Creation vs. Evolution

[Tacet_Blue]

BTW, why would a lizard be better off without legs?

So it can chase its food down tight holes without getting stuck

Couldn't go without looking the embryo thing up

CHAPTER XIV - MUTUAL AFFINITIES OF ORGANIC BEINGS:
MORPHOLOGY: EMBRYOLOGY: RUDIMENTARY ORGANS

Not to be confused with Recapitulation theory or Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny or even Anthropomorphisation ...wow... they is some big words

night

 

[Earth]

Every house has a maker,

but the one who created all things was God.

- Apostle Paul

 

[Duke]

Yeah? And...?

 

[Earth]

Every house needs a maker

Doesnt life need a maker?

 

[ledhed]

Really now ..interesting stuff...musta' been a nice fatty.

 

[Pako]

It makes logical sense that everything needs a start. What's not logical is where the beginning "stuff" came from. Has it always been? Don't think so, that would make it infinite. It it were infinite, it would be what has been described by characteristics know to be held by God. This is one of the supporting conclusions for God's existence, thus supporting a creation theory.

 

[code_kev]

Every house has a maker,

but the one who created all things was God.

- Apostle Paul

*wipes tears away from laughing*

How naive.

 

[Famine]

It makes logical sense that everything needs a start. What's not logical is where the beginning "stuff" came from. Has it always been? Don't think so, that would make it infinite. It it were infinite, it would be what has been described by characteristics know to be held by God. This is one of the supporting conclusions for God's existence, thus supporting a creation theory.

And yet also a supporting conclusion against God's existence, because it fails to acknowledge where God came from - and "infinite" is one of the characteristics used by men to describe their God, not "known to be held by God".

 

[Earth]

I have a question

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[Andrew R]

I actually had this argument with one of my god loving friends yesterday. He was for creation obviously but didn't have any facts to back up his claims and just laughed when I tried to explain the evolution theory and then asked "Why aren't monkeys still turning into people then?". I get into these arguments quite often, even had it a few times with one particular religion teacher at school who would try and change the subject as quick as possible and even turned one of my questions around into a story about a woodpecker somehow so I'm guessing he wasn't quite sure either.

It is a touchy subject for a lot of people so I try to keep it clean and not overly offend them but it's hard sometimes when they just refuse to see a different point of view and just keep a closed mind.

 

[Earth]

it's hard sometimes when they just refuse to see a different point of view and just keep a closed mind.

that can be said for both sides

please, answer my question

and I'll answer everyone you have

 

[Andrew R]

I try to keep an open mind on it. I listen to the argument and I don't just shoot down their beliefs but sometimes they just push too much into it.


I'd say the chicken came first and the chicken evolved from something else that is now long gone.

 

[Famine]

I have a question

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Already answered - earlier in the thread and in many other places on this site too.

Buuuut, I'm feeling munificent. The egg. Unless you're referring specifically to the chicken egg, in which case it's the chicken.

 

[emad]

Already answered - earlier in the thread and in many other places on this site too.

Buuuut, I'm feeling munificent. The egg. Unless you're referring specifically to the chicken egg, in which case it's the chicken.

isn't it a bit of both if you follow evolution? With every egg, you come closer to the chicken being born since the bird growing from each egg adapts and changes slightly until it's perfectly suited to the environment.

 

[Duke]

Correct, it's a bit of both. But at some point, there was a time when the egg became a modern chicken, so the egg came first.

Of course, this "chicken and egg" question is a smarmy little trick that Creationists think they're playing on us. They think they'll catch us out, but really it's because they don't understand evolution themselves.

They insist on seeing each species as a fixed, immutable entity, perhaps part of a series of such fixed entities (if they are somewhat realists). So since they cannot see a species as a continuum but rather only comprehend it as a point (what we think of as a 'chicken'), they think we can't answer a question like "which came first".

 

[Pako]

And yet also a supporting conclusion against God's existence, because it fails to acknowledge where God came from - and "infinite" is one of the characteristics used by men to describe their God, not "known to be held by God".

God is the beginning and the end. He is infinite, and therefore needs not to be created because He has always been. Through Him all things have been created.

This doesn't support against God's existence at all. You think that everything came from something assuming that you believe and support evolution. The fallacies in that is at it's origin, something had to come from nothing. This is the only logical conclusion. This conclusion only leads to another question, "Where did that original something come from?". The answer would be some infinite source that could 'create' something out of nothing.

 

[Famine]

The universe is the beginning and the end. It is infinite, and therefore needs not to be created because it has always been. Through it all things have been created.

This doesn't support against the Universe's existence at all. You think that everything came from something assuming that you believe and support Creation. The fallacies in that is at its origin, someone had to come from nothing. This is the only logical conclusion. This conclusion only leads to another question, "Where did that original someone come from?". The answer would be some infinite source that could 'create' something out of nothing.

See?

You argue that God is infinite, thus need not be created since He has ALWAYS been. For a given value of "always", so is the Universe - at the Big Bang time was also created, thus the universe, as the source of space-time must also be infinite as it contains all time and all space.

Your only support for God in this line of questioning is a logical "leap of faith" (no pun intended). You argue that since the universe had to be created, there must be a Creator and yet you fail to acknowledge that the very same argument you put forwards for the existence of the Creator also denies the need for one, in the same breath - the salient phrase being something along the lines of "Well the universe can't have existed forever, but God can". Can you not see the fundamental problem with that? You're arguing against the eternal existence of something using the eternal existence of someone as a reason...

 

[Pako]

So what do you believe? Evolution states the universe in infinite? Evolution states that the universe is a closed system thereby concluding that all mater that exists has always existed but is just changing? Is that what you/evolution is saying?

 

[Famine]

So what do you believe?

I don't. If I'm required to believe something, it means there's some logic or facts missing.

Evolution states the universe in infinite? Evolution states that the universe is a closed system thereby concluding that all mater that exists has always existed but is just changing? Is that what you/evolution is saying?

Evolutionary theory has no dealings with the beginning of the Universe whatsoever. Evolutionary theory deals with how lifeforms on this planet alter according to how their environment alters. If their environment alters very quickly into a valley of beaded glass (a direct meteorite strike), they become extinct - that is also evolution.

It is important to note that evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive. Evolution doesn't care how things got here, just how they survive once they already ARE here. They could have arrived through Soup, Creation, panspermia - anything. Evolutionary theory doesn't care or deal with it.

 

[Pako]

I don't. If I'm required to believe something, it means there's some logic or facts missing.



Evolutionary theory has no dealings with the beginning of the Universe whatsoever. Evolutionary theory deals with how lifeforms on this planet alter according to how their environment alters. If their environment alters very quickly into a valley of beaded glass (a direct meteorite strike), they become extinct - that is also evolution.

It is important to note that evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive. Evolution doesn't care how things got here, just how they survive once they already ARE here. They could have arrived through Soup, Creation, panspermia - anything. Evolutionary theory doesn't care or deal with it.

I thought you said,

Bang time was also created, thus the universe, as the source of space-time must also be infinite as it contains all time and all space.

Sorry for my confusion, I thought this whole time that evolution was to define origins. You know, the whole 'man came from monkey' thing.....

In light of this new information I go back to my original statement that evolution is evidence of God's creation.

 

[Grand Prix]

We could all be particles of an atom of a giant's blood cell for all you know... Hey, that reminds me of Men In Black's ending, where all the galaxies are marbles. Galaxies are moving towards and away from each other from a giant marble collision, that's it! The Big Bang was probably started by a cue ball in a giant Pool game!

 

[Earth]

If apes are your ancestors, why do you keep them behind bars?

Invite them into your house

Groom them, make them look real nice. Clip their nails, brush their hair. Get to know them better.

No need to look down on your ancestors

Why not try mating with them? They're just animals like us.

Oh, and I would like to evolve eagle-like vision. Wonder how long that will take. Maybe 30 million years from now. bummer

 

[Grand Prix]

Mammals come from dinosaurs, dinosaurs come from decodents, birds come from dinosaurs, decodents come from jawed fish, jawed fish come from jawless fish.... So along your train of thought we could mate with fish. Now why would I mate with a fish or a chimpanzee? I'm a dominant omnivore. If I wanted strong and healthy offspring I would mate with another member of our superior species. Of course, mutations happen from time to time between similar species, but they usually result in failure of adaption to the environment. Plus the offspring is usually unattractive to both species in question and almost never gets a chance to mate.

Of course we will never reach the eye-sight of eagles, as long as those that need eyeglasses produce offspring, our eyesight will gradually become worse over generations. I'd say that your logic is flawed.

 

[emad]

If apes are your ancestors, why do you keep them behind bars?

Invite them into your house

Groom them, make them look real nice. Clip their nails, brush their hair. Get to know them better.

No need to look down on your ancestors

Why not try mating with them? They're just animals like us.

Oh, and I would like to evolve eagle-like vision. Wonder how long that will take. Maybe 30 million years from now. bummer

We are descended from ape-like beings. Not from chimpanzees or gorillas. They took a different path down the road of evolution. We are related in that the species have similarities in their structures - just like there are parrots and there are pigeons.

The 20/10 vision comes because somewhere in the past, there was a need for it. The mixing of people from different areas has caused this gene to become less dominant in people with the flaw of poor vision being more common

Famine can explain this better than I can.

 

[Famine]

Nah - you did good. Though I suspect there was a waste of effort in there somewhere.

 

[Pako]

Have we found the missing link yet? Some scientists say yes, and some say no. Which is it?

 

[TheCracker]

Have we found the missing link yet? Some scientists say yes, and some say no. Which is it?

I see a few around my way most saturday nights, mostly wearing blue and white striped shirts.

 

[Famine]

Have we found the missing link yet? Some scientists say yes, and some say no. Which is it?

Any particular "missing link" you've got in mind?

Cracker... *sharpens nut scalpel*

 

[TheCracker]

Any particular "missing link" you've got in mind?

Cracker... *sharpens nut scalpel*

None in particular - theres always plenty to choose from, they all wear the same shirts and worship a big headed bird of pray - must be part of somekind of pagan religion.

 

[Swift]

Any particular "missing link" you've got in mind?

Cracker... *sharpens nut scalpel*

See, that's what I'm saying. We have this theory that people came from Ape-like creatures that some people say exist and others say don't exist. But of course, those beings died off due to natural selection.