if not evolution

[Autodidact]

All this proves is that alleles alter themselves. So do butterflies when they are in the pupa stage. Notice what British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward states about your "altered" alleles, “Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: Mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life” (Creation or Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies).

Why would you learn your biology from a physicist? Do you go to the plumber to fix your teeth?

There is much more evidence proving God's existence than evolution.

Please, someone, help out a tired old woman, don't make me lift my arthritic finger to have to type yet ONE MORE TIME a concept so simple even a small child (but not, apparently, a creationist) can grasp it. All together now: HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.
Science is not about whether God exists, and in this thread we'll all agree that He does and created every single living thing and the entire universe. This thread is about how: in the way science has discovered, or by magical poofing. What's your position: science, or poofing? Oh, you already told us, you support the poofing explanation.

You are sidestepping the issue. The first life had to have a lifegiver. That is the basis of our discussion. With that in mind, let's say for arguments sake this was the case, then where did the atoms which formed the molecules come from, my friend?

If you want to discuss atheism in this silly way, please start a thread. This one is about a different subject entirely. You are arguing religion. This is a thread about science. If you don't know what science is or how it works, ask, and we'll explain it.

 

[Autodidact]

Just for that, in the judgment period, I'm making you sit at the front of my Creation 101 class.

Well I won't stay up late nights worrying about it.

 

[Autodidact]

It's like this, james: 1 + 1 + 1 + 1......+ 1 + 1...+ 1 + 1 = a million. Get it?

 

[yodh]

Hey now! The transporters in Trek don't create things from nothing. They teleport matter that already exists to a different place.

Keep your sci fi straight.

TNG for life!

we needed knowledge because we were made thru knowledge, the Bible can surely give right knowledge regarding this matter.

 

[BIG D]

Not at all. It takes a lot less faith to believe in Creationism than it does Evolution.

I disagree...you would have to believe a fully formed 'person' just 'appeared', no????ty 4 r

 

[BIG D]

Why would you learn your biology from a physicist? Do you go to the plumber to fix your teeth?

Please, someone, help out a tired old woman, don't make me lift my arthritic finger to have to type yet ONE MORE TIME a concept so simple even a small child (but not, apparently, a creationist) can grasp it. All together now: HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.
Science is not about whether God exists, and in this thread we'll all agree that He does and created every single living thing and the entire universe. This thread is about how: in the way science has discovered, or by magical poofing. What's your position: science, or poofing? Oh, you already told us, you support the poofing explanation.

If you want to discuss atheism in this silly way, please start a thread. This one is about a different subject entirely. You are arguing religion. This is a thread about science. If you don't know what science is or how it works, ask, and we'll explain it.

great call here...that is exactly my question, how? not who?....

 

[james2ko]

Please, someone, help out a tired old woman, don't make me lift my arthritic finger to have to type yet ONE MORE TIME a concept so simple even a small child (but not, apparently, a creationist) can grasp it. All together now: HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.

great call here...that is exactly my question, how? not who?....

My friends the how.... is.... the Who. But unfortunately, your minds are closed to the things which are unseen. But the good news is there will come a time when you will see. Until then.

 

[Man of Faith]

Is that like saying we evolved from an "ape like creature" but we can't see that creature? He magically disappeared?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Is that like saying we evolved from an "ape like creature" but we can't see that creature? He magically disappeared?

Yeah, kinda like your Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather magically disappeared. After all, we can't see him.

 

[Valjean]

we needed knowledge because we were made thru knowledge, the Bible can surely give right knowledge regarding this matter.

The Bible is full of ridiculous advice and clear scientific errors. It is a book or metaphor, not science. Why would you expect "right knowledge" from it?

Is that like saying we evolved from an "ape like creature" but we can't see that creature? He magically disappeared?

Not magically.
Species change. Sometimes the prototype remains, sometimes it changes/evolves, sometimes it becomes extinct. Species and ethnic groups disappear even today.
We can see these creatures through their fossil remains, artifacts, &c.

 

[Nepenthe]

All this proves is that alleles alter themselves. So do butterflies when they are in the pupa stage. Notice what British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward states about your "altered" alleles, “Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: Mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life” (Creation or Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies).

The change of alleles in a gene pool of a population means evolution is inevitable. The very nature of those alleles having incremental differences through reproduction guarantees that evolution is a direct consequence. In fact the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model demonstrates how evolution would not occur if several conditions are met:
1) Mutation is not happening.
2) Natural selection is not happening.
3) The population is limited or infinite.
4) Every member of the population successfully reproduces.
5) Mating is 100% random.
6) Every organism gives birth to the exact same number of offspring.
7) And no migration occurs. The population is sedentary.
So genetic drift, segregation distorters, and gene flow are all inevitable in nature and thus the equilibium is impossible and evolution is absolutely guaranteed.

There is much more evidence proving God's existence than evolution.

Wonderful. Then you can actually provide this evidence?

Are you invalidating the Law of Biogenesis?

Pasteur's experiment and the law of biogenesis had nothing to do with abiogenesis but everything to do with debunking the false notion that mice sprang from hay, eels from mud, etc.- that life did not spring fully formed from matter. That's spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.

You are sidestepping the issue. The first life had to have a lifegiver. That is the basis of our discussion.

No. The first life was a consequence of amino acids and more and more complex polypeptides forming and the proto-cells adopting a lipid structure, etc., etc. But abiogenesis is a huge field that I'll elaborate on elsewhere if necessary.

With that in mind, let's say for arguments sake this was the case, then where did the atoms which formed the molecules come from, my friend?

YHWH is a hydrogen atom.

 

[tumbleweed41]

My friends the how.... is.... the Who. But unfortunately, your minds are closed to the things which are unseen. But the good news is there will come a time when you will see. Until then.

I don't think you get it.
For the sake of this discussion, let's all agree that God exists.
And that God is responsible for all of Creation.
So far, we are all on the same page. As a Deist, I personally have no problem with this.
Now the question at hand is, "How did God do it?"
The literal Genesis account?
Or through the process of biological evolution?
One is a story written by dessert nomads over 2000 years ago in an attempt to explain their existence.
The other is backed by modern advances in scientific knowledge, and so much empirical evidence and data that no reputable biologist would deny it.

Now, you may feel the need to throw in abiogenesis here, that's fine. Because while abiogenesis is a plausible scientific hypothesis, the fact of biological evolution does not rely on it. It may be that the spark of life that started the evolutionary process came from God.

As Galileo once said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

You can accept the empirical evidence backing biological evolution, and still have faith in God. In fact, biological evolution is a much more intricate and detailed process worthy of a God who formulated the very laws of the universe than the simplistic "poof" there it is.

 

[Autodidact]

we needed knowledge because we were made thru knowledge, the Bible can surely give right knowledge regarding this matter.

How did you pick that book in particular?

 

[Autodidact]

My friends the how.... is.... the Who. But unfortunately, your minds are closed to the things which are unseen. But the good news is there will come a time when you will see. Until then.

Say what? No, knowing who does not tell you how. If I know that Julia Child cooked Chicken Cordon Bleu, I don't know how she did it unless I read her recipe. We all agree that God did it. Now the question is: how? That's the question that science addresses. Maybe you reject science and don't think this question matters. O.K., cool, that's your prerogative. Please stay out of the way of the people who do. We call them scientists.

My mind is open to whatever the evidence seems to support. Is yours?

I agree though, my mind is completely closed to the "unseen", at least the unsee-able. Another word for those things is "non-existent."

When will that time come? How do you know?

 

[Autodidact]

Is that like saying we evolved from an "ape like creature" but we can't see that creature? He magically disappeared?

Today's winner in the "completely ignorant of the Theory of Evolution" category is Man of Faith, with this double-whopper. MoF, how many times have people explained to you that we are a species of ape, do you suppose? Do you think that species do not go extinct? We can't see our extinct ancestors in the flesh because...wait for it...they're extinct! We can, however, see evidence that they once existed, such as fossils. That's how science works--evidence.

 

[Nepenthe]

Is that like saying we evolved from an "ape like creature" but we can't see that creature? He magically disappeared?

As Auto' just pointed out this has been explained again and again... posts like yours are why discussing evolution with a large majority of creationists is a waste of time. Forums with posters like MoF means debating them is like being in an orgy with eunuchs- some participants just aren't equipped with the necessary equipment to participate.

 

[Valjean]

Half the creationists ask "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Now we have a contingent asking the opposite: Why do the prototypes not still exist?

No matter what the circumstances, someone interprets it as evidence against evolution.

 

[sandandfoam]

No matter what the circumstances, someone interprets it as evidence against evolution.

I think creationists constitute excellent evidence against evolution :run:

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think creationists constitute excellent evidence against evolution :run:

Palin’s Evolution into O’Donnell Proves Darwin Was Wrong


OSLO, NORWAY (The Borowitz Report) – Two of the theory of evolution’s most vociferous doubters, Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell, may be living proof that Darwin was wrong, leading scientists believe.
A conference of the most prominent evolutionary scientists in the world has concluded that the apparent evolution of Ms. Palin into Ms. O’Donnell suggests, in the words of Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo, “that Darwin got it backwards.”
“We still believe that evolution is more than a theory and is, in fact, a very real thing,” said Dr. Kyosuke. “However, in the case of Palin and O’Donnell, it seems to be moving in a reverse direction.”
Dr. Kyosuke stunned the conference when he presented his scholarly paper, “Tea Party Politicians and the Theory of Devolution,” in which he studied the so-called “reverse natural selection” at play in GOP candidates for Governor of New York.
Borowitz Report

 

[james2ko]

Today's winner in the "completely ignorant of the Theory of Evolution" category is Man of Faith, with this double-whopper. MoF, how many times have people explained to you that we are a species of ape, do you suppose? Do you think that species do not go extinct? We can't see our extinct ancestors in the flesh because...wait for it...they're extinct! We can, however, see evidence that they once existed, such as fossils. That's how science works--evidence.

You, like most Atheist I know, are pretty sharp individuals. So I'm sure you can appreciate the principle of risk and probability. And I'll leave this thread with this:

If you Atheist are right and Christians wrong, we lose nothing. But if we're right and you're wrong, you lose out on eternal life.