CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[Coloradomtnman]

As continuing from the Bull Ring: Bull Ring - Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

This is now open to all posters as per S.J.'s and my agreement.

Refrain from trolling or derailing this thread please. This isn't a political debate, so stay on the subjects in the context of their scientific merits. Also, no ad hominem or insults.

We request that all arguments be made in your own words: if you understand the arguments then you can make them in your own words without cut and pasting.

S.J.

My last post on the subject from the Bull Ring debate:

Adaptation is evolution, like I wrote earlier. Common ancestry is inferred, which is a perfectly legitimate scientific process.

Let me illustrate for you how the inference works and why it is so widely accepted: you aren't identical to your parents. Your children are/will not be identical to you. Play that out over hundreds of thousands of generations and the very last one of your line will not even be recognizable as the same species as you if the traits favored for the survivalof your line (in other words naturally selected) are not the traits selected for when it came to you. That's why a few ancient species still remain, they fit their environment very well and their environment hasn't changed. Any mutations were not selected for and the species are largely the same. But that is the exception.

DNA is essentially code. Anything can and does corrupt that code, i.e. cancer, viruses, birth defects, congenital defects, etc. If a particular species' code is corrupted enough times over enough years, it will no longer be recognizable as that species. Go long enough and it won't be recognizable as that genus. Even more time, let's say 200 million years, and the original DNA will code for an organism for which we don't even have a kingdom classification.

Remember that the categories into which we place animals are entirely in our minds. Carl Linnaeus came up with the current system based on morphology and it works very well for when we need terms to discuss biology and organisms. However, all organisms belong to a single, fluid, changing process called life.

 

[william the wie]

Being a creationist I have no problems with the use of any organizing theory but given the amount of out and out fraud used by the defenders of evolution such as Nebraska Man at the Scopes trial I am rather dubious that evolutionary theory can be defended as an organizing principle without a flame war breaking out.

 

[S.J.]

Just one other thing. Can we keep it at one point per post? In other words, I don't want to have to address several posts each time I respond. I'd rather spend say 2 minutes responding to one point than 15 minutes responding to 6 or 7.

To your post, I agree with the adaptation (or evolution) as changes occur over time, but I see no recorded evidence, nothing other than speculation that a human being, even though they may look completely different than their ancestors did 10 generations before, will ever be anything other than a human being. That has never been observed and until it is, the argument of a common ancestor (which is what most claim as the basis for the theory of evolution) falls apart. A horse is a horse and a dog is a dog, even though they may look different than their ancestors.

 

[S.J.]

Being a creationist I have no problems with the use of any organizing theory but given the amount of out and out fraud used by the defenders of evolution such as Nebraska Man at the Scopes trial I am rather dubious that evolutionary theory can be defended as an organizing principle without a flame war breaking out.

I agree but we're gonna try.

 

[rdean]

As continuing from the Bull Ring: Bull Ring - Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

This is now open to all posters as per S.J.'s and my agreement.

Refrain from trolling or derailing this thread please. This isn't a political debate, so stay on the subjects in the context of their scientific merits. Also, no ad hominem or insults.

We request that all arguments be made in your own words: if you understand the arguments then you can make them in your own words without cut and pasting.

S.J.

My last post on the subject from the Bull Ring debate:

Adaptation is evolution, like I wrote earlier. Common ancestry is inferred, which is a perfectly legitimate scientific process.

Let me illustrate for you how the inference works and why it is so widely accepted: you aren't identical to your parents. Your children are/will not be identical to you. Play that out over hundreds of thousands of generations and the very last one of your line will not even be recognizable as the same species as you if the traits favored for the survivalof your line (in other words naturally selected) are not the traits selected for when it came to you. That's why a few ancient species still remain, they fit their environment very well and their environment hasn't changed. Any mutations were not selected for and the species are largely the same. But that is the exception.

DNA is essentially code. Anything can and does corrupt that code, i.e. cancer, viruses, birth defects, congenital defects, etc. If a particular species' code is corrupted enough times over enough years, it will no longer be recognizable as that species. Go long enough and it won't be recognizable as that genus. Even more time, let's say 200 million years, and the original DNA will code for an organism for which we don't even have a kingdom classification.

Remember that the categories into which we place animals are entirely in our minds. Carl Linnaeus came up with the current system based on morphology and it works very well for when we need terms to discuss biology and organisms. However, all organisms belong to a single, fluid, changing process called life.

This isn't a political debate, so stay on the subjects in the context of their scientific merits.

There are no merits to mystical creation. Because there are no facts. No evidence. Only questions and belief.

If we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys.

The eye is too complex to just have popped into existence.

Those are the two most typical arguments of mystical creation. Show me scientific merit, then, if you can find some, we can have a debate.

 

[Indeependent]

The not yet birds were being massacred enmasse so they asked the predators to leave them alone for 1 billion years until they could become birds.
By then they figured out that all they had to do in the first place was ask the predators to leave them alone for 1 billion years...
Get the problem?

 

[baileyn45]

Being a creationist I have no problems with the use of any organizing theory but given the amount of out and out fraud used by the defenders of evolution such as Nebraska Man at the Scopes trial I am rather dubious that evolutionary theory can be defended as an organizing principle without a flame war breaking out.

I agree but we're gonna try.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence and is subject to change with new evidence. Creationism is based on faith and does not change with new evidence. One says we believe x because the evidence leads us in that direction, the other says no the answer is y because I believe it.

 

[S.J.]

Well, that didn't take long.

 

[Indeependent]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

 

[rdean]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

 

[Votto]

‘Global warming’ Could Cause Humans To Develop Webbed Feet | occupy illuminati

Global warming will cause us to evolve into having webbed feet according to scientists.

 

[Indeependent]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

I'm simply repeating what has been reiterated on this very forum.
You can't debate something when one side of the argument says, "If you don't know enough to disprove it, it's true."

 

[Votto]

God help me!! It's begun

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Well, that didn't take long.

Yep.

Well, what we could do is simply respond directly to eachother's posts. Not that I won't respond to the others, but I'll tag those directed at you to make it easier for you to avoid sifting through the rest.

S.J.

 

[S.J.]

Well, that didn't take long.

Yep.

Well, what we could do is simply respond directly to eachother's posts. Not that I won't respond to the others, but I'll tag those directed at you to make it easier for you to avoid sifting through the rest.

S.J.

Unfortunately, and this is not a criticism of you, but it's pretty clear that those who support the theory of evolution are not interested in allowing a fair and substantive debate to occur. I don't know if the mods see these comments as a violation of the rules of the CDZ, technically, but they certainly violate the purpose of having a CDZ. If their posts are removed, we can continue. If not, I appreciate your effort to have an honest debate on the subject. You're the first one who's been willing to do that and I commend you for it.
I have another idea and I'll let you know about it soon.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Evolution vs Creationism"

And again, the former is science and fact, the latter religion and false.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As continuing from the Bull Ring: Bull Ring - Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

This is now open to all posters as per S.J.'s and my agreement.

Refrain from trolling or derailing this thread please. This isn't a political debate, so stay on the subjects in the context of their scientific merits. Also, no ad hominem or insults.

We request that all arguments be made in your own words: if you understand the arguments then you can make them in your own words without cut and pasting.

S.J.

My last post on the subject from the Bull Ring debate:

Adaptation is evolution, like I wrote earlier. Common ancestry is inferred, which is a perfectly legitimate scientific process.

Let me illustrate for you how the inference works and why it is so widely accepted: you aren't identical to your parents. Your children are/will not be identical to you. Play that out over hundreds of thousands of generations and the very last one of your line will not even be recognizable as the same species as you if the traits favored for the survivalof your line (in other words naturally selected) are not the traits selected for when it came to you. That's why a few ancient species still remain, they fit their environment very well and their environment hasn't changed. Any mutations were not selected for and the species are largely the same. But that is the exception.

DNA is essentially code. Anything can and does corrupt that code, i.e. cancer, viruses, birth defects, congenital defects, etc. If a particular species' code is corrupted enough times over enough years, it will no longer be recognizable as that species. Go long enough and it won't be recognizable as that genus. Even more time, let's say 200 million years, and the original DNA will code for an organism for which we don't even have a kingdom classification.

Remember that the categories into which we place animals are entirely in our minds. Carl Linnaeus came up with the current system based on morphology and it works very well for when we need terms to discuss biology and organisms. However, all organisms belong to a single, fluid, changing process called life.

This isn't a political debate, so stay on the subjects in the context of their scientific merits.

There are no merits to mystical creation. Because there are no facts. No evidence. Only questions and belief.

If we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys.

The eye is too complex to just have popped into existence.

Those are the two most typical arguments of mystical creation. Show me scientific merit, then, if you can find some, we can have a debate.

Correct.

'Creationism' is religion – devoid of fact and merit, subjective belief like all religion.

 

[Two Thumbs]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, that didn't take long.

And what post are you referring to.

The post above yours is a statement of fact. I don't understand how you take issue with it.

 

[S.J.]

"Evolution vs Creationism"

And again, the former is science and fact, the latter religion and false.

Maybe YOU can show us the scientific data that proves how a fish became a man.