why is creationism plausable?

BannanaFish · #1 11th August 2009, 12:35 AM

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting.

Evolution is the only possible means of discerning the world's animals we have today.

cases have been documented proving evolution is real During Darwin's expedition to the Galapagos Islands, he bred birds, forcing their genes to change the look and characteristics of the offspring. If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

gluadys · #2 11th August 2009, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by BannanaFish

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting.

Evolution is the only possible means of discerning the world's animals we have today.

cases have been documented proving evolution is real During Darwin's expedition to the Galapagos Islands, he bred birds, forcing their genes to change the look and characteristics of the offspring. If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, but this is not one of them. Darwin did not breed any of the Galapagos finches. He shot some to take home to England for study. He did breed birds in England though: pigeons.

marktheblake · #3 11th August 2009, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by BannanaFish

If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another

Um, didnt he just observe the Finches growing different sized beaks?

MattLangley · #4 11th August 2009, 02:21 PM

It isn't.

gluadys · #5 11th August 2009, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by marktheblake

Um, didnt he just observe the Finches growing different sized beaks?

No, he wasn't there long enough to do that. He shot a few and sent them to an ornithologist in England. Darwin himself didn't even realize they were all finches (he thought some were warblers or larks) until he got the report from the ornithologist that they were all finches.

The people who observed the changes in the beak size were Peter and Rosemary Grant, who, together with their assistants studied the finches on Daphne Major (one of the Galapagos islands) every year from the early 1970s on for 30 years. They saw the population of finches plummet during a severe drought and noticed that the larger beaked birds survived better and the next generation had, on average, larger beaks that showed up in their earlier records. Later, they also saw the difference after a good rainy season that favored smaller birds with smaller beaks.

There's a good readable description of their work in a book called The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. Look for it in the science section of your bookstore or library.

marktheblake · #6 12th August 2009, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

They saw the population of finches plummet during a severe drought and noticed that the larger beaked birds survived better and the next generation had, on average, larger beaks that showed up in their earlier records

Thanks for the clarification, so no species changing into another huh?

Originally Posted by BannanaFish

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting

Originally Posted by BannanaFish

If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

who is shortsighted?

Smidlee · #7 12th August 2009, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by BannanaFish

If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

The mind.

Stryder06 · #8 12th August 2009, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, but this is not one of them. Darwin did not breed any of the Galapagos finches. He shot some to take home to England for study. He did breed birds in England though: pigeons.

I'm sorry my friend, but you've been deceived! Pigeons aren't birds, they're evil rats with wings!

Stryder06 · #9 12th August 2009, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by BannanaFish

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting.

Evolution is the only possible means of discerning the world's animals we have today.

cases have been documented proving evolution is real During Darwin's expedition to the Galapagos Islands, he bred birds, forcing their genes to change the look and characteristics of the offspring. If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

Honestly, I'd say that saying that God didn't do what He said He did is shortsighted and limiting. Genesis says 7 days, and during the seven days He created all that there is. For a Christian that should be case closed.

WingsOfEagles07 · #10 12th August 2009, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by BannanaFish

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting.

Evolution is the only possible means of discerning the world's animals we have today.

cases have been documented proving evolution is real During Darwin's expedition to the Galapagos Islands, he bred birds, forcing their genes to change the look and characteristics of the offspring. If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

Here is an excerpt from R.Torrey's Commentary ; The Decadence of Darwinism. (blueletterbible.com)

BOLD = TORREY, RED = HUXELY

Professor Huxley makes a notable concession to truth and sanity when he says:

"It is quite conceivable that every species tends to produce varieties of a limited number and kind, and that the effect of natural selection is to favor the development of some of these, while it opposes the development of others along their predetermined lines of modification." (Britannica. Evolution). Taking the Professor's language as accurate, he surrenders natural selection. We were taught that it was as reliable as gravitation, but if we get the notion that some species improve, some are stationary and some deteriorate, agreeably with heredity and environment, we have no further use for it. To sum up the case for natural selection:

(1) It is poor morals. A theory of nature must be ideal to be true. Natural selection is a scheme for the survival of the passionate and the violent, the destruction of the weak and defenseless. To be true, black must be white, and wrong must be right, and God an Ivan the terrible.

(2) Its assumptions are false. It is false that unlimited attenuation of the steps of the process, and unlimited time for the accomplishment of it, assure us that it might have been possible. "Attenuation" and "time" would have been but conditions, not causes. They could prove nothing.
It is false that in the struggle for existence the "fittest" survive. The "fittest" is an ambiguous word. With natural selection it means the strongest and best armed. They do not survive; they degenerate and expire. They who bear arms challenge attack. This providence may be penal or corrective.
It is false that man is derived from a brute and a brute from a vegetable. One of the forces of human life makes for a recognition of God and a consciousness of sin against Him. This was not unfolded from anthropoid apes, for it is not in them. Brutes are distinguished from plants by self-consciousness, and this was not developed from plants, for it is not in them.

(3) Natural selection is self-contradictory and impossible. Fifty years ago, Alfred Russel Wallace devised the scheme and wrote Charles Darwin about it. Mr. Darwin published the plan. He afterwards refers to Mr. Wallace as having. "an innate genius for solving difficulties". (Descent," p. 344). Two years ago, Mr. Wallace, in an address at the Darwin anniversary, before the Royal Institution in London, referring to Professor Haeckel said:
"These unavailing efforts seem to lead us to the irresistible conclusion that beyond and above all terrestrial agencies, there is some great source of energy and guidance, which in unknown ways pervades every form of organized life, and which we ourselves are the ultimate and foreordained outcome".