Evolution Vs. Creationism

[sniper762]

Then why dont you use it?

 

[micrurus]

Im going to ask my question again, do you have ANYTHING to discuss about evolution?

 

[sniper762]

and i ask mine again; do you?

 

[Autodidact]

and i ask mine again; do you?

Me! Me! I do!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey Dallas, here's some evidence with source citations for ya:

Human fossils, and other evidences of human evolution from the Smithsonian;
A collection of fossil skulls demonstrating human evolution is shown below, from talkorigins.org but taken from the Smithsonian:

15 Evolutionary Gems, from the world-renowned science journal Nature;
Fossil evidence, and other lines of evidence demonstrating evolution, from UC Berkely;
Why Evolution is True, by Jerry A. Coyne, PhD.

 

[dallas1125]

Thanks, I checked out all those links and it looks great!

 

[Gloone]

No, it is an example of evolution in action. What about that do you not understand, or why do you disagree?

Well a lot of people seem to think just because nylon 6 is a synthetic man-made material, that automatically means it is inorganic when it actually holds some organic compounds. Otherwise this type of bacterium would not be evident and it would be more adapt to abiogenesis than evolution. The study of life arising from inorganic material or matter is not uncommon.

 

[Gloone]

Gloone, just for clarity and for the sake of conversation.
Do you STILL think that plants aren't living beings?

I don't know, care to provide some proof for their existence?

 

[LuisDantas]

Well a lot of people seem to think just because nylon 6 is a synthetic man-made material, that automatically means it is inorganic when it actually holds some organic compounds. Otherwise this type of bacterium would not be evident and it would be more adapt to abiogenesis than evolution. The study of life arising from inorganic material or matter is not uncommon.

Kinda difficult to make sense of this. If I could, it would challenge Creationism quite a lot anyway, wouldn't it?

 

[Valjean]

Are you seriously proposing special creation, ie: magic, as a reasonable explanation of the origin of this organism. Gloone?

 

[Gloone]

Are you seriously proposing special creation, ie: magic, as a reasonable explanation of the origin of this organism. Gloone?

No. Why do you consider creation magic anyways? Is everything you see under a microscope considered magic too?

 

[Gloone]

Kinda difficult to make sense of this. If I could, it would challenge Creationism quite a lot anyway, wouldn't it?

Quite possibly, but I also think it can challenge evolutionist just as easily.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you say so.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know, care to provide some proof for their existence?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well a lot of people seem to think just because nylon 6 is a synthetic man-made material, that automatically means it is inorganic when it actually holds some organic compounds. Otherwise this type of bacterium would not be evident and it would be more adapt to abiogenesis than evolution. The study of life arising from inorganic material or matter is not uncommon.

First off there's a couple things wrong here. The bacteria adapted. This is exactly what evolution says. It's indistinguishable from the other bacteria that was not able to process the nylon byproduct thus you now have a new species. This is exactly what evolution says. Even your creation cohorts at answersingenesis realize this but have to reinterpret the data and out of context to fit their creation idea....

A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria - Answers in Genesis

"The recent appearance of nylon degrading bacteria presents an interesting demonstration of bacterial ability to adapt to an ever changing environment and substrate"

They're fighting against evolution but this is what the ToE says...

"At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems"

This is because it IS EVOLUTION....

Of course they they jump through hoops and begin their spin after that.....(link provided).

"Thus, this adaptive versatility has imposed limits as well, and this fits well within the types of mutational changes predicted by a creation model."

Yeah, right....what model...????? They have no model. They are forced to use data collected by scientist that except the ToE but they spin it but provide no evidence that it "fits the creation model"......


AiG's reasoning was refuted here....(can't past because it more informative)
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2004

 

[Gloone]

First off there's a couple things wrong here. The bacteria adapted. This is exactly what evolution says. It's indistinguishable from the other bacteria that was not able to process the nylon byproduct thus you now have a new species. This is exactly what evolution says. Even your creation cohorts at answersingenesis realize this but have to reinterpret the data and out of context to fit their creation idea....

A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria - Answers in Genesis

"The recent appearance of nylon degrading bacteria presents an interesting demonstration of bacterial ability to adapt to an ever changing environment and substrate"

They're fighting against evolution but this is what the ToE says...

"At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems"

This is because it IS EVOLUTION....

Of course they they jump through hoops and begin their spin after that.....(link provided).

"Thus, this adaptive versatility has imposed limits as well, and this fits well within the types of mutational changes predicted by a creation model."

Yeah, right....what model...????? They have no model. They are forced to use data collected by scientist that except the ToE but they spin it but provide no evidence that it "fits the creation model"......


AiG's reasoning was refuted here....(can't past because it more informative)
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2004

The Nylon-Eating Bacteria is an example of a lab experiment done outdoors. It isn’t something that happened naturally, so I don’t consider it to be evolution. It only serves as a great textbook example of what not to do and how you shouldn’t conduct experiments that are intended for a lab. IMO if you do think this is a great example of modern day evolution you are basically arguing that evolution is based on random nothingness and serves no real purpose. You could always argue that evolution isn’t about the study of nature and natural occurrences, which you might have a hard time doing. That is how pathetic I find the nylon-eating bacteria example of evolution to be. At least the methane-gas eating bacteria are naturally occurring; they were not created or induced by the interaction of mankind with artificial substances and chemicals. But even with the methane-gas eating bacteria you are still breaking away from the traditional theory of evolution for something a little different. I'd imagine it is easier to just burn old science documents and books than it is to go through and edit them.

You know how they put an * asterisk beside a baseball players name because they used steroids or some type of performance enhancing drugs? They might as well put one beside the nylon eating bacteria because it isn’t a real example of evolution. Anyone that argues in favor of this really has no idea what they are talking about. And certainly doesn’t follow the theory of evolution. If they do then they are not doing it any good.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't know, care to provide some proof for their existence?

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Nylon-Eating Bacteria is an example of a lab experiment done outdoors. It isn’t something that happened naturally, so I don’t consider it to be evolution. It only serves as a great textbook example of what not to do and how you shouldn’t conduct experiments that are intended for a lab. IMO if you do think this is a great example of modern day evolution you are basically arguing that evolution is based on random nothingness and serves no real purpose. You could always argue that evolution isn’t about the study of nature and natural occurrences, which you might have a hard time doing. That is how pathetic I find the nylon-eating bacteria example of evolution to be. At least the methane-gas eating bacteria are naturally occurring; they were not created or induced by the interaction of mankind with artificial substances and chemicals. But even with the methane-gas eating bacteria you are still breaking away from the traditional theory of evolution for something a little different. I'd imagine it is easier to just burn old science documents and books than it is to go through and edit them.

You know how they put an * asterisk beside a baseball players name because they used steroids or some type of performance enhancing drugs? They might as well put one beside the nylon eating bacteria because it isn’t a real example of evolution. Anyone that argues in favor of this really has no idea what they are talking about. And certainly doesn’t follow the theory of evolution. If they do then they are not doing it any good.

Let me get this straight. A new, never before known material is introduced to the environment. Some bacteria, that naturally occur in this environment, evolve the ability to digest this new compound. To do this, the bacteria get new information in their genome through mutation. A new, never before existing, enzyme is produced by the bacteria to aid in the digestion of this new material.
That's right, new information in the genome through a beneficial mutation.
Were these bacteria manipulated in a lab? No.
Did conditions alter in the environment of the bacteria? Yes.
Did mutations occur naturally that promoted survival in certain bacteria? Yes.
Would these mutations have been beneficial if the new conditions did not exist? No.

The very process predicted in the Theory of Evolution.
Ain't science grand?

 

[Amill]

The Nylon-Eating Bacteria is an example of a lab experiment done outdoors. It isn’t something that happened naturally, so I don’t consider it to be evolution. It only serves as a great textbook example of what not to do and how you shouldn’t conduct experiments that are intended for a lab. IMO if you do think this is a great example of modern day evolution you are basically arguing that evolution is based on random nothingness and serves no real purpose.

What purpose is evolution supposed to serve?

You could always argue that evolution isn’t about the study of nature and natural occurrences, which you might have a hard time doing. That is how pathetic I find the nylon-eating bacteria example of evolution to be. At least the methane-gas eating bacteria are naturally occurring; they were not created or induced by the interaction of mankind with artificial substances and chemicals. But even with the methane-gas eating bacteria you are still breaking away from the traditional theory of evolution for something a little different. I'd imagine it is easier to just burn old science documents and books than it is to go through and edit them.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what it is exactly that you understand about the bacteria. Are you suggesting that instead of a random mutation that allowed a bacteria to digest the man-made product...that the byproduct itself triggered the mutation? Where's your evidence for that? Don't you think scientists have done experiments in labs with the byproduct and the old bacteria(and other strains of bacteria) to see if it triggered the mutation?:beach: Shouldn't have we seen the evidence of that if you're idea is the case?

 

[tumbleweed41]

dallas, what do you think of this theory?

Yeah, I know, not addressed to me. But, it's an open forum...

The Bible states in the book of genesis, believed by many theologians to have been written by Moses between 1500-1600 BC, that (GEN 2), in the beginning, the earth was VOID and WITHOUT FORM and on the first day, (GEN 3), God said, let there be light and there was light. On the second day of his six-day creation, (GEN 6), God moved upon the earth, separating the waters, dividing them from the waters below and the waters above the firmament and all in between was called heaven. On the third day, (GEN 9), he CAUSED the dry land to appear and LET the earth bring forth grass and trees and seeds that reproduced after its kind. It appears that within these three days, God merely manipulated what was already here, not creating it all from NOTHING. Gen 5, 8 and 13 says that the morning and the evening were the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days. What defines a day? I perceive the morning and the evening to be defined by the rising and setting of the sun, but wait a minute….the sun was not set into the firmaments until the 4th day.??????? Then, on the fourth day, (GEN 1: 14-19), he set the sun, moon and stars, all called lights, in the firmament called heaven, (which was between the waters below and the waters above). We know, now that the moon is not a light, but yet a reflection of light from the sun. Furthermore, there is no water ABOVE these celestial bodies which Moses says were placed in the firmament between the divided waters. It is evident that Moses had no knowledge of the size or distance from the earth of these bodies and made an attempt to explain their existence to man in a way that would maintain his claim that God was their creator and thus greater than them and before them. On the fifth day, (GEN 20), he made the fish of the seas and the fowls of the air. On the sixth day, (GEN 24), he made all the land dwelling animals, man and woman. All of these animals, fish, birds and humans were made with the ability to multiply.

Do you have any objective, empirical evidence for the above assertions?

Now let’s back up a bit. The generation of man can be accurately traced back to Adam, by historical data and Biblical record to approximately 6000 years ago.

If one takes the Bible, in it's entirety, as historically and literal true.

All scientists and theologians alike agree to this.

Not all. Only those who take the Bible, in it's entirety, as historically and literal true.

Many theologians agree that each of the six days of God’s creation, as stated in the Bible, (2 Peter 3:8) that a day with God is a thousand years with man, therefore adding 6000 years to the 6000 years since the creation of Adam culminating in approximately 12000 years total since God’s beginning of the Earth’s creation. This time frame difference is where science and theology disagree.

Most biblical scholars disagree with this reasoning based not only upon a reading of Genesis itself, but also through verses in Exodus and Leviticus that explicitly state that God worked for six days and rested on the seventh, and this is why man should also do so.

Now, the Bible states that God destroyed all living things on the face of the earth around 2344 BC save it Noah, his three sons, their wives and the animals taken aboard the ark, saving them to replenish the earth. Who is to say that God had not done the same thing to the earth before? God would have no reason to inspire his prophet to explain any creation, formation, or destruction of this earth or its inhabitants other than that of which concerns us, the relatives of Adam, and God’s latest RESTORATION of the earth that was reformed as our home. Furthermore, for those who believe in science’s theory of evolution, maybe the earth, dinosaurs and prehistoric man DID evolve over billions of years prior to God’s insertion of Adam and his restoration of the earth from its VOID state 12000 years ago into the earth as we know it today as our home. If, God didn’t create prehistoric man (in his likeness) it would explain why prehistoric man remained ignorant and primitive for millions of years and since God’s new earth and insertion of man, (Adam), his creation, in his likeness and with his knowledge, have technologically advanced so quickly in the past 6000 years to what we are today. Just imagine our advance, at that same rate in the next 6000 years. After all, God’s word teaches us to be Christians, or Christ-like. Christ being God in the flesh means that we are to strive to be God-like, therefore, someday becoming a creator of a world and mankind just as did our creator.

Fantastically imaginative.

Do you have any objective, empirical evidence to back this up?