Why Creationism over Evolution? Bring on the arguments

[Evolution_Not]

And yes, making a better ear of corn through hybridization is evolution. Insects that develop resistance to insecticides evolve this capability. Are you saying that we have not observed new species coming into existence? Because biologists have observed exactly that, both in the lab and the field.

1) Evolution does not involve intelligent manipulation-Evolution is a series of accidents. You can't have it both ways.
2) If you get a disease and deveolpe an immunity to it I will accept micro-evolution,
but a better term is adaptation. Is this immunity passed to all future offspring?
You will always be human regard-less.

Give me 2 examples of new species

 

[Autodidact]

Things against evolution:

1) the simple cell theory. If the first cell could not have come together by chance then life could not have start by chance. The simple cell in Darwins day was thought of as a jelly like substance. BUt in mordern times we now know that the simplist cells are amazingly complex.

Since evolution is not a theory about chance, this objection does not apply to evolution.
It doesn't matter what Darwin thought; we've come a long way since then.

I may get the figures wrong because I am going by memory (if you want my sources let me know)but it goes something like this:
a) The cell begins with Amino acids "building blockes of life" There are needed at least 12 amino to form a protien
b) You then need at the mininume 2000 protiens to form a cell.
c) you at the same time need the DNA to tell the protien what to become.

There is allot more stuff needed for a simple cell but these figures are enough to prove my point.[/quote] What is your point? That cells are too complicated to have arisen via evolution? Why, is there some limit on how complex something can evolve?

The Amino acids come in two forms "left" and "right" handed. Left handed kills life and right builds life. In physics the Law of Equalibrium will show that these two substances will be equally mixed. So it will take some faith to believe that in the "premortal soup" only right handed some how got seperated form the left some how. But even one left handed Amino Acid will destory life.

Rome: This is gibberish. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

But lets say some how this happened, you then need it to happen 2000 times at the same spot, at the same moment with a very small window of oppertunity.

What?

The DNA is evidence all by itself. By Definition DNA is a language that consists of 4 letters that gives imformation. A language always reflect a mind. A language is also a two way street. The DNA must first speak and the protien has to respond.

No, DNA is not by definition a language. It's a polymer. If it helps you to understand it to think in terms of a language, O.K., but don't get confused. It's just a long molecular chain.

Now some will say that even if the odds are against this happening the amount of time will make it possible. This would be a good scapegoat if it were not for some mathmatians who calculated this and figured the odds

His name is Dembski and all the other mathematicians will tell you he's wrong.

The Odds of all this happening is apparently 1 x 10 to the 153 power. Lets put this in perspective:
If you take all the atoms in the known universe it is 1 x 10 to the 47 power.
if you take every second from a 4 billion year old earth it is 1 x 10 to the 17 power.
Anything over 1 x 10 to the 50 power is considered impossible, absurb.

You don't know any more about statistics than you do about physics. Don't even try. The odds of anything happening which has already happened are exactly 100%.

The odds of what happening? The existence of DNA? Did you know that ToE predicted that something that works exactly like DNA must exist? 100 years before it was discovered?

And this is only the first cell well we have not even discussed it spliting itself and aventually become all life.

There is alot more things against evolution but I hope next time to speak for creationist from a pure scientific viewpoint.[/quote] That would be refreshing. It would be hard for you, though since you clearly don't know very much about science.

Let me ask you this, Rome. It's obvious you have only a slight familiarity with science. Let's just take, say, all the world's biologists. They actually do know this stuff. They spend their entire lives studying it. Do you honestly think that they're so stupid, or what--dishonest? that they needed you with your brief acquaintance with the subject to set them straight?

 

[Autodidact]

Science is not worthless
and 2) has to do with certian laws in physic that eliminate chance as a source for life which implys choice (in this case The choices of a creator as resembled by the choices of an artist or a Builder

How about if we actually talked about evolution. ToE is a theory about diversity of species, that's all. Do you have any idea what the ToE actually says? Are you interested in learning?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The DNA is evidence all by itself. By Definition DNA is a language that consists of 4 letters that gives imformation. A language always reflect a mind. A language is also a two way street. The DNA must first speak and the protien has to respond.

Now some will say that even if the odds are against this happening the amount of time will make it possible. This would be a good scapegoat if it were not for some mathmatians who calculated this and figured the odds

The Odds of all this happening is apparently 1 x 10 to the 153 power. Lets put this in perspective:
If you take all the atoms in the known universe it is 1 x 10 to the 47 power.
if you take every second from a 4 billion year old earth it is 1 x 10 to the 17 power.
Anything over 1 x 10 to the 50 power is considered impossible, absurb.

And this is only the first cell well we have not even discussed it spliting itself and aventually become all life.

I assume you have access to a search engine as well. I suggest you google "Miller-Urey" - it's a famous experiment where a sterilized sealed system is filled with only the gases that would have been present on a primordial and lifeless Earth, and is fed with heat and an electric arc. The experiment produces self-replicating amino acids in relatively short order.

While the Miller-Urey experiment may not be perfect, I think it indicates that you may be making some incorrect assumptions in your assessment of the odds of abiogenesis.


BTW - what happens when you do a similar thought experiment to estimate the probability of a spontaneously generated God?

 

[Valjean]

Things against evolution:

1) the simple cell theory. If the first cell could not have come together by chance then life could not have start by chance. The simple cell in Darwins day was thought of as a jelly like substance. BUt in mordern times we now know that the simplist cells are amazingly complex.

I may get the figures wrong because I am going by memory (if you want my sources let me know)but it goes something like this:
a) The cell begins with Amino acids "building blockes of life" There are needed at least 12 amino to form a protien
b) You then need at the mininume 2000 protiens to form a cell.
c) you at the same time need the DNA to tell the protien what to become.

There is allot more stuff needed for a simple cell but these figures are enough to prove my point.

The Amino acids come in two forms "left" and "right" handed. Left handed kills life and right builds life. In physics the Law of Equalibrium will show that these two substances will be equally mixed. So it will take some faith to believe that in the "premortal soup" only right handed some how got seperated form the left some how. But even one left handed Amino Acid will destory life.

But lets say some how this happened, you then need it to happen 2000 times at the same spot, at the same moment with a very small window of oppertunity.

The DNA is evidence all by itself. By Definition DNA is a language that consists of 4 letters that gives imformation. A language always reflect a mind. A language is also a two way street. The DNA must first speak and the protien has to respond.

Now some will say that even if the odds are against this happening the amount of time will make it possible. This would be a good scapegoat if it were not for some mathmatians who calculated this and figured the odds

The Odds of all this happening is apparently 1 x 10 to the 153 power. Lets put this in perspective:
If you take all the atoms in the known universe it is 1 x 10 to the 47 power.
if you take every second from a 4 billion year old earth it is 1 x 10 to the 17 power.
Anything over 1 x 10 to the 50 power is considered impossible, absurb.

And this is only the first cell well we have not even discussed it spliting itself and aventually become all life.

There is alot more things against evolution but I hope next time to speak for creationist from a pure scientific viewpoint.

I'm sorry, Rome, But your proofs are just... well -- wrong! They're non-sequiturs, they're biologically inaccurate or based on incorrect assumptions, they're mathematically misleading. All these issues have been refuted in a thousand books, articles and websites.

You're asserting that magic is a better explanation of the way things are than mechanism.
You effetely nit-pick at scientific theory while completely ignoring the fact that creation "theory" posits no mechanism at all. It's non-falsifiable, indeed, non-examinable. It's not a theory at all. It's magic. It's an assertion of agency, not mechanism, and does not seek to "explain" anything.

 

[Random]

*Sigh* OK, once again: creation and evolution go better together than as opposites.

AndRome and Evolution-Not are...well, getting bashed. Predictably, but not unduly...

 

[Evolution_Not]

BTW - what happens when you do a similar thought experiment to estimate the probability of a spontaneously generated God?

Probably better than a universe and matter creating itself.

AndRome and Evolution-Not are...well, getting bashed. Predictably, but not unduly...

Hardly-you must be having random thoughts

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Probably better than a universe and matter creating itself.

Wait... you're effectively saying that it's more likely for the universe to effectively pop into existence from nothing using God as an intermediate step than it would be for the universe to pop into existence by any other method. What possible reasoning can you have behind this opinion?

Isn't it more valid to say that an entity with the power and intelligence to deliberately create the universe we see would be more complex, and therefore less likely to occur spontaneously, than it would be for the universe to occur spontaneously itself?

 

[Willamena]

you all do have search engines?
since I am not allowed to post urls yet search "cosmic evolution"

You claim "Evolution" only pertains to biology or life. But the general narative it that it
rained on the rocks for millions of years" and that life came from non life.
Everything can be reduced to particle science unless you believe life has no particles.
From there we have to evolve to Elements, molecules and chemical compounds.
Everything including life and planets are made from these. Biological evolution is the
most commonly discussed but it is only part of evolution. But perhaps you are of the
belief that it all plopped into existance one day like magic?

(This is "Evolution" but not "the Theory of Evolution".) What distinguishes life from non-life?

 

[mingmty]

*Sigh* OK, once again: creation and evolution go better together than as opposites.

AndRome and Evolution-Not are...well, getting bashed. Predictably, but not unduly...

Evolution IS a SCIENTIFIC theory based on facts, evidence and experimentation; it doesn't claim to be the absolute truth, it can and should be super passed when new discoveries are found. In the other hand we have creationism, a completely unscientific belief that doesn't have evidence supporting it, claims the absolute truth of what happened and don't allow to be super passed.

CREATIONISM ISN'T SCIENCE. Evolution isn't about the creation of the universe, (leave that for physicists and cosmetologists) it is about the evolution of species into new species.

And they are not getting bashed; If I claim the sun rotates around the earth which is the center of the universe surely everyone would try to correct me, and that wouldn't be bashing would it?

 

[Willamena]

1) Evolution does not involve intelligent manipulation-Evolution is a series of accidents. You can't have it both ways.

The Theory of Evolution is not about the level of intelligence of the mechanisms of change, only about the mechanisms.

 

[Willamena]

*Sigh* OK, once again: creation and evolution go better together than as opposites.

Like peaches and cream! Like chocolate and coffee! Like raviolli and peanut butter!

 

[Evolution_Not]

Since evolution is not a theory about chance,

Are you suggesting there is design or itelligence in evolution?

 

[Willamena]

CREATIONISM ISN'T SCIENCE. Evolution isn't about the creation of the universe, (leave that for physicists and cosmetologists) it is about the evolution of species into new species.

That's exactly why they can go together. They don't really conflict except when one or the other is taken for something it is not.

 

[Random]

Evolution IS a SCIENTIFIC theory based on facts, evidence and experimentation; it doesn't claim to be the absolute truth, it can and should be super passed when new discoveries are found. In the other hand we have creationism, a completely unscientific belief that doesn't have evidence supporting it, claims the absolute truth of what happened and don't allow to be super passed.

CREATIONISM ISN'T SCIENCE. Evolution isn't about the creation of the universe, (leave that for physicists and cosmetologists) it is about the evolution of species into new species.

No, Creationism isn't science. But it remains logical that things created can evolve. OK?

 

[Evolution_Not]

Wait... you're effectively saying that it's more likely for the universe to effectively pop into existence from nothing using God as an intermediate step than it would be for the universe to pop into existence by any other method. What possible reasoning can you have behind this opinion?

Isn't it more valid to say that an entity with the power and intelligence to deliberately create the universe we see would be more complex, and therefore less likely to occur spontaneously, than it would be for the universe to occur spontaneously itself?

What I would say is that existance on any level is paradox since we are looking for causality. So nether choice is logical. However given a choice of God creating the universe in all its complexity or the universe creating God I will have to go with God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I would say is that existance on any level is paradox since we are looking for causality. So nether choice is logical. However given a choice of God creating the universe in all its complexity or the universe creating God I will have to go with God.

Ah... you're taking it for granted that God exists. I don't think that's a given. Why do you?

 

[Evolution_Not]

(This is "Evolution" but not "the Theory of Evolution".) What distinguishes life from non-life?

2 words Theory and evolution, neither is exclusive to biological process.
If you don't want to consider the entire process and only focus on biology fine.
You must have not read the thread which says "Evolution" not TOE.

 

[Evolution_Not]

Ah... you're taking it for granted that God exists. I don't think that's a given. Why do you?

And your taking for granted that nothing for no reason willed itself into being.
Which is more logical?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

2 words Theory and evolution, neither is exclusive to biological process.
If you don't want to consider the entire process and only focus on biology fine.
You must have not read the thread which says "Evolution" not TOE.

"Evolution" has two meanings:

- the action of interitance, random mutation and natural selection to produce variation in life
- unfolding

Unless you're having a discussion on origami, only the definition that applies to biological processes is applicable to the conversation.