Evolution and Creationism are the same thing

[Jesusfreak888]

So, you have no idea what an established Scientific Theory is, and your understanding of Biological Evolution is less than the average Middle School biology student.

Why am I not surprised.

I might be misunderstanding your question… An Established Scientific Theory to me would be something that followed the Scientific Method. As I stated before MICRO-EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE, I would really like an explanation as to how life got started if there is no God. The ONLY examples I have been given so far in this thread are examples of Micro-Evolution, but there is much more to Evolution than that, it seems that you are avoiding the rest of the theory, and just explaining a very small part of it.
I also like how everyone is eager to claim I know nothing about Evolution, and yet NO ONE has rebuttal me… you all are so quick to say I have no clue what I am talking about, and yet it seem no one can prove me wrong…
Why am I not surprised

 

[otokage007]

I might be misunderstanding your question… An Established Scientific Theory to me would be something that followed the Scientific Method. As I stated before MICRO-EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE, I would really like an explanation as to how life got started if there is no God. The ONLY examples I have been given so far in this thread are examples of Micro-Evolution, but there is much more to Evolution than that, it seems that you are avoiding the rest of the theory, and just explaining a very small part of it.
I also like how everyone is eager to claim I know nothing about Evolution, and yet NO ONE has rebuttal me… you all are so quick to say I have no clue what I am talking about, and yet it seem no one can prove me wrong…
Why am I not surprised

No one has tried to explain you how evolution works because there's plenty of threads explaining that topic. Also you can type "evolution" on youtube or wikipedia and learn by yourself. Understanding the basics of evolution isn't dificult at all, you really don't need a teacher.

Nowadays there's no evidence that can tell you 100% how exactly the Origin of Life happened. However, there are theories supported with more amount of evidence than others. For example, the Alexander Oparin's theory has some interesting evidences as support, however, the God theory has none.

It is your choice to believe one theory or another. None are 100% demonstrated to this date, but some (as the God theory) are much less probable than others.

 

[McBell]

I might be misunderstanding your question… An Established Scientific Theory to me would be something that followed the Scientific Method. As I stated before MICRO-EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE, I would really like an explanation as to how life got started if there is no God. The ONLY examples I have been given so far in this thread are examples of Micro-Evolution, but there is much more to Evolution than that, it seems that you are avoiding the rest of the theory, and just explaining a very small part of it.
I also like how everyone is eager to claim I know nothing about Evolution, and yet NO ONE has rebuttal me… you all are so quick to say I have no clue what I am talking about, and yet it seem no one can prove me wrong…
Why am I not surprised

Why did you completely ignore the THREE links to threads that are nothing but evidence for evolution?
Your blatant dishonesty is most disgusting, but not the least bit surprising.

 

[Riverwolf]

That might be how your logic works, but that is not the way everyone must logic their way through life. If that is the way you wish to live your life, good luck assuming everything you hear is wrong until you prove it right. I understand there are certain areas where this type of logic could be applied, but when discussing Religion that type of logic is very dangerous, and another excuse for someone to not believe in God.

Logic is universal; there is no "my" logic and "your" logic. I already told you that I believe in God, and that I have to suspend logic in order to do so.

BTW, logic is not a verb.

I am not talking about the oldest surviving book; I am talking about the word of God. The Rig Veda is a very old religious text, but just because they wrote their religion down, and the book survived does not make that religion right. My point in my last post was the Theory of Creation (in The Bible) has stood the test of time, and still cannot be proven wrong.

It's been proven wrong time and time again, even in its own text. What are you talking about?

In the YouTube video the Theory of Evolution is defined as: “How different living organisms have developed and diversified since life appeared on earth”

That is exactly what Micro-Evolution is, and I understand I very well. THIS IS SCIENCE!!!

And that's all that biological evolution is. This is the reason the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are no longer accepted terms in the scientific community.

The words that I have underlined are the part I would like you to explain. I don’t care what religion you are Christian, Hindu, Evolution, or Atheist, there was a beginning to life on this earth, and to the earth itself. Please explain to me how life “appeared” on earth?

I will answer this, but first, let me point out that this is NOT evolution; the science that deals with the origin of life is called "abiogenesis."

To tell you the truth, I don't fully understand the current processes that scientists have hypothesized regarding the origin of life, mostly because of all the scientific terms that I don't really understand and otherwise hear, and thus are unable to stick in my memory. However, I do remember that it did not occur at the time of the Earth's formation, but about 1 billion years ago last I heard.

 

[Jesusfreak888]

Why did you completely ignore the THREE links to threads that are nothing but evidence for evolution?
Your blatant dishonesty is most disgusting, but not the least bit surprising.

I am sorry I cannot re-post “links” until after I have made 15 or more posts. I have looked through these links, and I don’t know how many times I have to say this before you will understand, all the evidence that I have seen is supporting Micro-Evolution THIS IS SCIENCE!!! That does not prove the earth is Billions of years old. If you are an Atheist then I ask the question: How did life begin? If you believe in Theistic-Evolution that is a different matter that has many problems with it as well.
Your willing ignorance to this topic is extremely sad, but expected

 

[McBell]

I am sorry I cannot re-post “links” until after I have made 15 or more posts. I have looked through these links, and I don’t know how many times I have to say this before you will understand, all the evidence that I have seen is supporting Micro-Evolution THIS IS SCIENCE!!! That does not prove the earth is Billions of years old. If you are an Atheist then I ask the question: How did life begin? If you believe in Theistic-Evolution that is a different matter that has many problems with it as well.
Your willing ignorance to this topic is extremely sad, but expected

Thank you for further demonstrating not only your blatant ignorance of evolution, but also your willingness to remain ignorant of it.

 

[Jesusfreak888]

It's been proven wrong time and time again, even in its own text. What are you talking about?

Then prove it wrong!!! You people obviously have no idea how to debate… comments such as these, and many others in this thread are of no help to what you believe, if you think I am wrong then tell me how, If you think I am Ignorant tell my why, if you think the Bible has been proven wrong THEN SHOW ME WHERE!!! Just saying the bible is wrong does not prove to me that it is…

And that's all that biological evolution is. This is the reason the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are no longer accepted terms in the scientific community.

I will answer this, but first, let me point out that this is NOT evolution; the science that deals with the origin of life is called "abiogenesis."

To tell you the truth, I don't fully understand the current processes that scientists have hypothesized regarding the origin of life, mostly because of all the scientific terms that I don't really understand and otherwise hear, and thus are unable to stick in my memory. However, I do remember that it did not occur at the time of the Earth's formation, but about 1 billion years ago last I heard.

[/QUOTE]


I don’t care what term is now accepted in the “Scientific Community” my point is still the same no matter what name you put on it, you are explaining a very small part of Evolution; I want an explanation for the origin of life. If you say Biological Evolution is the same thing as Micro- Evolution, then I will tell you I agree with Biological Evolution, but that is not the same as Macro-Evolution, and that does not prove any of the remaining parts of evolution.
You say you believe In God, so I would say you fill in the rest of the beginning with what your religion teaches, but you do not understand that there is a much bigger picture of Evolution that cannot be explained, and that is why I call Evolution a religion

 

[Jose Fly]

JesusFreak,

"Microevolution" is simply changes in populations over time, and as you agree, has been observed countless times.

"Macroevolution" is changes above the species level, i.e. the evolution of new species. That also has been observed.


Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic... [J Hered. 1990 Jan-Feb] - PubMed result

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization... [BMC Evol Biol. 2003] - PubMed result

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

Speciation via introgressive hybridization in East... [Mol Ecol. 2002] - PubMed result

Reproductive character displacement and speciation... [Evolution. 2000] - PubMed result

Chronic speciation in periodical cicadas. [Trends Ecol Evol. 2001] - PubMed result

Hybrid speciation in experimental populations of y... [Science. 2002] - PubMed result

Septic arthritis caused by a gram-negative bacteri... [APMIS. 2000] - PubMed result

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/7/1022

 

[Jesusfreak888]

Thank you for further demonstrating not only your blatant ignorance of evolution, but also your willingness to remain ignorant of it.

And thank you for proving my point that you cannot argue your theory because you are ignorant of it yourself. I clearly asked you a question, and it was ignored because you have no idea how to answer it. It’s been nice talking to you though, I hope and pray you re-think Christianity

 

[Dirty Penguin]

there was a beginning to life on this earth, and to the earth itself. Please explain to me how life “appeared” on earth?

What is unknown is "beginning". There are multiple hypotheses as to how life came to be on this planet. The religious connect some sort of god or gods to the beginning of life but it is at best an uneducated guess.

A plausible and possible explanation is that a meteor struck the planet carrying components that once interacted with other components on this planet gave rise to life. Another is to not even assume a meteor and just posit the notion that this planet contained all that was needed to give rise to life in conjunction with certain favorable conditions and time. To me either is possible. What we do know, giving and overwhelming amount of evidence, is that all life on the planet is related and has evolved over time.

 

[Jesusfreak888]

JesusFreak,

"Microevolution" is simply changes in populations over time, and as you agree, has been observed countless times.

"Macroevolution" is changes above the species level, i.e. the evolution of new species. That also has been observed.

I think you are mistaken; Macro-Evolution is not changing to a new Species it is changing to a different “KIND”. There is a big difference between a species and a kind. A dog, wolf, and Coyote might be a different species, but they are still the same kind of animal. Give me an example of a dog producing something other than its “kind”.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think you are mistaken; Macro-Evolution is not changing to a new Species it is changing to a different “KIND”. There is a big difference between a species and a kind. A dog, wolf, and Coyote might be a different species, but they are still the same kind of animal. Give me an example of a dog producing something other than its “kind”.

But that line of questioning and reasoning gets you nowhere because the subject has been dealt with. An example is the similarities and differences between Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalus.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think you are mistaken; Macro-Evolution is not changing to a new Species it is changing to a different “KIND”.

Then it should be no problem for you to provide a citation to a scientific source that defines "macroevolution" as such.

There is a big difference between a species and a kind. A dog, wolf, and Coyote might be a different species, but they are still the same kind of animal. Give me an example of a dog producing something other than its “kind”.

I can't do that until you define "kind".

 

[Jesusfreak888]

What is unknown is "beginning". There are multiple hypotheses as to how life came to be on this planet. The religious connect some sort of god or gods to the beginning of life but it is at best an uneducated guess.

A plausible and possible explanation is that a meteor struck the planet carrying components that once interacted with other components on this planet gave rise to life. Another is to not even assume a meteor and just posit the notion that this planet contained all that was needed to give rise to life in conjunction with certain favorable conditions and time. To me either is possible. What we do know, giving and overwhelming amount of evidence, is that all life on the planet is related and has evolved over time.

This is my exact point, which I don’t think you will understand. You say that the belief that God created the universe is an uneducated guess, and yet you claim a Meteor hit the earth, which contained all that was needed to create life (for which there is absolutely no proof), or this planet already had all the components for life on it (for which there is absolutely no proof). This why I call these theories RELIGIOUS!!! You claim that this is an “Educated Guess”? You have got to be kidding me! If this is your position, then tell me where did these components for life come from? There must be an origin. Where did matter itself come from? Where did Space come from? Where did Time come from? Where did the Organization come from? Where did the Information come from? All of these question you answer by faith, and if you can’t see that, then I don’t think I can help you.

 

[McBell]

And thank you for proving my point that you cannot argue your theory because you are ignorant of it yourself. I clearly asked you a question, and it was ignored because you have no idea how to answer it. It’s been nice talking to you though, I hope and pray you re-think Christianity

You seem unable to tell the difference between your ignoring the answers and your not getting the answers.

 

[Jesusfreak888]

Then it should be no problem for you to provide a citation to a scientific source that defines "macroevolution" as such.

I can give you many Science sources, but I am sure you will not accept them because they are creationist sources. Even though what these scientists say are very truthful, I am sure will not approve.
You can look up many scientists who teach young earth creationism.
Kent Hovind has an amazing source for Macro-Evolution, and his website www.drdino.com has many articles supporting a young earth creation.

I can't do that until you define "kind".

The Bible tells us if they can “bring forth” they are the same kind. I am sure there are some variations within the kinds, but my point is there are limitations to these variations.

 

[camanintx]

My point in my last post was the Theory of Creation (in The Bible) has stood the test of time, and still cannot be proven wrong.

Exactly which Theory of Creation in the Bible are you referring to? The one that says light was created before the Sun? The one that says plants were created before sea creatures? The one that says Man was created before the plants and animals?

Give me an example of a dog producing something other than its “kind”.

Give me a reference showing that this is what the Theory of Evolution expects.

 

[Jose Fly]

JesusFreak,

I can give you many Science sources, but I am sure you will not accept them because they are creationist sources.

Who do you think gets to define scientific terms, scientists or anti-science crusaders? Do you think atheists should get to define Biblical terms?

Kent Hovind has an amazing source for Macro-Evolution, and his website Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism has many articles supporting a young earth creation.

Hovind is a convicted felon sitting in prison, has no scientific credentials at all, and is one of the worst liars on the creationist side.

The Bible tells us if they can “bring forth” they are the same kind.

Then the evolution of new "kinds" is an observed fact. One of the examples I provided you was where two parent species cross-breed and produce a descendant species that cannot interbreed with either one of the parent species, but can reproduce itself.

Thus, the evolution new "kinds" is an observed fact.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

First, take a breath. I know you may be hot and bothered by others here but I'm trying to respond to you without all the rhetoric.

This is my exact point, which I don’t think you will understand.

No, I understand you and this subject all too well. It's not a new one. Some religious people immediately try and associate our current scientific understanding with their own beliefs and that's not how science works. This is evident by your responses below.

You say that the belief that God created the universe is an uneducated guess

And it is unless you can produce some tangible evidence for "creation".

yet you claim a Meteor hit the earth, which contained all that was needed to create life (for which there is absolutely no proof)

I never made the claim. I said there is a hypothesis that one could have struck the planet and that the meteor could have contained elements that sparked life in conjunction with other elements on this planet. Meteors striking the planet is a fact so it would be possible and plausible for life to have begun this way. No one ever said it was fact.

Case in point....
Life's Building Blocks Found on Surprising Meteorite | Space.com

I'm not saying it actually happened this way but I don't dismiss the possibility and this isn't an isolated incident of discovery either. Now what I do dismiss is the notion of a god creating life simply due to the fact we can not verify this. This notion becomes less plausible.

or this planet already had all the components for life on it (for which there is absolutely no proof).

Once again I never stated them as irrefutable facts but if you don't think this planet doesn't have all that is needed for life to have begun then it is on you to show what's missing.

This why I call these theories RELIGIOUS!!!

I never called them theories. I said "hypotheses". There's a big difference.

You claim that this is an “Educated Guess”? You have got to be kidding me! If this is your position, then tell me where did these components for life come from? There must be an origin. Where did matter itself come from? Where did Space come from? Where did Time come from?

So I take it you disagree that elements on this planet that are crucial for life don't exist elsewhere in our universe. Is that your position?

As far as "matter" I was unaware it could be "created"...

Where did the Organization come from?

What "organization"? What, about this universe, do you consider "organized"?

 

[Jesusfreak888]

[/size][/font]
Exactly which Theory of Creation in the Bible are you referring to? The one that says light was created before the Sun? The one that says plants were created before sea creatures? The one that says Man was created before the plants and animals?

This is a prime example of how you build your disbelief upon serious misunderstandings. The Bible claims light was created before the sun because God was the source of the light, he did this for many reason one being to show people the Sun is not worth worshiping. As for the others I see nothing wrong with plants being created before sea creatures, or Man before Beasts… You people try and put human limitations on God and that is your problem. God is above, beyond, and through everything that we see, he does not need the sun to produce light, just like he does not need Evolution to produce life.