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.

Where did I suggest that an organism can will a chnage in its DNA? Can you provide a quote where I made such a statement. If anything, there it is implicit from my posts that organism do not have such control. Please find a quote where I stated otherwise.




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.

When did I talk about creration. Understan, I am talking about creationism/ID .
Creation is the theological term for reality
Creationism/ID is the belief that some intelligent being created all life.
If I used creation in a statement, I may have mistyped the word creationism. Even so, I never said evolution precluded an intital forming of the universe.

Are you sure you are reading my posts? Please provide quotes from where I made these inferences you accused me of.
 
What is Creationism/Intelligent design

It is the idea that an organism is created with forethought by an intelligent designer, as if no improvements or "adaptation" is necessary. But if one actually sit down and ask, "will man need to adapt to some unforeseen circumstances, be it temporal or permanent, how will man survive?"

The answer to this question is yes, at proof of this exist if we think of a temporal circumstance that will require man's physiology to change to meet some condition presented to him. Such proof will punch a winding hole into creationist concepts, since not only does this adaptation takes place, it is even recognizable by all biologist be they creationists or not.

This proof is called the Immune System. It operates by changing mans physiology whenever certain bacteria or virus are introduce to the body. New types of proteins and enzymes are created to combat the spread of disease and restore health.

Now if there was an intelligent engineer that designed eveything and everything is a direct copy of its predecessor and not needing improvement, then this Immune system is just another attack by non-believers to destroy religion. On the other hand, maybe this designer did not create any living thing as perfect. The allowance of the immune system is therefore an admission, by the great engineer, that the organism may need to adapt in order to survive. This so-called "admission" is all the proof needed to run creationism, as it is endorsed by many anti-biology fanatics, into the ground.

Organisms must have an internal adaptation system in order to survive. The concept of a perfect organism, that is an organism never having a need to adapt, is theological nonsense and is not backed by any scientific fact. On the other hand, the immune system is a likely suspect in the rewriting of genetic coding in living organisms. Yet, this suspicion
is hypothetical in nature, but is enough to warrant further investigation.

Fail. Again.

Try again.
 
What is Creationism/Intelligent design

It is the idea that an organism is created with forethought by an intelligent designer, as if no improvements or "adaptation" is necessary...

...

is this true?

Let say you add adaptation to creationism. The problem with this asertion is where creationism comes from. That is from Biblical scriptures and adaptation with scientific evidence forces an interpretation on them. In short, using Biblical scriptures, you will come acoss the concept that man is made in the image of god.


That can be interpreted in several ways.

The first interpretation is to assume that man is made in perfection. If this is the case, then any variation in man would be a temporal mutation and will disapear over time. Unfortunate, every race of man has difference in their physiology that does not disappear over time. These characteristics can reappear when parents possesing the "mutated" trait produce offspring. This trait is permanent in terms of the genome of their progeny. This therefore leads to the conclusion that mans original form is not perfect, at least in terms of its physical features. This interpretation is therefore incorrect in terms of what the creationists are trying to suggest.


Another intepretation is taken from the fact that God appeared to man in several different forms through out biblical times, and the form chosen to construct Adam was one god found convient for the task. This would imply that mans form is not one of perfection, but one convient for clay molding, walking(upright--to be honest, not actually stated), and picking fruit from a tree. But Apes and monkeys can do this and the question of Adams form is in now questionable. What was the image of God is actually an unanswerable question in this interpretation. It has been assumed that Adam is in the form akin to modern man by the creationists and this form will not deviate wildly from the 'ideal'. Unfortunately, the second interpretation can imply that man's physiology has the ability to take on many different forms over time. A trait passed on from God.


In the first interpretation, we have the repeal of the perfect human form in nature. In the second, we have some form of evoultion as well as the repeal of any notion of the perfect human form, and leaves open the question of what mans original form actually was.

Neither cases are what creationists actually want, since these bring pressure to bear on whether man was created by an intelligent being, or is just simply another lifeform whose existance is not much different from any other living organism.

If there is another intepretation of "man being created in the image of god", please list.
 
What is Creationism/Intelligent design

It is the idea that an organism is created with forethought by an intelligent designer, as if no improvements or "adaptation" is necessary...

...

is this true?

Let say you add adaptation to creationism. The problem with this asertion is where creationism comes from. That is from Biblical scriptures and adaptation with scientific evidence forces an interpretation on them. In short, using Biblical scriptures, you will come acoss the concept that man is made in the image of god.


That can be interpreted in several ways.

The first interpretation is to assume that man is made in perfection. If this is the case, then any variation in man would be a temporal mutation and will disapear over time. Unfortunate, every race of man has difference in their physiology that does not disappear over time. These characteristics can reappear when parents possesing the "mutated" trait produce offspring. This trait is permanent in terms of the genome of their progeny. This therefore leads to the conclusion that mans original form is not perfect, at least in terms of its physical features. This interpretation is therefore incorrect in terms of what the creationists are trying to suggest.


Another intepretation is taken from the fact that God appeared to man in several different forms through out biblical times, and the form chosen to construct Adam was one god found convient for the task. This would imply that mans form is not one of perfection, but one convient for clay molding, walking(upright--to be honest, not actually stated), and picking fruit from a tree. But Apes and monkeys can do this and the question of Adams form is in now questionable. What was the image of God is actually an unanswerable question in this interpretation. It has been assumed that Adam is in the form akin to modern man by the creationists and this form will not deviate wildly from the 'ideal'. Unfortunately, the second interpretation can imply that man's physiology has the ability to take on many different forms over time. A trait passed on from God.


In the first interpretation, we have the repeal of the perfect human form in nature. In the second, we have some form of evoultion as well as the repeal of any notion of the perfect human form, and leaves open the question of what mans original form actually was.

Neither cases are what creationists actually want, since these bring pressure to bear on whether man was created by an intelligent being, or is just simply another lifeform whose existance is not much different from any other living organism.

If there is another intepretation of "man being created in the image of god", please list.


Does that mean scientific fact doesn't dictate something can come from nothing? Where'd the universe come from again?
 
The universe's emergence wouldn't be subject to the laws that apply within the universe
Then how can we use current laws of physics as a gauge for how the universe was formed and/or whether or not there is an intelligent creator?
 
I'm not bending anything.

The laws that apply within a system due to the nature of the system apply, be definition, within the system.

So what caused the natural laws to poof into existence?
:eusa_eh:

wow... that's one of the dumbest questions I've ever heard

Actually, it is a very valid question. Natural laws cannot apply to nothing. Therefore, if the universe exploded from nothing then before the universe was, there were no natural laws. So where did the natural laws come from and how did they come into existence?
 
Define: nothing

Just because the universe did not exist in its current form does not mean there was/is nothing outside what we perceive as the universe we experience. See: Quantum Foam; Lambda-Colt Model; Branes

The natural laws of the universe come from the nature of the universe itself and they 'came into existence' with the universe itself.

If you were to describe a game of plinko, you might devise a set of 'rules' or observations regarding how the placement, spin, material, etc of the game piece as it enters the top of the game effects/determines its location at the end of the game. The rules governing the relationship between the item (mass) it's construction (material/matter), its spin and direction/speed of movement (state) and its behavior alone and possibly with other game pieces (other matter) are determined by the very nature of the game itself (think of the gravitational constant and the speed of light as those little pegs the pieces bounce off of)

The natural laws of the universe are determined by the very nature of the universe itself. If anything exists 'outside' the universe we know of (cosmic branes, quantum foam, etc) then those materials and the plane of existence which they inhabit would, in turn, be subject to the laws of that plane- laws currently unknown to us). The formation of the universe can't be governed by the nature the universe takes on when its formed but only by the laws/nature of the plane in which it emerges, much as the creation of a videogame is not ruled by the rules a player in the game must abide by but by the nature of the system (old-school Mac with Motorola chips, IBM clone, Amiga, whatever) and the rules governing the behavior of the photons inside the computer and the nature of the machine and the code in which the game is created.
 
The models don't go back 'before' TBB. They go to within a split-second after its start.

Unless yo get into Branes, but we've yet to find a way to test certain aspects of M-Theory
yep.

Hence the idea of an intelligent creator cannot be dismissed as an impossibility. The debate on the methods may vary, but this does not change that there is a possibility there was. And if IF the laws of the universe mirrored what we have, logically, there must have been a creator, for chaos and random chance are slaves of entropy, and the breaking down of order.
 
Last edited:
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?

Evolution is like a friend with the annoying habit of starting stories in the middle of them.
Just imagine your friend walking in to the room and saying "so the judge told me that if I get caught doing that again he's going to take the monkey and the web camera and put out a restraining order against that girl"
That's evolution. No beginning. Just things started changing.... What things ...? The things that were there. Where did they come from ....? Never mind where they came from they just came...

i think that is precisely the point. while atheists see evolution as some evidence that there is no god, it can indicate to the faithful that there is one, indeed, and a capable one.

while some faithful see the fact that there is a god as a definitive nullification of evolution, the complexity of god's creation can indicate his greatness to scientists who have taken the time to study it in depth.

that evolution tells a part of the story, does not make it a fallacy. that i am genetically the spawn of my parents via scientific analysis, doesn't preclude my being a creation of god.

my belief in god dictates that all life is by his mandate; does evolution challenge that? i fail to see why some christians feel so threatened by science, or how atheists feel their faith so empowered by it.
 

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.

but science and the scientific method does not encompass anything supernatural, just natural. while i'd agree that the efforts of witch doctors to tailor ID into something scientifically plausible are futile, and funny to witness, the same can be said of atheist's efforts to debunk god with science.
 
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?

mmmaaaan you're an ignoramus. you knock the I right out of ID.

why participate in a debate without obtaining 5th grade competency in the matter?
 
The models don't go back 'before' TBB. They go to within a split-second after its start.

Unless yo get into Branes, but we've yet to find a way to test certain aspects of M-Theory
yep.

Hence the idea of an intelligent creator cannot be dismissed as an impossibility.

Nor can the idea that JBeukema created the universe last Thursday and I implanted false memories in your heads so you'd not realize I am your God so I could judge your behavior as you exercise your free will

Both hypothesis, however, lack any supporting evidence and are therefore not worth any further consideration


moron
 

Forum List

Back
Top