Creation over Evolution

[kilo39]

Regarding evolution cruncher - all I have to do is scan the title page for this gem amongst others: Why the Earth is not millions of years old.

The point is non-arguable. I am fully happy to accede reality is not what we know - but any talk of god creating adam and eve is pure mumbo-jumbo. Now perhaps there is some other force in the universe - the universe is only that which we know - our small island in the great unknown - but that does not include subjects like the age of the earth or the dna tree.

 

[mooK]

Promotheus, that site is a load of bull!

Check this out ppl:

"Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large."

This is just untrue, stars grow larger as they burn out. i.e. they start off small and get larger and larger until they go supernova. Also, their mass it not related to their size. Heard of black holes?

Prometheus, why don't you find a reputable source of information and open your eyes? I beseech you to do so for your own good. The age of enlightenment began 300 years ago. Catch up.

 

[Prometheus]

Prometheus, why don't you find a reputable source of information and open your eyes? I beseech you to do so for your own good. The age of enlightenment began 300 years ago. Catch up.

Why don't you give me reputable information on evolution that cannot be debunked. What's good for the goose is good for the ganda you know.

Tell me this:

Why are evolution theorists not willing to take part in any discussions between them and creationists. Because every time they do their theories get debunked while they are unable to debunk the creationist theory.

Why are there many sub-species of animals because of genetic mutations, but there aren't enough different species of animals to link all of them together. Evolution claims that all land animals evolved from sea animals. Supposedly they grew both legs and lungs that were able to sustain them both on land and in the water. If such creatures existed then the natural selection theory gives the impression that they would be far superior than land or sea animals as they would be able to get away from their predators in the sea by escaping to land and vice versa. Why are they not around today then.

The only logical explanation is that both land and sea animals were created separately in God's "Lab".

ps. How do sites stating Eve's daughters prove anything with regard to evolution. The bible doesn't mention any daughters from Adam or Eve afaik. But it also doesn't mention a lot of female descendants from the twelve nations of Israel when it does mention whole lines of male descendants. Does that mean the bible tells us there wasn't any woman around? Of course not.

 

[kilo39]

Why are there many sub-species of animals because of genetic mutations, but there aren't enough different species of animals to link all of them together.

Because each animal is unique and a (potential) family unto itself - diversity is exponential.

 

[pookfuzz]

And people want to convince me that this is less absurd than:
Nothing + Intelligent Being = Matter + Intelligent Being = All living creatures + Intelligent Being.
At least this makes sense to me if everything did indeed start from nothing.

It may make sense to you; I however do not suffer from whatever meme malady is afflicting your judgment. To me it is perfectly obvious that neither the creationists nor the evolutionists have all the answers. What is clear is that of the two the evolutionists are the only ones making any effort to actually find the truth, and as time goes by more and more pieces of the missing puzzle get filled in, something that cannot be said for the people punting creationism.

Do you not see the paradox in your ideas? If everything started from nothing there would be no designer, since that would be more than just nothing. I would suggest you spend a little more time reading up on this subject, I mean no disrespect but your grasp of the topic seems rather weak.

I would also suggest you avoid linking to articles which are nothing more than pseudo-logic and anecdotal inference, try find your own reasons to validate creationism - it is after all something you apparently believe, so I would hope you have some compelling logical reasons to cling to this belief. If you must link to articles, at least try find ones that tackle the subject objectively and are not encumbered by obvious religious agendas.

My personal viewpoint is that evolution is by far the most probable answer. Sure the odds of life just starting up by itself are very small, but so is chance of winning the lotto - yet people still manage to win.

Why are evolution theorists not willing to take part in any discussions between them and creationists.

Creationists do not present a theory, they claim fact which has absolutely no foundation to prove or disprove it. How can any rational discussion take place when one side refuses to apply logic.

Because every time they do their theories get debunked while they are unable to debunk the creationist theory.

Perhaps you are not noticing, but quite the opposite appears to be happening in this thread, and in all the previous threads on a similar topic. I very much doubt this reality is changed in a more formal setting.

Why are they not around today then.

There are also no dinosaurs around today, does this mean you believe they never existed? To simply say something could not and did not exist because we lack fossil evidence is naive.

The only logical explanation is that both land and sea animals were created separately in God's "Lab".

What you call logic, I call wild assumptions lacking factual basis.

 

[jabulani]

Nice post Pookfuzz, as usual.

But you won't win - these religious zealots believe what they want to believe come what may. Talking of which, time to again pay homage to the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster who created all DNA in its own image.

 

[supersunbird]

Ramen! I pray to be one day touched by His Noodly Appendage.

 

[jabulani]

All bow your heads and partake in the sacrament of Bolognaise.

Ramen! Ramen! Noodly! Noodly!
Noodly! Noodly! Ramen! Ramen!

 

[Prometheus]

What is clear is that of the two the evolutionists are the only ones making any effort to actually find the truth, and as time goes by more and more pieces of the missing puzzle get filled in, something that cannot be said for the people punting creationism.

They are trying to find the body of Je$us for instance which they never will and this is seen as 'great effort'. Suddenly all the time spent refuting the evidence of evolution is seen as wasting time. And what about all the time spent finding and piecing together the bible is seen as wasting time just because you don't belief a word what it says.

Do you not see the paradox in your ideas? If everything started from nothing there would be no designer, since that would be more than just nothing. I would suggest you spend a little more time reading up on this subject, I mean no disrespect but your grasp of the topic seems rather weak.

The paradox lies with the evolutionists that want us to belief nothing->something. And you're telling me that sounds more plausable than an all powerful being creating something. Their own theories state that matter or energy cannot be created out of nothing, but when it comes to the bigbang then that theory flies out the window and suddenly a big bunch of "nothing" decides to cling together and the "gravity" of that "nothing" makes it explode in one big kaboom. Do you even notice the terminology used in that "logic"

I would suggest you avoid linking to articles which are nothing more than pseudo-logic and anecdotal inference, try find your own reasons to validate creationism - it is after all something you apparently believe, so I would hope you have some compelling logical reasons to cling to this belief. If you must link to articles, at least try find ones that tackle the subject objectively and are not encumbered by obvious religious agendas.

Tell that to people linking to "the seven daughters of eve".

My personal viewpoint is that evolution is by far the most probable answer. Sure the odds of life just starting up by itself are very small, but so is chance of winning the lotto - yet people still manage to win.

Sure the odds of God existing is small, but so is the chance of winning the lotto.

Creationists do not present a theory, they claim fact which has absolutely no foundation to prove or disprove it. How can any rational discussion take place when one side refuses to apply logic.

It's clear that evolution is illogical while it claims disproven theories to be true. They have their own people proving them wrong while not a single theory about creation has been proven wrong. Yet people belief that which has been disproven.

Perhaps you are not noticing, but quite the opposite appears to be happening in this thread, and in all the previous threads on a similar topic. I very much doubt this reality is changed in a more formal setting.

Haven't seen any evidence to that "fact"

There are also no dinosaurs around today, does this mean you believe they never existed?

Dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteorite according to their theory. Plausible - Yes. Same cannot be said for this land-sea creatures as the meteorite would have wiped out the land creatures and sea creatures as well.

To simply say something could not and did not exist because we lack fossil evidence is naive.

So your saying that there's no fossil evidence of these creatures which should have presented a third of the inhabitants of earths. But there's fossils of everything else. Where did a third of the inhabitants of earth disappear to?

What you call logic, I call wild assumptions lacking factual basis.

Where's the factual basis for evolution?

 

[Prometheus]

Nice post Pookfuzz, as usual.

But you won't win - these religious zealots believe what they want to believe come what may. Talking of which, time to again pay homage to the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster who created all DNA in its own image.

nice to know that people look like spaghetti to you

 

[jabulani]

nice to know that people look like spaghetti to you

AND meatballs! Ramen to you my brother!

 

[kilo39]

Tell that to people linking to "the seven daughters of eve"

The 7 daughters of eve is real research - peer reviewed and published in medical journals - more than can be said for any "creationist theory."

It's clear that evolution is illogical while it claims disproven theories to be true. They have their own people proving them wrong while not a single theory about creation has been proven wrong. Yet people belief that which has been disproven.

Let's get it straight: there is no "theory of creation" - it is a story - handed down through generations until eventually written. There is nothing to prove - it is a "fairy tale" - and any reasonable person should realise this - a story, not a "theory."

So your saying that there's no fossil evidence of these creatures which should have presented a third of the inhabitants of earths. But there's fossils of everything else. Where did a third of the inhabitants of earth disappear to?

No - there are not "fossils of everything else" - there are only the fossils that have been found - and fossils are not produced at some factory - they are rare specimens - not just lying around. The more fossils we discover the more we know - as opposed to your view - a story as irrefutable fact.

Where's the factual basis for evolution?

Uum, global warming?

What you should understand Prometheus - is believing in science and "fact" - does no harm to your story - but your myopic view would keep the world in the dark ages, denying science and the very real advances around you. Your lack of acknowledgement of science is inhibiting your view of the world - nothing can be gained except more disease, more poverty, and more suffering.

 

[kilo39]

/edit/ and if you had actually read the two links I posted regarding the 7 daughters you would find some amazing things - one, there was a archetypal adam and eve - and - if you're living in CT you're living in the biblical eden. Open your eyes and your mind as your Good Creator would wish you too - instead of your early christian/pagan view of the world.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

its pointless arguing with a creationist or for that matter any religious fanatic. its like speaking to a brick wall, no matter how much evidence one provides them with, they still stand by their fairytale without a single piece of evidence to back up their claim. yes science hasn't provided any hard proof...yet. but thats because no organism lives for a million years so that the theory may be proven. but at least scientists are making an attempt to prove their theories, they have evidence, pieces of a puzzle so to speak. what attempt is being made by fairytale folk have to back up their claim? words of wisdom?

the thing that most people dont realise is that science and faith dont necessarily have to be on opposing sides. if one can back up their claims with hard scientific evidence (not necessarily proof, but pieces of the puzzle in their respective theory) then they may be able to gain respect within scientific communities for at least making a damn effort. where's the effort in finding noah's ark? surely the bible states the final resting place for the animals have to have disembarked the vessel somewhere. but thats not the point, the point is making a real effort to prove to everyone that their theory has a valid claim and not just sprouting words of wisdom to brainwash people and make it seem like you talking sense. anybody can fabricate a story and make it seem real.

as i said before, the evidence is there, what you make of it is your problem. quantum theory may not be physically obversable due to the miniscule nature of the size at which it becomes relevant, but yet we know it works. components within your computer use quantum theory, does that mean you dont believe in science when the fact that the computer works is right in front of your eyes?

 

[Rkootknir]

What I can't understand is how crazy all these evolution theories are, yet some people still belief them and call everything rational to be fictionist old tales.

So I am suppose to belief that:So I am suppose to belief that:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

And people want to convince me that this is less absurd than:
Nothing + Intelligent Being = Matter + Intelligent Being = All living creatures + Intelligent Being.
At least this makes sense to me if everything did indeed start from nothing.

I refer you to the EVOLUTION CRUNCHER

Aaah, so you are a fan of the good "Dr" Kent Hovind. Whatever does the synthesis of the elements have to do with the TOE?

Dirt+Water+Time=Living creatures? That has to be the most astoundingly stupid thing I've ever read on these forums. Please note that your profound misunderstanding of the TOE does not in any way provide any evidence against it. I recommend that you pick up a very elementary book on Biology so that you can start constructing rational sentences if you wish to continue this discussion.

Please let me know when you have done so.

 

[Rkootknir]

Why don't you give me reputable information on evolution that cannot be debunked. What's good for the goose is good for the ganda you know.

Why certainly my dear Prometheus. First of all I refer you to your local library, biology can be found from Dewey 550 to 599. That will be in the non-fiction area. When you have a basic grasp on the principles of the TOE, you may proceed to Talk Origins where the information may be a little bit more difficult to understand. After that there is the publicly accessible Arxiv.org and Google Scholar where you can find a wide selection of preprints and abstracts on the TOE. If you're willing to spend a bit of money, I recommend a subscribtion to Nature.

Tell me this:

Why are evolution theorists not willing to take part in any discussions between them and creationists. Because every time they do their theories get debunked while they are unable to debunk the creationist theory.

Nope, you're wrong. The reason that scientists don't debate Creationist is that there is nothing to debate. Creationism is religion, not science. The supernatural can never be used to explain the natural, because then you can prove anything.

eg. I am God, I have created you and everything around you one picosecond ago and implanted you with years of memory. I have also put some fossils into the ground to confuse scientists. Now: Please disproof my statement.

Another thing: Why don't creationists publish anything? Why are all their "research" found in books and not one article found in a reputable scientific journal? If you have proof that the TOE is wrong I'm sure that a lot of biologists would like to know so that they can stop wasting their time. And lastly, I've never, ever, heard of a creationist debunking anything related to the TOE. Please let me know if you think otherwise.

Why are there many sub-species of animals because of genetic mutations, but there aren't enough different species of animals to link all of them together. Evolution claims that all land animals evolved from sea animals. Supposedly they grew both legs and lungs that were able to sustain them both on land and in the water. If such creatures existed then the natural selection theory gives the impression that they would be far superior than land or sea animals as they would be able to get away from their predators in the sea by escaping to land and vice versa. Why are they not around today then.

You do know that most of the creatures living in the sea today are fish (ie. have gills)? Do you also know that the TOE predicts that the organisms who moved on to land were already mammals (like dolphins or whales) \ reptiles (like crocodiles)? You do know that a lot of amphibious creatures still exist today (crocodiles, penguins, seals, walrusses, ...)? What
was your point again?
[edit]
I direct your attention to volume 440 of Nature where the recent fossil find of Tiktaalik roseae and the accompanying research is discussed. A nice article on the find can be found at Pharyngula

The only logical explanation is that both land and sea animals were created separately in God's "Lab".

Really? Please let us know where this "lab" is. God is not science. End of story.

 

[Prometheus]

The 7 daughters of eve is real research - peer reviewed and published in medical journals - more than can be said for any "creationist theory."

Let's get it straight: there is no "theory of creation" - it is a story - handed down through generations until eventually written. There is nothing to prove - it is a "fairy tale" - and any reasonable person should realise this - a story, not a "theory."

Should check your facts first. The "story" you're talking about is contained in the Pentateuch or the Torah as it was handed down in written form before being told, not the other way around. It was written by Moses and possibly Joshua. In Jewish tradition it is considered the literal word of God as revealed by Him to Moses at Mount Sinai. The two tablets holding the ten commandments however were written by God Himself.

No - there are not "fossils of everything else" - there are only the fossils that have been found - and fossils are not produced at some factory - they are rare specimens - not just lying around. The more fossils we discover the more we know - as opposed to your view - a story as irrefutable fact.

There are fossils of a whole range of land and sea animals, but none of this land-sea animals. Did evolution now selectively decide to leave out a third of earths inhabitants when it comes to fossils. There should at least be one not to mention an equal amount of all three categories.

Uum, global warming?

Are you serious here, what does climate have to do with proving evolution.

What you should understand Prometheus - is believing in science and "fact" - does no harm to your story - but your myopic view would keep the world in the dark ages, denying science and the very real advances around you. Your lack of acknowledgement of science is inhibiting your view of the world - nothing can be gained except more disease, more poverty, and more suffering.

I believe in every science that has been proven. It's a fact that atoms consist of electrons, protons, and neutrons and that neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The fact that an electron can jump from its current path to theoretically anywhere in the known universe proves quantum physics to be correct. Not to mention the existence of dark matter. I believe in science that has been proven. And none of it has proven evolution and disproven creation or anything else in the bible.

So you basically believe in evolution on the basis of faith, yet find it unfathomable that someone should belief in creation on the basis of faith.

 

[JBFRobisher]

There are fossils of a whole range of land and sea animals, but none of this land-sea animals.

Such a fossil has been found - it was in the news last week.

I wish you would give up punting your religious drivel - it is getting very tedious as you will not listen to any other point of view.

 

[Rkootknir]

There are fossils of a whole range of land and sea animals, but none of this land-sea animals. Did evolution now selectively decide to leave out a third of earths inhabitants when it comes to fossils. There should at least be one not to mention an equal amount of all three categories.

See my edit in the post above.

I believe in every science that has been proven. It's a fact that atoms consist of electrons, protons, and neutrons and that neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino.

You're profound lack of understanding seems to continue in physics as well. Neutrons consist of 2 down quarks and an up quark. Protons consist of 2 up quarks and a down quark. The neutrino is an elementary particle (as far as science knows ATM) and is not a part of the structure of atoms.

The fact that an electron can jump from its current path to theoretically anywhere in the known universe proves quantum physics to be correct. Not to mention the existence of dark matter. I believe in science that has been proven.

You do know that the existence of dark matter hasn't been proved, don't you? It's postulated, because there is not enough visible matter around to account for all the gravitational influences in space and yes, the Big Bang (So you accept it after all ). I must say I still prefer the term THSK (The Horrendous Space Kablooey )

And none of it has proven evolution and disproven creation or anything else in the bible.

The Bible and God are not science.

So you basically believe in evolution on the basis of faith, yet find it unfathomable that someone should belief in creation on the basis of faith.

Please let me know what "faith" is involved in the TOE. I am someone who doesn't understand the concept of religious faith so your answer should be most insightful.

 

[kilo39]

Should check your facts first. The "story" you're talking about is contained in the Pentateuch or the Torah as it was handed down in written form before being told, not the other way around.

There were human beings around before moses - they had religion - a spiritual understanding of the world - these were oral traditions - and still very much alive in Africa today.

So you basically believe in evolution on the basis of faith, yet find it unfathomable that someone should belief in creation on the basis of faith.

Where you get it wrong is - I don't believe in anything - except the wonder of science... this is not a belief - it is an understanding - that I live in a truly amazing universe with forces unknown. This does not include blindness to science or the assumption that the bible must literally be true. It does not exclude the possibility of god or forces unknown. I do not blindly believe something as you do - the literal truth of a tale.