CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[FA_Q2]

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

The very concept of specie is an old idea that is meaningless. The differences in species are nothing more than a very large amount of adaptation.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The premise of this thread is pretty strange to me. Debate evolution vs. creationism? These are mutually exclusive concepts. Debate them how? Are you suggesting that creationism is better science than evolution? Or that evolution is better religion than creationism? How does one win such a debate?

A more interesting discussion might be whether creationism has any place in the classroom.

 

[S.J.]

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

The very concept of specie is an old idea that is meaningless. The differences in species are nothing more than a very large amount of adaptation.

Really? Tell us how, and give some examples that have been verified. Tell us how a tiger and a horse are related. Which one came first and when did it happen? I can't wait to witness your scientific brilliance.

 

[S.J.]

The premise of this thread is pretty strange to me. Debate evolution vs. creationism? These are mutually exclusive concepts. Debate them how? Are you suggesting that creationism is better science than evolution? Or that evolution is better religion than creationism? How does one win such a debate?

A more interesting discussion might be whether creationism has any place in the classroom.

No one is claiming they have proof of creation, it's the evolutionists who claim it's been scientifically proven yet none of them seem to be able to provide that proof.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The premise of this thread is pretty strange to me. Debate evolution vs. creationism? These are mutually exclusive concepts. Debate them how? Are you suggesting that creationism is better science than evolution? Or that evolution is better religion than creationism? How does one win such a debate?

A more interesting discussion might be whether creationism has any place in the classroom.

No one is claiming they have proof of creation, it's the evolutionists who claim it's been scientifically proven yet none of them seem to be able to provide that proof.

Well, scientists are scientists. They're human beings. They operate within human institutions. They are also prone to have an air of superiority in regards to scientific matters, which I think is sometimes annoying and patronizing, but which is nonetheless largely deserved. The theory of evolution is a theory so well supported by the weight of evidence that some have come to call it settled fact and not theory. Doubtless some others might be inclined to call it fact in order to dismissively put to rest this pseudo-debate of science versus religion. A debate that only has significance in so far as religion insists on having its ideas taught in our classrooms.

 

[S.J.]

The theory of evolution is a theory so well supported by the weight of evidence that some have come to call it settled fact and not theory.

Then why can't anyone provide that proof, other than to just keep repeating what you just said?

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is riveting.

 

[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.

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.

I understand. Re-reading the mess above, I quickly become frustrated. Let me know if your other idea seems good and we can go from there.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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

Evolution just means to change. Adaptation means to change to fit certain conditions. The scientific meaning in the biological context is evolution is cumulative adaptation of populations of organisms.

Please explain why you think evolution fails at the TK Boundary.

Crocodiles survived the TK extinction event. The rodent posited to be the ancestral mammal came from a common ancestor with the crocodile long before there was either crocodiles or mammals of any kind.

 

[Votto]

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

Evolution just means to change. Adaptation means to change to fit certain conditions. The scientific meaning in the biological context is evolution is cumulative adaptation of populations of organisms.

Please explain why you think evolution fails at the TK Boundary.

Crocodiles survived the TK extinction event. The rodent posited to be the ancestral mammal came from a common ancestor with the crocodile long before there was either crocodiles or mammals of any kind.

I just want to know with global warming, how do I keep from getting webbed feet?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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

Evolution just means to change. Adaptation means to change to fit certain conditions. The scientific meaning in the biological context is evolution is cumulative adaptation of populations of organisms.

Please explain why you think evolution fails at the TK Boundary.

Crocodiles survived the TK extinction event. The rodent posited to be the ancestral mammal came from a common ancestor with the crocodile long before there was either crocodiles or mammals of any kind.

I just want to know with global warming, how do I keep from getting webbed feet?

Sorry, it's inevitable.

On the bright side, in 20 years you might be able to get some money for the novelty appeal of your collection of flip-flops.

 

[rdean]

‘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.

That is not what he said Lsos.

 

[Staidhup]

The

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.

Subscribing to a theory or belief remains a personal issue not fraud, theory is in its nature is evolutionary and as others have noted adjusted with the discovery of new evidence. I can not accept the concept that the positioning and orbit of the planets in creation of a protective shield, distance from the sun, strategic location and orbit of the moon is by chance. Mathematically the likelihood of this being by chance is infinitesimal to say the least. I do believe that species undergo environmental adaptation, however, do not see that I am related to an ape. My choice to believe in God versus science in the creation of the perfect environment for his image to thrive and prosper takes precedent over chance.

 

[jwoodie]

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.

"Evolution vs. Creationism" is a great example of substituting pejorative terminology for honest inquiry. Those supporting the former spend more time castigating and misrepresenting the questions raised by their skeptics than in explaining (or even wondering about) how one species might actually transform itself into entirely new (incompatible) species.

Accordingly, the main argument used to support popular "evolution" theory is that the Earth and all life upon it could not have been created in only seven "days" as described in the Bible. Thus the debate is deceptively centered on the beliefs of certain "fundamentalist" Christians rather than on scientific evidence confirming the theory of gradual "evolution" into new species.

While there is very little archaeological evidence of any inter-species transformation, there is much evidence of many new species appearing within relatively narrow time frames. Why and how might this have occurred, and why do so many "evolutionists" avoid these questions?

 

[Staidhup]

I agree that seven days is a tad optimistic, simplistic, however, who is to say how long seven years are in the eyes of God. Would it not have been a convenience out of acknowledgment, respect, and honor, to set aside one day to give praise? I recall a pastor I knew proclaimed one day a week was needed for praise and rest, what day of the week remained to be chosen by the follower, provided it was observed within a seven day period.

 

[Syriusly]

One of the reasons I avoid such 'debates' is that as can be seen here in this thread there is little 'debate' going on. I have yet to see much of a strong statement in support of either proposition.

To me- a debate of 'Evolution vs. Creationism' would require both sides to start off with a statement in support of their own position. I have yet to see anyone provide a statement in support of Creationism- only attacks on Evolution.

So let me provide my input into the debate- and anyone is welcome to respond- or not.
What is 'evolution'?

When I use the term 'evolution'- I am speaking of the theory of evolution by natural selection, most famously promoted by Charles Darwin- but I am not speaking of Darwinism- since science has advanced since Darwin's day. By natural selection I mean that organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.

So that is what I am speaking of when I speak of evolution.

 

[jwoodie]

The clarification of your religious beliefs is instructive, but not very relevant as to an inquiry into the scientific basis for the arrival of new species. The why and how of this phenominum are entirely different questions.

 

[320 Years of History]

I have to ask some questions, mainly to understand the intended scope and context for this thread and with regard to the person(s) whom I may find myself debating something in this thread (I don't know for sure that I'll engage past this post, but if someone offers something intellectually compelling enough for my tastes, I will)....

First question:
For this thread, are we/you discussing/focused on one mode of Creationism or all of the various degrees of that belief the context? Some of the variations of Creationism:

• Young Earth Creationism
• Old Earth Creationism
• Neo-Creationism
• Theistic Evolution
• Vedic Creationism

Second question:
Are you expecting that the discussion be undertaken only by folks who accept the assertion/premise on which all creationist theories depend: There is a God? (God as described in the Bible/Torah, Quran, Vedas/Smṛti, etc.) I'm asking this question because to my mind, a debate between theists and atheists on this topic isn't going anywhere new for theists necessarily have faith, a trait that will allow one to believe damn near anything regardless of how far fetched it may be, and atheists lack it.

In the thread linked above, I have already discussed the rationality of accepting the premise/assertion "there is a God." The fact of the matter is that a critically thinking individual who accepts that premise can do so based on two things: (1) faith and (2) the fact that nothing has yet been discovered that allows for a formal (deductive) argument showing that assertion to be true/untrue. If, on the other hand, one does not accept that there is a God, one will reject creationism on the basis that the preponderance of evidence (rationale) presented in the various informal (inductive) arguments supporting that assertion is unconvincing.

Third question:
Assuming a person responding to this post accepts the idea that there is a God, which of the major arguments in support of that assertion (they are the same ones I address in the post I linked above) does one accept?

 

[baileyn45]

The

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.

Subscribing to a theory or belief remains a personal issue not fraud, theory is in its nature is evolutionary and as others have noted adjusted with the discovery of new evidence. I can not accept the concept that the positioning and orbit of the planets in creation of a protective shield, distance from the sun, strategic location and orbit of the moon is by chance. Mathematically the likelihood of this being by chance is infinitesimal to say the least. I do believe that species undergo environmental adaptation, however, do not see that I am related to an ape. My choice to believe in God versus science in the creation of the perfect environment for his image to thrive and prosper takes precedent over chance.

I don't believe such beliefs are fraud. I believe this debate is some what of an 'apples and oranges" comparison. Science is a tool, nothing more. It is used to attempt to explain the world around us through observation and experiment. Creationism from my perspective is more aligned with philosophy.

As far as the infinitesimal chances, our observations of space suggest that there are billions of stars in our own galaxy. Recent observations tell us that many probably have planets orbiting them. Even with small chances that those planets are in the "goldilocks zone" that still leaves a lot of potential planets capable of supporting life as we know it.

Those that state evolution is a fact are over stating scientific theory. It is IMHO the most plausible theory out there at this time.

 

[jwoodie]

The objective terminology in this debate should be "gradual transformation into new species" vs. "interventional creation of new species." The former theory is derived from the observable adaptation of species to their local environment (e.g., polar bears), but has little archaeological evidence or biological explanation for their transformation into entirely new species. The latter theorizes that external events (e.g., asteroid collisions) are primarily responsible for the sudden appearance of new species during certain periods in the archaeological record. Whether such events may have occurred according to a plan designed by a supreme being (God) is a philosophical, rather than scientific, question and not relevant to this debate.