The battle of evolution vs creationism

[johnhanks]

Regardless of how you justify it...the change itself is something that we DON'T SEE.

Yes we do; changes in gene pools over time are abundantly recorded. What you cannot or will not take on board is that the only difference between the emergence of, say, a new subspecies (regularly observed) and of a new genus or family is one of degree - how many chromosomal and base sequence alterations have accumulated - and not of kind.

The only difference between a cat zygote and a dog zygote that makes one develop into a feline body and the other into a canine one is the genetic code they contain in their nucleus, made up in each case of the same A,C,T,G bases but in a different arrangement. Neither you nor any other creationist has ever come up with a mechanism that would prevent one arrangement being changed, over a long period, into the other. (And no, I am not claiming that either cats or dogs evolved from the other; but they do share common miacoid ancestors.)

 

[Ouroboros]

A faulty L-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO) gene producing a non-functional protein is most definitely not a very smart design. Sharing the exact same flawed gene with chimpanzees is either a rather sick joke by the creator or evidence for shared ancestry. It basically is a genetic "vestigial" part to our history.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have no idea what science is. Biologists aren't doing things to try to look smart, they're just doing biology. Nobody cares if you don't like specific categorizations of animals that are in fact, necessary.

Stop listening to Ken Hovind. He doesn't know what science is either. People who accept evolution aren't placing any faith whatsoever in Darwin, despite what Dr. Distortion might be trying to tell you. That's ridiculous. We rely on EVIDENCE. You should check it out sometime.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, skeptic. Doesn't matter what your biology teacher told you in grade school. It takes a leap of faith to believe that the animals of today evolved from animals of yesterday. Believe what you want, but that isn't science.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes we do; changes in gene pools over time are abundantly recorded. What you cannot or will not take on board is that the only difference between the emergence of, say, a new subspecies (regularly observed) and of a new genus or family is one of degree - how many chromosomal and base sequence alterations have accumulated - and not of kind.

The only difference between a cat zygote and a dog zygote that makes one develop into a feline body and the other into a canine one is the genetic code they contain in their nucleus, made up in each case of the same A,C,T,G bases but in a different arrangement. Neither you nor any other creationist has ever come up with a mechanism that would prevent one arrangement being changed, over a long period, into the other. (And no, I am not claiming that either cats or dogs evolved from the other; but they do share common miacoid ancestors.)

An animal has only been observed to produce what it is, and not what it isn't. What you said above is the unobserved theory....it isn't the observed fact. All I see is dogs producing dogs...that is all you see...that is all Darwin saw. To believe that long ago, when no one was around to see, animals began producing different kind of animals...reptiles becoming birds, whales evolving in to land breathing mammals is complete BS. There is no evidence for it. It is speculation. I will stick to my Gen chapter 1 story and you can stick to your Origin of Species story.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Only if you pick and choose what is and is not evidence.

Dogs produce dogs, Mest. What reasons do we have for going beyond this except for the fact that evolution is the only game in town once you take away the God hypothesis?

 

[outhouse]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats,.

That is what part of evolution states.

Doesn't matter what your biology teacher told you in grade school

That is good your honest about refusing education and credible knowledge :yes:


What about professors? You know more then they do?

. It takes a leap of faith to believe that the animals of today evolved from animals of yesterday.

False

Evolution is fact.


You have faith, and faith alone, and in this case it has steered you into beliefs that are not true.

but that isn't science

True

Your religion is not science, its faith based religion that has nothing to do with biology.

Evolution however is fact and is biology with scientific facts your closed mind refuses to accept

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It takes a leap of faith to believe that the animals of today evolved from animals of yesterday.

No- where abundant evidence exists, a "leap of faith" is, by definition, not required.

Believe what you want, but that isn't science.

If evolutionary theory isn't science, then nothing is. Its one of our most successful theories in any field, enjoys convergent corroboration from various fields that is fairly unprecedented, and meets all the criteria for a good theory- simplicity, predictive power, etc.

There's no way creationists can get rid of evolution without throwing out the baby with the bathwater; evolutionary theory is sold science, if you reject it, you are essentially rejecting the entire methodology of the empirical sciences. That's fine, but if I have to choose between science, which has provided us with all the technology and amenities upon which we rely, and a bunch of anachronistic fairy-tales, the choice is easy.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But a tiger isn't a lion.

I said cats produce cats. A lion and a tiger producing offspring is two cats producing a cat.

A kind is whatever can reproduce or move the goalposts to fit your argument.

Fish produce fish.

You don't. Though I am glad to know that you are simply a clone of one of your parents. Because any variation at all would mean you are wrong.

Apparently, that is what the whole theory is based on.

Nope. You haven't produced any evidence. dogs producing dogs is actually evidence for evolution.

I say it is evidence for Creationism.

I have never seen a garden of eden. Ergo its false. Your logic turned against you.

Whether or not you ever seen the Garden of Eden is not based on the methods of science now is it?

So when you have a question you go to google but assume its a lie if you don't like the answer. when you wish for comfort in your own bed of lies you go to a book of fables.

Dogs produce dogs Monk. Have you EVER seen anything contrary to this. If you have, enlighten me.

 

[outhouse]

Dogs produce dogs Monk. Have you EVER seen anything contrary to this. If you have, enlighten me.

Seen Coyotes produce dogs

 

[outhouse]

Ive seen 5 year olds stomp their feet and throw fits in the store for their favorite toy.

They still did not get their way.


Here it is a matter theist stomping their feet, and like the child they are not getting there way.

 

[outhouse]

The question is, what do you have outside mythology as a replacement hypothesis????????????????????????????????? I supply facts, while you dodge them anyway you can

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No- where abundant evidence exists, a "leap of faith" is, by definition, not required.

Now now now enaidealukal, are you still looking for a person to actually win an argument against? Sorry, you've come to the wrong place buddy. But hey I hear Mest is giving out free argument wins, so check there

As far as the above quote, I don't even see a small shred of evidence for evolution, must less an abundance. Tell ya what, please tell me what is the single most best evidence for evolution and we can take it from there?

If evolutionary theory isn't science, then nothing is. Its one of our most successful theories in any field, enjoys convergent corroboration from various fields that is fairly unprecedented, and meets all the criteria for a good theory- simplicity, predictive power, etc.

If evolution is so true and we know it happened beyond a reasonable doubt, then as I said for the 5th time on here, we should be able to create all kind of animals. If we know how it happened, why can't we create all sorts of wacky animals? With all of our knowledge on genetics, mutation, dna, etc....we should be able to do it. So why haven't we? Because we CAN'T, because there are limitations to these changes and they are all limited to the micro-level.

I mean hell, the only reason it takes so long for these changes to occur is because of all the trial and error that comes from a mindless and blind process...but if you have intelligent human beings there to intervene and put our stamp on it, we should be able to create some hella stuff!!

And don't you dare tell me that we can't do it, because if we know so dang much we should be able to do it....if a mindless and blind process can do it, then why cant intelligent human beings? Makes no sense.

There's no way creationists can get rid of evolution without throwing out the baby with the bathwater; evolutionary theory is sold science, if you reject it, you are essentially rejecting the entire methodology of the empirical sciences.

Oh really? And I maintain that there is no way evolutionists can build this cockamamie theory of evolution unless it can be proven that life can come from non-life. The whole theory hinges upon life being able to come from non-life, and if it can't, then there is no evolution because evolution DEPENDS upon preexisting life. So far, sciences are stuck like chuck when it comes to abiogenesis, and if you can't prove that life can come from nonlife, then this (evolution) is clearly the cart before the horse fallacy.

That's fine, but if I have to choose between science, which has provided us with all the technology and amenities upon which we rely, and a bunch of anachronistic fairy-tales, the choice is easy.

When I want to know how the world works.....science...when I want to know where the universe came from...theology.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ive seen 5 year olds stomp their feet and throw fits in the store for their favorite toy.

They still did not get their way.


Here it is a matter theist stomping their feet, and like the child they are not getting there way.

So take that same 5 year old....get pictures of a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, and whale on a standard piece of paper. Tell the child to circle the animal that looks different than the rest. I guarandamntee the child will circle the whale. A 5 year old will recognize the fact that the whale is a different kind of animal than the rest. If a 5 year old can do it, then why can't adults?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Seen Coyotes produce dogs

Regardless of what some biologist that already believes in evolution told you, a coyote is a type of dog. It is part of the "dog" kind". Don't believe the scam!!!

 

[UU_David]

I agree with the point about the stage from non-life to life.

It is the reason why from a very young age, although I knew I did not believe in the Bible as a credible source of information, I was a Deist from the earliest point I can remember.

The reason is that I cannot, in my own contemplation, imagine any situation where there was a 'first cause' of the Universe; other than one that sits outsode of our current scientific understanding. Everything comes from something, every effect had a cause, so how can the beginnings of the Universe be explained without some sort of higher cause? .... However far you trace it back; however many reactions and scientific formations of enzymes you explain, it can always validly be asked; what caused this? .... what came before it?

Thus I conclude (for now) that "something" outside of our current understanding 'created' (or 'triggered' is a more accurate word for my beliefs) the beginnings of the known universe.

I take a lot of comfort in this, and it is a fundamental part of my UU / Deist practice.

 

[outhouse]

So take that same 5 year old....get pictures of a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, and whale on a standard piece of paper. Tell the child to circle the animal that looks different than the rest. I guarandamntee the child will circle the whale. A 5 year old will recognize the fact that the whale is a different kind of animal than the rest. If a 5 year old can do it, then why can't adults?

What you just stated has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or creation.


Some 5 year olds can learn and their parents have not programmed their minds closed to credible knowledge and education. Some 5 years olds grow up and their minds still have never opened to accept the reality of facts outside ancient mens mythology.

 

[outhouse]

I agree with the point about the stage from non-life to life.

It is the reason why from a very young age, although I knew I did not believe in the Bible as a credible source of information, I was a Deist from the earliest point I can remember.

The reason is that I cannot, in my own contemplation, imagine any situation where there was a 'first cause' of the Universe; other than one that sits outsode of our current scientific understanding. Everything comes from something, every effect had a cause, so how can the beginnings of the Universe be explained without some sort of higher cause? .... However far you trace it back; however many reactions and scientific formations of enzymes you explain, it can always validly be asked; what caused this? .... what came before it?

Thus I conclude (for now) that "something" outside of our current understanding 'created' (or 'triggered' is a more accurate word for my beliefs) the beginnings of the known universe.

I take a lot of comfort in this, and it is a fundamental part of my UU / Deist practice.

Well then what caused and created god?

So far it looks like ancient mens mythology created the whole god concept.

 

[outhouse]

Regardless of what some biologist that already believes in evolution told you, a coyote is a type of dog. It is part of the "dog" kind". Don't believe the scam!!!

Back your nonsense with sources.

A Coyote is factually not a dog


Moving the goal post much :biglaugh:



The only scam is that certain theist try creating a debate where there is NONE

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Now now now enaidealukal, are you still looking for a person to actually win an argument against? Sorry, you've come to the wrong place buddy. But hey I hear Mest is giving out free argument wins, so check there

I'm RF's resident housekeeper; I just go about, cleaning up the false claims and non-sequiturs other posters spill all over the place.

As far as the above quote, I don't even see a small shred of evidence for evolution, must less an abundance.

Then you haven't bothered to look.

Tell ya what, please tell me what is the single most best evidence for evolution and we can take it from there?

Well, I'd say that actually observing speciation in the lab is pretty good evidence. As is the fossil record. As is the genetic evidence. And so on.

If evolution is so true and we know it happened beyond a reasonable doubt, then as I said for the 5th time on here, we should be able to create all kind of animals. If we know how it happened, why can't we create all sorts of wacky animals? With all of our knowledge on genetics, mutation, dna, etc....we should be able to do it.

A complete non-sequitur, for one thing; if humans had a lifespan of several centuries, then perhaps this would be the case, but we do not. And so far as it goes, we have been able to create alot of wacky animals- look at the variety of dog breeds we have created through artificial selection.

And don't you dare tell me that we can't do it, because if we know so dang much we should be able to do it....if a mindless and blind process can do it, then why cant intelligent human beings? Makes no sense.

A. the process is not "blind", per se- natural selection is not random or blind, but the exact opposite.
B. we have done it, to the extent that the circumstances allow.
C. Oops.

Oh really? And I maintain that there is no way evolutionists can build this cockamamie theory of evolution unless it can be proven that life can come from non-life.

You can hold that, but it won't amount to much, since this is an irrelevant argument. The theory of evolution doesn't even attempt to address the origin of life- that is not what the theory is about. Saying that the ToE fails unless it can explain the origin of life, something it was never intended to explain in the first place, is like saying that QM fails unless it can explain why they decided to make 3 Hobbit movies instead of just one.

when I want to know where the universe came from...theology.

How silly, since theology answers no questions but merely begs them; if propositions are answers to questions AND if explanations & justifications are propositional AND if "mysteries" beg questions instead of answering them AND if X is "the ultimate mystery" (i.e. theos), then X neither explains how things actually are nor justifies why things ought to happen one way or another; therefore X is both metaphysically & ethically vacuous (i.e. unintelligible). So much for theology.

 

[mycorrhiza]

So take that same 5 year old....get pictures of a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, and whale on a standard piece of paper. Tell the child to circle the animal that looks different than the rest. I guarandamntee the child will circle the whale. A 5 year old will recognize the fact that the whale is a different kind of animal than the rest. If a 5 year old can do it, then why can't adults?

Because the child is working from a biologically arbitrary definition based on how the animals look rather than their genetic relation.

Put an apple tree, a rowan, a birch and a strawberry plant next to each other. The child will tell you that the strawberry is the one that's different, when it's actually the birch since it's not as closely related to the other (who are all in the same family).

Kind has no scientific definition and thus has no place in science.