• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

I

Iasion

Member
Yah,
so far - we have not seen even ONE example of a creationist who can explain (even briefly) how evolution supposedly works.

But bizarrely -
on other threads around here, so far we have also not seen even ONE example of creationist who can explain (even briefly) HOW creationism supposedly works either !

It seems likely that creationism's explanation for the formation of species is that God instantly poofed an adult male and an adult female of the species into existence and then they started breeding. But oddly, no creationist is prepared to say that out loud.

What if they didn't breed? What if one is killed accidentally or eaten before they can breed? By this theory - every single pair must have been magically protected by God until the offspring were safe?


Iasion
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Iasion said:
Yah,
so far - we have not seen even ONE example of a creationist who can explain (even briefly) how evolution supposedly works.

But bizarrely -
on other threads around here, so far we have also not seen even ONE example of creationist who can explain (even briefly) HOW creationism supposedly works either !

It seems likely that creationism's explanation for the formation of species is that God instantly poofed an adult male and an adult female of the species into existence and then they started breeding. But oddly, no creationist is prepared to say that out loud.

What if they didn't breed? What if one is killed accidentally or eaten before they can breed? By this theory - every single pair must have been magically protected by God until the offspring were safe?


Iasion
Click to expand...

We have one on here that has offered up a could definitions of "kind" but in reality it's flawed. It tries to explain current life but is silent on anything dealing with life "before" the bible.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
outhouse said:
you preach creationism but dont have one word to decribe your myth???


is picking on evolution all you have because your education level doesnt let you see past your faith???
Click to expand...

You seem to have me confused with someone else.

I do believe in evolution.

God did it.
 
Primordial Annihilator

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
God initiated biogenesis...?

Well if God = Chaos (compressed highly complex order (simplexity) that manifests in all things) and the conducive conditions for it to spontaneously manifest in then yup my man...I am with you on that one.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Primordial Annihilator said:
God initiated biogenesis...?

Well if God = Chaos (compressed highly complex order (simplexity) that manifests in all things) and the conducive conditions for it to spontaneously manifest in then yup my man...I am with you on that one.
Click to expand...

And the chemistry of the earth has been churning for a long time.
Something was to come of the constant mixing.

God set such things in motion.
He is behind all of it.
 
newhope101

newhope101

Active Member
Dirty Penguin said:
We have one on here that has offered up a could definitions of "kind" but in reality it's flawed. It tries to explain current life but is silent on anything dealing with life "before" the bible.
Click to expand...

No again here you are under some assumption that a definition is meant to be a theory of everything within itself. It is not. A definition can be simple ie kinds are equivalent to the lower rank of family or subfamily, kinds share 99.9% single nucleotide similarity, kinds are Gods' initial creations and the adaptive variations therein, etc; or a definition can be complicated ie species may refer to genetically similarity, cryptic species, morophological species, cohesion species. A definition is a definition and nothing more.

Here is my understanding of Natural Selection.

Sometimes, evolutionary biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over an extended period of time." However, this argument, which is just a way of making themselves feel better, is baseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific foundation. During his lifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations of living things with short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still observe no "evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. Bacteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary.

Evolution - Natural Selection FLAWED? - Biology-Online

.
 
Last edited:
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
newhope101 said:
No again here you are under some assumption that a definition is meant to be a theory of everything within itself. It is not. A definition can be simple ie kinds are equivalent to the lower rank of family or subfamily, kinds share 99.9% single nucleotide similarity, kinds are Gods' initial creations and the adaptive variations therein, etc; or a definition can be complicated ie species may refer to genetically similarity, cryptic species, morophological species, cohesion species. A definition is a definition and nothing more.

Here is my understanding of Natural Selection.

Sometimes, evolutionary biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over an extended period of time." However, this argument, which is just a way of making themselves feel better, is baseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific foundation. During his lifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations of living things with short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still observe no "evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. Bacteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary.

Evolution - Natural Selection FLAWED? - Biology-Online

.
Click to expand...
So, the best you can do is a guy who quotes a man who was born in the 1800's as a leading source on modern science?

wa:do
 
camanintx

camanintx

Well-Known Member
newhope101 said:
Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. Bacteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.
Click to expand...
If E. Coli is so stable, then why is only 6% of it's genome common to all strains?
 
U

Ubjon

Member
TJ73 said:
I understand it to be the construct in which God has created. A determined amount of material and outcomes. Life building up to its current form, mailable to ride on the current of changing conditions. A creation with potentials. There are numerous ways the conditions can change, movement of the earths plates, other environmental changes and a means of life adapting to those changes, the means(DNA) being part of the design by the Creator.
Click to expand...

Take away God and it still works therefore it would appear that the God bit is redundant.
 
David M

David M

Well-Known Member
newhope101 said:
Here is my understanding of Natural Selection.
Click to expand...

This should be funny...and it is.

newhope101 said:
Sometimes, evolutionary biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over an extended period of time."
Click to expand...
Really? Would you like to provide even a scintilla of evidence that real biologists have ever said this in relation to all species?

This is mainly true for species with long reproductive cycles where science is lucky to see such instance within human lifetimes. However even so the effects of natural selection and mutation mechanisms have been seen in some species.

Of course in species with rapid reproductive cycles these things have been observed more often.

newhope101 said:
Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. Bacteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!
Click to expand...
Oh, look. A Quote-mine. Here is what he really said.

Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago
Click to expand...

Not quite what your source claims.

newhope101 said:
Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary.
Click to expand...
Pierre-Paul Grassé certainly never said this, your source is lying. But then its a creationist source so its not surprising its written by a liar.

Here' a real quote from Grassé.
Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.3
Click to expand...
 
T

the gateway

Member
outhouse said:
No religion is.

science is about observed facts.

evolution is fact as gravity.
Click to expand...
Science gets it wrong. For example, scientists believe the baby in the womb does not have a nervous system until its 3 days old.....this is because the intsruments they use are not advanced enough to detect the nervous system. The nervous system is present from the time the baby is conceived!
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
the gateway said:
Science gets it wrong. For example, scientists believe the baby in the womb does not have a nervous system until its 3 days old.....this is because the intsruments they use are not advanced enough to detect the nervous system. The nervous system is present from the time the baby is conceived!
Click to expand...
How can two cells have a nervous system?

wa:do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top