Evolution versus Creationism

[taty85cr]

It comes to something when we have to educate the creationist about what creationism says...
With regarRAB the observed instances of speciation, the current creationist codicil is that the scientific definition of a species isn't the the same thing as a "Biblical type", (A term which they leave rather vaguely defined) and thus maintain that "macro-evolution does not occur".
Though of course the ID proponents do cross that line and will state that speciation occurs.
Finally of course there is Theistic Evolution as proclaimed by the vast majority of Christians who see little or no merit in "God of the Gaps" theology.

[freddy b]

Too right. When faith itself becomes a virtue, questioning becomes a vice.

[mummy to bee]

Amen to that. The atheists believe that we are really no better than animals, and deny that our spirits put them well above them. Their Faith in Evolution is the antithesis of Christianity.

[felipe g]

I do. One expects creationists to do such things

[Pati]

Sure. However, the likelihood that Shiva, Thor, and Pele are doing the same is just as likely. Or that no God exists.



Well on that logic, we cannot ever truly know anything 100%, including our very own existence. Debating genesis over natural occurrences is rather pointless under that framework.



Except that literal creationists are ignorant, willfully most of the time.

They ignore that the common sciences that bring us the modern world are the same sciences that validate Evolution. How can you not be willfully ignorant when you accept that geology brings us gasoline yet deny evolution when the same processes for finding areas of petro are the same for dating fossils?

You cannot have one without the other unless you are deliberately, willfully ignorant.

[baree33090]

You realize that everything you say above is nothing more than the party line and is assumed to be right today but can neither be proven or relied upon as factual. And even by your own rules, these so called facts are different than they were 10 years ago and will change and adjust again according to what is learned in the next 10 years.

My question is, are there any absolutes upon which the science of evo is based upon ? Or is make it up as you go science.

I Googled Lascaux's authenticity and came up with this link. Is this what you're referring to ? Cuz the artwork in Nevada ages out to around 10,000 years old. http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/arti...ews/news02.txt

Here's a great link for the Paleolithic art work estimated to be 30,000 years old. http://www.hollanderart.com/sitepages/pid34.php

2 questions please. 1) How did they date the art ? By carbon dating the rocks of the cave walls ? And shouldn't they age out to around 4.57 to 5.1 billion years old ? According to at least one pseudo intellectual around here. And have the animals evolved at all in the past 30,000 years ? Or are they as they were then. And prove to me beyond question that the 30,000 year date is absolutely right without question. scientifically of course. You can't at all. You must admit that it takes more faith in science to believe as you do based on the incredible assumptions evo boldly makes than believers need to have faith in the God of Israel.

[Bryan W Gaint]

They have gills and air sacs derived from the oesophagus. They mostly use the lungs when water levels are low, or they are engaged in strenuous activity such as courting and mating.

Lungfish are very useful as a multistoried illustration of what it means to be a transitional. Modern lungfish species, of course, are as evolved as any modern living organism, and aren't (yet) transitional themselves to anything, because their descendants aren't born yet. However, their ancestors and evolutionary history do illustrate how a lung could evolve from oesophageal pouches in an aquatic organism, initially as a means of gulping air when gills alone weren't able to provide a sufficient supply of oxygen.

Modern lungfish have two large air sacs that are derived from the same ancestral anatomical feature for gulping and storing atmospheric air that later also gave rise to lungs in terrestrial vertebrates, and swim bladders in fish. Thus, they can be seen as an evolved example of a transitional to two completely separate lineages of descendants, and show how a complex feature like a lung or swim bladder could evolve gradually where there was none before.

More, they also provide an elegant example of transitionals within their own lineage. There is a classic study by a guy called Westoll in 1949, who looked at 21 derived traits in lungfish fossils, and plotted their gradual change with time in fossils found over a 350 million year span.

The resulting graph of accumulated change with time is illustrated in this link: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/r...volution21.asp



The graph clearly shows that the cumulative evolution of all the traits was gradual and its rate increased rapidly over the first 50 million years, followed by a drop in rate as the modern form was approached, and persisted stably over the last 100+ million years.

This is precisely an example (and by no means the only one in the literature) of a whole sequence of transitionals that Archie claims have never been discovered. Archie can make this claim, because he's careful never to examine the evidence, just throw a tantrum and yell that it's all lies.

[cinthia.roxx]

Pick one, and only one. I know that some people fall closer to the middle ground here, but for the purposes of this poll, please choose which you believe in more.

If you would like to explain your beliefs please do.

[silky1317]

Because bacteria mutates based on exposure to different germs. Mutation doesn't equate to evolution since you can't produce one bacteria today that is any more intelligent or sophisticated a life form than any bacteria which existed even a million years ago.

Do viruses and bacterium deserve rights as sentient beings? I think not. Do they deserve human or civil rights, or rights of survival against attack by scientists who create those antibiotics in order to kill them? I think not. So to equate the mutation of germs with evolution when these germs never evolve into anything more than different types of germs is ridiculous. But hey, welcome to the forum anyway. :xgood:

[Tima hijacked by yahoo]

Impressive, I suppose. You've managed to not only avoid the question in its entirety, but to shift the burden of proof to the party that has advanced no argument whatsoever.

The burden of proof is always on the party claiming possession of an answer.

So, to frame:

If this world is indeed the product of an intelligent, purposed creator, why the rest? Why the remaining 99.99% of universal matter that falls short in various stages of incompletion/failure. Mars, as we're finding out, might have come a little bit closer than we'd thought. Why did the intelligent creator conjure all of the elemental specifics necessary for water, created an atmosphere conducive to water and bacteria growth, and then stop?

Without, using the Bible as your sole authority (I am not using any extraneous source as integral and authoritative to my question), and also without refuting an illusory argument that I have not yet put forward - tell me why the Spaghetti Monster noodle-arming the planet into existence is the answer.

Intelligent DESIGN denotes connotes sentient purpose. I am to deduce that that purpose is life, more precisely - man. If life as we know it is the ultimate purpose of this God-head, then why is life only found in the tiniest corner of a tiny system in a tiny galaxy in an infinite universe?

I smell narcissism.