Creation vs. Evolution

[lsucowboy]

What are you talking about?

read the blue....

 

[ledhed]

Yep Adam took 900 years to die ...just a believable as all the rest of the fairy tales.

 

[Touring Mars]

Has anyone mentioned Richard Dawkins yet? I saw him speak recently... he is arguably the world's foremost authority on evolutionary biology, and has written many excellent books including 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'The Selfish Gene'... he is also the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, UK...

Although I share his belief that Creationism has no place in our schools (or just about anywhere else for that matter), that doesn't make me completely ignorant of, or insensitive to the faith and beliefs of others who may or may not subscribe to the school of evolutionary theory. I just think that everyone should read one of those books I've mentioned above... Creationist or not, they are very difficult to argue against... Dawkins is not a 'genius' in the Albert Einstein sense of the word, but his genius lies in his ability to communicate clearly and simply the role and fundamental principles of Evolution... I point anyone who has any doubts firmly in his direction... 👍

When it comes to Creationism, we need to draw a distinction between faith and facts... Creationism is not based upon scientific fact. Evolution is. Creationists are fundamentally basing their view point on questions of faith, which is fine.. I won't argue with people about their faith, and people's faith should always be respected. But just as a person's faith should not be up for debate, I would say that as a scientist, the opposite applies... a person's facts should always be open to question. But the difference is that you CAN question evolution because it is based upon facts. Indeed, as should be in any scientific endeavour, those who do NOT question, and experiment etc. are usually the people who get things wrong.

 

[Swift]

Yep Adam took 900 years to die ...just a believable as all the rest of the fairy tales.

LOL, you beleive in Evolution but don't believe that people lived for different amounts of time over the past Billion or so years. Man, that's laughable. Especially when there are animals that live for a few centuries.

 

[Famine]

But according to you, we don't have any common ancestors with other animals, so why would we share their traits?

 

[Swift]

But according to you, we don't have any common ancestors with other animals, so why would we share their traits?

Exactly, so that's not a problem for me. But for an evolutionist to think that people always lived for the life span we do now doesn't make any sense does it?

 

[Danoff]

LOL, you beleive in Evolution but don't believe that people lived for different amounts of time over the past Billion or so years. Man, that's laughable. Especially when there are animals that live for a few centuries.

If we all decended from a dude who lived to be 900 years old, we would also have a very long life expectancy since we'd have common genes (you know, the reason that you children will look like you). So for him to have lived to be 900 there would have to have been some sort of crazy divine intervention of some kind - that's hard to swallow.

I don't think any animals live to be 900 on the planet. Maybe some trees would, but... almost nothing lives to be that old.

 

[Swift]

If we all decended from a dude who lived to be 900 years old, we would also have a very long life expectancy since we'd have common genes (you know, the reason that you children will look like you). So for him to have lived to be 900 there would have to have been some sort of crazy divine intervention of some kind - that's hard to swallow.

I don't think any animals live to be 900 on the planet. Maybe some trees would, but... almost nothing lives to be that old.

Accodring to scripture. Many people in the bible before the flood lived over 500 years. Including Mathusala that Lived longer then Adam.

I have faith to believe that there are things in this world that science simply can't and won't be able to explain. Nothing wrong with science, but it has it's limits.

I quote one of my favorite versus in the Bible(it's also in my profile)

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

 

[Danoff]

Accodring to scripture. Many people in the bible before the flood lived over 500 years. Including Mathusala that Lived longer then Adam.

Uh huh. That sounds totally reasonable.

With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Sure, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. With God, anything is possible. Nice ace in the whole. It also sounds like a totally made up reason right?

You didn't answer my question. Which one sounds to you like it was fabricated?

 

[Swift]

Uh huh. That sounds totally reasonable.



Sure, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. With God, anything is possible. Nice ace in the whole. It also sounds like a totally made up reason right?

You didn't answer my question. Which one sounds to you like it was fabricated?

Evolution. Why? Because of what Famine said a while back. Evolution doesn't need the ooze and the ooze doesn't need evolution. So, how can either be even remotely true without the other. The theory of the ooze dictates the theory of evolution must be true. But since the evolutionary theory doesn't explain the beginning, it has no foundation.

You know what, we both believe that we came from nothing. You just believe there was a big bang umpteen trillion years ago and this great universe, galaxy, solar system, planet and everything on it is an accident. Where I believe it came from a devine plan.

Also, I don't hold to what someone said about us being the only life in the universe. I don't know that. I seriously doubt that God would create something so vast that as the universe and we are the only life forms in it.

 

[Danoff]

Evolution. Why? Because of what Famine said a while back. Evolution doesn't need the ooze and the ooze doesn't need evolution. So, how can either be even remotely true without the other. The theory of the ooze dictates the theory of evolution must be true. But since the evolutionary theory doesn't explain the beginning, it has no foundation.

So because famine said something you didn't quite understand, you believe that it makes less sense than us being wisked up from dirt by a divine being (that we can't see or hear but trust me he's there)? You think that because Famine said that evolution is provable currently without requireing evidence that we came from goo (which is it is by the way), and that life froms forming in goo does not require evolution (which is also the case) that you'd rather believe in religion. The same religion (christianity) that sends a conclave in to hear from God who should be the next pope and then sends out smoke signals to tell the town that God has spoken.

The same religion (christianity) that tells you that the 10 commandments (including that part about the harvest) must be followed because God wrote it on tablets for some dude to carry down from a mountain. The same religion that believes that all animals today are inbred from two originators that were saved from a worldwide flood caused by said divine being by a 600 year old dude who was given long life so that he could finish his massive boat that god told him to make.

That's more believable than the fact that species change over time?

Got it.

 

[Swift]

So because famine said something you didn't quite understand, you believe that it makes less sense than us being wisked up from dirt by a divine being (that we can't see or hear but trust me he's there)? You think that because Famine said that evolution is provable currently without requireing evidence that we came from goo (which is it is by the way), and that life froms forming in goo does not require evolution (which is also the case) that you'd rather believe in religion. The same religion (christianity) that sends a conclave in to hear from God who should be the next pope and then sends out smoke signals to tell the town that God has spoken.

The same religion (christianity) that tells you that the 10 commandments (including that part about the harvest) must be followed because God wrote it on tablets for some dude to carry down from a mountain. The same religion that believes that all animals today are inbred from two originators that were saved from a worldwide flood caused by said divine being by a 600 year old dude who was given long life so that he could finish his massive boat that god told him to make.

That's more believable than the fact that species change over time?

Got it.

Wow, sounds like you're getting a little upset there Danoff. And yes, I totally understood what FAmine was saying. But it simply makes no sense.

And who ever said anything about the Pope? Did I even mention Catholics execpt when speaking of their form of the bible?

Ok, I want it broken down. Everyone has said that these molecules come together and they form amino acids, the acids form proteins and the proteins became sells. Now how is that NOT evolution? Come on, I really want to know because the way that everyone has been explaining it that's what's going on. It went from molecules, to acid, to protein to cells.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, I want it broken down. Everyone has said that these molecules come together and they form amino acids, the acids form proteins and the proteins became sells. Now how is that NOT evolution? Come on, I really want to know because the way that everyone has been explaining it that's what's going on. It went from molecules, to acid, to protein to cells.

For the most part I'll leave it to Famine. But I beleive it's considered a chemical reaction rather than evolution when it happens between organic compounds rather than living creatures.... Famine would know better than me though.

 

[Mark T]

*edit* wrong thread.

 

[Touring Mars]

There is some interesting stuff concerning this debate here:- 👍

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml

As for the explanation of how living things evolved from first principles, I'm no expert myself, but this stuff might help...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

I'd reiterate though, being not particularly religious myself (OK, OK... I'm an atheist!), I'd try reading some Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan before I trusted any 'non-scientific' literature when it comes to this debate... they're far more qualified than any of us will probably ever be (with the possible exception of Famine maybe ) to answer these complicated questions...

 

[Famine]

Evolution. Why? Because of what Famine said a while back. Evolution doesn't need the ooze and the ooze doesn't need evolution. So, how can either be even remotely true without the other. The theory of the ooze dictates the theory of evolution must be true. But since the evolutionary theory doesn't explain the beginning, it has no foundation.

Once again, Evolutionary Theory does not explain the beginnings of life, because that is NOT WITHIN THE REMIT OF THE THEORY.

The science behind manufacturing the keyboard you're using does not explain the beginnings of plastics and the printed circuit board. That doesn't mean your keyboard doesn't exist. Although I wish it didn't.

 

[Swift]

Once again, Evolutionary Theory does not explain the beginnings of life, because that is NOT WITHIN THE REMIT OF THE THEORY.

The science behind manufacturing the keyboard you're using does not explain the beginnings of plastics and the printed circuit board. That doesn't mean your keyboard doesn't exist. Although I wish it didn't.

Again, without plastics or the circuit board the keyboard COULDN'T exist. So, how does it all work again?

 

[PS]

Again, without plastics or the circuit board the keyboard COULDN'T exist. So, how does it all work again?

...

He's just saying what evolutionary theory covers. When someone is explaining how a keyboard is built, they don't go all the way back to extracting oil/petroleum to be refined into plastic, to be ....

It covers what you assume is already there, the pieces of the keyboard to be assembelled (sp?) and distributed.

And to answer your question is quite easy, anyway.

Everything is made of atoms. Ball of incredibly dense atoms explodes. Everything hurled outwards. With immense heat, gas and vapors form. Eventually, the gas and vapors and whatever solids are left over begin to collect. This forms a planet. With gravity, everythig is held onto the planet. With magma, rock, gas (N2, O2, H2...etc) etc. on the earth, some of the atoms may combine to form molecules. These may form other more complex gasses (CH4 [methane], C3H8[propane], C4H10 [butane] ), or solids C12H22O11, or liquids (ie. H20), or acids. Acids like acetic acid (C2H3O2), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), carbonic acid (H2CO3) and phosphoric acid (H3PO4) may form with other atoms (ie. O, H, Fe, K, Na, etc) or molecules to form the proteins. Enough proteins and you have a cell. Enough cells and you have a bacteria. Even more cells and you have a parasite or virus, and even more cells you get an animal/insect. Is it that hard to see how it could form? Through the unfathomable millions of years is it really that difficult to see how life could have formed?

 

[Swift]

PS, I meant how does evolution all work again. Here's my point. While the producer of the keyboard doesn't go into deep detail about how the plastic got there or even the labels on the keys, they recognize that without those things their product couldn't possibly exist. Without the ooze, the theory of evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Famine]

Oh for fudge's sakes Swift. I've covered this three times. There's only a limited number of really simple ways I can put it.

NO-ONE STUDYING EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY CARES ABOUT PRIMORDIAL SOUP THEORY, BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT DISCIPLINE RESEARCHED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

It's plainly obvious that we have Evolution BECAUSE we have variety of life BECAUSE of the Soup. But biochemistry, fluid dynamics and paleogeology do not play any part in Evolutionary Biology which is the study of speciation of living organisms.

Primordial Soup theory is as valid as Evolutionary theory. They are two points on the chain. But there is no requirement to be totally-versed in Primordial Soup - or Accretion Disk theory, or the Big Bang theory, or M-theory, ALL OF WHICH were precursors Evolution requires - because it is a DIFFERENT DISCIPLINE, STUDIED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

 

[PS]

PS, I meant how does evolution all work again. Here's my point. While the producer of the keyboard doesn't go into deep detail about how the plastic got there or even the labels on the keys, they recognize that without those things their product couldn't possibly exist. Without the ooze, the theory of evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Who says it needs an ooze? That's just another theory. Just because it's there doesn't mean it has to be a part of everything.

 

[Swift]

Oh for fudge's sakes Swift. I've covered this three times. There's only a limited number of really simple ways I can put it.

NO-ONE STUDYING EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY CARES ABOUT PRIMORDIAL SOUP THEORY, BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT DISCIPLINE RESEARCHED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

It's plainly obvious that we have Evolution BECAUSE we have variety of life BECAUSE of the Soup. But biochemistry, fluid dynamics and paleogeology do not play any part in Evolutionary Biology which is the study of speciation of living organisms.

Primordial Soup theory is as valid as Evolutionary theory. They are two points on the chain. But there is no requirement to be totally-versed in Primordial Soup - or Accretion Disk theory, or the Big Bang theory, or M-theory, ALL OF WHICH were precursors Evolution requires - because it is a DIFFERENT DISCIPLINE, STUDIED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

See, that's what I'm saying. You have all these theories that may or may not need each other. But they just happen to fit together. Researched by different people at different times in different places of the world.

And that's more valid then different men, at different times, at different parts of the world writing the bible because of what?

Would you agree that the Evolutionary theory is still sound without the ooze?

 

[smellysocks12]

Just because science can't explain it doesn't mean that religion can. Just assuming things because they can't be explained is dumb.

 

[Swift]

Just because science can't explain it doesn't mean that religion can. Just assuming things because they can't be explained is dumb.

Do me a favor, the next time you post think out what you say. You just made a great argument for what I'm saying against the theory of evolution.

 

[smellysocks12]

Do me a favor, the next time you post think out what you say. You just made a great argument for what I'm saying against the theory of evolution.

The evolution theory can be explained, the creation theory is fiction. I'm not even going to bother finding arguments because I'm right anyway and you will counter the good arguments with the typical biblical gibberish like you've been doing in the past 100 pages of this topic.

 

[smellysocks12]

Maybe God, a higher power, whatever you want to call it, created the way the situation is now. A higher power might have created the evolution system, but the hocus pocus story of the creation is bogus. Anyone who thinks this really happened probably believes in the easter bunny as well.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The evolution theory can be explained,

Just because it can be explained, does not make it fact.

the creation theory is fiction.

In your opinion.

I'm not even going to bother finding arguments because I'm right anyway

You sound so sure of yourself -- very arrogant.

and you will counter the good arguments with the typical biblical gibberish like you've been doing in the past 100 pages of this topic.

At least he has an argument.

Now for my question: Without oxygen, how can amino acids exist?

 

[smellysocks12]

Just because it can be explained, does not make it fact.

Nope, but more likely than something that can't be explained.

In your opinion.

Yep.

You sound so sure of yourself -- very arrogant.

If you want to call that arrogant then so be it.

At least he has an argument.

So did I, yesterday, before I got sick of this cycle yes / no cycle that this discussion is in and will be as long as it lasts.

Now for my question: Without oxygen, how can amino acids exist?

I could give a **** less. I didn't study chemistry.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I could give a **** less. I didn't study chemistry.

The question was not directed ONLY to you. If anyone can answer, I would like to know.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Now how is that NOT evolution? Come on, I really want to know because the way that everyone has been explaining it that's what's going on. It went from molecules, to acid, to protein to cells.

I love reading these threads...

Well Famine is the biologist but I think a simple explanation as to how the formation of amino acids is NOT evolution... is breeding. The principle of natural selection.
Bacteria can just sub divide or clone themselves, this is not going to lead to any kind of evolving.

Earlier you asked why don't we see evolution happening all the time...well you do. It's just very slow. The average height of modern man has increased dramatically since the middle ages. There is the theory that shoes will lead to the little toe becoming vestigial, already it has little or no function, or indeed strength. How about the appendix...no longer required to digest grass and coarse fibre.
Camels born in captivity, in Europe ( I know, odd example ) don't have the same amount of padding on their knees as they don't need to protect them from the hot desert sand.
How about all the species of modern dogs...new species created from selective breeding, of course speeded up somewhat by man's intervention.
Don't forget that dog's came from wolves, the theory is that man kept the most docile friendly puppies, and bred from them until a domestic animal was created. Same for cats.

Facetiously ...can I ask you what exactly it is that God has been doing since he created everything in 6 days...has he been resting for thousands of years.