Evolution vs. Creationism

[SODinOZ]

Well, except that you are wrong, even if you do repeat it. The twin nested hierarchies, ERV's, atavisms, vestigial traits, psedogenes and everything else supports common ancestry.

This could just mean that all of life was created by a common 'creator'.

 

[SODinOZ]

Well, except that you are wrong, even if you do repeat it. The twin nested hierarchies, ERV's, atavisms, vestigial traits, psedogenes and everything else supports common ancestry.

This could just mean that all of life was created by a common 'creator'.
SODinOZ

 

[Underdog77]

C...Creationism is the truth, no doubt about it. Atheistic Evolution is wrong because it contradicts science, TE contradicts both science and the Bible, and OEC contradicts the science and the Bible as well.

 

[Ondoher]

This could just mean that all of life was created by a common 'creator'.
SODinOZ

Perhaps. However, that appears to be an untestable proposition.

For instance, the twin nested hierarchy is the only possible outcome of common ancestry. There is no reason that a creator would have to follow this organization.

Shared ERV's can only be explained by shared ancestry. If they are caused by a creator, then we are forced to conclude that the creator generated the appearance of common ancestry.

Common ancestry is a testable hypothesis that has, indeed, been well tested. A creator is not testable at all. One is science, the other is not.

 

[Ondoher]

C...Creationism is the truth, no doubt about it. Atheistic Evolution is wrong because it contradicts science,

Funny how most scientists disagree with you on this.

TE contradicts both science and the Bible,

Funny how most theists disagree with you on this.

and OEC contradicts the science and the Bible as well.

Perhaps a little more substance would be useful here.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

C...Creationism is the truth, no doubt about it. Atheistic Evolution is wrong because it contradicts science,

As a scientist I tend to disagree. Have you anything to back up this assertion or is it just your opinion?

TE contradicts both science and the Bible, and OEC contradicts the science and the Bible as well.

They only contradict a literal interpretation of the bible and neither one contradicts science. Again do you have anything to back up your assertion?

Ghost

 

[lunalinda]

Which besides being entirely lame is also not relevant to the theory of evolution, and implies that you say that evolution (or whatever sick hybrate you have tried to make of it) equals atheism.

Riiiiiiight. Cute that you think the bumper sticker is my words, but um...they aren't. I entered the thread in good terms, so please don't rub me the wrong way by trying to attack me personally for saying something that's not even my own words. If you wanna attack the sticker, fine, you do that. But if you wanna attack me, then please be sure do so based on MY statements or MY thoughts. Accusations brought against me from someone else's words is just not appreciated. Thanks.

But as I said, I read through the entire previous 45 pages of this thread, and the Big Bang theory WAS indeed mentioned by other people at some point or another. So whether peeps want to believe it or not, the theory of evolution still had a beginning. Oookay fine...it more focuses on continual changes of life or whatever, but even so...that all STILL started somewhere. Sure, evolution can be true, but then, so can God being behind it. I didn't outright attack evolution anyway. All I did was imply that if evolution is fact, then that's no real reason to dismiss God altogether in my personal opinion. What the problem seems to be is that no one wants to take into account....GOD.

But now I sense I'm not making sense. Ack.

 

[lunalinda]

Platypusses are cool, they are like, really, really cool. And no problem for evolution at all.
First off, the beak is not like the beak of a duck. The structure of it is completely different. Also, the eggs are leather scaled, like the eggs of reptiles. Also note that the platypus is not the only egg-laying mammal. It is part of the class of monotremata, which has two other curretly living species (two species of echidna, "spiny ant-eaters"). Now, what does it say?
Well, if you look at the evolutionary history of mammals, you'll see that mammals are descendants of reptiles. So, encountering an animal with both mammalian and reptilian characters is no big surprise. And this is exactly what a platypus is.
Man, I really should make a thread about monotremata. Maybe later.

Cool thanks for answering that! I guess the main "problem" now is me not believing in THAT particular part of evolution lol. Are you saying that ALL mammals came from reptiles? It eh...doesn't make sense to me. But of course, that's just me. It's just unfathommable, I guess. My mind's just not wired and geared for such things. *cringe* Imagine...Adam and Eve really being a couple of Iguanadons or something lol. Lame joke, i know. But thanks again for answering. I totally forgot about the ant-eaters. But yes, I agree...the platypus really IS cool. And heck, even the ant-eaters. I'd love to have one of those around here hehe.

 

[caravelair]

Are you saying that ALL mammals came from reptiles?

i think it's more like 1 mammal coming from reptiles, and all mammals evolving from that original mammal. it could be a bit more complicated than i'm making it out to be though.

 

[Ondoher]

Cool thanks for answering that! I guess the main "problem" now is me not believing in THAT particular part of evolution lol. Are you saying that ALL mammals came from reptiles? It eh...doesn't make sense to me. But of course, that's just me. It's just unfathommable, I guess. My mind's just not wired and geared for such things. *cringe* Imagine...Adam and Eve really being a couple of Iguanadons or something lol. Lame joke, i know. But thanks again for answering. I totally forgot about the ant-eaters. But yes, I agree...the platypus really IS cool. And heck, even the ant-eaters. I'd love to have one of those around here hehe.

Well, iguanadon is a kind of dinosaur. Dinosaurs are diapsids. Humans are descended from synapsids, which are represented by such animals as dimetrodon, and then later the therapsid, or mammal-like reptiles.

The platypus is an interesting mammal, because it still retains some of these therapsid traits such as a single outlet for urinary, digestive and reproductive systems (hence the name monotreme), as well as laying eggs. However, it has fur and suckles its young, like any other mammal. It is, in fact, a living transitional.

 

[lunalinda]

Well, iguanadon is a kind of dinosaur. Dinosaurs are diapsids. Humans are descended from synapsids, which are represented by such animals as dimetrodon, and then later the therapsid, or mammal-like reptiles.

Yah, Aladar in the movie "Dinosaur" was an Iguanadon, though he more to me resembled a Maiasaura because the animators didn't know how to make him speak properly if they kept the beak there (the beak that an Iguanadon actually had), but I guess if they made him a Maiasaura instead of an Iguanadon, then he wouldn't have had the thumb spikes that are also a trait of Iguanadons for defense. And ahhh...the Dimetrodon. Practically a giant lizard with a sail on his back like the sail on the Spinosaurus in JP3. It was the creepy guy to sneak past Ducky the hadrosaur (her specific species name escapes me, d'oh!) and Littlefoot the brontosaurus (now referred to as an apotosaurus) in "The Land Before Time."

lol...yah, I'm a dinosaur freak (freak in a GOOD way) I was just being lame with my humor. But very cool info you provided anyway. I know a lot about dinos, but not EVERYTHING, so yes, information on them is always appreciated!

And ack...please forgive me going off track on the thread! Do continue.

 

[SODinOZ]

HINNY:
WordNet Dictionary Definition: [n] sterile offspring of a male horse and a female donkey or ass Websites: See Also: equid, equine, Equus, genus Equus
Webster's 1913 Dictionary Definition:

1. \Hin"ny\, n.; pl. {Hinnies}. [L. hinnus, cf. Gr. ?.]A hybrid between a stallion and an ass.

2. \Hin"ny\, n.A term of endearment; darling; -- corrupted from honey.[Prov. Eng.] --Wright.I thought I said no mules... This means no infertile or hybrid offspring. This is NOT a valid example of a new species, as it cannot reproduce itself.



SODinOZ

 

[Mistermystery]

This could just mean that all of life was created by a common 'creator'.

Yes but that seems highly unlikely for a perfect creator to create such flawed things.

 

[Mistermystery]

Riiiiiiight. Cute that you think the bumper sticker is my words, but um...they aren't. I entered the thread in good terms, so please don't rub me the wrong way by trying to attack me personally for saying something that's not even my own words. If you wanna attack the sticker, fine, you do that. But if you wanna attack me, then please be sure do so based on MY statements or MY thoughts. Accusations brought against me from someone else's words is just not appreciated. Thanks.

Since you have it on your car it does imply that you agree with those "horrible accusations". If I somehow have offended you, then I'm sorry, but it's hard to tell here who thinks what on the details, and I find such bumper stickers pretty stupid, because they (in my opinion) spread nothing but the wrong ideas.

But as I said, I read through the entire previous 45 pages of this thread

Strange I got 79 pages here. can you somehow change that in some profile thingy?

and the Big Bang theory WAS indeed mentioned by other people at some point or another.

I don't care. The theory of evolution and the big bang are two completly sepeerate theories. I did not "omgomgattack" you on that, I responded to you to point out that thinking that the big bang theory has got something to do with evolution is not true.

Sure, evolution can be true, but then, so can God being behind it.

I don't care. God is scientifically seen unpossible. I can't test Him, I can't see Him, I can do nothing with Him. If He is behind it all then that's good. It is certainly a possibility, but it is untestable. What is testable are the notions that creationism or young earth creationism makes, because via those specific ideas, God is put in a box how he worked, which can be tested.

I didn't outright attack evolution anyway. All I did was imply that if evolution is fact, then that's no real reason to dismiss God altogether in my personal opinion.

No problems there mate.

What the problem seems to be is that no one wants to take into account....GOD.

I think you jump to conclusions here a bit to soon.

 

[Jet Black]

HINNY:
WordNet Dictionary Definition: [n] sterile offspring of a male horse and a female donkey or ass Websites: See Also: equid, equine, Equus, genus Equus
Webster's 1913 Dictionary Definition:

1. \Hin"ny\, n.; pl. {Hinnies}. [L. hinnus, cf. Gr. ?.]A hybrid between a stallion and an ass.

2. \Hin"ny\, n.A term of endearment; darling; -- corrupted from honey.[Prov. Eng.] --Wright.I thought I said no mules... This means no infertile or hybrid offspring. This is NOT a valid example of a new species, as it cannot reproduce itself.



SODinOZ

hooray, you found a dictionary. And it's wrong, I have emailed them to ask them to correct it. It is also worth noting that

WordNet is not an authoritative source for definitions, nor is that its intent. Many of the definitions are somewhat antiquated, having reached us via lists of words from other sources.

 

[lunalinda]

Strange I got 79 pages here. can you somehow change that in some profile thingy?

No, I meant that I read the first 45 pages, not the previous. I said it correctly the first time I posted, just said it wrongly the 2nd time. My bad. As far as you not caring, then that's cool. I don't care either. We've stated our opinions, and I guess that's good enough. Oh, and my final statement was an opinion moreso than a conclusion, but okay.

 

[Jet Black]

Are you saying that ALL mammals came from reptiles?

roughly speaking. The Therapsids (mammal like reptiles) are a rather interesting bunch. one can see the evolution of the mammalian ear jaw quite clearly from the fossils, and at one stage they even have a mammalian and reptillian jaw at the same time.

 

[USincognito]

No, I meant that I read the first 45 pages, not the previous. I said it correctly the first time I posted, just said it wrongly the 2nd time. My bad. As far as you not caring, then that's cool. I don't care either. We've stated our opinions, and I guess that's good enough. Oh, and my final statement was an opinion moreso than a conclusion, but okay.

Mistermystery is a decent guy and I'm sure you two would get along famously after dropping a few of your guards in the discussion of this issue. If you get bogged down in initial head butts over minutae, you might miss out on a great on-line chance for interaction.

As an aside to MM... you might find an appropriate photo from flowers.com or whatever and make the first gesture towards reconcilliation and further, productive discussion.

 

[Ondoher]

Mistermystery is a decent guy and I'm sure you two would get along famously after dropping a few of your guards in the discussion of this issue. If you get bogged down in initial head butts over minutae, you might miss out on a great on-line chance for interaction.

As an aside to MM... you might find an appropriate photo from flowers.com or whatever and make the first gesture towards reconcilliation and further, productive discussion.

Like a venus fly trap?

 

[ProtestantDan]

i see why its not talked about because its not explainable and creates a huge problem right of the bat for evolution. your being illogical by starting something that cant begin in the first place. which is why you all use all this vast information to over whelm people into thinking it is true without saying we really cant explain the start of it but it did just trust us. All that all your info shows is a process of life not and i repeat not evolution. evolution being all of life from this unexplained self-producing organism.

I've actually read about things like the Fox and Miller Experiments that took ordinary useless chemicals, charged them with energy, and resulted in things vital to life such as amino acids, uncoated DNA, protenoid microspheres, etc. So there is some evidence out there that could point to the creation of this mysterious organism.