Creationism destroyed in one post!


I think the problem with your reasoning is that you don't understand how evolution works. Organisms don't change to adapt or ensure their own survival. To think it works this way 1 would have to will change in self. This is of course pretty much out of the question. Go ahead and try it. Concentrate really hard on growing wings or gills or a thick hairy coat and see if you can do it.

Random mutations occur in organisms every generation of every species. Sometimes these mutations help an organism to survive, sometimes they don't. The changes that tended to help survival are then reinforced because the 1s that lived go on to breed and pass these changes to their offspring. THAT is how evolution works.

Read Dawkins (a liberal and atheist) he explains it very clearly.

Further there is nothing about evolution that precludes an initial creation. If you're hoping to make creationists look foolish for their belief using evolution it's the wrong tool. It's irrelevant to the question of creation.

The issue with creationism or intelligent design or anything that subscribes to a supernatural power is that it can't fit within the constraints of the scientific method.

That's it.

Everything else is just noise.

People can speculate and believe what they want about the larger issues, but when it comes to science that's the bottom line.

I don't think either (creationism or evolution) does an adequate job of explaining how all of this got here. Everything I've ever heard about Big Bangs is just as flimsy as God. All the same questions apply. What was here before? How did it get here? What caused the Big Bang? Why did God decide to make this? It's all the same.

Personally, I don't see much conflict between the two, but then again I don't have an agenda that is helped by 1 being right and the other being wrong.
 
I don't think either (creationism or evolution) does an adequate job of explaining how all of this got here. Everything I've ever heard about Big Bangs is just as flimsy as God. All the same questions apply. What was here before? How did it get here? What caused the Big Bang? Why did God decide to make this? It's all the same.

Personally, I don't see much conflict between the two, but then again I don't have an agenda that is helped by 1 being right and the other being wrong.

The theory of evolution has never claimed to explain the origins of life, just the diversity of it.

The big bang theory is a scientific theory that can be explained and quantified using scientific methods. All the other questions are philosophical and beyond the ability of man to answer.

There is only a conflict between evolution and creation/ID when people insist that ID/creation is something that it is not, which is a scientific theory. To the people who oppose that line of though (that ID is a scientific theory), it's not about preserving an agenda. It's about preserving the methodology that makes scientific inquiry work. As soon as you allow for supernatural forces to explain natural processes, the answer to every question is "God/whoever did it".
 
The theory of evolution has never claimed to explain the origins of life, just the diversity of it.

Then it's apples and oranges and most of this thread is gibberish.

The big bang theory is a scientific theory that can be explained and quantified using scientific methods.

I'd like to see that.

There is only a conflict between evolution and creation/ID when people insist that ID/creation is something that it is not, which is a scientific theory. To the people who oppose that line of though (that ID is a scientific theory), it's not about preserving an agenda. It's about preserving the methodology that makes scientific inquiry work. As soon as you allow for supernatural forces to explain natural processes, the answer to every question is "God/whoever did it".

I don't understand why God can't be the answer. As for the rest it seems you're assuming a slippery slope-type of chain reaction... which I thought was considered a fallacy in debate.
 
Then it's apples and oranges and most of this thread is gibberish.

The scientific illiteracy of people who want to use science to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural usually is gibberish.

The big bang theory is a scientific theory that can be explained and quantified using scientific methods.

I suppose you can start here.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are literally books written on the subject.

I don't understand why God can't be the answer. As for the rest it seems you're assuming a slippery slope-type of chain reaction... which I thought was considered a fallacy in debate.

If a person wants to adopt the personal belief that God is the answer, then it is their prerogative. What they can't do, is juxtapose their belief on others and call it "science".

I am usually not fan of slippery slope arguments, but in this case it's necessary. Allowing for the supernatural in the scientific method automatically destroys the process. It's, in essence, the nuclear option.

Which is why scientists who are Christians have so adamantly opposed ID. Read Kenneth Millers "Finding Darwin's God" if you are interested in a better explanation of the matter.
 
Then it's apples and oranges and most of this thread is gibberish.

The scientific illiteracy of people who want to use science to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural usually is gibberish.

So then it would seem to be that we agree that the OP was rubbish.

The big bang theory is a scientific theory that can be explained and quantified using scientific methods.

I suppose you can start here.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are literally books written on the subject.[/quote]

Well, I read it and I still don't see why God can't be the answer. Oh well.

Interestingly enough (from the article): ... the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

That made me laugh.

I don't understand why God can't be the answer. As for the rest it seems you're assuming a slippery slope-type of chain reaction... which I thought was considered a fallacy in debate.

If a person wants to adopt the personal belief that God is the answer, then it is their prerogative. What they can't do, is juxtapose their belief on others and call it "science".

I'm glad it never works the other way around. :eusa_whistle:

I am usually not fan of slippery slope arguments, but in this case it's necessary. Allowing for the supernatural in the scientific method automatically destroys the process. It's, in essence, the nuclear option.

Which is why scientists who are Christians have so adamantly opposed ID. Read Kenneth Millers "Finding Darwin's God" if you are interested in a better explanation of the matter.

I think there is more than 1 way to look at ID and I think some get it right more than others. And I think some, like the OP, get it wrong on purpose.
 
So then it would seem to be that we agree that the OP was rubbish.

Of course it's rubbish. Did I ever indicate otherwise? I don't even think I read the thing.

Well, I read it and I still don't see why God can't be the answer. Oh well.

Interestingly enough (from the article): ... the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

That made me laugh.

Why? After it got over burning scientists at the stake, the Catholic Church has been generally supportive of the natural sciences. I believe that more than a few Catholic priests are professional scientists. The Church also accepts the theory of evolution.

I'm glad it never works the other way around. :eusa_whistle:

It does sometimes. You have people like Richard Dawkins who want to try and use scientific theory to attack religion. Of course, there is a reason that his rants are in novels and not peer-reviewed journals.

I think there is more than 1 way to look at ID and I think some get it right more than others. And I think some, like the OP, get it wrong on purpose.

Either way, the major sticking point is the notion that an all powerful supernatural force guided evolution. A person can believe that, it's been an argument inherent to Christian Apologist thought for a long time. However, since the existence of an all powerful force can't be falsified, it can't be a true scientific theory.

That's the irony. For Intelligent Design advocates (who want to use ID as a scientific theory) to get their way, they would first have to admit that the existence of God could be dis-proven.
 
So then it would seem to be that we agree that the OP was rubbish.

Of course it's rubbish. Did I ever indicate otherwise? I don't even think I read the thing.

Well, I read it and I still don't see why God can't be the answer. Oh well.

Interestingly enough (from the article): ... the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

That made me laugh.

Why? After it got over burning scientists at the stake, the Catholic Church has been generally supportive of the natural sciences. I believe that more than a few Catholic priests are professional scientists. The Church also accepts the theory of evolution.

I'm glad it never works the other way around. :eusa_whistle:

It does sometimes. You have people like Richard Dawkins who want to try and use scientific theory to attack religion. Of course, there is a reason that his rants are in novels and not peer-reviewed journals.

I think there is more than 1 way to look at ID and I think some get it right more than others. And I think some, like the OP, get it wrong on purpose.

Either way, the major sticking point is the notion that an all powerful supernatural force guided evolution. A person can believe that, it's been an argument inherent to Christian Apologist thought for a long time. However, since the existence of an all powerful force can't be falsified, it can't be a true scientific theory.

That's the irony. For Intelligent Design advocates (who want to use ID as a scientific theory) to get their way, they would first have to admit that the existence of God could be dis-proven.

I can't keep up with the quote in the quote in the quote thing, so my apologies if the following doesn't make much sense. :tongue:


1. I didn't say you said otherwise, just noting that you didn't jump on it.

2. Irony mostly. Irony makes me laugh.

3. And on forums.

4. Why can't the existence of God be dis-proven? Perhaps we just don't know how to do it yet.
 
1. I didn't say you said otherwise, just noting that you didn't jump on it.

M'eh. I found it too silly to even address.

4. Why can't the existence of God be dis-proven? Perhaps we just don't know how to do it yet.

Because he is, by all descriptions, all-powerful.

Once something is deemed all-powerful, then they are beyond comprehension by the human mind.

I can't even fathom how someone would, scientifically, disprove the existence of God.

Once again, to disprove the existence of God, you would have to be able to also prove the existence of God. Every hypothesis needs a null hypothesis.

And the existence of God is basically the fundamental question that mankind has been struggling with since existence.
 
Evolution happens. Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, plant life has evolved. Creationists are too proud to consider themselves mammals.

Therefore, evolution cannot have happened to mankind.

No, it is you evolutionists that have a pride problem. It is why YOU define yourselves as homo sapiens sapiens. Now THAT is pride!

Just curious, which race is closer to the mammal category in your humble opinion?

Let see

Evolutionists take pride in suggesting that humans evolved from some other organism.

I don't know about that one. It seems more like humility to even consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, that humans are not much different from the other animals.

In fact, it seems like a slight issue of the ego to think "Or hell no! We are made in God's image! Those animals are creations meant to please our desires and curiousity. We have no relation to them except in the fact that the creator made all!! That is it. Nothing else!"

Say--to think like that takes alot of ego!!
Neither I nor Evolution denies God. But, consider the Genesis story, its authors and the times it was recorded. Every culture has a creation story. It's endemic to civilized man.
do you suppose the authors got it right, or were they writing a story that their followers could understand? Is it literal truth, or beautiful allegory?

And why would God endow mankind with such an agile, creative and curious mind if He did not intend mankind to use it?

Is the Bible appropriate as science? Should we take every Biblical passage literally? Old and New Testament? Deuteronomy has some real sticky parts like how to treat your slaves and what to eat.

So, sauce for the goose time here: if Genesis is absolutely correct and serves as the definitive answer to the origin of the species, then we shouldn't be allowed to put cheese on a ham sandwich?

And if the Biblical account is infallibly correct, what explains all this fossil evidence of actual evolution?

Is the Bible a science textbook as well as the book of faith for the Judeo-Christian world?
 
No, it is you evolutionists that have a pride problem. It is why YOU define yourselves as homo sapiens sapiens. Now THAT is pride!

Just curious, which race is closer to the mammal category in your humble opinion?

Let see

Evolutionists take pride in suggesting that humans evolved from some other organism.

I don't know about that one. It seems more like humility to even consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, that humans are not much different from the other animals.

In fact, it seems like a slight issue of the ego to think "Or hell no! We are made in God's image! Those animals are creations meant to please our desires and curiousity. We have no relation to them except in the fact that the creator made all!! That is it. Nothing else!"

Say--to think like that takes alot of ego!!
Neither I nor Evolution denies God. But, consider the Genesis story, its authors and the times it was recorded. Every culture has a creation story. It's endemic to civilized man.
do you suppose the authors got it right, or were they writing a story that their followers could understand? Is it literal truth, or beautiful allegory?

And why would God endow mankind with such an agile, creative and curious mind if He did not intend mankind to use it?

Is the Bible appropriate as science? Should we take every Biblical passage literally? Old and New Testament? Deuteronomy has some real sticky parts like how to treat your slaves and what to eat.

So, sauce for the goose time here: if Genesis is absolutely correct and serves as the definitive answer to the origin of the species, then we shouldn't be allowed to put cheese on a ham sandwich?

And if the Biblical account is infallibly correct, what explains all this fossil evidence of actual evolution?

Is the Bible a science textbook as well as the book of faith for the Judeo-Christian world?

I agree with a lot of what you said. While I am a believer in a higher power (which I also happen to call God), and I do read the bible, I'm not 1 to take it literally. It wouldn't make sense to do that. A basic understanding of the Hebrew tradition of storytelling should make that much clear. Unfortunately, many do take it literally and that's how we end up with many of these silly debates.
 
Evolution happens. Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, plant life has evolved. Creationists are too proud to consider themselves mammals.

Therefore, evolution cannot have happened to mankind.

No, it is you evolutionists that have a pride problem. It is why YOU define yourselves as homo sapiens sapiens. Now THAT is pride!

Just curious, which race is closer to the mammal category in your humble opinion?

Let see

Evolutionists take pride in suggesting that humans evolved from some other organism.

I don't know about that one. It seems more like humility to even consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, that humans are not much different from the other animals.

In fact, it seems like a slight issue of the ego to think "Or hell no! We are made in God's image! Those animals are creations meant to please our desires and curiousity. We have no relation to them except in the fact that the creator made all!! That is it. Nothing else!"

Say--to think like that takes alot of ego!!

Again, such humility that we call ourselves "homo sapiens sapiens". That ain't humility, that is PRIDE! ;)
 
To refute creation and intelligent power you have to:

-prove how the life emerged in dead matter from nothing, or why we can't create life in artificial vagina? :cuckoo:

-find transitional forms of main organs: eyes, ears, brain?

-prove why amino acids forms different proteins by chance in every mutation?

The evolutionary record is very clear, from the paleontological record, to modern genetics. All the major Christian religions accept this as the way the Diety created. Only a few primative literalist continue to challenge the reality of modern science. And they are very similiar in their arguements to the primitive Islamists.

If you really were doing anything other than parroting those ridiculous talking points for the extemely ignorant, you would have found the answers for all of those questions yourself. For those lurking, here is a good source for real scientific information concerning what is known about evolution today.


The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
This essay is a must-read for anyone who wants to participate in talk.origins. It lays out the land for evolutionists and creationists alike, presenting the ideas behind and the evidence for biological evolution.


What is Evolution?
All too often creationists spend their time arguing with a straw-man caricature of evolution. This brief essay presents a definition of evolution that is acceptable to evolutionists.


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution.


The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution
Darwin developed his theory of natural selection without any knowledge of genetics. Since Darwin, genetics and evolution have been synthesized, and natural selection is no longer considered to be the only evolutionary mechanism.


The Origin of Species
Read the book by Charles Darwin that started it all. The full text of the book is online.


Macroevolution
In evolutionary biology today macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another.


29 Evidences for Macroevolution
This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, or cannot be falsified.


Are Mutations Harmful?
People often ask questions such as, "Doesn't evolution depend on mutations?", "Aren't most mutations harmful?" and "Are there favorable mutations?". This article catalogs the different types of mutations and discusses their effects on an organism's reproductive fitness.


The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation plus Selection
The notion that all the complexity we see before us today could have been the result of naturally selected random mutations seems mind-boggling. But antibody genes provide a clear example of random mutations leading to the evolution of increased reproductive fitness.
 
The Word of God

The Word of God
Lyrics and melody © 1994 by Catherine Faber

From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline. . .
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground.
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still.
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.

By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things---how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
 
All humans are mammals! We bear our children live, we do not lay eggs. We have hair on our skin. We nurse our new born. We are warm blooded.

What part of race do you think excludes us from the classification as mammals? Do you think German Shepards are mammals but poodles aren't? Holsteins are mammals but Black Angus aren't?

Do you understand what race means?

Try science for a change. There's truth there.

you are dodging the question. Which race is further evolved?
I did not dodge the question. You are now rephrasing the question to pollute the theory of evolution to suit an obvious racial viewpoint that has nothing to do with evolution. all humans have evolved equally. Racial characteristics do not pertain to evolutionary traits. All mankind shares the DNA which makes us human.

You don't understand science at all, so you?

It is you that doesn't understand science. Yes, all mankind shares the same DNA, but all mankind comes from previous mankind. So if mankind evolved from an apelike ancestor, and if evolution is the process of adapting and improving upon previous gene code, then that is exactly the point!

Yes, I did rephrase the question because you were using technicalities to dodge it the first time so I thought I'd make it a little more clear.

So, now once more, Which race is further evolved?
 
you are dodging the question. Which race is further evolved?
I did not dodge the question. You are now rephrasing the question to pollute the theory of evolution to suit an obvious racial viewpoint that has nothing to do with evolution. all humans have evolved equally. Racial characteristics do not pertain to evolutionary traits. All mankind shares the DNA which makes us human.

You don't understand science at all, so you?

It is you that doesn't understand science. Yes, all mankind shares the same DNA, but all mankind comes from previous mankind. So if mankind evolved from an apelike ancestor, and if evolution is the process of adapting and improving upon previous gene code, then that is exactly the point!

Yes, I did rephrase the question because you were using technicalities to dodge it the first time so I thought I'd make it a little more clear.

So, now once more, Which race is further evolved?
Anomalies like race aren't part of the evolution of the species. If one race was deemed to be chock full of anomalies, it would be the Caucasian. The vast majority of human-kind has dark eyes and hair. The blond, blue-eyed Aryan or the red-headed, freckled Celt is a freak when compared to the majority of his fellow humans. Does that make the Caucasian more or less fully evolved?
 
So if mankind evolved from an apelike ancestor, and if evolution is the process of adapting and improving upon previous gene code, then that is exactly the point!

That is NOT what evolution is.

As I've said before, mutations occur in every generation in every species. Some of these tend to help survival, some not. These mutations are not trying to "improve upon previous gene code" as such. They just happen. Some tend to help some species under certain conditions, while the same mutation may hurt another under different circumstances.

The 1s that are successful tend to be reinforced as those that have them reproduce and pass those tendencies on to their offspring. So then, evolution is not reactive to the environment, and no 1 can will themselves to evolve. Try it... spend a lot of time in the water and will yourself to have gills. Spend a lot of time in a cold climate and will yourself to grow a fur coat. It won't happen because that's not how evolutions works.
 
Hmmmmm as if the OP author is capable of defining or discerning Divine Perfection or Purpose. Such Vanity.

As if you can't quantify "divine perfection or purpose" in a method that could fit within the scientific method.

Such vanity...

BTW, on the topic of "divine perfection" and it being allergy season and all..................

The scientific method is an utterly blunt tool for the understanding by a modest intellect of the WHY a thing has been done by a vastly superior mind. Your self imposed blinds so prevent you from framing the right questions that a Reality based set of answers is completely out of the question.
 
The scientific method is an utterly blunt tool for the understanding by a modest intellect of the WHY a thing has been done by a vastly superior mind. Your self imposed blinds so prevent you from framing the right questions that a Reality based set of answers is completely out of the question.

If the scientific method is so simple, why do you guy constantly fuck it up?

It absolutely has self imposed limits to prevent parameters that can't be quantified or falsified from being introduced into the venture.

But, hey, no one is stopping you from designing trying to prove (and by proxy be able to disprove) the existence of God.

Knock yourself out.

I am sure someone who doesn't suffer from a "modest intellect" can solve the fundamental question.
 
Hmmmmm as if the OP author is capable of defining or discerning Divine Perfection or Purpose. Such Vanity.

As if you can't quantify "divine perfection or purpose" in a method that could fit within the scientific method.

Such vanity...

BTW, on the topic of "divine perfection" and it being allergy season and all..................

The scientific method is an utterly blunt tool for the understanding by a modest intellect of the WHY a thing has been done by a vastly superior mind. Your self imposed blinds so prevent you from framing the right questions that a Reality based set of answers is completely out of the question.
You are right. The scientific method is a poor tool to understand WHY. That's for the philosophers and theologians.

But understanding the HOW is what the scientific method was designed to do.

Science does not refute the existence of God. Just the story passed down orally then finally written thousands of years ago. It doesn't make that story any less beautiful. It doesn't diminish the allegorical message of an accessible and personal God. Science just shows the fact. The Bible shows the poetry.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top