Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 447,136 views
AlexGTV
Yes, that's the extreme case. But I believe a part of it. How do you explain people getting taller with better nutrition? Why shouldn't they not adapt to the better nutrition?
Click to expand...

As wfooshee pointed out, that doesn't then become encoded in the genome. For instance, people from the Roman era and early dark ages were shorter on average than people today. If you were to take a group of modern children and raise them on the same diets as the Romans you'd find that their adult heights would be more in line with the Romans than their peers. Likewise if you could somehow obtain a group of ancient Roman children and raise them with a modern diet you'd discover that their adult heights would end up being much like today's adults. In other words, genes encode a predisposition for height or lack thereof, they still need the right environment to be fully expressed.

roamer2629
I'm sorry Bob, It may seem I am off topic, but my point is that this discussion may not take place in rational terms, because one of both theories assumes the existence of a God, and therefore even after all scientific explanations are given to its supporters, they will still be able to justify all its shortcomings by invoking the magic hand of superior being (Which of course is beyond our human undestanding) pulling the strings
How can any evolutionary argument be made against creationism without touching that inescapable fact?
Evolution is a scientific theory made out of facts and careful research, Creationism is a belief rooted in religion: As such is pointless to compare them.
Click to expand...

I'd somewhat agree but only to a point. Modern so-called "intelligent design" "theories" are represented as requiring an "intelligent designer" which may not necessarily have to be God, or any deity as such.

Zoom!Zoom!
That's the whole debate as there are many who disagree with it. Evolution (UCD) is not supported by the evidence (fossil record never supported it) but is also rooted in religion. There is even more evidence that is contradicting ToE like the growing number of ORFans genes.
Now if by evolution you mean just "change" then no one, including creationist, debate this.
Click to expand...

A couple of points here. First of all, you quoted me as saying something I did not say at all, and in fact was posted by roamer2629. In the future please preview your posts before clicking the "submit reply" button, or at least review your post after submitting. How would you feel if you saw something like the following, for instance?

Zoom!Zoom!
Creationism is untestable. You can't test the hypothesis that God created the universe, or kick-started life on Earth. Science doesn't have to remain open-minded to the concept as it's impossible to verify and therefore irrelevant to science. As such creationism is not to be taken seriously at all.
Click to expand...

(Note: the above is not an actual quote from Zoom!Zoom!, but rather was intended as an illustration of how he misquoted me).

Anyhow:
Zoom!Zoom!
Evolution (UCD) is not supported by the evidence (fossil record never supported it) but is also rooted in religion. There is even more evidence that is contradicting ToE like the growing number of ORFans genes.
Now if by evolution you mean just "change" then no one, including creationist, debate this.
Click to expand...

There are mountains of evidence in support of evolution, much of it indeed from the fossil record. To claim otherwise is to be woefully ignorant of much of biology, or to be deliberately misleading.

ORFans are a problem, I agree, but it's more of an area of "more research is needed" than "this disproves the whole theory of evolution" thing. And the research is being done, and results are being accomplished. Needless to say, though, a number of creationist sites have pounced on ORFans as the nail in Darwin's coffin, misinterpreting known facts about them and ignoring later research (a fairly common tactic by the way). Not least of which is, what exactly constitutes an ORFan. For instance, when the Haemophilus influenzae bacterrium was first sequenced, it appeared that 64% of its open reading frames were ORFans. Now the number is more like 5%.
 
wfooshee
Confirming to conditions of the environment is not a change in the species, and it's not evolution.
Click to expand...
Natural selection is evolution. Natural selection works by conforming to the environment by way of the best suited individual reproducing more, which changes the species DNA.

Peppered moth example
 
Last edited:
BobK
A couple of points here. First of all, you quoted me as saying something I did not say at all, and in fact was posted by roamer2629. .
Click to expand...

Sorry, My mistake. When I quoted roamer I didn't realize it was missing a "/quote" in his post.
BobK
ORFans are a problem, I agree, but it's more of an area of "more research is needed" than "this disproves the whole theory of evolution" thing. And the research is being done, and results are being accomplished. Needless to say, though, a number of creationist sites have pounced on ORFans as the nail in Darwin's coffin, misinterpreting known facts about them and ignoring later research (a fairly common tactic by the way). Not least of which is, what exactly constitutes an ORFan. For instance, when the Haemophilus influenzae bacterrium was first sequenced, it appeared that 64% of its open reading frames were ORFans. Now the number is more like 5%.
Click to expand...
ORFans is a huge problem if they continue to increase even at 5%. (As one study showed while the ORFans genes had the smallest percentage yet overall totals there were more ORFans than common genes.) As evolutionists even pointed out this would make the gene pool of the LUCA extremely large. This is a problem with abiogeneis which is now turning out to be a problem with ToE as well.
It's really is no longer a evolution vs creation debate but evolution vs information science. Now we still got a lot to learn yet so far the more we learn the bigger problem information becomes for the very simple ToE.
 
Last edited:
ORFans pose absolutely no problem to the ideas of Evolution. We're talking about genes inside organisms that mutate and evolve at extremely high rates... going through hundreds of generations every day, and sometimes stealing genes from other bacteria and other viruses.

It gets even worse when you look at the total number of "ORFans" found versus the total number of genes sequenced:

ORFan_figure-thumb.jpg

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/inordinately-fo.html

As we sequence more and more genomes, we find more and more relatedness. Pointing to ORFans is like complaining that a single red-headed Negro in a room full of brown-haired Caucasians is proof against heredity. The issue is... your sample size is not big enough.

And even then, organisms can and do produce new genetic information. It's not inconceivable that new information is created as bacteria cycle through generations a million times faster than humans... If anything, a large discrepancy in the degree of relatedness between similar bacterial strains versus the degree of relatedness between longer lived and slower reproducing animals is a strong argument in favor of evolution on the genetic scale.
 
Oh hfs, you fool.

Didn't you know that the earth is only a few thousand years old? (!)
 
PeterJB
Fossils were obviously put there to deceive and turn us towards the devil. :P
Click to expand...

There is no account of the age of the earth in the Old or New Testament. For this reason I can't see why believing in old earth creationism is more "heretic" than accepting, let's say, relativity.

I really don't see why Young Earthers really have a problem. It's not that I think that believing in a earlier timescale is bad at all, after all we are all entitled to believe what we think to be true.

Early earth history is very murky like we don't know, for example much about the evolution of the homo's (lol :D very scientific language). The thing is though we don't need any of such info to understand that the universe is very old.
 
TankAss95
Early earth history is very murky like we don't know, for example much about the evolution of the homo's (lol :D very scientific language). The thing is though we don't need any of such info to understand that the universe is very old.
Click to expand...

*Plural = homoes, using English plural grammar.

It's Greek for 'same'. What's so unscientific about that?
 
Watch out guys, Williy has given us the definitive verdict.

Lock the thread, it's over.
 
TankAss95
There is no account of the age of the earth in the Old or New Testament. For this reason I can't see why believing in old earth creationism is more "heretic" than accepting, let's say, relativity.

I really don't see why Young Earthers really have a problem. It's not that I think that believing in a earlier timescale is bad at all, after all we are all entitled to believe what we think to be true.

Early earth history is very murky like we don't know, for example much about the evolution of the homo's (lol :D very scientific language). The thing is though we don't need any of such info to understand that the universe is very old.
Click to expand...

I am a younger creationist: No carbon dating methods take into account the great flood in Genesis. This would cause a great change in the age and appearance of fossils, in which scientists do not take into account when ageing the Earth.

I really can't believe the sanity of some people when they see the beauty, greatness and complexity of the earth and don't believe in intelligent design.

Respectfully submitted

A.
 
andrewjameswatt
I am a younger creationist: No carbon dating methods take into account the great flood in Genesis. This would cause a great change in the age and appearance of fossils, in which scientists do not take into account when ageing the Earth.
Click to expand...
How exactly did a flood cause Carbon Dating errors?



andrewjameswatt
I really can't believe the sanity of some people when they see the beauty, greatness and complexity of the earth and don't believe in intelligent design.
Click to expand...
Ditto - but for me I don't get how people can see the vastness of the entire universe and realise that no one created or designed it. That the beauty is that it simply is and can be explained without reliance on a magical being.
 
Last edited:
Anderton Prime
The reason Creationists - particularly Christian ones - can't back up their theory is because their religion calls for a little thing called FAITH. That is, believing in something when you have no proof. The entire Christian religion is based on the fundamentals of faith.

If Evolutionism is true, and there is no God, then when we die we just die. If you think about this for long enough, blood actually starts to shoot out of your nose. Religion may have been created by human beings to help deal with the fear of death; religion acts as a comfort to most people who practice it...
Click to expand...

Pascal's Wager.
 
Scaff
Ditto - but for me I don't get how people can see the vastness of the entire universe and realise that no one created or designed it. That the beauty is that it simply is and can be explained without reliance on a magical being.
Click to expand...

Almost what I was going to say but you said it better than I was going to.
 
TankAss95
Explain how the universe could create itself.
Click to expand...

Fathoming the beauty, complexity, and vastness of existence is a full time job for many brilliant people. Looking at it and arriving to both of the conclusions (created vs not created) doesn't take a huge logical leap for either.
 
I don't want to seem rude if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling "andrewjameswatt" is a troll. I mean look at his picture and post count.. Unless everyone was aware and was just playing along. :lol:
 
andrewjameswatt
No carbon dating methods take into account the great flood in Genesis.
Click to expand...

They would had it actually happened. Since there's little evidence to suggest it did, then it doesn't.

Not that they'd use carbon-dating for that anyway. Floods are evident by sedimentary layers in rocks around the world.
 

Similar threads

Chris30
My Mom Has Cancer! (Need Advice)!
2 3
Replies
64
Views
6K
Chris30
Chris30
Vince_Fiero
Creation of wealth, the ideal distribution
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Vince_Fiero
Vince_Fiero
HyperState
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution question
Replies
5
Views
4K
Magog
Magog
SYLVERIS
  • Locked
OFFLINE PLAYERS VS ONLINE RACERS, OFFLINE PLAYERS WON !
Replies
1
Views
1K
daan
daan
GranTurNismo
The Future of Joe Biden
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Imari
Imari

Latest Posts

Back