Taking questions on the Creation.

[Pete Harcoff]

They could not change the type.

There's no such thing as a "type". These are just artificial human classifications.

Something I've noticed whenever creationists bring this up is that when you get away from humans (classification-wise) classifications become a lot broader. For example, fruit flies (Drosophila) represent an entire Genus with over a thousand species. Monkeys are either Old World Monkeys (Cercopithecidae) or New World monkeys (Ceboidea) which make up hundreds of species. Dogs (Canidae, including wolves, foxes, etc) repesent dozens of species.

Creationist biology is very fuzzy like this.

 

[jpcedotal]

Human beings have been unable to prove in a lab evolution, but they believe nature has. So the argument is that science just hasn't caught up with nature yet, but the here's my issue.

Let's say just for arguement's sake that a scientists creates a living cell in a test tube by combining a bunch of non-living chemicals and materials. Yeah, I know the amino acid experiment, but there is a flaw in that.

Would not that prove the one of the requirements of creating life is an intelligent being putting the materials together in a certain way?

Wouldn't evolutionist be better off if science never produces life and just blames it on nature? Are we not intelligent beings and would be part of the experiential theory?

 

[jpcedotal]

The more advanced impartial science becomes (evolution is a religion), the more it proves the teachings in the Bible.

Six real days...that's all it took for an intelligent being to make everything living and non-living.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Human beings have been unable to prove in a lab evolution, but they believe nature has. So the argument is that science just hasn't caught up with nature yet, but the here's my issue.

First of all, science never proves anything. It provides evidence, form hypotheses, test these, form models that explain observations, and finally, makes predictions based on these models. Proof only exists in mathematics.

Secondly, the experimentally induced (in laboratories) evidence for evolution is so large that it doesn't leave doubt in anyone but those who willingly blind themselves with preconceived biases. In nature we can observe evolution happening. It's not fast, but we can observe it.

Let's say just for arguement's sake that a scientists creates a living cell in a test tube by combining a bunch of non-living chemicals and materials. Yeah, I know the amino acid experiment, but there is a flaw in that.

Would not that prove the one of the requirements of creating life is an intelligent being putting the materials together in a certain way?

First: What was the flaw in the "amino acid experiment"?
Second: You are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.
Third: No, it wouldn't. It would demonstrate that humans are able to put together a living cell. If the experiment is carried out in the correct way - which is what scientists are trying to achieve - it would also demonstrate that given early-earth conditions, life could begin as a spontaneous chemical process, without intelligent interference. This is still not evolution, though.

Wouldn't evolutionist be better off if science never produces life and just blames it on nature? Are we not intelligent beings and would be part of the experiential theory?

"Evolutionists" are mostly just interested in science moving forward, discovering new things. There is no need to give up any lines of experiment so that we can "blame it on nature". The argument is already over. Evolution is an established fact. You are behind the times. About 150 years behind.

 

[CoderHead]

So what you're saying is that if scientists say evolution occurs in nature, they're wrong. And if they say evolution occurs because they replicated it in a lab, they're wrong. So basically, you're just making a point on your personal opinion which is evolution is false and God created everything. I think we're all clear on that.

But you're not clear on what evolution actually is.

 

[Thistlethorn]

The more advanced impartial science becomes (evolution is a religion), the more it proves the teachings in the Bible.

No it does not, and it's not a religion. Just because you say it is doesn't mean it's so. "Religion" is a well defined concept. Evolution is an observed fact. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Neither can be defined as a religion.

Six real days...that's all it took for an intelligent being to make everything living and non-living.

Unsupported assertion.

Now, I can see that you are just parroting "facts" you have found on a creationist webpage. I would like to know what page this is. I would also like you to actually take the time to respond to the rebuttals that follow your parroting. Just endlessly listing PRATTs isn't going to achieve anything but making my fingers tired, and highlighting the ridiculousness of your position.

 

[jpcedotal]

No, I am saying there is no proof of evolution period.

I see claims that this plant is exactly the same as this plant except for one ...something so that must mean this plant evolved form this one.

I see claims the cells for scales and the cells for feathers are so close to identical that one must have evolved from another.

I see bats and rats are so closely related that at some time the rat need to be able to fly or the bat no longer required flight so we now have two variations of the same organism.

I see finches with variable peckers proving what?...Nothing

None of this is proven. It is a belief system at best and science is taking away the "facts" faster than evolutionist can add new ones to them.

 

[Thistlethorn]

No, I am saying there is no proof of evolution period.

I already explained why there is no proof. There is no proof of gravity. There is no proof of your existence. There is lots of evidence, though. The theory of evolution is better evidenced than the theory of gravity. You desperately need to learn to differentiate between evidence and proof, and you need to get a better grasp of what evolution actually is before you can have any chance of engaging in any attempt to disprove it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You desperately need to learn to differentiate between evidence and proof, and you need to get a better grasp of what evolution actually is before you can have any chance of engaging in any attempt to disprove it.

If creationists actually did this we probably wouldn't have any creationists left.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

If creationists actually did this we probably wouldn't have any creationists left.

QFT!

I've always found it odd and a bit arrogant when someone will argue a position, when they have zero understanding of the position they argue against. It's like a twelve year old walking into an OR and telling the cardiothoracic surgeon that he's doing it all wrong, because he saw an episode of Star Trek where they healed a ferengi's heart with a laser wand.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I see claims that this plant is exactly the same as this plant except for one ...something so that must mean this plant evolved form this one.

Yes. It's a different species of plant, but it's similar in most ways to the plant it descended from. Much like the case with humans and apes. We are very much alike, our genome 98% similar, but we are a different species.

I see claims the cells for scales and the cells for feathers are so close to identical that one must have evolved from another.

No, not must have. Could have. The "must have" part comes from multiple independent lines of evidence. That's how science operates. We observe something, and then we approach an explanation from multiple directions, making it highly improbable, not to say mathematically impossible, for it to be any other way. That's when we get an established fact. Feathers evolving from scales isn't an established fact just yet (to my knowledge), but it's quickly getting there.

I see bats and rats are so closely related that at some time the rat need to be able to fly or the bat no longer required flight so we now have two variations of the same organism.

Not quite. A bat isn't another version of a rat. They are both rodents, but they are also two different species.

I see finches with variable peckers proving what?...Nothing

There's that word again. Learn the difference between "proof" and "evidence" please. Finches with various peckers is (strong) evidence for those peckers having evolved to suit the bird in his search for food. A strong beak would be beneficial for a bird cracking nuts. A long, narrow beak would be beneficial for a bird fishing for bugs in a tree. This is what we find, and this is what Darwin found on the Galapagos.

None of this is proven.

Stop using a word if you don't know what it means or how it applies in the current discussion.

It is a belief system at best and science is taking away the "facts" faster than evolutionist can add new ones to them.

No, it's not a belief system, and there hasn't been a single shred of evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.

All of your PRATTs have now been debunked. Are you going to continue just blurting them out, or are you going to stop and try to learn something from this exchange? We have touched upon a lot of well established science (well, I have), and you would do well to educate yourself using the links I have provided. Living in the past might feel safer, but it's time to get with the times.

Also, in the future, don't edit in so much new information in a post. It makes it much harder to spot, and it could make people think there's no answer to your "points". This is a dishonest approach to a forum discussion, but I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you didn't realize this.

 

[Meshach]

One might see it as evolution, but another might see it as the process of creation. The latter needing God, the former needing nature. My faith is in God.

 

[The Lady Kate]

One might see it as evolution, but another might see it as the process of creation. The latter needing God, the former needing nature. My faith is in God.

Why can't the process need both?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

None of this is proven. It is a belief system at best and science is taking away the "facts" faster than evolutionist can add new ones to them.

Kid, this is just a creationist fantasy. It's what the "professional" creationists keep telling their flock so they can keep collecting their revenues from speaking engagements, merchandising and donations.

The reality is the exact opposite. Evolutionary theory, particularly in the last few decades has become even more prominent in biology. It underscores new fields like bioinformatics and finds application in everything from agriculture to medical research to pathology to even non-biology fields like engineering and computer science.

In particular, evolution plays a big role in the "genomics" revolution going on in modern biology. Like Dr. Francis Collins says, "Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."

So you can keep up the wishful thinking and tell yourself that "science is taking away the 'facts' faster than evolutionist can add new ones". But this is a fantasy pure and simple.

 

[Meshach]

Why can't the process need both?

I believe God provides the information and direction to all life. Some believe nature does this all on its own by chance, without any outside influence. Thats why I said, I will put my faith in God.

 

[atomweaver]

Why can't the process need both?

Oooh, somebody sussed out your false dichotomy, Meshach. Reps to the (bright) Lady Kate...

 

[MoonLancer]

I believe God provides the information and direction to all life. Some believe nature does this all on its own by chance, without any outside influence. Thats why I said, I will put my faith in God.

there is some chance involved, but much of it is sexual or natural selection, that selections genetic mutation. Over time i find it hard for evolution not to happen.

 

[roflcopter101]

Evolution and creationism seem to me to be two entirely different fields. The former deals with the development of species, while the latter deals with their origin. If you are going to argue science vs. creationism, use abiogenic theories rather than evolution.

 

[Tiberius]

Either that, or He is not subject to the Law of Non-contradiction.

If I was born and raised on Guam, and thought Guam was the whole world; then when a 'paleface' showed up, I might think he's 'internally inconsistent'.

The error, of course, would be on my end; specifically with the word 'internally'.

So you are saying that God can do things that, to us, would appear to be logical impossibilities?

Please, just a yes or a no.

 

[Meshach]

there is some chance involved, but much of it is sexual or natural selection, that that selections genetic mutation. Over time i find it hard for evolution not to happen.

So then you have faith in your god "time"? I will chose to put my faith in God the creator of ALL things.