Creation over Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
Prometheus - there may be some animating feature of the universe - but we still came from apes. And how is this animating feature any different from that which motivates any other creature - the will to live and survive? What gives us our unique concept of the world? (but we still came from apes!)
 

lucifir

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2004
Messages
3,258
neither one is conclusive enough for me to believe them ..... I waiting for the 3rd option :)
 

Gooku

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
817
It is easier to prove evolution, there are many living examples around us

A human who stops using his brain capacity behaves(regress back) like a monkey

Do you need more proof ?
 

Nivec

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
304
Thought I would chip in.

It’s close to being just a play on words, but actually makes a big difference. The more correct term is we had a common ancestor, not that we evolved from apes.

There where a number of species running around years ago. Some died out, some evolved into apes as we know them today (Yes, that’s why there are apes) and some evolved into us. But we all had a common ancestor.

The whole missing link thing is just hype. Whether we evolved or not is not in question, its which species did we evolve from this is where the whole link thing stems from.
 

Highflyer_GP

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
10,125
so in other words creationists insist that something magical up there descended upon us, took two grains of dust, created adam and eve and thats how we came to be? which also btw gives rise to inbreeding if that did in fact occur. thats a much harder story to accept but yet even though science may not be 100% correct, at least theres evidence showing that science is moving in the right direction in terms of fossils etc. and they refuse to accept scientific evidence - which may not conclusively prove anything but its parts of the puzzle nonetheless.

what do creationists have to show for their few thousand year old story told by peasants and bored housewives? talking about how scientific theories change, why not look at how religious perspectives have changed as times changed? the way those stories are written are such that it may be interpreted a number of ways, much like nostradamus where something only makes sense once an event has occurred. i too can write a story in a cryptic way and "predict the future" for i know that there will always be wars fought among men, whether it be over religion, territory or whatever the case. so its easy to predict anything negative, but why weren't they able to predict anything positve - the information age and gender equality for one.

show me one piece of evidence proving creationism. better still, show me noahs ark and then lets talk. cos he must have been a genius to build such an advanced boat that was able to gather each type of animal from around the world before the flood that supposedly destroyed everything, yet a dove returns after the flood with an olive branch. how did the olive tree survive the great flood? silly me i forgot theres always a magical answer that backs up the fairytale. no offense to any religious folk :)
 
Last edited:

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
Highflyer_GP said:
show me one piece of evidence proving creationism. better still, show me noahs ark and then lets talk. cos he must have been a genius to build such an advanced boat that was able to gather each type of animal from around the world before the flood that supposedly destroyed everything, yet a dove returns after the flood with an olive branch. how did the olive tree survive the great flood? silly me i forgot theres always a magical answer that backs up the fairytale. no offense to any religious folk :)
Finally something where i can test whether or not you actually believe what you're preaching here. You say noah must have been a genius to build such an advanced boat. So we can both agree that he did not design it, which means someone thousands of years more technological must have done did. If you say he did not built such a boat then we would not be here today. He had to have built it, because there was a great flood that "supposedly destroyed" everything. Your very own scientists which you put all your faith in have proven that it is so.

Are you now going to dismiss their claims and selectively belief what you want to belief. So which being warned him about the flood, isn't it possible that the very same being is responsible for our creation. You want me to show you the ark, I can't. You can't show me an actual dinosaur. We can only show each other fossils, I'll see if I can find one for you.
 

Rkootknir

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,104
Prometheus said:
Finally something where i can test whether or not you actually believe what you're preaching here. You say noah must have been a genius to build such an advanced boat. So we can both agree that he did not design it, which means someone thousands of years more technological must have done did. If you say he did not built such a boat then we would not be here today. He had to have built it, because there was a great flood that "supposedly destroyed" everything. Your very own scientists which you put all your faith in have proven that it is so.
This is a cut and paste from one of my favourite posters (the 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank) at the Panda's Thumb to show why the whole Noah story is impossible:
According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that “most mutations are deleterious” and that “no new genetic information can appear through mutation”, there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

But wait ————— today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.

That raises a few questions ——- (1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here.

But wait — there’s more:

Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, “theory”, all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* — the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ———- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study
it).

But wait —- we’re not done YET ……

Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them “cancer victims”. The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

But wait, we’re STILL not finished ……

In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits —- such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist “arguments” would certainly have killed all of Noah’s children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a
rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.
Conclusion? The Noah's ark story (while not completely false - it seems to based on a flood that ocurred in Sumaria at that time) certainly has some big problems in explaining the genetic diversity we see today.
 
Last edited:

scatlett

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
645
agh...religion.

when will mankind realise that religion is a virus of the mind.
 

Highflyer_GP

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
10,125
Prometheus said:
Finally something where i can test whether or not you actually believe what you're preaching here. You say noah must have been a genius to build such an advanced boat. So we can both agree that he did not design it, which means someone thousands of years more technological must have done did. If you say he did not built such a boat then we would not be here today. He had to have built it, because there was a great flood that "supposedly destroyed" everything. Your very own scientists which you put all your faith in have proven that it is so.

Are you now going to dismiss their claims and selectively belief what you want to belief. So which being warned him about the flood, isn't it possible that the very same being is responsible for our creation. You want me to show you the ark, I can't. You can't show me an actual dinosaur. We can only show each other fossils, I'll see if I can find one for you.
you're speaking from the point of view that the story actually existed in the first place, im speaking from the point of view that it didn't. please provide me with a link proving the great flood that destroyed everything was in fact the one stated in the bible. yes there may have been many floods before, but what about this specific one? this was obviously written in the bible AFTER the actual event occured, if indeed it did occur. it's just as easy for me to fabricate a story if an asteroid were to strike the earth. after impact suppose i survive, i could just as easily create a story to share with other survivors saying that there was a warning from above for me to build a giant aircraft and gather each species of animal in this aircraft before the asteroid strikes.

re: "Are you now going to dismiss their claims and selectively belief what you want to belief"
i'd sooner selectively believe something based on my own ability to think rationally. it would show that i have a mind of my own, and not simply being a sheep following the rest of the flock.

while i can't provide you with an actual living dinosaur, there is plenty of fossil evidence showing that they have actually existence. where's the fossil evidence of the ark, something that supposedly existed a mere couple of thousand years ago? something so huge and so technologically advanced that was able to carry every possible species of animal surely can't be that difficult to find?

back on the subject of evolution and creationism, animals adapt depending on which part of the earth they are, their surrounding environment etc. this obviously gives rise to animals evolving based on their surroundings. lets take the wooly mammoth versus elephants example. obviously the same family, yet mammoths evolved from this family and developed fur and thick skins due to the nature of their environment. elephants on the other hand had to deal with high heat, hence large ears and minimum fur. this is just a simple example obviously, and before stating that they lived continents apart consider that the continents weren't always apart and to this day are drifting apart from each other.

yes while the evolution of man is still scientific theory, at least there's pieces in the puzzle that have been found. there is NO single piece of evidence yet that we originated from two people who were miraculously created from grains of dust. also consider that the very computer you are using has components designed using quantum theory. so if one doesn't believe in scientific theory, does that then mean one doesn't believe in the computer they are using which is right in front of their very eyes?
 

Rkootknir

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,104
From the 9/11 thread:
Prometheus said:
With all the hole in their theories how can you still claim for their theories to be correct. All they have proven to me is that they are constantly changing their mind when they are proven wrong and will continue to do so. At least the "creationist" theory is more or less consistant.
You have yet to show such a hole. When you think you've found one, please make sure that you are aware of what the TOE predicts and does not predict.
 

Rkootknir

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,104
Highflyer_GP said:
back on the subject of evolution and creationism, animals adapt depending on which part of the earth they are, their surrounding environment etc. this obviously gives rise to animals evolving based on their surroundings. lets take the wooly mammoth versus elephants example. obviously the same family, yet mammoths evolved from this family and developed fur and thick skins due to the nature of their environment. elephants on the other hand had to deal with high heat, hence large ears and minimum fur. this is just a simple example obviously, and before stating that they lived continents apart consider that the continents weren't always apart and to this day are drifting apart from each other.
You're straying a bit here. The theory of evolution doesn't state that organisms adapt to their environment (giraffes developing long necks because their food is in high trees), but that all genetic diversity can be explained by two simple mechanisms: Random Mutations and Natural Selection.

An extremely simplified way of describing evolution is:
-Random mutations in the genes of organisms occur all the time.
-Most of these mutations are neutral or deleterious
-However, some of these mutations have a beneficial effect on survivability
-These beneficial gene mutations are "naturally selected" over time as the gene is transferred between generations
-The resulting traits are expressed in the organisms as per genetic theory
 

Highflyer_GP

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
10,125
this isn't exactly my field, but wouldn't adaptation give rise to mutations and natural selection which is then transferred between between generations? for eg. developing a long neck over a period of time is a mutation of sorts?
 

jabulani

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,189
Originally Posted by Prometheus
With all the hole in their theories how can you still claim for their theories to be correct. All they have proven to me is that they are constantly changing their mind when they are proven wrong and will continue to do so. At least the "creationist" theory is more or less consistant.
But that is the nature of most scientific "knowledge" - theories that are the "best fit" that we can think of. Newton's laws explained a lot, but there were anomalies, anomalies that were catered for by Einstein's theories. And so it goes. Creationism is a matter of faith. It is typically not falsifiable, therefore not proper science. Anyone can posit a theory about a great pumpkin in the sky who created everything including funny fossils to mislead us - you can't prove it and you can't disprove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top