The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Iti oj]

2 Peter 2:1–3
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be afalse teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction 1does not slumber.

what if your following the false prophet?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

2 Peter 2:1–3
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be afalse teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction 1does not slumber.

1 Trout 69:69

And then there cameth among the multitudes those whose mouths poureth forth words lacking any relevance to the subject at hand. These people defy all knowledge and facts, and fight steadfast to remain in their ignorant stupor. They will thoughtlessly spout the words of ancient myths and fables as though they speaketh something of actual importance. Such ones will be doomed to roameth the lands of the earth with blank stares and drooling mouths for all of eternity.

 

[idav]

2 Peter 2:1–3
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be afalse teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction 1does not slumber.

I say miacids brought forth feline and canine and so I am headed straight for hell. Go figure!

 

[idav]

Because you can't logically claim evolution is true if you don't know whether abiogenesis is true. That is a BIG problem. You can't just skip over abiogenesis and jump to evolution. All I want for you people to admit that evolution is just a theory. It is not a fact. Once you claim it is a fact, then you need to explain how life can come from non-life first. If you don't know whether life can come from non-life, then your evolutionary theory does not even begin to take place.



Actually it does. In Genesis God said they will bring forth after their kind, and that is exactly what we observe, animals bringing forth after their kind.



It is amazing that people will go through such lengths to not believe in God. Amazing.

Change is a fact as is procreation.

What we observe is most thise animals didnt live in the same time period.

It is amazing that theists will go to such great lengths to ignore the evidence. Show objective evidence that humans lived with dinos or creationism is just wishful thinking.

 

[outhouse]

2 Peter 2:1–3
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be afalse teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction 1does not slumber.

And if the unknown author of his piece ever witnessed modern medicine and the lives science has saved YOUR BOOK does not!


He would wad that scripture up and eat it in front of me. :yes:



This is nothing more then using primitive willful ignorance as a excuse to refuse education and knowledge. :slap:

 

[Parsimony]

Don't flatter yourself

Then answer the questions. I'm waiting.

When two explanatory models exist, and one model is currently capable of answering questions that the other model cannot, then why is there any sense in retaining the less-explanatory model? Evolution can give us answers to the questions I posted whereas creationism cannot. If I am wrong and creationism can give the answers, then kindly tell me what those answers are.

I see that you appear hung up on the idea that evolution is an atheistic agenda. This is wrong for more than one reason. Firstly, there are many Christians (myself included) that accept evolution. Secondly, atheists don't "need" the theory of evolution to justify their beliefs, as atheism existed long before Lamarck, Wallace and Darwin were even born. Interestingly, Darwin denied being an atheist himself and was even raised Christian.

Since the origin of life on Earth has not yet been fully explained in scientific terms (even if I think there is some suggestive evidence), you could always posit that the first living cell was created by God in an act of special creation and that cell multiplied and evolved to become all current life on Earth. Evolution doesn't strictly need abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't care how life came into being. All that is important is that it acts on populations of organisms once they come into existence.

 

[Looncall]

2 Peter 2:1–3
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be afalse teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction 1does not slumber.

Why do you not see the foolishness of quoting scripture to non-believers?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I am talking about animals. I could care less about plant life.

Here's quite a few more.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

And as I said, for the 3rd time now, it only requires a timespan longer than human life if the process occurs without intelligence.

You can say it 100 times, it won't make it any less false. Evolution, even when manipulated artificially, requires generations to achieve speciation. This is why the only things we've been able to actually observe evolving past the scale of species are things with extremely short reproductive cycles; like plants, bacteria, and insects, all of which we've observed macroevolution in action with respect to, as you can see from the links provided above.

Hmm, I asked you can you prove that life can come from non-life, and you did not answer.

I did answer, by pointing out this is an irrelevant request.

... you can logically hold the absurd position based on your belief that evolution doesn't presuppose abiogenesis, which is completely ridiculous position in every sense of a ridiculous position.

Repeating the words "absurd" and "ridiculous" as many times as possible won't turn this into a substantive argument. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life- it makes no claims regarding the origin of life, and is not committed to any particular view regarding the origin of life. Evolution is perfectly consistent with abiogenesis, some form of divine creation, or some other possibility- it doesn't pick sides either way. Evolution is committed to the existence of life, that's it- and that's not an especially problematic assumption.

This is just basic evolutionary theory- if you're trying to criticize evolutionary theory without even being familiar with the rudiments of the theory, such that you're making wildly erroneous claims (propped up with fallacious appeals to incredulity) about what evolution does or does not say, you aren't going to have much credibility.

Always good to know the basics of something before you criticize it.

So until you answer my question, no point in discussing this further with you. No more time wasting here.

The patented CoW retreat maneuver; when things get tricky and don't look so good for your argument, drop a flimsy pretext and run away!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

... you could always posit that the first living cell was created by God in an act of special creation and that cell multiplied and evolved to become all current life on Earth. Evolution doesn't strictly need abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't care how life came into being. All that is important is that it acts on populations of organisms once they come into existence.

:yes:

Exactly, thank you.

 

[McBell]

Hmm, I asked you can you prove that life can come from non-life, and you did not answer.

All the life on the planet.
Unless it is your claim that God is not life.

Of course, if you claim that God is a life, then you run into the problem of what life it was that created God since all life has to come from life and all.

 

[johnhanks]

As far as "a mechanism that would prevent one arrangement being changed over a long period, into the other". Look, that is pure speculation. That is the presupposition, that isn't the science. Science is based on repeated experiment and observation, right?

And repeated experiment and observation tell us gene pools change over time. You have still failed to come up with a mechanism that would limit the extent of that change.

You are in the position of someone admitting it is possible to change the word CAT to COT, but denying that the change can continue through COG to DOG. Bear in mind that in the (hypothetical) evolution of a population of cats into a population of dogs all that gets passed on from generation to generation is the gene pool, and it is step-by-step alteration of that gene pool that effects the feline-to-canine change. The amount of change we can observe in a human life-span is necessarily limited (like, say, CAT to COT): you are in effect saying, OK, we can observe that much change but it can't go any further. Why can't it?

 

[johnhanks]

As a Creationist, I can explain how the universe began to exist.

No, you cannot. You can claim that a being beyond our comprehension created it by means we cannot describe. That is not an explanation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

My high school biology teacher has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

The evidence for evolution is there, it's abundant. It's fact. No faith required. The evidence comes from almost every field of science, and all of it converges on the same conclusion. The very best evidence is in the DNA of all living creatures. You could see it for yourself, if you chose to. But you don't and still continue to misrepresent it here. That's called intellectual dishonesty. If you want to be willfully ignorant (as you've claimed), that's your deal, but don't pretend you know what you're talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Nobody believes that, and you know this, since it's been pointed out to you umpteen times.

Intellectual dishonesty.

Oh hey, where's the evidence for Gen chapter 1 story?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

We have: They're called dogs. You've been told this before too. Funny how you forget already. Guess what? Our fruits and vegetables are genetically altered too. Guess who did that?

See the thing about artificial selection (above) is that it wouldn't work if evolution weren't a factual reality. But it does, so what does that tell you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

Adults with years of education do it, and I guarantee they do it better than 5 year olds. Can 5 year olds analyze DNA? Thanks for throwing out that old Dr. Dino canard though. I needed a good laugh.

I bet if I showed you (nevermind a 5 year old) a picture of a banana as it looks now and a banana as it looked before humans altered it, you'd have no idea they were the same thing or same kind or whatever you want to call it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is the answer to why we can't see it.....is time. Time, time, time. Give it enough time. Its like; "Hey, no one has ever seen it happen, and no one will EVER see it happen, but it happens."

If you don't see the scam in that, I don't know what to tell you.



Well, you don't have transitional fossils either. If there was a point at which dogs didn't exist, we should find dozens of the transitional fossils that lead up to not only the dog kind, but the many other kinds of animals. Remember, it isn't enough to just explain just one, you have to explain them all. The problem is, you can't even EXPLAIN ONE.

I guess you also don't believe that babies eventually grow into adults. After all, it takes time to see such a thing occur.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

what if your following the false prophet?

I will take my chances just like you are taking your chances.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then answer the questions. I'm waiting.

When two explanatory models exist, and one model is currently capable of answering questions that the other model cannot, then why is there any sense in retaining the less-explanatory model? Evolution can give us answers to the questions I posted whereas creationism cannot. If I am wrong and creationism can give the answers, then kindly tell me what those answers are.

I see that you appear hung up on the idea that evolution is an atheistic agenda. This is wrong for more than one reason. Firstly, there are many Christians (myself included) that accept evolution. Secondly, atheists don't "need" the theory of evolution to justify their beliefs, as atheism existed long before Lamarck, Wallace and Darwin were even born. Interestingly, Darwin denied being an atheist himself and was even raised Christian.

Since the origin of life on Earth has not yet been fully explained in scientific terms (even if I think there is some suggestive evidence), you could always posit that the first living cell was created by God in an act of special creation and that cell multiplied and evolved to become all current life on Earth. Evolution doesn't strictly need abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't care how life came into being. All that is important is that it acts on populations of organisms once they come into existence.

Pick one and lets discuss it one at a time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why do you not see the foolishness of quoting scripture to non-believers?

Just like others on here put up links supporting their evolution religion to a person that doesn't believe in evolution.