Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[Autodidact]

Now, blu, are you there and paying attention? I don't want to have to ask you 8 times whether you understood and accept what I say, O.K?

Now you know how we get new species. Remember those fish? 100 years had passed, and we got one new species in that time. So the two species are separated, don't have any contact, and can't interbreed anyway. Imagine another 100 years, and by chance (just to illustrate) each one of those gives rise to another new species, so we've got four species in all. Imagine that 1000 years go by, and this happens a few times.

Couple of things result from that. First, you can see how it's a branching pattern, because every new species branches off very slowly and gradually from an already existing species, and another species can possibly branch off from that. If you drew it graphically, it would look kind of like this:

Do you see why? Please look at this picture and make sure you understand it. So at the bottom (the present) we have around 8 new species by this point.

Second, at this point, you might have one species that's 1" long, tan with yellowish speckles, eats microscopic plants, lays 100 gelatinous eggs, etc., and one that's 4" long, brown with a single tan stripe, eats tiny shrimp and snails, bears live young, etc. At some point the Biologists say again, "Hold the phone. These two creatures are two different to be in the same genus any more. [remember what a genus is? Let me know if you don't.] We're going to call this a new genus now, and we'll call it Forumus religia." So while you never get a new genus arising directly from an old, eventually by the exact same process, you get new genera as well as new species, all by exactly the same process.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS PART?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now, blu, are you there and paying attention? I don't want to have to ask you 8 times whether you understood and accept what I say, O.K?


DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS PART?

(s)he is gone, so will never understand.:sad4:

 

[emiliano]

Themadhair,
I am a practical man with limited time so I don’t waste time in learning in detail things that doesn’t have foreseeable benefit for my life. BTW I was referring to the fact that apes don’t have a fossil evolutionary path, they have always been what they are today.
You replied: You really should read the Dover decision you know. This argument, when applied to biological systems, got a total smackdown by the scientists.

As I said evolution is undeniable, but I hope that you can understand that all of this does not deny the existence of God the creator of all there is. What science discovers fills me with awe at the magnificence of God. What do you mean by a total smackdown by the scientists? I have told you and others that the Bible isn’t a scientific treatise and highlighted Paley’s profession; he was a philosopher not a scientist. What do you think that the purpose of science is in theology?

No offence, but your understanding of science is clearly crap yet you are still content to present claims of a scientific nature. You don’t even have the good grace to research what it is you are rejecting (if you had you wouldn’t be displaying such monumental ignorance of the subject). I am truly sorry that you regard accepting the story of the world as told by physical evidence to be “objectionable”.

Paley was a Philosopher so my claim to ID is a philosophical one, why would I take offence or run to the library when I don’t see any benefit in knowing about these scientific theories? Hume may be an altogether different proposition (when I have the time I might have a look)I am not a scientist and I don’t see a conflict between science and religion, I don’t fear scientific discoveries, they make me more grateful and appreciative of God creation. Sciences is a wonderful discipline and should not be hundred in any way in it endeavors, I couldn’t be any more intellectually honest than that falling short of becoming one myself that is, but I am afraid that is to late for me at this stage. So and going back to the OP question, what evidence creationism has? The almighty’s creation that is all around us, and we arrive to it from a simple beginning in the fashion that Peley did.

 

[emiliano]

Every living species on the planet, from the bacteria to the great whale, from unicorns to the woogwooga sesquatch has DNA.

DNA is made up of four letters. Just. Four. Letters.

The difference between me and the banana over there is in the way those four letters are arranged within mine and the banana's DNA.

Every new generation of every species produces new and novel arrangements of those letters, with some of those new patterns becoming new genes.

When I think of DNA in this way, and how it changes from generation to generation, I realise that evolution isn't only probable, its ******* inevitable.

Does this mean that human my turn into bananas? DNA is like music where there are notes and that can be arranged in various ways to produce the melodies that the player want them to have and by hearing it we know that there is a creator for them, composer is the purposeful creator of melodies, they don't created by themselves, the melody is the evidence of the existence of a composer, the universe and life forms on earth are the evidence of a creator. Our wonderful God.

 

[Tristesse]

Does this mean that human my turn into bananas? DNA is like music where there are notes and that can be arranged in various ways to produce the melodies that the player want them to have and by hearing it we know that there is a creator for them, composer is the purposeful creator of melodies, they don't created by themselves, the melody is the evidence of the existence of a composer, the universe and life forms on earth are the evidence of a creator. Our wonderful God.

Your reasoning is 100% flawed, The reason why you notice that music or melody is composed, is because you have no samples of music or melodies occurring naturally. All your knowledge of music, happens through composition. Life, however occurs naturally, It's a completely different process than composition. Your argument is a different form of the watchmaker argument, which is flawed from the get go. I admit that at first glance, that argument might be appealing for some, but it's simply flawed reasoning.

 

[Autodidact]

Themadhair,
I am a practical man with limited time so I don’t waste time in learning in detail things that doesn’t have foreseeable benefit for my life. BTW I was referring to the fact that apes don’t have a fossil evolutionary path, they have always been what they are today.

You're completely wrong, and if you did bother learning in detail things that doesn't have foreseeable benefit for your life, you would know that.
You replied: You really should read the Dover decision you know. This argument, when applied to biological systems, got a total smackdown by the scientists.

As I said evolution is undeniable, but I hope that you can understand that all of this does not deny the existence of God the creator of all there is

Please read this over as many times as you need to until it sinks in: NO ONE IS SAYING IT DOES. We're saying the opposite. This thread is not about atheism; it's about evolution. Evolution is entirely consistent with God. We agree with you. Got it?

. What science discovers fills me with awe at the magnificence of God. What do you mean by a total smackdown by the scientists? I have told you and others that the Bible isn’t a scientific treatise and highlighted Paley’s profession; he was a philosopher not a scientist. What do you think that the purpose of science is in theology?

Nothing at all. And vice versa. They are two separate subjects.

 

[Autodidact]

Does this mean that human my turn into bananas? DNA is like music where there are notes and that can be arranged in various ways to produce the melodies that the player want them to have and by hearing it we know that there is a creator for them, composer is the purposeful creator of melodies, they don't created by themselves, the melody is the evidence of the existence of a composer, the universe and life forms on earth are the evidence of a creator. Our wonderful God.

Cool, no problem. So you accept ToE then?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Originally Posted by emiliano
Does this mean that human my turn into bananas? DNA is like music where there are notes and that can be arranged in various ways to produce the melodies that the player want them to have and by hearing it we know that there is a creator for them, composer is the purposeful creator of melodies, they don't created by themselves, the melody is the evidence of the existence of a composer, the universe and life forms on earth are the evidence of a creator. Our wonderful God.
"
No, that does not follow.

Simply saying that the universe was designed by a vastly superior intelligence does not tell you anything about that intelligence, its personality, its motives or its attitude toward its creation. It most certainly does nothing to establish a garden an apple and a talking snake.

I can imagine several scenarios in which the universe is designed but no "god" is involved.

But the greatest problem with your theory is that it is anthropomorphic. And I doubt you realize it or even thought of it before. You are assuming that a design not only requires a designer but also a PURPOSE. And you make that assumption because all human experience reflects that. WE design and create things for a purpose. From that fact you have assumed the universe was designed and designed for a purpose. And you make US that purpose. You are saying that the matter and energy we see around us was ALL done for OUR benefit.
Trouble is, the design of the universe reveals NO purpose. There is order but no where is there ANY evidence of a purpose.

More.
The universe is indifferent to us. It shows no interest in our comings and goings whatever.
If there is/was an intellgient designer it has zero interest or concern with us.

 

[emiliano]

Originally Posted by emiliano
Does this mean that human my turn into bananas? DNA is like music where there are notes and that can be arranged in various ways to produce the melodies that the player want them to have and by hearing it we know that there is a creator for them, composer is the purposeful creator of melodies, they don't created by themselves, the melody is the evidence of the existence of a composer, the universe and life forms on earth are the evidence of a creator. Our wonderful God.
"
No, that does not follow.

Simply saying that the universe was designed by a vastly superior intelligence does not tell you anything about that intelligence, its personality, its motives or its attitude toward its creation. It most certainly does nothing to establish a garden an apple and a talking snake.

I can imagine several scenarios in which the universe is designed but no "god" is involved.

But the greatest problem with your theory is that it is anthropomorphic. And I doubt you realize it or even thought of it before. You are assuming that a design not only requires a designer but also a PURPOSE. And you make that assumption because all human experience reflects that. WE design and create things for a purpose. From that fact you have assumed the universe was designed and designed for a purpose. And you make US that purpose. You are saying that the matter and energy we see around us was ALL done for OUR benefit.
Trouble is, the design of the universe reveals NO purpose. There is order but no where is there ANY evidence of a purpose.

More.
The universe is indifferent to us. It shows no interest in our comings and goings whatever.
If there is/was an intellgient designer it has zero interest or concern with us.

Well that is what is at root of the problem “But the greatest problem with your theory is that it is anthropomorphic” I believe that it is, you been a heathen and all could not possible understand this, I will engage you in a dialogue just for one and once only as I detest heathen specially those that post the things that you do, now out of all the mammal in the creation humans are the only ones with a capacity to have interaction with their creator, now other creature can know of it creator.

You are saying that the matter and energy we see around us was ALL done for OUR benefit.

:yes:

This is clearly demonstrated to us by simple observations, humans were created with all that it was necessary for us to multiply and subdue the whole of God’s creation, no other creature is.

Trouble is, the design of the universe reveals NO purpose.

Most evolutionists subscribe to the theory of the big bang as the beginning and the creation of the universe. A random and purposeless explosion crating all this and sustain it in supernatural way? I don’t think so!

More.
The universe is indifferent to us. It shows no interest in our comings and goings whatever.
If there is/was an intellgient designer it has zero interest or concern with us.

:faint:

And what are your evidences for all of this? We Christian have the very word of the creator, what have you got? The mentally ill Nietzsche? :areyoucra

 

[emiliano]

Auto,
It seems that you are hanging up on the subject TOE thingy. I believe that the earth is older than 10 thousand years, and that the Genesis account is an allegory used to explained creation to the ancient people in Moses times in a way that they could understand it, our time or the way that we measure time is a human creation ( we are creative as God is creative), the older age of the earth does not disprove purposeful ID, science is not an enemy of creationism or religion on the contrary it help us to know and love God, and specially the fact that although our DNA contain the same letter that bananas DNA has. I did not fathered bananas but two beautiful girls. What a great God we have! :areyoucra

 

[OmarKhayyam]

". . I will engage you in a dialogue just for one and once only as I detest heathen specially those that post the things that you do. .."


Thank you for warm and loving Christan reply. I love you also.

We have evidence, facts, verifiable, testable, falsifiable facts.

You have myth legend superstition and faith in an invisible fairy god-father.

My daughter had an invisible friend to.

When she was 4.

 

[Autodidact]

Well that is what is at root of the problem “But the greatest problem with your theory is that it is anthropomorphic” I believe that it is, you been a heathen and all could not possible understand this, I will engage you in a dialogue just for one and once only as I detest heathen specially those that post the things that you do, now out of all the mammal in the creation humans are the only ones with a capacity to have interaction with their creator, now other creature can know of it creator.

And why would we be interested in your personal bias against non-Christians? I'm not too crazy about Christians, but have the manners not to say so; it might be hurtful. Apparently you don't share this view.

:yes:

This is clearly demonstrated to us by simple observations, humans were created with all that it was necessary for us to multiply and subdue the whole of God’s creation, no other creature is.

You realize that in the whole of God's creation, we are one species on a thin film on the surface of a speck of a sub-atomic speck, right?

Most evolutionists subscribe to the theory of the big bang as the beginning and the creation of the universe. A random and purposeless explosion crating all this and sustain it in supernatural way? I don’t think so!

Yes, we know you don't think so, but seem to have no reason other than your personal desire to support your view.

:faint:

And what are your evidences for all of this? We Christian have the very word of the creator, what have you got? The mentally ill Nietzsche? :areyoucra

First you would need to demonstrate that you have the word of the creator. We've got the nature of the universe itself, which you are ignoring entirely.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto,
It seems that you are hanging up on the subject TOE thingy. I believe that the earth is older than 10 thousand years, and that the Genesis account is an allegory used to explained creation to the ancient people in Moses times in a way that they could understand it, our time or the way that we measure time is a human creation ( we are creative as God is creative), the older age of the earth does not disprove purposeful ID, science is not an enemy of creationism or religion on the contrary it help us to know and love God, and specially the fact that although our DNA contain the same letter that bananas DNA has. I did not fathered bananas but two beautiful girls. What a great God we have! :areyoucra

Well, that is what the thread is about. So if I understand you correctly, you do accept ToE, and assert that it is consistent with the existence of a creator-God? If so, would you be so kind as to help me correct those many Christians in this forum who fail to grasp this? Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Dang, blu got banned just as I was getting somewhere. He was a hard case, too. *sigh*

 

[emiliano]

Your reasoning is 100% flawed, The reason why you notice that music or melody is composed, is because you have no samples of music or melodies occurring naturally. All your knowledge of music, happens through composition. Life, however occurs naturally, It's a completely different process than composition. Your argument is a different form of the watchmaker argument, which is flawed from the get go. I admit that at first glance, that argument might be appealing for some, but it's simply flawed reasoning.

I think that my reasoning is pretty good and I thank you for your comment “I admit that at first glance, that argument might be appealing for some” Keep glancing at it and I you may see it, if God in His mercy grant you to understand, that He reveals Himself to you as He does to billions of people your in with a chance.

melody definition
melo·dy (mel′ə dē)
noun pl. melodies -·dies
1.
a. pleasing sounds or arrangement of sounds in sequence
b. musical quality, as in the arrangement of words
2. Music
a. a sequence of single tones, usually in the same key or mode, to produce a rhythmic whole; often, a tune, air, or song
b. the element of form having to do with the arrangement of single tones in sequence
c. the leading part, or voice, in a harmonic composition; the air

The reason that a melody has a composer/creator is that is pleasing and that it was designed to be pleasant by a composer that it is not the result of a random, fortuity event that it has a strict order and that it produces a predicted reaction in the hearer, and we can know a lot about the character of the composer, just as by looking at the creation around and above our environment we know of the characteristic of our designer in same way as in the development of a melody, creation has a sequence of single steps that will have the end result that it creator intended.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Frankly AD, with all due respect, your time and effort is better spent elsewhere.

 

[emiliano]

Well, that is what the thread is about. So if I understand you correctly, you do accept ToE, and assert that it is consistent with the existence of a creator-God? If so, would you be so kind as to help me correct those many Christians in this forum who fail to grasp this? Thank you.

Well the problem is your and others debating strategy in this forum, you **** them out of their wits and they get banned, it worked for you, so why do you ask for my help?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

". . .just as by looking at the creation around and above our environment we know of the characteristic of our designer. . ."

Really? You want to go there?

OK.

Your loving and concerned god invented the plague, AIDS, earthquakes, cancer, smallpox. He killed millions of babies and fetuses. He authorized slavery, rape, genocide.

Gee, what a god!

He differs from Satan . . .how?

 

[Autodidact]

Well the problem is your and others debating strategy in this forum, you **** them out of their wits and they get banned, it worked for you, so why do you ask for my help?

That's a good one. blu is banned, and it's my fault?!? Tell the truth, you're a Republican, aren't you?

 

[painted wolf]

I have to agree that this is a rehash of the watchmaker argument.

The genetic code is not like a musical piece... Unless Bach spent the majority of his time during a concert randomly banging on the keys...

It's more like listening to the background noise of starts... sure every once in a while you get a 'melody' in a pulsar but most of it is garbled nonsense. No one insists that the pulsar is intelligent even though it is producing a regular rhythm.

wa:do