Creationism VS Evolution... I think...

Post Reply New Topic

You have to say that the other elements are in an aqeous state (aq), I think.

Yeah, but essentially all biologically relevant chemical reactions occur in aqueous solution.

I don't really understand this view. The exact same arguments used to claim that parakeets and cockatiels share a common ancestor also apply (and are used) when demonstrating that parrots share a common ancestor with ducks. The most compelling evidence for evolution crosses genus lines. It even extends across all three known domains of life.

I think the evidence for that is a bit more complex than seeing speciation of bacteria. The thing is, in multicellular organisms, it happens over millions of years. You don't really have to observe it directly, as long as there's indirect evidence for it.

Undoubtedly the evolutionists and creationists study the same facts; but I believe when the evidence or data do not speak for themselves, each group will then interpret what they see according to their own particular worldview.

Many who believe in evolution, for instance, do not see any design at all in the genetic code. All they see is a bunch of selfish little genes randomly replicating. For them, facts must fit into their natural-selection way of looking at things in order to be facts at all.

I think that the term "natural selection" seems to be an odd use of the two words because scientists have never been able to prove that nature can select anything. It takes intelligent beings to evaluate the options before them and to make choices based on those evaluations. We simply do not get natural laws from either luck or predictable processes of chance.

The creationists, on the other hand, see facts as evidence and data that points to God, the fingerprints of God as it were; and they evaluate the facts before them not on chance or by the finite and ever-changing thinking of mankind but on God's revelation.

Many good people sincerely believe in evolution but science is not supposed to be a belief system. Science by definition is about knowledge, a knowledge that can be demonstrated, observed, and repeated in any laboratory around the world. And evolution cannot be observed or proved in a laboratory - it has to be "believed," like a religion almost.

When things get too hot for certain organisms they die. Same for too cold, not enough food, inferior escape from predators, etc.
That's natural selection. If you cannot realize that, intelligent discourse is not possible.

Last edited by Sand on 21 Jan 2010, 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not at all random. No competent evolutionary biologist would say it is all by random chance. That is the worst kind of straw man.


Please tell me you're joking. If you like, I could produce a few hundred such examples for you. When one organism has a better chance of surviving in a given environment, they will be favored by natural selection.


Evolution is observed in laboratories on a regular basis. And what do you say of astrophyics? That is not a science because we can't reproduce it on demand in a laboratory?

Very nice argument. Balanced from both sides. I have learned in my short life that anyone can find evidence to support any point of view that they have and I am now more cautious about stating my opinions about things, but there is one thing I must defend you on.

Yes, I have a problem with the way "natural selection" is put accross as well. I understand where you are coming from I think. I have no problem with the concept of survival of the fittest. If an animal is not happy in a certain environment it will die out. The animal that is happy in the environment will survive and go on to procreate and it's species will survive for generations. The fittest thing survives. For example we are now seeing more shorter tusked elephants because the longer tusked elephants are being killed for their ivory and not being given a chance to procreate. The shorter tusked elephants are the fittest in this scenario, therefore they survive and pass on their genes to the next generation.

But often when evolution is explained (mostly on tv i see this) it irritates me that the presenter will say that a plant for example finds a way around a problem by developing a certain trait like a sting or an animal develops a certain ability so that it can survive. I cannot see how nature is capable of this. I.E. I being female I get stomach cramps every month. For my gender to get ahead in the workplace it would be good if we could suffer less pain every month and be cramp free like our male counterparts, this would aid our concentration. However, I will never have the ability to provide this advantage to my offspring.

I cannot see how a creature can develop a way to deal with an environment. Either it is suitable and it survives, or it is not suitable and it dies.

What holes? Enumerate please.

ruveyn

Genetics provides variation amongst individuals. There is variation going on all the time. Individuals do not adapt. Either they have the right stuff or they are eliminated. Evolution does not take place to change an individual. If it is not survivable to have cramps you will not survive. But individuals who don't develop cramps (and there is no guarantee that such individuals exist) then only they will survive. Otherwise, everybody dies.

Proof for design is a designer.

You can't know if something is designed without knowing the designer of it.

Preschool paintings for example may appear to be a mess, but you can know they have a design if you know a child created it.

Imagine a mess on the floor that happened randomly next to a painting that is identical to it, directly on the floor. One is designed and one isn't but you can only know if either is designed if you have proof of a designer.

Not so if even simple logic is involved in deciding the matter. If the two are truly identical (as in "a painting of the mess" or "a mess made to match the painting" or a painting that was blotted from the mess), then at least one or the other must have been designed or the two could not be identical ... and "intelligent design" (as well as some real talent!) would have been required for the two to have appeared simultaneously. Proof of a designer is *not* required to prove design unless we are willing to consider ourselves nothing more than mere messes on the floor ... and yes, some of us do so seem at times!

I think that the mutations in genes are random but whether they survive or not isn't. I think this is where creationists fail to understand natural selection the fact is that if a mutation gives an advantage the gene is very likely to survive, and if the mutation has no effect or a bad one it very unlikely to survive. These mutations are tiny and only cause very gradual change over massive amounts of time. A good example of the power of genes (which personally I love) is the fact that all the variety of dogs you see today are all descended from the domesticated wolf I forget the amount of time involved I thinks it's 20,000 years give or take 5,000 years. Although fair enough this explosion in variety has been caused by human selective breeding it displays just how genes can be manipulated given enough time.

Unfortunately allot of creationists seem to have little or no understanding in evolution, they often seem to think that in evolution creatures just sprout new limbs and shapes overnight. The sheer weight of evidence in favor of evolution is staggering yet they still insist that the bibles creation story be taken literally

Thanks for finnally stating what you believe!
You DO believe in evolution, but only to a point.
Someone finnally pinned you down and got you to say it!

So what is this magical force that stops evolution after an arbitrary point?

No wait. I know what it is. Or what it might be.
It is: time.
Right?

You believe that the planet is older than the genisis says it is, but not as old as mainstream scientists say it is ( ie that it is more than 6000 years old, but less than 4.5 billion years old).

Therefore there would be just enough time for evolution of species into other species of the same genera. But there wouldnt be enough time for one genera to evolve into another genera ( ducks could become geese, but ducks couldnt spring from the same ancestor as parakeets).

So both Genisis AND Darwin are flawed.
The real age of the Earth is about- oh- two million years.


God magically filled the planet with life in one week a million or two years ago (kinda like Genisis).
There were suddenly thousands of species of general perpose critters (rodents birds lizards beetles bacteria ) running around.

And then there has been about one or two million years worth of Darwin style evolution since then. This resulted in the teeming millions of more specialized critters we have today. God had to write the themes, evolution made the variations- because evolution didnt have enough time to write the themes- so to speak.

Have I guessed your theory correctly?

You steadfastly refuse to assert what you believe (in concise terms) on this subject so Im forced to play a guessing game.

If that is your theory -that the earth is young-but-not-too-young-for-some-evolution then it does atleast have some internal logic.

Potassium Argon testing indicates about 4.5 billion years. You really should learn some science instead of pulling these wild figures out of the nearest handy orifice of your body.

ruveyn

Oh hey, in the title you said "...I think", that automatically makes you an evolutionnist, because creationnists "believe" .