Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

[Chalnoth]

Don't forget that Galileo was not only forced to recant his statements that the Earth moves around the Sun, but he was also imprisoned for the rest of his life, and forbidden to publish ever again. His sentence was later commuted to house arrest.

 

[Split Rock]

I love it. Quote mining, unless its them doing it. No citation even with citation.

I responded to your Quote Mine with my own (one I came up with myself, rather than just cut'n paste like you did). If there is nothing wrong with you doing it, then you cannot claim there is anything wrong with me doing it.

Scientist believing in intelligent design, are always liers, but if someone says, "evolution is real". Look how enlighten they are, to believe in something that you have a better chance winning the lottery twice in a row then. It is so numerous.

We have produced evidence, and have contributed to our understanding of life on earth. IDers have done neither.

Ever notice how it is the evolutionist that is so worried about being wrong? Liker when they quote someone its the greatest quote ever, but if a creationist quotes someone, its "quote mining".

If a creationist quotes someone out of context, to make it appear they are claiming the opposite of what they are, it is called Quote Mining. It is a form of deceit. You know, the stuff SATAN excels in.

You show them proof and its a lie, but someone takes a few non complete fossilized bones spread over miles and puts them together. Then decides well this would look like this, even though there is no evidence, and its the greatest discovery ever.

Another unsubstanciated accusation. Show us evidence that this happens, or stop smearing scientists you do not even know.

Odd though we find biblical cities, and stories that are thousands of years old and they are considered not true.

What does this have to do with evolution?

Never mind the fact that there are no new species,

I gave you a long list of observed speciations. Do you know what bearing false witness, means? Read your Bible again.

that fossilization is not on going,

Show us proof of this assertion.

that diseases are increasing, instead of us becoming more immune and "evolving" into super genetic humans.

Pathogens evolve faster than we do.. because their reproductive rate is faster than ours and their replicative enzymes are sloppier (hense a greater mutation rate).

Oh wait there is evidence of ape man, I saw a big foot just yesterday.

That's nice. Take a photo next time and gather some evidence (like hairs, poop, etc). You will become famous!

I have stated that there is no proof positive evidence for my faith, but the evolutionist, whose proof can be disputed by science, are not willing to say, "There is a chance that we could be wrong about evolution". Why is that? How does that make us the ones scared? We are supposedly scared about something that makes sence, even though it doesn't.

I said before... evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.. not "any" doubt. You really don't pay much attention to what anyone else writes here... do you?

Evolution makes no sense, if it was true then things would get better, not worse. Food would not rot, but continue to get better. People would not die, but live longer and healthier, without medical assistance.

Why would evolution prevent food from rotting? Also, if there was no turn over of generations, there would be no evolving (populations evolve not individuals). If you cannot understand basic concepts like this, how can you claim to understand evolution, and be so certain it "makes no sense?"

The idea that a single cell organism can become the multi-celled organism that is man is a stretch.

Not really. Most one-celled organisms live in colonies to begin with. They are also colonial microorganisms in which cell types are specialized, as with Volvox.

The complexity that this process would take, goes againt the Laws of Physics.

Show us.

According to the Evolutionary Theory, are kids should be able to do always do better then us at anything they do, naturally, without training.

Why? Evolution is not that fast.

That mutations, which there is no evidence of postive mutation, would be passed on making things better.

I have provided an example of a beneficial mutation in goosegrass that provides resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. See: http://christianforums.com/showthre...-beneficial-change-glyphosate-resistance.html

Well except to blacks according to Darwin, since they were an inferior race. Again that is Darwin not me.

Darwin was not correct about everything.

Now of course, most people do not believe in inferior races anymore, but if Darwn was wrong on this issue, is it not possible that he could be wrong on other issues.

He is wrong about what he was wrong about (including the mechanism of heredity). It just so happens he was right about the origin of species.

That what he saw as evolution, was more adaptation and heredity?

What do you think evolution is? Descent with modification.

One of the problems he had was that there was sea life found in areas where there was not water, and therefore they must evolved and came to those places, the walking fish theory.

I don't think he ever make a connection between extinct seas and the evolution of tetrapods.

Odd though, if there was lets say a giant earth wide flood, sea creatures could be found in desert area. (Sorry to soap-boxy)

Plate tectonics explains why the geological record shows there used to be seas where there is now dry land.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

evidence for evolution? well AV1611VET did evolve into an ostrich.

dont insult ostriches. They dont stick there heads in the sand. Thats a myth.

 

[darkshadow]

Well my fellow creationist we are all wrong, because all evidence that we have shown has been disputed by the ,"No its not" card. The truth is there is doubt in evolution, heck as least some evolutionist will admit they could be wrong, while others still say there is no doubt because they said so. "Lucy" had parts of her bones scattered over miles, and is just bone fragments. Now I can cite this statement but then it is mining, however if I don't then I am making things up. Sounds like a no win situation to me.

Oh well I will cite:

"Now there are upright walking chimps living today, but how did they know that this old chimp Lucy walked with an erect posture? The evidence was dependent on an interpretation of the knee joint. After a university lecture in Kansas, a well-informed creationist, Mr Tom Willis, asked Mr Johanson publicly where he found that important knee fragment? The answer: a mile and a half from the rest of the skeletal fragments in a rock strata 200 feet deeper! Next question: Why include a fossil fragment so widely separated from the main find? Johanson insisted “anatomical similarity” was all the justification needed." - Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis Petersen. (Note that one of the founders of "Lucy" himself said that the key element to her walking was found a mile and a half away in deeper ground.

Three scientists from the departments of anatomy, anthropology, and zoology at Tel Aviv University that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's. - reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007)

The skeleton (LUCY) (approximately 40% complete if the bones are paired; 20% if one is merely counting the number of bones discovered as a percentage of a complete australopithecine skeleton) - Wikipedia

Richard Leakey, along with Doanld Johanson, finder of "Lucy" in ethiopia is quoted as saying:
"Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of paris”....no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to."
You can see the pictures taken of the "Lucy" skeleton and see that it has only 63 fragments, and not enough of the skull to make a mold of what it would look like.
In Castenedolo, Italy in the late 1800's Sir Arthur Keith found in Mid-Tertiary rock fossils of humans that would be the same as us. This layer is deeper then that of where "Lucy" was found.

The biggest setback to evolution is the gaps in the fossil recoreds. There should be flowing transitions and not large gaps. Then the facts that the evidence of fossils being found in layers of the rock in deep and shallow areas. Evolutionist do however have the whole, "we created new species in a lab so that proves evolution" argument, but well lets be honest, that is not evolution, but human mutation.

(This will be my last post on this thread, I have given evidence, cited my opinions, and answered question, though not with the answers certain people wanted. Thank you for the discussion, and may God Bless you, and to some I hope you really would not but your childs life on the line for your beliefs)

 

[USincognito]

Why do Creationists think quote mining, PRATTs and poisoning the well are a goo... er.. response?

Here's an example. I Googled Castendolo, Italy Arthur Keith and the first hit I got was from the NCSE debunking the claim.
http://ncseweb.org/cej/3/2/are-there-human-fossils-wrong-place-evolution

 

[Split Rock]

Well my fellow creationist we are all wrong, because all evidence that we have shown has been disputed by the ,"No its not" card. The truth is there is doubt in evolution, heck as least some evolutionist will admit they could be wrong, while others still say there is no doubt because they said so. "Lucy" had parts of her bones scattered over miles, and is just bone fragments. Now I can cite this statement but then it is mining, however if I don't then I am making things up. Sounds like a no win situation to me.

We have provided evidence which you have either ignored completely, or hand-waved away. It has nothing to do with us just saying, "no it is not."

"Now there are upright walking chimps living today, but how did they know that this old chimp Lucy walked with an erect posture? The evidence was dependent on an interpretation of the knee joint. After a university lecture in Kansas, a well-informed creationist, Mr Tom Willis, asked Mr Johanson publicly where he found that important knee fragment? The answer: a mile and a half from the rest of the skeletal fragments in a rock strata 200 feet deeper! Next question: Why include a fossil fragment so widely separated from the main find? Johanson insisted “anatomical similarity” was all the justification needed." - Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis Petersen. (Note that one of the founders of "Lucy" himself said that the key element to her walking was found a mile and a half away in deeper ground.

Ahhh... the old "Lucy's Knee" story. A LCW favorite. Unfortunately, the knee in question was never claimed to be anything but from another A. aferensis skeleton. Neither of Lucy's knee bones are complete... nevertheless, it is clear she walked upright from the foramen magnum and the ankle of the leg bones. In addition, Lucy is not the only A. aferensis fossil we have.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Lucy's_knee_was_found_far_from_the_rest_of_the_skeleton

Three scientists from the departments of anatomy, anthropology, and zoology at Tel Aviv University that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's. - reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007)

Only part of the jawbone is similar to gorillas and to A. robustus.

Abstract:
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
Yoel Rak*,†,
Avishag Ginzburg*, and
Eli Geffen‡
*Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, and
‡Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved February 26, 2007 (received for review July 28, 2006)

Abstract
Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario

The skeleton (LUCY) (approximately 40% complete if the bones are paired; 20% if one is merely counting the number of bones discovered as a percentage of a complete australopithecine skeleton) - Wikipedia

Since Lucy had bilateral symmetry, the point that it is 20% complete is not relevent. 40% of the bone types are preserved.

Richard Leakey, along with Doanld Johanson, finder of "Lucy" in ethiopia is quoted as saying:
"Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of paris”....no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to."
You can see the pictures taken of the "Lucy" skeleton and see that it has only 63 fragments, and not enough of the skull to make a mold of what it would look like.
In Castenedolo, Italy in the late 1800's Sir Arthur Keith found in Mid-Tertiary rock fossils of humans that would be the same as us. This layer is deeper then that of where "Lucy" was found.

No citation here at all. Again, there are other A aferensis fossils in addition to Lucy, in any case.

The biggest setback to evolution is the gaps in the fossil recoreds. There should be flowing transitions and not large gaps. Then the facts that the evidence of fossils being found in layers of the rock in deep and shallow areas. Evolutionist do however have the whole, "we created new species in a lab so that proves evolution" argument, but well lets be honest, that is not evolution, but human mutation.

There will always be some gaps, because teh fossil record is incomplete. the question should be' "why do we find any transitionals if species were created separately by God?" The speciation comment ignores all the evidence I provided (once again).

(This will be my last post on this thread, I have given evidence, cited my opinions, and answered question, though not with the answers certain people wanted. Thank you for the discussion, and may God Bless you, and to some I hope you really would not but your childs life on the line for your beliefs)

You have given little in the way of evidence and ignored a mountain of evidence we provided. You have indeed cited your opinions. That's about it. May you discover that you do not need to reject modern science to believe in Jesus as Christ.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Evolution can be analysed, scrutinized and picked at in every department,

Seems rather a testimony to its silliness.

creationism on the other hand can not, you take creationism for what it is, a story, you either believe the story or you don't, no analysing, scrutinizing or picking at.

You're following the line fed to you by infidels dot org.

Creationists of course will say that creationism makes sense, but only if you believe in magic,

Or mathematics. You left that part out. You guys always do.

once you can get your head to believe in magic everything about creationism falls into place,

Once you can believe that you are just a mud-monkey version 2008, you can believe any pipe dream an evolutionist tells you.

as there's no magic about evolution creationists can not bring themselves to believe it's true.

Evolution hasn't created a better argument for evolution. Please note, it is the evolutionist closing the door to enquiry not the creationist. This thread is yet one more example of that.

Darwin said it, biologists believe it, done. Not exactly open minded.

www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com

 

[Chalnoth]

Or mathematics. You left that part out. You guys always do.

Oh, do tell! What mathematics provides any reason to believe in creationism whatsoever?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which sounds like a general survey course that barely touches on the various topics at hand. What's your point?

I really doubt that you can make any determination on how much a course
"touches" on its subject matter. Which really doesn't matter anyway, it still shows that is a study that "teaches" origin of life. Origin of life in the natural science arena holds to abiogenesis or another theory out there pamspermia for the most popular two.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, positing god is not an explanation. It's as simple as that.

Hardly, if God actually created the universe that is an explanation. Whether that fits with your naturalistic framework or not.

A real course in abiogenesis would summarize the current work in the field, and provide some different avenues that abiogenesis might have taken, as well as the research that has demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life would have been around in abundance in the early Earth.

Indeed. Now if I were to take Genesis one and show the different ways that our current knowledge supports it, would you still feel that it had the same merit as those same unproven avenues in a naturalistic explanation?

A naturalistic mindset does not exclude a deity. It only requires that this thing be, in principle, describable. It doesn't require that we are in actuality capable of describing it, only that it is in principle possible to do so. Do you honestly claim anything can exist which cannot be described accurately, even in principle?

The Christian God can be described, we may not be capable of describing Him but it in principle is possible to do so.

Sorry. The burden of proof rests upon the one making the positive claim.

The Burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position (this may be either a negative or positve claim). The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.
He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectivly captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.
The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Living beings are made of non-living components. What prevents non-living components from making life without some divine intervention?

Non-living components have never in the history of the earth been shown to make a living thing. You must show proof that living things can be made from non-living components without any help from an intelligent agent.

The preventions are already there and science is trying to "get around" those preventions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Scientists in the field of abiogenesis do not claim that they know how it happened. All they are doing is hypothesizing about how it COULD have happened. Then they test those hypotheses to see if they are on the right track.

That's the beautiful part about science; it is perfectly-content with saying "we don't know yet."

WEll the same should hold true of God. WE don't know how yet but that is the beauty of life, we can study and research to our hearts content and say "we don't know yet".

You were the one who said "Saying that life is comprised of chemicals that are not "living" is not really a good argument." I simply pointed out that all life is made of basic, non-living elements. Would you like to tell me why I'm wrong?

I don't have time to go back and find what this is referring to so I'll have to come back to this later.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I need to go to work so I don't have anymore time to address this. I will be back as soon as possible and respond to your post. Thanks.

 

[Chalnoth]

I really doubt that you can make any determination on how much a course
"touches" on its subject matter.

It's not that hard. The list of topics in the course is very broad. Courses like that cannot go into much depth on any single topic.

Which really doesn't matter anyway, it still shows that is a study that "teaches" origin of life. Origin of life in the natural science arena holds to abiogenesis or another theory out there pamspermia for the most popular two.

No it doesn't. It doesn't say what's taught at all. It just lists the general topic that's discussed.

And panspermia isn't exactly "popular".

 

[Chalnoth]

Hardly, if God actually created the universe that is an explanation. Whether that fits with your naturalistic framework or not.

Wrong. An explanation of a phenomenon requires that there be some sort of information compression. That is to say, it only can be considered an explanation if the explanation can be used to describe more details than are needed in the explanation itself. An example would be gravity: instead of just describing the motions of the individual objects in our solar system, gravity explains all of their motions just by making a statement about how the force of gravity acts. This is an explanation because you're taking a large amount of information (the particular motions of all of the various objects in our solar system, including planets, moons, asteroids, dwarf planets, comets, kuiper belt objects, and more), and compressing it into just a simple law of gravity.

Positing a god doesn't do that. There is no compression of information when you posit, "God did it." To have compression, you'd have to have some definition of God such that you could state, unequivocally, that god would/did/will do this, and/or that god would/did/will not do that. If you can't do that, then you can't claim that your god is an explanation for anything at all.

Indeed. Now if I were to take Genesis one and show the different ways that our current knowledge supports it, would you still feel that it had the same merit as those same unproven avenues in a naturalistic explanation?

Ugh. There is no way whatsoever in which our current knowledge supports Genesis chapter one. You can, of course, pull a sentence or a phrase out of context to make it sound like it is sorta kinda similar to some piece of scientific knowledge, but not only does it not fit if you look carefully at the scientific knowledge in question, it also doesn't fit if you look at the context of the sentence or phrase.

A common example that creationists like to trot out is the statement early on, "And God said, 'Let there be light,'" while claiming that this had something to do with the early universe that was full of light.

But this claim both ignores the context of that phrase, and the properties of the early universe. In context, that phrase was talking about illumination. But the light in the early universe was not simple illumination. First, it wasn't all light. It's just that the temperatures were so obscenely high that everything that existed behaved like light. Specifically, everything was moving at near the speed of light. Second, it was everywhere within what later became our visible universe. It cannot be considered illumination because there was nothing to illuminate! All there was was this obscenely hot, dense soup. Note that these first couple of verses in Genesis talk about other things existing, when in our early universe, it was only this hot soup that existed.

And finally, that wasn't the beginning. Before the hot, dense soup came around, there was a period of cosmic inflation. During this period of cosmic inflation, the earliest period which we can detect, and whose properties wipe out whatever it was that happened before (we don't see a beginning, mind you), our universe was almost completely uniform in all directions, with a temperature near absolute zero. Nothing about this remotely resembles the description prior to "let there be light," where it describes God as moving "over the face of the waters." There were no waters, and there could be no face of anything as our universe was uniform in all directions!

I'm sure you could try to trot out other examples, but they'll all fail for the same reason: the authors at the time knew nothing about science and had no insight from any higher being either.

The Christian God can be described, we may not be capable of describing Him but it in principle is possible to do so.

That's easy to say, but every time somebody tries, that description is immediately shown to not be in accordance with reality, or to be contradictory and thus nonsensical.

The Burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position (this may be either a negative or positve claim). The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.
He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectivly captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.
The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.

I believe you've supported my case. As it states:

Fulfilling the burden of proof effectivly captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

Nobody proposing the existence of a god has ever fulfilled the burden of proof. So you cannot claim the benefit of assumption.

 

[Chalnoth]

Non-living components have never in the history of the earth been shown to make a living thing. You must show proof that living things can be made from non-living components without any help from an intelligent agent.

The preventions are already there and science is trying to "get around" those preventions.

Non-living components have never in the history of the earth been shown to make a living thing with the help of a supernatural agent either. However, since we know that natural things exist, but do not as yet have any verifiable evidence of the supernatural, the good money is on a fully natural cause. And, in fact, scientists have made significant strides forward in discovering ways in which early life might have formed naturally. There is, as yet, no reason to suspect anything but fully natural causes going on here.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I need to go to work so I don't have anymore time to address this. I will be back as soon as possible and respond to your post. Thanks.

I look forward to it.

 

[SiderealExalt]

dont insult ostriches. They dont stick there heads in the sand. Thats a myth.

Like Creationism But yes I know, just a little joke.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Indeed. Now if I were to take Genesis one and show the different ways that our current knowledge supports it, would you still feel that it had the same merit as those same unproven avenues in a naturalistic explanation?

No more than I would give technical merit to "The Little Engine that Could" as a critique on the American locomotive industry.

Although I would LOVE to hear what empirical evidence specifically supports Genesis 1.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Non-living components have never in the history of the earth been shown to make a living thing. You must show proof that living things can be made from non-living components without any help from an intelligent agent.

The preventions are already there and science is trying to "get around" those preventions.

What "preventions"? I have no idea what you could possibly mean by that.

Oh... and scientists have already proven that the basic building blocks of life can form from non-living elements. They've also hypothesized about how those basic building blocks could have come together to form a single cell.

It's just a matter of time before we figure it out. And you know the best part? As we get closer and closer to the answers, creationists will still be left holding a book with no new evidence or information to present.

Here's one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies:
Five thousand years ago, everybody knew that we were the center of the universe; five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat; and fifteen minutes ago you knew that people were alone on this planet... imagine what you will know tomorrow.
- K, Men In Black