Creation, true, false, or unsure?

[WalkingWolf]

You make it sound like a single protein transformed into a cow one day, then gave birth to a dog, cat, monkey, pig, etc. etc. etc. If you have actually done any reading or research of evolution (not from some apologists website, but from actual scientific sources) it's not all that hard to understand it, and would be quite simple to see the difference between how life formed and evolved vs why a moth can't turn into a bluejay.

Then by all means CITE what you claim!

And please NO blah, blah, blah from ignorant atheist apologists sites.

 

[ADobbs1989]

There is all kinds of evidence for evolution. Heck, it has been witnessed.

The little problem is they don't tell you that there are two kinds of evolution.

1. Intraspecial evolution. Chicken 2.0. A bigger, better, and tastier chicken.

2. Extraspecial evolution. Chicken lays egg. Out pops God-knows-what, with a different set of chromosomes, that is viable, that meets and mates with another God-knows-what with the same basic set of chromosomes, and Adam-and-Eves a whole new and viable species.

There is all kinds of evidence for 1. There is no evidence for 2.

When folks say they believe in evolution, ask them to qualify. I know 1 happens, so I believe in evolution. Do I believe man evolved from another species? I see no evidence of that. I see that man 10.0 is the current version and there is evidence of man 5.0 - 9.7. Man 5.0 looked a lot like an ape, but was a man with the same essential set of chromosomes man 10.0 has.

There is no such thing as your number 2. There is micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution can easily be witnessed happening within laboratories, macro evolution is supported by evidence from the fossil record as well as DNA.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Then by all means CITE what you claim!

And please NO blah, blah, blah from ignorant atheist apologists sites.

No thanks. I'll cite my sources as soon as the religious can cite their evidence for their claims. I'm not going to go out of my way to do their research for them, especially when you can't fix stupid.

 

[ADobbs1989]

If evolution is what those say it is....then all plants and animals would be evolving to be a human being.....we are the top of the food chain....so they should be striving to be......well....like us.

OK, now that evolution has been discredited....now what?



Now, lets move onto the next question....which caliber makes the biggest hole....a 10mm or 40 caliber?

How many times must you show your obvious ignorance to what evolution is and how it works?

 

[david.ross]

If evolution is what those say it is....then all plants and animals would be evolving to be a human being.....we are the top of the food chain....so they should be striving to be......well....like us.

OK, now that evolution has been discredited....now what?



Now, lets move onto the next question....which caliber makes the biggest hole....a 10mm or 40 caliber?

Your ignorance of evolution is painful to read.

 

[Mantioch]

You make it sound like a single protein transformed into a cow one day, then gave birth to a dog, cat, monkey, pig, etc. etc. etc. If you have actually done any reading or research of evolution (not from some apologists website, but from actual scientific sources) it's not all that hard to understand it, and would be quite simple to see the difference between how life formed and evolved vs why a moth can't turn into a bluejay.

Not sure what an "apologist" website is. Just stating the facts of the bad information presented. Having no idea what my background or education is, let's not make it personal. Suffice it to say, evolution, as a theory, is not simple. Removing God from the equation it is still extraordinarily complicated even from a pure biological view. Darwin looked at a few animals and said "I'll be damn - they look like different versions of the same species". He has not - nor has anyone else - explained the mechanism for evolution other than its the only thing that fits if you remove Creationism.

By the way, before Darwin was around, the same camp was absolutely convinced - just as rabidly as Darwinism - that Spontaneous Generation was how all life started. They "proved" it over and over in "scientific" experiments. Then Darwin came along and they said "Hey, that sounds cooler".

Its in the history books and college-level biology classes. Also of note - Creationism is not without its own science. There's a heck of a lot of science that goes into real Creationism. Adam and Eve started out with perfect DNA that was likely much more complicated than our own modern DNA - an actual argument for certain types of biologic evolution - which is why they lived so long and their offspring could mate. Oxidation of DNA is the primary reason we age. As generations were separated from these first two, the DNA has broken down over time, which was not God's plan - this happened after the Fall.

 

[georg jetson]

Who says anything HAS to behave in a certain way? Actually the direction we are going at the moment would suggest multiple universes where the laws of physics are completely different than our own. We only perceive the universe the way it is as being how it's supposed to be because it's all we know.

Because everything DOES behave in a certain way.

There is no such thing as multiple universes. If we find something outside our known universe it is because we haven't discovered the entire universe. Universe means "everything".

 

[Mantioch]

No thanks. I'll cite my sources as soon as the religious can cite their evidence for their claims. I'm not going to go out of my way to do their research for them, especially when you can't fix stupid.

Why are you getting personal? Ad hominem attacks are not necessary. I didn't call you stupid for your beliefs. Just debating. If you are out of facts, counters, theories or patience, then withdraw. No need to get nasty.

 

[georg jetson]

Why are you getting personal? Ad hominem attacks are not necessary. I didn't call you stupid for your beliefs. Just debating. If you are out of facts, counters, theories or patience, then withdraw. No need to get nasty.

ADobbs1989 is a younger fellow, but I still think he's mature enough to handle this type of discussion without insults. I'm sure he just made an oops.

 

[Redbaron007]

How many times must you show your obvious ignorance to what evolution is and how it works?

I'm waiting for you to show me how it works.....all you have done is critiziced others for not agreeing with you.

As I said earlier......pleeez ejukate me on yur intelachuns.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Not sure what an "apologist" website is. Just stating the facts of the bad information presented. Having no idea what my background or education is, let's not make it personal. Suffice it to say, evolution, as a theory, is not simple. Removing God from the equation it is still extraordinarily complicated even from a pure biological view. Darwin looked at a few animals and said "I'll be damn - they look like different versions of the same species". He has not - nor has anyone else - explained the mechanism for evolution other than its the only thing that fits if you remove Creationism.

By the way, before Darwin was around, the same camp was absolutely convinced - just as rabidly as Darwinism - that Spontaneous Generation was how all life started. They "proved" it over and over in "scientific" experiments. Then Darwin came along and they said "Hey, that sounds cooler".

Its in the history books and college-level biology classes. Also of note - Creationism is not without its own science. There's a heck of a lot of science that goes into real Creationism. Adam and Eve started out with perfect DNA that was likely much more complicated than our own modern DNA - an actual argument for certain types of biologic evolution - which is why they lived so long and their offspring could mate. Oxidation of DNA is the primary reason we age. As generations were separated from these first two, the DNA has broken down over time, which was not God's plan - this happened after the Fall.

I didn't make it personal I said IF YOU HAVE (I don't know what you have done). I also didn't say the theory as a whole is simple, however the general concept is not hard to grasp, and once the general concept is understood it's extremely simple to understand why a moth couldn't turn into a bluejay. If you are trying to discredit evolution by saying before darwin X was considered to be true, well to me, and others who are scientifically minded would consider that a great compliment. Our scientific understanding of our universe has changed greatly over time, and theories are constantly being challenged, and if for any reason a theory is shown to be untrue, the theory is altered, or trashed and a new more correct theory is born. I'll admit, mathematical theories differ slightly because they are used more for a purpose, so some theories are still around that aren't always true like newtons theory of gravity but it has been replaced by einsteins theory of relativity. I don't know of a single biological theory that is that way though, and if ANYONE could discredit the evidence in support of evolution, they not only would do it, but they would be famous for it, and likely win a nobel prize for discrediting the theory. Science awards those who prove standing theories as false and celebrate the new information. There is exactly 0 scientific evidence that supports the claims of creation, there is no theory of creation. It's a hypothesis that has yet to provide any evidence in it's favor.

 

[Citizen]

Oh, Boy! Fun subject!

I'm not sure what connotations the word creationism carries, so I'll steer clear of it for the moment.


I have concluded the universe was created.

As to proof, one must either be a witness to that creation possessed of both immortality and have excellent ability to recall something he witnessed a long time ago, or one must be able to experience communication with the creator(s) in order to receive testimony about the creation. So, proof sounds like a pretty tall order to me. Leaving not much else but conclusions.

I base my conclusions on just a few points.

Living things are the only things ever observed to act independently aka with self-determinism. That is to say, the physical universe (matter, energy, space) has to date always behaved predictably after man understood the factors involved. No cue ball ever changed direction mid-course unless acted upon by something else. The physical universe lacks self-determinism, it lacks creative ability. This alone is not conclusive, because it could have just 'happened'. Read on for the rest.

Living things however are repeated demonstrated to possess self-determinism and creative ability. For the longest time it seemed only Man possessed this ability. Recent experiments have shown a crow creating a solution to getting food out of a closed container. To check the theory, the investigator set up a mutli-step problem whereby the crow would have to recognize the initial problem, figure out a solution, then solve another problem in order to implement the first solution. Get it? Two problems to get the food. AND! The bird had to remember the sequence of problem, solution, problem, solution, food. The bird needed a stick to get food out of the container. But, the stick was behind slats and he couldn't reach it. So, he had to untie a hooked piece of wire, in order to get the stick to use the stick to get the food. And, that's what the bird did. And, there were no false steps, meaning he didn't get the hooked wire and go straight to the food by forgetting the stick. He took the hooked wire straight to the stick behind the slats, got the stick, and then used the stick to get the food. In other words, crows possess the ability to recognize problems and create solutions.

Chimps are already understood to do this sort of thing. Dolphins and other marine mammals talk to one another.

I have personally witnessed a gray squirrel playing alone with a stick--that is to say the animal was imagining (creating) combat with a stick. I've seen cats do it with rugs.

Only living things possess self-determinism/creative ability.

There is quite a bit of evidence that tends to support that Man is a spirit/soul inhabiting a body. All major religions share this in common--regardless of any other doctrinal differences. From a dispassionate viewpoint, whether souls exist is independent of religion. Just the same as religion has no bearing on whether water freezes when the temperature drops below a certain point.

There is a difference between the creative ability of a crow and a man. A matter of degree or quantity. A crow can create a little bit to get a snack. Some men create on a grand scale--buildings, canals, super-tankers, countries, navies, entire economic systems. Same thing--creativity. Its just a matter of scale between a crow's creative ability and a man's.

So, here we have a physical universe which cannot create, in close proximity to life which does create. I conclude that something living created the universe. Something capable of vast scale. Was it a single God? A super-soul? I don't know. But, I know there are an awful lot of souls right here on earth, a single planet in an observably huge universe.

A couple men can create an air-plane. Put a few thousand men together and they create a rocket that flies to the moon. See how the scale changes when the creativity gets combined?

I can't but wonder if it wasn't the combined creativity of a vast multitude of souls who created the universe. Maybe just to have a place to play, no?

 

[Redbaron007]

Your ignorance of evolution is painful to read.

View attachment 10380

Whats your point?

Are you trying to illustrate those animals that can possibly kill a human; suggesting we are not Top of the food chain?

 

[ADobbs1989]

Why are you getting personal? Ad hominem attacks are not necessary. I didn't call you stupid for your beliefs. Just debating. If you are out of facts, counters, theories or patience, then withdraw. No need to get nasty.

Because there are certain types of people that just don't care what the evidence says. They don't care how many links I post, or cites I cite, they will reject them all and cling to their belief. No one here is actually interested in learning about evolution, if they were they would be willing to do their own research on the subject and wouldn't spout nonsense like "If evolution is true then why are there still monkeys" or "Why aren't all the plants humans now since we are the best". Those who are unwilling to learn or don't care enough to find out what they don't agree with on their own they are IMO stupid. And as the old saying goes, you can't fix stupid.

 

[Mantioch]

I didn't make it personal .

Yes, you did.

especially when you can't fix stupid

There is exactly 0 scientific evidence that supports the claims of creation

Again, not true. Tell you what - I'll dust off my many books on the subject of Dawrin's Theory and Principles of Evolution and you read up on the science behind Creationism and maybe we can understand each other better. In the meantime, Glock is better.

 

[Citizen]

Because there are certain types of people that just don't care what the evidence says. They don't care how many links I post, or cites I cite, they will reject them all and cling to their belief. No one here is actually interested in learning about evolution, if they were they would be willing to do their own research on the subject and wouldn't spout nonsense like "If evolution is true then why are there still monkeys" or "Why aren't all the plants humans now since we are the best". Those who are unwilling to learn or don't care enough to find out what they don't agree with on their own they are IMO stupid. And as the old saying goes, you can't fix stupid.

Oh, just keep persuading. Just keep gently drawing attention to the facts in order to build agreement.

I see no conflict between creation and evolution.

Who said creation started and stopped with the singularity? Seems to me that if an agency felt creative enough to create an entire universe, that agency would be pretty likely to want to continue being creative. I don't know about God, but I get pretty bored just sitting around after only a few minutes. I can easily imagine Him wanting an ongoing creative project. Evolution seems like just the ticket to keep a Supreme Being from boredom.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Oh, just keep persuading. Just keep gently drawing attention to the facts in order to build agreement.

I see no conflict between creation and evolution.

Who said creation started and stopped with the singularity? Seems to me that if an agency felt creative enough to create an entire universe, that agency would be pretty likely to want to continue being creative. I don't know about God, but I get pretty bored just sitting around after only a few minutes. I can easily imagine Him wanting an ongoing creative project. Evolution seems like just the ticket to keep a Supreme Being from boredom.

Earlier in the thread I stated that evolution could very well be by design of a god (I don't personally believe this, but I hold that it could be a possibility.) However, the differences between the story of creation (what I'm arguing against) and the theory of evolution (what I'm arguing for) can not both be true at the same time. The story of creation has 0 evidence, evolution has tons of evidence. If you take the position that evolution is part of an overall creator then fine, I can't disprove that just as it can't be proven. I can however argue against the creation story.

 

[david.ross]

Whats your point?

Are you trying to illustrate those animals that can possibly kill a human; suggesting we are not Top of the food chain?

The Lion Mah Balls is a meme... you must be new to the Internet.

Since you bring it up, without technology(this includes weapons) humans are weak against natural predators. It's extremely bigoted from a scientific perspective to state humans are on the top of the food chain.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Yes, you did.





Again, not true. Tell you what - I'll dust off my many books on the subject of Dawrin's Theory and Principles of Evolution and you read up on the science behind Creationism and maybe we can understand each other better. In the meantime, Glock is better.

There can't be evidence for the story of creation without being in direct conflict with the theory of evolution. They would be required to merge and make a new theory. There is a reason that intelligent design wasn't considered worthy to be taught in science class.

 

[Redbaron007]

The Lion Mah Balls is a meme... you must be new to the Internet.

Since you bring it up, without technology(this includes weapons) humans are weak against natural predators. It's extremely bigoted from a scientific perspective to state humans are on the top of the food chain.

What's a meme?

Bigoted or arrogant? Am I arrogant about it....possibly....but you have yet to disprove it.

Then who/what is at the top of the food chain?