What if creationism is true?

[Iti oj]

Cotw.. you had to complaints about the male female reproductive syste. One was complexity. The other was combatibility. Id like to cover the combatibility aspect of it.... its kinda simple. Individuals who did not grow and a combatible manner died with out breeding ergo those that evolved in a combatqble manner would increse in the population not to mention that they could be effected by the same gene

bump and add... also our sex organs evolved a long long time before us...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

To believe that life can come from nonlife doesn't require any faith because it is a matter of fact. When the Earth was first formed, there was no life on it yet today it is teaming with life.

You've just completely begged the question by assuming your premise without any proof of it. You said that life from nonlife is a fact, there is no proof of this whatsoever. Science still hasnt been able to figure out how life could have came from nonlife, so to conclude it as a fact is being disingenous.

There is the possibility that life came from somewhere else but that just raises the question where did that life come from.

How could it be possible that life came from somewhere else? It would still be within the universe. And you are right, postulating the cause and effect relation of life from nonlife cannot be infinite in regression, so we can definately throw out that idea.

There is ample evidence, from the Miller-Urey experiments of the 60's to the Lincoln-Joyce replicating RNA enzymes of 2009, that natural processes can produce life from nonlife. Faith is for those who believe that God is required.

Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was a failure and it did not prove that life came come from nonlife. Second, the Lincoln-Joyce theory is speculative and even they said that the experiment will show "characteristics" of life, and not life itself. Third, you have to have protein molecules before you even begin to discuss DNA/RNA. Fourth, hypothetically speaking, even if man were to show how life originiated by performing test in labs, that still doesnt mean that there isn't a intelligent designer. They are having a hard time as it is trying to show how life could have originated from nonlife, so it is even more improbable that life could have come from a blind, unguided, and nonintelligable process. If you are in school and your intelligent teacher is having difficulty getting you to understand and learn this language, will it make sense to think that a dog can get you to understand the language? Obviously not. My fifth point is, as i mentione above, how you have the nerve to say that life from nonlife is a fact, but then you point out an experiment that has yet to be completed that will attempt to show life from nonlife? How is it a fact and we still dont know how yet? This is similiar to a detective saying "I know he did the crime, i just cant prove it yet" This is a oxymoron lol. So you are basing your alleged "facts" on an experiment that has already been proven wrong, and other experiment that is being worked on and doesn't even really prove life from nonlife anyway. This is faith. Nothing has been proven, and yet you believe it. This is faith, not fact.

 

[shawn001]

You've just completely begged the question by assuming your premise without any proof of it. You said that life from nonlife is a fact, there is no proof of this whatsoever. Science still hasnt been able to figure out how life could have came from nonlife, so to conclude it as a fact is being disingenous.




How could it be possible that life came from somewhere else? It would still be within the universe. And you are right, postulating the cause and effect relation of life from nonlife cannot be infinite in regression, so we can definately throw out that idea.



Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was a failure and it did not prove that life came come from nonlife. Second, the Lincoln-Joyce theory is speculative and even they said that the experiment will show "characteristics" of life, and not life itself. Third, you have to have protein molecules before you even begin to discuss DNA/RNA. Fourth, hypothetically speaking, even if man were to show how life originiated by performing test in labs, that still doesnt mean that there isn't a intelligent designer. They are having a hard time as it is trying to show how life could have originated from nonlife, so it is even more improbable that life could have come from a blind, unguided, and nonintelligable process. If you are in school and your intelligent teacher is having difficulty getting you to understand and learn this language, will it make sense to think that a dog can get you to understand the language? Obviously not. My fifth point is, as i mentione above, how you have the nerve to say that life from nonlife is a fact, but then you point out an experiment that has yet to be completed that will attempt to show life from nonlife? How is it a fact and we still dont know how yet? This is similiar to a detective saying "I know he did the crime, i just cant prove it yet" This is a oxymoron lol. So you are basing your alleged "facts" on an experiment that has already been proven wrong, and other experiment that is being worked on and doesn't even really prove life from nonlife anyway. This is faith. Nothing has been proven, and yet you believe it. This is faith, not fact.

Call of the wild, did humans and dinosaurs coexist 180 million years ago?

We know everything in the universe evolved from this for a fact.


http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~afrank/A105/LectureXVI/COBE_Wmap.jpg

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

 

[Vile Atheist]

So the evolution of my reproductive system depends on the evolution of my wifes reproductive system??? Absurd.

Your understanding of evolution is absurd. If you were born with a genetic mutation that made your reproductive organs less likely to help produce viable offspring, chances are, you wouldn't produce viable offspring and your mutation would die with you. If you had a mutation that facilitated reproduction, chances are, you'd produce viable offspring and the genes for that mutation would be passed on from generation to generation through the population. Please understand natural selection.

But in order to "grow a set of gonads" that are useful is presupposing the need to grow anything useful. As it goes through the selection process of deciding what is useful and what isn't useful, how was any reproduction taking place? Remember, natural selection selects, so before it found the right selection, how was there any reproduction?

Because changes happen gradually. Let me give you a good example. Let's say you had some genetic mutation that inhibited your ability to produce a lot of sperm. Chances are, you wouldn't produce viable offspring. That disadvantageous mutation would die out with you. Let's say the opposite now. Let's say the mutation allowed you to produce more sperm. Chances are that you'd produce more viable offspring and you'd pass on your advantageous genetics to the next generation.

Ok, so during this "killing off" process, how was there any reproduction? And whatever stage of reproduction that this process went through, there had to be compatibility on all stages, the first through the last.

The first question shows your lack of understanding of what natural selection is. Natural selection isn't some magical force that inspects people's gonads for quality and kills them if they're not up to snuff. You are born with a certain set of genetics. Some of your genetics give you advantages over others. Some genetics put you at a disadvantage. Any genetics that increase your survivability and chances of reproduction will likely be passed on after you die.

You confuse compatibility with perfection. A set of male and female reproductive organs that are successful only 25% of the time is far better than a set that's only has a success rate of 24%.

It has? Where, because I didnt see it. All you did was presuppose compatibility without explaining how things became compatible. That cant be the best you have.

It's rather idiotic to claim that organisms that sexually reproduce at one point didn't have compatible reproductive organs. If they weren't compatible, they wouldn't be able to reproduce, and they would die out. Such a prediction flies in the face of natural selection which would select for organisms that have better success at reproduction.

And thats my point. On your view, it takes time. If it will take a million years before one gender develops the right system to reproduce with the other, how was there any reproducing of any kind during that million year stretch??? A male and a female have two different systems that are compatible. This compatibility had to be "fine tuned" as an initial conditon of the species. This is not something that could have happened over millions of years with wishful thinking.

Some "fine tuning". How are some men and women born sterile, then? Seems like your god has a rather unintelligent design. Nonetheless, you miss the entire point of natural selection. If someone developed a mutation that was not advantageous to reproduction, that person would not be likely to reproduce and they, and their mutation, would die out. Natural selection demands compatibility between the organs of sexually reproducing organisms.

You already said that it takes time. And my question is, in that time, how was there any reproduction at all?? If I am building a car and I have built the whole car and all i need is the motor, and my friend takes a million years to build the motor, how will I ever get my car to run if I have to wait a million years for him to build the motor?? Obviously, I wont be driving the car for a long time. This is the same thing with the gender problem.

If you insist on using a car analogy, a more accurate one would be that you're building a car. You have the chassis and the wheels and steering wheel.

In order for the car (and driver) to survive the roads, safety features need to be developed. Cars with a windshield and sideview mirrors are more likely to be safer on the roads than cars without them. The cars without them crash and are junked. The cars with windshields and sideview mirrors survive.

The direction of "evolution" the car takes depends on your "environment". If you're at the race track, cars will be selected for speed. The cars will be made lighter, more aerodynamic, and have faster and more powerful engines as more people develop ideas to improve the speed. If you're at a loading dock, cars will be selected for space until they eventually are just a big, large cargo hold. If you're at soccer practice, cars will be selected for Ford Windstars. If you're at the gas pump, cars will be selected for fuel efficiency.

So our "model-T" eventually "evolves" into Ferraris, Ford Windstars, SmartCars, and transport trucks, all of which are more complex than the original and very different from each other. They all serve different functions in different environments and are each best suited for their environments. Do you understand it now?

You are begging the question. I am asking how can a unguided and blind process produce this much specified complexity and your answer is genetic mutation regulated by natural selection, which doesnt answer the question because before you can have genetic material you have to have cells and dna, and these are the two things that are IN QUESTION AS TO HOW AND WHY ARE THEY COMPLEX.

In addition to my last point, evolution is not "unguided". It's "guided" by the environment of a particular population. Things like climate changes, predation, scarcity of food, migration all affect how a population will evolve.

Lastly, with regards to "intelligent design" not being from one specific god, then by your own admission, even if you can prove that IDiocy is the way to go, you still can never determine whether Endovelicus or Zeus created everything and you have no objective means of determining that.

 

[fishy]

In another thread Badran and I and others were discussing willful ignorance. I might point him in this direction, I'm sure we could agree on this at least. :biglaugh:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your understanding of evolution is absurd. If you were born with a genetic mutation that made your reproductive organs less likely to help produce viable offspring, chances are, you wouldn't produce viable offspring and your mutation would die with you.

Look at what you are saying..."mutation that made your reproductive organs less likely"......you are presupposing the existence of something that is IN QUESTION. Do you not see this?? The reproductive organs, and how they originated, are what is in question. You skip past the origins part and go right to the reproductive part. In fact, your whole post is commiting the fallacy of begging the question.

If you had a mutation that facilitated reproduction, chances are, you'd produce viable offspring and the genes for that mutation would be passed on from generation to generation through the population. Please understand natural selection.

Begging the question

Because changes happen gradually. Let me give you a good example. Let's say you had some genetic mutation that inhibited your ability to produce a lot of sperm. Chances are, you wouldn't produce viable offspring. That disadvantageous mutation would die out with you. Let's say the opposite now. Let's say the mutation allowed you to produce more sperm. Chances are that you'd produce more viable offspring and you'd pass on your advantageous genetics to the next generation.

Begging the question

The first question shows your lack of understanding of what natural selection is. Natural selection isn't some magical force that inspects people's gonads for quality and kills them if they're not up to snuff. You are born with a certain set of genetics. Some of your genetics give you advantages over others. Some genetics put you at a disadvantage. Any genetics that increase your survivability and chances of reproduction will likely be passed on after you die.

Begging the question

You confuse compatibility with perfection. A set of male and female reproductive organs that are successful only 25% of the time is far better than a set that's only has a success rate of 24%.

Begging the question

It's rather idiotic to claim that organisms that sexually reproduce at one point didn't have compatible reproductive organs. If they weren't compatible, they wouldn't be able to reproduce, and they would die out. Such a prediction flies in the face of natural selection which would select for organisms that have better success at reproduction.

Beggin the question

Some "fine tuning". How are some men and women born sterile, then? Seems like your god has a rather unintelligent design. Nonetheless, you miss the entire point of natural selection. If someone developed a mutation that was not advantageous to reproduction, that person would not be likely to reproduce and they, and their mutation, would die out. Natural selection demands compatibility between the organs of sexually reproducing organisms.

On the Christian view, due to mans sin, our bodies went from perfect quality to imperfect quality, and genetics are part of this. Which is also why we have birth defects and such.

If you insist on using a car analogy, a more accurate one would be that you're building a car. You have the chassis and the wheels and steering wheel.

In order for the car (and driver) to survive the roads, safety features need to be developed. Cars with a windshield and sideview mirrors are more likely to be safer on the roads than cars without them. The cars without them crash and are junked. The cars with windshields and sideview mirrors survive.

The direction of "evolution" the car takes depends on your "environment". If you're at the race track, cars will be selected for speed. The cars will be made lighter, more aerodynamic, and have faster and more powerful engines as more people develop ideas to improve the speed. If you're at a loading dock, cars will be selected for space until they eventually are just a big, large cargo hold. If you're at soccer practice, cars will be selected for Ford Windstars. If you're at the gas pump, cars will be selected for fuel efficiency.

So our "model-T" eventually "evolves" into Ferraris, Ford Windstars, SmartCars, and transport trucks, all of which are more complex than the original and very different from each other. They all serve different functions in different environments and are each best suited for their environments. Do you understand it now?

You really took the car analogy and ran with it, huh. First of all, in your analogy, in order for it to work you have to start off with intelligent design. In my analogy i was just trying to show that if you have item used for a purpose, and it relys on other parts to work, if you have to wait to get other key parts to make it work, it will never work. Thats the point i was trying to drive home. On your analogy, you started off with intelligent design, which doesn't make sense because on your view, there IS no intelligent designer. So it doesnt make sense to use intelligent design to try and prove your point, when the point you are arguing doesn't have an intelligent designer at all. And you do notice that a car cannot be built with an intelligent designer, right?? My point exactly, so neither can the dna structure.

In addition to my last point, evolution is not "unguided". It's "guided" by the environment of a particular population. Things like climate changes, predation, scarcity of food, migration all affect how a population will evolve.

It is unguided. In order to have a digestive system to break down food and give you energy, you have to KNOW that you would need to have energy. In order to have a reproductive system, you have to know you will need to reproduce. In order to have an immune system, you have to know that you will need to fight diseases. We have complex systems in our bodies, systems that have purpose. How on earth can you get purpose from a process that is purposeless??

Lastly, with regards to "intelligent design" not being from one specific god, then by your own admission, even if you can prove that IDiocy is the way to go, you still can never determine whether Endovelicus or Zeus created everything and you have no objective means of determining that.

Once again, that is not relevant. I will believe that Zeus created everything before i believe nature created everything.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Begging the question


lol!

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

CotW, your posts have showed an extreme lack in the understanding of science. You have already shown that you do not even understand the basics of evolution enough to debate them in a practical manner. You have also shown a lack of knowledge in other biological fields as well. And this isn't to mention your lack of knowledge in astronomy. You have shown, repeatedly, and even admitted, that you have done very little research on the subject, which says to me, and anyone else here, that your rejection is based solely on religious opinion. If you wish to disagree with the facts of science in favor of religion, this is fine, and I have no problem with it. However, if you wish to be taken seriously, if you plan on debating the subject, please do us all a favor, and actually look at what science actually teaches about the subject before attempting to debate something. There's no way that we can take you seriously when you have both shown and admitted to a lack of knowledge in this area. We are not interested in the religious reasons why you reject certain scientific ideas, but the scientific reasons why you reject them. But so far, all you have offered is a "goddidit" reason, you refuse to answer questions posed to you in any kind of manner other than "goddidit", and instead accuse those who are offering not only evidence, but answering your questions as well, of being ignorant. And with that said, I have a question for you: as it's become obvious that you have no scientific reasons for rejecting the ToE, I wish to ask you this: do you reject the germ theory of disease? It, like evolution, is a scientific theory, but like evolution, has facts supporting it. Yet it goes against the Bible, because the Bible states, emphatically, many times, that disease is caused by god's wrath. If you reject the ToE, you must also reject this theory as well, no? There is no disrespect meant by this. I simply wish for scientific reasons for rejecting the ToE, not religious ideas. I also wish for open debate on the subject, not simply refutation with no reason other than religious reasons. I have quite enjoyed this debate up until now, but I find that it's really going nowhere, which is disappointing. So please consider what I've said.

 

[Iti oj]

If id/creationism is true. Please explain the following list.
dinosaurs.lol
other homonids.
vistigials appedages
the fossil record
gods obsession with bettles.
livestalk and germs and dogs and cats...
the genetic evidence.

For the genetic evidence not only do we share dna with all living things but the ammoun of dna shared is equal to how far away our shared lineage...

 

[fishy]

If id/creationism is true. Please explain the following list.
dinosaurs.lol
other homonids.
vistigials appedages
the fossil record
gods obsession with bettles.
livestalk and germs and dogs and cats...
the genetic evidence.

For the genetic evidence not only do we share dna with all living things but the ammoun of dna shared is equal to how far away our shared lineage...

Explanation here
goddidit :bow: :bow: throw money not flowers............aww thanks, I luv yous all.

THE END

 

[johnhanks]

I think, bit by bit, C_o_t_W is revealing to us the massive confusions that underlie his posts on this forum.

In order to have a digestive system to break down food and give you energy, you have to KNOW that you would need to have energy. In order to have a reproductive system, you have to know you will need to reproduce.

Never mind that C_o_t_W doesn't know the difference between the digestion of food and its oxidative decomposition in cellular respiration: more crucially, he can't see that the very first proto-cells already possessed the wherewithal to do this, and in all subsequent evolution there never was a stage where this capacity was not present. Ditto reproduction.

In order to have an immune system, you have to know that you will need to fight diseases.

No, you need to be an early multicellular animal prone to attack by parasitic unicells and in possession of a population of cells specialising in phagocytosis (a widespread and pre-existing capability); mutation and natural selection will do the rest. You don't have to 'know' anything.

None of this will alter C_o_t_W's position, of course. Invincible ignorance is far too precious to take account of mere reason.

 

[fishy]

The thing is johnhanks, CotW is merely a symptom of the disease that is ID.
We want it taught as an alternative science, because the science we will never understand doesn't agree with GOD.

Rant over

 

[Iti oj]

Explanation here
goddidit :bow: :bow: throw money not flowers............aww thanks, I luv yous all.

THE END

Do you accept frubals in lew of cash?

 

[camanintx]

You've just completely begged the question by assuming your premise without any proof of it. You said that life from nonlife is a fact, there is no proof of this whatsoever.

You aren't seriously suggesting that life was already present when the Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago, are you?

 

[McBell]

You aren't seriously suggesting that life was already present when the Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago, are you?

hello?

God...
:yes:

sheesh.


Pay attention.
:slap:

 

[shawn001]

Call of the wild, did humans and dinosaurs coexist 180 million years ago?

We know everything in the universe evolved from this for a fact.


http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~afrank/A105/LectureXVI/COBE_Wmap.jpg

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

wonder how Call of the Wild explains this away?


"There were periods in the past when three or four early human species lived at the same time, even in the same place. We – Homo sapiens – are now the sole surviving species in this once diverse family tree."

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Smithsonian museam of natrual history and human origins program.

 

[McBell]

wonder how Call of the Wild explains this away?


"There were periods in the past when three or four early human species lived at the same time, even in the same place. We – Homo sapiens – are now the sole surviving species in this once diverse family tree."

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Smithsonian museam of natrual history and human origins program.

um...
The fossils were put there by The Satan in order to lure us away from god?

God placed the fossils there to test our faith?

:ignore:

Those fossils are from an alien spaceship that dumped its trash before continuing off in search for intelligent life?

 

[Agnostic75]

Creationists believe that am Intelligent Designer constructed and created these highly complex cells and chromosomes (DNA), and that God created all living things at or around the same time, making the genders of each "kind" compatible with one another allowing them to reproduce and fill the earth, as the book of Gen indicates.

What scientific evidence suggests to you "that God created all living things at or around the same time"?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

CotW, your posts have showed an extreme lack in the understanding of science. You have already shown that you do not even understand the basics of evolution enough to debate them in a practical manner. You have also shown a lack of knowledge in other biological fields as well. And this isn't to mention your lack of knowledge in astronomy. You have shown, repeatedly, and even admitted, that you have done very little research on the subject, which says to me, and anyone else here, that your rejection is based solely on religious opinion. If you wish to disagree with the facts of science in favor of religion, this is fine, and I have no problem with it. However, if you wish to be taken seriously, if you plan on debating the subject, please do us all a favor, and actually look at what science actually teaches about the subject before attempting to debate something. There's no way that we can take you seriously when you have both shown and admitted to a lack of knowledge in this area. We are not interested in the religious reasons why you reject certain scientific ideas, but the scientific reasons why you reject them. But so far, all you have offered is a "goddidit" reason, you refuse to answer questions posed to you in any kind of manner other than "goddidit", and instead accuse those who are offering not only evidence, but answering your questions as well, of being ignorant. And with that said, I have a question for you: as it's become obvious that you have no scientific reasons for rejecting the ToE, I wish to ask you this: do you reject the germ theory of disease? It, like evolution, is a scientific theory, but like evolution, has facts supporting it. Yet it goes against the Bible, because the Bible states, emphatically, many times, that disease is caused by god's wrath. If you reject the ToE, you must also reject this theory as well, no? There is no disrespect meant by this. I simply wish for scientific reasons for rejecting the ToE, not religious ideas. I also wish for open debate on the subject, not simply refutation with no reason other than religious reasons. I have quite enjoyed this debate up until now, but I find that it's really going nowhere, which is disappointing. So please consider what I've said.

Look, the fact of the matter is, the concept of life from nonlife doesn't have any evidence to support it. It just doesn't. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. In order for you to believe this, you have to presuppose that it did. But in no way can you say it is scientifically proven. That takes care of abiogenesis. As far as evoution is concerned, there is no evidence that animals evolved. The evidence that has been proven can mean common designer. Neither you nor anyone else is in any position to disprove or prove whether or not an intelligent designer was the cause. What is the evidence? Similiarities?? Apes have almost the same amount of chromosomes than humans, and is said to mean that we have a common ancestor. This is not evidence, this is adding your presuppositions to the evidence. All we have ever observed is dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish. This is all we have ever seen. There is no need to add any addition interpretation to our observations. Evolutionists wants us to believe that long ago, far and wide, that dogs began to come from nondogs. This is not empiricalistic science. This is voo doo science. There is no evidence for life from nonlife, or evidence that animals all share a common ancestor.

Second, of course you will make it seem as if i dont understand evolution. Like i said, it never fails. The problem is, you people are explaining things, and yet, the stuff that you are attempting to explain, STILL doesn't provide answers. You people always say theists give the response "goddidit", but yet when it comes to life from nonlife, although we have no explanation of how and why it happened, the answers theists get from naturalists is "it just happened". This response is no more better than the "goddidit" response you people like to mock. Until a person is able to show me how life can come from nonlife without intelligent design, then i wont believe it. Unless someone can show me how an animal can begin to produce a different kind of animal, why should I believe it??

In order to believe this voo doo science, you have to accept by faith. There is no conclusive evidence for either one, yet you people have no problem believing it. So i will stick to believing that things that are more complex than space shuttles have intelligent design behind it, and you people can continue to believe that blind and unguided processes are able to create compexity and purpose.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You aren't seriously suggesting that life was already present when the Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago, are you?

Yes, according to Gen 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. "God", the intelligent designer (supernatural life)..created the "heavens" and the "earth". Yes, the first ten words of the bible draws this conclusion and I tend to agree.