Creation vs. Evolution

[Swift]

Professor Kerner is real?

Face it, you saw the quotes and loved it. You didn't bother to wonder who any of the people were, whether or not they said those things at all and indeed when their "scientific" opinion was formed. You posted it up without a second though.

And that's the problem. You're so used to not thinking for yourself that you don't. Anything pro-Creation MUST be right, because someone pro-Creation said it... Come ON...

See, again. you dodged what I said like I "dodged" what you said.

Yes, when I found the quotes and found identical information specifically about Thomas Huxley (if you notice that's who I quoted in the post) I was very happy and pleasently surprised. So what?

I hate this "I don't think for myself" concept. You tell me that you don't "believe" in anything. That's quite the impossibility but whatever. But since I have faith in God and his word and you have faith in evolution(since it can't be proved without any doubts) That somehow I don't think for myself.

Actually, I'm at the point where I agree with Ledhed. this is really getting boring. Not because you constantly obliterate my evidence, but just because it's a circle.

EDIT:

OK, here's a PHd. Yes, he's a christian: Brian Stone qualified with a B.Sc. (Eng.) and Ph.D. from the University of Bristol, and has been Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Western Australia since late 1981.

Do we reject what he says as well?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/professor.asp

Or how about these?

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument."
Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg, pg. 20.

"In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."
(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)

And these guys are still around.

 

[sicbeing]

But since I have faith in God and his word and you have faith in evolution(since it can't be proved without any doubts)

And religion doesn't have it's doubts? 👍

Even if i came here and started talking about how i spilled ketchup on my clothes while eating, thered still be doubts whether I was lying or not. Not many things can be said without doubts, the only way that happens is if you were there.

-edit-

and also remember, there are a lot of drugs out there, someone coulda seen smelled or heard things that were never there.

 

[Touring Mars]

OK, here's a PHd. Yes, he's a christian: Brian Stone qualified with a B.Sc. (Eng.) and Ph.D. from the University of Bristol, and has been Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Western Australia since late 1981.

Do we reject what he says as well?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/professor.asp

In terms of creation theory, yes, we should reject what he says... baloney is baloney, whether or not Brian Stone, Sir Isaac Newton or even Albert Einstein himself believed it...

He claims that evolution is not a science, but a belief... once again, we find someone (and this guy really should know better), confusing the actual process of evolution with the theories that attempt to explain it... there is plenty of evidence that evolution occurs - there are also many competing theories as to how the variety of processes that occur do so the way that they do.. hence 'Evolution Theory' is continually being refined to explain more accurately the observed reality... but that Evolution 'theory' is not 'fact' does not change the facts as observed in countless experiments over the decades...

 

[Swift]

In terms of creation theory, yes, we should reject what he says... baloney is baloney, whether or not Brian Stone, Sir Isaac Newton or even Albert Einstein himself believed it...

He claims that evolution is not a science, but a belief... once again, we find someone (and this guy really should know better), confusing the actual process of evolution with the theories that attempt to explain it... there is plenty of evidence that evolution occurs - there are also many competing theories as to how the variety of processes that occur do so the way that they do.. hence 'Evolution Theory' is continually being refined to explain more accurately the observed reality... but that Evolution 'theory' is not 'fact' does not change the facts as observed in countless experiments over the decades...

Yep, we reject it. Ok, just checking. Thank you.

 

[Touring Mars]

Or how about these?

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument."
Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg, pg. 20.

"In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."
(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)

And these guys are still around.

OK, now we're talking about CREATION again, not Creation Theory (Biblical Literalism)... the first two quotes are simply saying that no amount of evolution theory can explain the origins of life... perhaps that's true... but neither does creationism...

Denton stands quite isolated in his views on evolution. He is a learned scholar, fair enough, but Dawkins arguments are infinitely more convincing..

 

[Famine]

See, again. you dodged what I said like I "dodged" what you said.

Not at all. You're still more willing to "believe" the writings of men from many generations ago - or those who are fictional - than the studies of modern one. Thomas Huxley... I ask you. Who next? Pliny the Elder?

OK, here's a PHd. Yes, he's a christian: Brian Stone qualified with a B.Sc. (Eng.) and Ph.D. from the University of Bristol, and has been Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Western Australia since late 1981.

Do we reject what he says as well?

On the subject of Mechanical Engineering, yes. But when he says things like:

"‘If you define science as repeatable, reliable, observational fact, it’s obvious that evolution doesn’t really qualify as science. People make these huge jumps; they see these tiny changes happening today, and so they conclude that all life forms have arisen from chemicals by a continuous process over millions of years. That’s not science, that’s a belief.’"

He's SO far out of his depth it's no longer funny. Apart from the first part of the first sentence everything in there is complete and total nonsense.

He's an engineer - and a "convinced" Christian who "believes" in literal Genesis Creation, scarcely someone with a disinterested view in the subject - not a scientist, and certainly not an evolutionary biologist. Should we take his word as fact because he's got a doctorate? Well, would you trust the word of someone who has a Ph.D. in Media Studies to do your brain operation?

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

He's citing Louis Pasteur for evolutionary biology?

George Wald was a Nobel Laureate research opthalmologist who died in 1997, not an "evolutionist" who is "still around". Again, Ph.D. in Media Studies doing brain operations... And again, this was a quote from NINETEEN FIFTY FOUR. That's fifty-one, count 'em, fifty-one years of scientific research which has uncovered more and more evidence since. The scientist modifies his position according to the evidence available.

In fact, shifting 16 years later, Dr. Wald said this in a lecture on death.

You see, every creature alive on the earth today represents an unbroken line of life that stretches back to the first primitive organism to appear on this planet; and that is about three billion years. That really is immortality.

Hmm.

"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument."
Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg, pg. 20.

That'll be Dr. N. Chandra Wickramasinge of Cardiff University, a proponent of "panspermia" (life originating in deep space) and author of the paper "Unity of cosmic life and the inevitability of evolved life forms"?

Just checking.

"In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."
(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)

And these guys are still around.

Denton's book - published in 1985 - was ripped apart quite comprehensively elsewhere. I won't go into it in detail, but his WHOLE position hinged on a paper by Cuvier. From EIGHTEEN TWENTY-NINE.

And let's use Denton's own words to condemn him further...

My fundamental problem with the theory is that there are so many highly complicated organs, systems and structures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I cannot conceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of random changes.

That's an argument?

But, as it happens, I don't need to do anything to tear apart Denton or his 1985 book. Because you see in 1998 he published another one. Which entirely renounced his previous one.

And this guy's still around...

 

[Touring Mars]

The words stick, pipe and smoke it spring to mind...

 

[Swift]

Actually, I respect that very much.

Now, please show me all the scientists that say evolution is truth.

Edit: Also, since has anyone seen a new species just appear?

 

[PS]

Actually, I respect that very much.

Now, please show me all the scientists that say evolution is truth.

Edit: Also, since has anyone seen a new species just appear?

I have. It was called a puppy. I got my first when I was about two. Then I saw a cat at my aunts house. Then, in 1997 I saw a bald eagle. Just, *poof* right there in front of me. I also saw it disappear. Now that's crazy.

 

[Touring Mars]

Actually, I respect that very much.

Now, please show me all the scientists that say evolution is truth.

Edit: Also, since has anyone seen a new species just appear?

I'm sure you do... didn't mean to sound too fecetious...

However, if you would like a lst of scientists who subscribe to the evolutionary train of thought, we could be here all day... but just as an example, I could name a list of people that work in my department that have entire bookshelves of books on evolution, including my friend Richard, who also happens to be editor of Nature Heredity...

A good place to look is a book called 'Evolution' by Mark Ridley... it's a text book, but it's excellent... also, anything by Richard Dawkins (especially 'The Blind Watchmaker'), which explains eloquently the argument against intellegent design...

As for the new species suddenly appearing, well, this is a great argument against the creationist point of view that the Earth is young... if the Earth were just 6000 years old, you would have to agree that new species (given their sheer number) must just 'appear' all the time... this (of course, and as you rightly point out), doesn't happen... new 'species' evolve over vast periods of time, changing subtely from one generation to the next... species such as we humans have evolved over millions of years, from the first vertebrates... so, if you want to see a 'new species', look in the mirror...because in terms of evolution (and in terms of reality), we are the newest form of our evolutionary path...

 

[James2097]

"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument."
Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg, pg. 20.

On the contrary, Mr. Swift, I would think that the ease of a huge array of wildly different successful life forms on Earth appearing (over a relatively short time planet-wise) could point towards my idea that 'life' as it is, must actually be a relatively common occurance in the universe, given the right planet/climate. To think humans are the only intelligent life, or Earth has the ONLY life in the endless expanse of the universe is arrogant in the extreme.

We like to feel we are special, creationism (and religion) is there to service that need.
Myself, I believe my life is entirely insignificant in terms of the greater universe. It is no miracle I exist, nor is it a miracle I am smart enough to type on this computer keyboard about abstract concepts. Miracles don't exist, they're a cheap way of explaining things that science hasn't worked out yet. Miracles simply put things into a too-hard basket. Religion and creationist theory pretty much revolves around putting things in this too-hard basket and expecting everyone to accept it. Which of course is complete balony.

 

[Touring Mars]

Here's a link to the website associated with Ridley's textbook on Evolution..

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/

The A-Z section is very useful, and introduces some of the key concepts and facts in an easy to understand way.. it even mentions creationism!

On a side note: Did anyone happen to see 'Hitchhicker's Guide To The Galaxy' on the TV last night (UK, BBC2)??

Brilliant comedy.. but remarkably insightful aswell... after the Earth is destroyed, the 'designer' (Slartibartfast) (who specialises in coastlines, and won an award for his work on the coast of Norway), has been assigned the task of designing 'Africa' on the replacement Earth that is being created... but he's disappointed since his experience with fjords and glaciers will not be used, because 'they didn't want them in Africa'...

Raises an excellent question... is Africa like Africa because it was created/designed that way? (If the Earth is only 6000 years old, it must have been created that way), or is it like it is now simply because it lies on the equator? (ie. by chance?) I fancy it is the latter.... similar arguments can be raised against anyone who believes that species (such as ourselves) were 'designed' for their environments... it is far more believable that species adapt to fit their surroundings, and not the other way around... 💡

 

[Famine]

Added to that, "Young Earth" Continental Drift must be measurable in mph, considering the fossils you can find.

Edit: I just calculated this for fun... the UK and France were once joined. They have separated and the UK drifts away slowly. If the Earth is only 6,000 years old and the UK split as soon as the Earth was created, the average speed of the UK away from France would be 257 inches per year, or 0.75 inches a day. This is the equivalent of 10 inches of separation every year for every mile of the Channel Tunnel, which would tear it apart...

No wonder it's so windy round here.

 

[PS]

Added to that, "Young Earth" Continental Drift must be measurable in mph, considering the fossils you can find.

Edit: I just calculated this for fun... the UK and France were once joined. They have separated and the UK drifts away slowly. If the Earth is only 6,000 years old and the UK split as soon as the Earth was created, the average speed of the UK away from France would be 257 inches per year, or 0.75 inches a day. This is the equivalent of 10 inches of separation every year for every mile of the Channel Tunnel, which would tear it apart...
No wonder it's so windy round here.

You mean because you're flying right into Ireland and then on to take out Iceland? Yah, I'd say that would be some cause for concern.

But in all seriousness, doesn't Europe move around an average of 3cm's/year?

 

[Touring Mars]

This is the equivalent of 10 inches of separation every year for every mile of the Channel Tunnel, which would tear it apart...

yeh.. but no.. but yeh.. as Ian Curtis said "Love Will Tear Us Apart" anyway... maybe creationists don't listen to Joy Division... (let's hope so )

 

[James2097]

On a side note: Did anyone happen to see 'Hitchhicker's Guide To The Galaxy' on the TV last night (UK, BBC2)??

Brilliant comedy.. but remarkably insightful aswell... after the Earth is destroyed, the 'designer' (Slartibartfast) (who specialises in coastlines, and won an award for his work on the coast of Norway), has been assigned the task of designing 'Africa' on the replacement Earth that is being created... but he's disappointed since his experience with fjords and glaciers will not be used, because 'they didn't want them in Africa'...

I LOVE Douglas Adams. Seen the new movie yet?
I also think Red Dwarf is the best comedy show ever made, it also raises some really interesting sci-fi and big-picture issues, right from the school of Douglas Adam's style of comedy!

 

[Touring Mars]

I LOVE Douglas Adams. Seen the new movie yet?
I also think Red Dwarf is the best comedy show ever made, it also raises some really interesting sci-fi and big-picture issues, right from the school of Douglas Adam's style of comedy!

To my shame, I haven't seen the new movie yet, but have been watching the old series on TV... I was never into Red Dwarf at the time, but have since seen the error of my ways...

Speaking about Douglas Adams, the man was a genius, and happened to be good friends (unsurprisingly) with a certain Richard Dawkins, the man every creationist loves to hate...

When Douglas Adams died, Dawkins wrote this in the Guardian ...http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,490295,00.html - from which he notes their similar views on creationism/intellegent design in this quote:-

"To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow preordained for us, because we are so well suited to live in it, he mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."

Some folks from work were supposed to be going to see H2G2 at the cinema, so I will go if they are going, but I'm such a lazy SOB, that I'll probably just wait and read the book...

 

[James2097]

Honest, they haven't screwed up the movie at all (except maybe the design of Marvin and the Heart of Gold doesn't look like a sneaker anymore - bah!) - the casting is great and as true to the books as you can get for the movie format... Worth seeing on the big screen!

P.S. Very elegant quote there!

 

[Touring Mars]

Honest, they haven't screwed up the movie at all (except maybe the design of Marvin and the Heart of Gold doesn't look like a sneaker anymore - bah!) - the casting is great and as true to the books as you can get for the movie format... Worth seeing on the big screen!

P.S. Very elegant quote there!

will make an effort and go to see it... 👍

I recently went to a Richard Dawkins book launch, and he had his wife with him... she used to be in Dr. Who.. she was his female side kick, the stuck-up one with the long hair... I went with some friends from work, and it was quite hilarious when, during the Q&A session at the end, someone asked him what evidence there was for evolution... after a slight pause, and a metaphorical slap of the forehead, he simply told the man to visit a library... there is such a mountain of evidence, but it remains difficult to convince some people to acknowledge that the mountain is even there, let alone get them to climb it...

 

[JacktheHat]

will make an effort and go to see it... 👍

I recently went to a Richard Dawkins book launch, and he had his wife with him... she used to be in Dr. Who.. she was his female side kick, the stuck-up one with the long hair... I went with some friends from work, and it was quite hilarious when, during the Q&A session at the end, someone asked him what evidence there was for evolution... after a slight pause, and a metaphorical slap of the forehead, he simply told the man to visit a library... there is such a mountain of evidence, but it remains difficult to convince some people to acknowledge that the mountain is even there, let alone get them to climb it...

Douglas Adams offers a possible explanation for this, the 'Other people's problem' field (or something similar). It's mentioned shortly after Arthur and Ford materialize at Lord's cricket ground (in the books at least, I haven't seen the film yet).

Basically, there's a big spaceship parked behind one of the screens but nobody sees it as it couldn't possibly be there...

 

[Touring Mars]

Douglas Adams offers a possible explanation for this, the 'Other people's problem' field (or something similar). It's mentioned shortly after Arthur and Ford materialize at Lord's cricket ground (in the books at least, I haven't seen the film yet).

Basically, there's a big spaceship parked behind one of the screens but nobody sees it as it couldn't possibly be there...

he he...

Just found this on the BBC website...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4576855.stm

Creation and evolution...

 

[James2097]

Lets hope 'Spore' is actually pulled off well (unlike B+W) because its a great concept!

I think any pro creationist certainly has a big case of the 'S.E.P. field'!
"I didn't see that library! What are museums?"


Edit: Looking at the post below, Famine's right again (damn him he never gets much wrong). Checking the book, it is indeed the "Someone Else's Problem" field.

 

[Famine]

If I recall correctly, it's the "SEP" field (Somebody Else's Problem). It works out as less complicated to engineer than a cloak - people just ignore whatever's covered by an SEP field because, simply, it's Somebody Else's Problem...

Like the ship powered by the Bad News drive - because Bad News always gets there first.

 

[Pako]

Had a thought today while we were at the park.

While I was there, I wondered, Why would we (assuming evolution explains origins) evolve to feel pleasures of beauty, art, music, ect..... What purpose of survival do these things have to do with?

 

[Famine]

It's a natural result of higher brain function. In fact, many animals get some form of pleasure from aesthetics - the "shepherding instinct" of dogs being a case in point. They like their sheep in bunches...

 

[Pako]

It's a natural result of higher brain function. In fact, many animals get some form of pleasure from aesthetics - the "shepherding instinct" of dogs being a case in point. They like their sheep in bunches...

So dog's get pleasure from this? It might not be for aesthetic reasons why those dogs do that.

I would agree, higher brain function, but this doesn't explain or answer my question.

 

[smellysocks12]

I also read that we inherited a taste for fat, salt and sweet food because of the more difficult to survive in environment we used to live in. These types of food would build up reserves quicker, so through natural selection only the people who liked fat food and other substances with lots of energy (sugar) survived, the others starved and couldn't reproduce. That's why 65% of Americans have overweight now, since they like their oreo cookies too much.

 

[Pako]

Huh, hadn't heard that one.... *goes for a second bowl of Ice Cream*

 

[Famine]

It's what is known as an "emergent property". There's nothing mysterious about it.

Our brains have evolved to the point where they think, reason, communicate and anticipate (each of which is an emergent property it its own right). As a result of our ability to do these things - each having its own evolutionary niche and place in the human's ability to survive - other things, such as aesthetics and poetry, Schadenfreude and malice, arise.

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, God created the earth about 6,000 years ago.

October 23rd, 4004 BC to be exact...

Do you honestly believe that? Does that mean you also believe that God strategically placed fossils, and archeological remnants of every variety, for us to now find...? If so, ask yourself this... why would he do that? To confuse us? To keep the past an unknowable mystery? Isn't the concept that God is deceitful blasphemy? Isn't it easier to accept the idea that evolution is God's method of Creation?, and that is has been happening for billions of years, and that fossils are really that old?... 💡