring? They're different genera (also a category made up by humans) even.

[Juan_Bottom]

Does anyone remember that article that Neoteny posted? About bacteria that were "forced" to evolve? By the end of the expirement they had a completely different species.

Those reasons are: people not wanting to believe in God and thus justifying to themselves why they are not accountable to him.

92% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. I think this statement actually tells why you don't believe in evolution way better than your questions do.

[Neutrino]

-Says that everything came from nothing by some unknown naturalistic means (but there is no proof and no scientific reason to think so except to deny a Creator)

Heh? What reason is there to assume a creator? You're trying to explain a mystery... with another mystery. Humanity has no knowledge of how the Big Bang occured, but equally it has no knowledge of how God caused it. God is completely superflous in this situation, because supposing His exisence explains nothing. Occam's Razor was designed for this express purpose; do not multiply terms unnecessilary.

-Says that even though EVERY known scientific study has shown things tend to get more disordered (2nd law of Thermo), naturally we evolved and got more complex over time anyway (Again no scientific study can validate this)

There's nothing in the second law of Thermodynamics that states that entropy must increase at the same rate at all points. The apparent local decrease in entropy of life is made up for by the quite absurd amount of entropy that life creates elseware, leading to a net increase in entropy. Air conditioners and fridges do a similar thing with the first law; they decrease the temperature in one area, but increase it in another (and then some) and in doing so are fully compliant with both the first and second laws.

-NO evidence of MACRO evolution has ever been seen. (but it must have regardless because we need it to have happened)
-Life has NEVER been seen to come from Non-life ( and again it must have regardless because we need it to have happened)

Considering that humanity can only claim to have been looking for these things for a hundred and fifty-odd years, that isn't surprising. Leave some scientific discoveries for the next generation.

No proof in that it does not have mathematical formulas that lay out scientific studies

This certainly doesn't help. It's quite nice to have a model of the universe that, you know, models the universe.

or that it is not consistent with what the actual FACTS of science tell us?

This is the main problem. It ain't.
Take the flood for example. Assuming a literal interpretation, it raises a lot of more-or-less unanswerable questions. Where did 8k's of water come from? Where did it go? How did it all get into the atmosphere as rain clouds? How did anything on the former land survive being immersed in water for so long? If you answer to even one of these is "God did it", your point is rendered invalid; "God did it" ain't a scientific answer (Obviously you can claim that God sparked off a particular event, but that event needs to have a scientific explanation).

There are three areas of evolution.

• 1. Stellar evolution

I'd be quite interested to see your arguments against this, Widowmakers.

[Backglass]

I agree with original poster.

I believe in Creation.

and ive come to the conclusion there are nefarious reasons why Evolution is pushed down our throats.

Thanks gannable.

Those reasons are: people realize magical gods don't exist and therefor are accountable to themselves and society...not some adult fairy tale.

But that is a different topic (Jesus Freaks Why do you believe?)

There...I fixed it for you.

[deceangli]

The really interesting question - to my mind, at least - is how this "debate" came to be so polarised. I don't mean in this particular forum, which is just a microcosm of the wider debate.

When did some people who call themselves Christians decide to believe in the literal truth of selected bits of Jewish theology (but not others)? Did they implicitly believe everything they were taught up to the age of 7 and then find themselves stuck with these beliefs? Where does Father Christmas fit into this ecosystem? Do creationists eat pork?

I suspect that we have an inbuilt tendency to join whichever 'gang' is the closest approximation to our current position, and then, if there's a fight, to defend even a crazy position if it belongs to the tribe we've chosen.

(Whereas a belief in the divinity of Asterix the Gaul is both logical and practical, in the 21st century)

[jonesthecurl]

these deceangli are crazy...