Creation vs. Evolution: take 139486

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

What do you say when it is shown that the word translated into "day" means an age or indefinite amount of time?

Also a massive LOL, there is evidence for evolution, and abiogenesis.

That is not faith, as faith doesn't suffer with "trivial" things such as evidence.

Ok, prove your point on abiogenesis starting the universe.
Prove your point on evolution from dust particles and inanimate matter.

Go ahead. In stead of saying, "You're wrong and I'm right." I wouldn't mind seeing some proof.

Then I might be a little more apt to believe you.

 

[Theogonia]

As I said I have not done the research into abiogenesis, but I know there is evidence for it.

However, evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe if there was one.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Ok, prove your point on abiogenesis starting the universe.
Prove your point on evolution from dust particles and inanimate matter.

Abiogenesis is unrelated to evolution. If it were proven wrong (which means, what did God create life from?), it would not affect evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Exactly, hence not scientific abiogenesis.

Why not? Where does science say that God is excluded from abiogenesis?

Science has no opinion on the matter.

Christians can accept that God used abiogenesis to transform non-living matter into living matter and that science describes the process.

 

[gluadys]

Ok, prove your point on abiogenesis starting the universe.

No one made that point, so no one has to prove it. The universe began long before life on earth. You have to have a universe already created before you can have abiogenesis or the transformation of non-living into living matter.

Prove your point on evolution from dust particles and inanimate matter.

That is not evolution. That might be abiogenesis. You can't have evolution until you already have something alive. So abiogenesis (or some miraculous equivalent) has to take place first to get something alive. Then you can have evolution to change it over time.

Go ahead. In stead of saying, "You're wrong and I'm right." I wouldn't mind seeing some proof.

You won't see proof, but you will see evidence. Science is evidence-based. But you will only see evidence for what science actually claims. You won't see evidence for abiogenesis starting the universe because that is not a scientific claim. You will not see evidence for evolution from dust particles and inanimate matter because that is not a scientific claim.

It seems you need better information on what science actually claims. Then you can pose better questions about it.

And we can respond with believable answers.

 

[Agnostic1515]

No one made that point, so no one has to prove it. The universe began long before life on earth. You have to have a universe already created before you can have abiogenesis or the transformation of non-living into living matter.



That is not evolution. That might be abiogenesis. You can't have evolution until you already have something alive. So abiogenesis (or some miraculous equivalent) has to take place first to get something alive. Then you can have evolution to change it over time.



You won't see proof, but you will see evidence. Science is evidence-based. But you will only see evidence for what science actually claims. You won't see evidence for abiogenesis starting the universe because that is not a scientific claim. You will not see evidence for evolution from dust particles and inanimate matter because that is not a scientific claim.

It seems you need better information on what science actually claims. Then you can pose better questions about it.

And we can respond with believable answers.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. Evolution only explains the diversification of life AFTER the appearance (however it came about) of the first "living" creature.

One of the most fascinating claims I seem to hear from creationists is that "it's the THEORY of evolution. we can't see lower forms of life evolve into higher forms of life, hence, it can't be proven."

At least in part, that is true (although not entirely). We can't SEE populations undergoing speciation in a matter of a few decades. However, as gluadys pointed out, we have evidence for common descent (and pretty damn good evidence!).

It's like investigating the scene of a murder. You can see the dead bodies, and you have a bunch of DNA evidence linking the suspect to the crime. Just because we weren't there to witness the act taking place doesn't mean we can't reasonably assume that he/she commited the crime.

With evolution from common descent, as with my murder example, we are investigating the matter after the fact, and so we have to use our reason.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Alright:

<img>http://www.jpdawson.com/creation/celltrz.gif</img>

So, abiogenesis aside, you have your single celled organism. This is where I find a flaw. What are the chances that this single celled organism is asexual? One out of three.
And what are the chances that this cell knows how to split and reproduce, if it was asexual?
Single celled organisms aren't very complex, so tell me how you think it went from a single celled organism, and then reproduced, and so forth.
But, then, even if it did reproduce, how would it be able to merge with its fellow one celled organisms and make something as complete and perfect as a horse or human?

 

[Molal]

Alright:

<img>http://www.jpdawson.com/creation/celltrz.gif</img>

So, abiogenesis aside, you have your single celled organism. This is where I find a flaw. What are the chances that this single celled organism is asexual? One out of three.
And what are the chances that this cell knows how to split and reproduce, if it was asexual?
Single celled organisms aren't very complex, so tell me how you think it went from a single celled organism, and then reproduced, and so forth.
But, then, even if it did reproduce, how would it be able to merge with its fellow one celled organisms and make something as complete and perfect as a horse or human?

I am going to assume that by asexual you mean agamogenesis. Today all prokaryotes produce using agamogenesis, so do many plants and fungi. So, agamogenesis occurs today in organisms that have been observed to evolve.

This website provides much information on cells:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/on_the_origin_of_cells.html

This scientific paper Becoming Multicellular by Aggregation; The Morphogenesis of the Social Amoebae Dicyostelium discoideum available at your local library provides much background on the probable formation of multicellular organisms.

There is much to much information to post, thus I would expect you to visit your library and start reading papers. The above scientific paper was published in 2002 - it has a huge citation list that will provide untold truths in the organisation of mulitcellular organism.

Enjoy!

 

[Theogonia]

You think humans are perfect?

 

[Molal]

You think humans are perfect?

That's the problem, he doesn't understand evolution. This is evidence by the statement:

But, then, even if it did reproduce, how would it be able to merge with its fellow one celled organisms and make something as complete and perfect as a horse or human?

I recommend our friend visit http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ for a better understanding of evolution, thus he would not make erroneous comments like the one quoted above.

 

[gluadys]

Alright:

<img>http://www.jpdawson.com/creation/celltrz.gif</img>

So, abiogenesis aside, you have your single celled organism. This is where I find a flaw.

What are the chances that this single celled organism is asexual? One out of three.

Three out of three.

And what are the chances that this cell knows how to split and reproduce, if it was asexual?

Cells don't "know" anything. They just do things. And one of the things they do is reproduce. Reproduction is one of the characteristics of life. A living thing doesn't have to learn to reproduce. If it did not reproduce it would not be classified as "living".

Single celled organisms aren't very complex,

But some are more complex than others. You might look up the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

Also the theory that eukaryotes came about by symbiosis.

Also keep in mind that you get a lot of diversity over a lot of time long before you get to multicellular organisms. We tend to overlook the huge amount of diversity in unicellular organisms just because we don't ordinarily see them.

For about 2 billion years we have diversification of prokaryotes before we have record of eukaryotic life. And then we several hundred million years of more diversification of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes before we have any record of multicellular life. For 90% of earth's history there were no multicellular organisms. All of the rest: all the evolution of plants, fungi, animals of all sorts took place within the most recent 10% of the history of life on earth.

so tell me how you think it went from a single celled organism, and then reproduced, and so forth.

There was probably more than one way this occurred. The link in molal's post shows of one way it could happen.

As for reproduction, it is likely that at first organisms switched back and forth from being unicellular to multicellular. (check out slime molds for an example of this) and gradually evolved the reproductive methods we are more familiar with.

So, now we have covered the fact that:

--all living things reproduce; this is a fundamental characteristic of life, not something a living thing has to learn.

--we have lots of reproduction and diversification at the unicellular level for billions of years before we have multicellular life. This includes the development of eukaryotic cells.

--we have at least one example of how single-cell organisms become multi-celled organisms.

--we know of several different modes of reproduction, including some that straddle unicellular and multicellular life.

Now, what was that flaw you were speaking of?

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

"All" living things cannot reproduce!
Look at the baron people and animals in this world.
That's one of the reasons why Panda's are going extinct. Because they have no desire to reproduce, or they can't.
Does that mean Panda's and anything else that is baron or has no desire to reproduce are not living?

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

We "know" that the Earth is billions of years old?
That's news to me! Single celled organisms can reproduce, yes. But, they can't become multi-celled organisms. If they could, then evolution with single celled organism's would still be apparent.

Do you know HOW single celled organisms reproduce? They split, or basically clone themselves. So, with that said, how do you figure single celled organisms are able to evolve into multi-celled organisms?
Do you see the flaw now?

 

[pgp_protector]

"All" living things cannot reproduce!
Look at the baron people and animals in this world.
That's one of the reasons why Panda's are going extinct. Because they have no desire to reproduce, or they can't.
Does that mean Panda's and anything else that is baron or has no desire to reproduce are not living?

Learn the difference between Can & Do Please.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Learn the difference between Can & Do Please.

Haha! I DO know the difference between can and do!
You even quoted my post, and you still said that?!

Wow.

 

[pgp_protector]

Haha! I DO know the difference between can and do!
You even quoted my post, and you still said that?!

Wow.

Then you know that Just because Pandas Can reproduce that doesn't mean that they Will(do) reproduce.
So your point is null & void.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Then you know that Just because Pandas Can reproduce that doesn't mean that they Will(do) reproduce.
So your point is null & void.

Ummmm, I believe I said that in the same post....

Check it out sometime before you bash it.

And how is it null or void?
When I said all, I said "All" as in, not every living thing can reproduce.

 

[pgp_protector]

Ummmm, I believe I said that in the same post....

Check it out sometime before you bash it.

I give up.
Off to Iggy land with you.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

You make NO sense. As soon as you can make proper sense of words, come back.
I'll be waiting.

 

[gluadys]

"All" living things cannot reproduce!
Look at the baron people and animals in this world.

Please discriminate between individuals and species. Sometimes particular problems affect individuals so that they cannot reproduce. Sometimes an individual does not find a mate, or for some other reason does not reproduce.

However, the species reproduces. And even the barren individual is part of the species. The barren individual was born, and s/he has the potential to reproduce, even if something is blocking that potential. So s/he is still alive as a member of a reproducing species.

A species that is not reproducing is (or soon will be) extinct.