Evolution vs Creationism

[Mallon]

IOW, so called experts don't know it all and in some cases they certainly don't even have a correct perpective on what is truth.

When you have tooth ache, do you value the opinion of a mechanic as equal to that of a dentist? If not, why not?

Here's how it usually goes.

1. Point: A creationists makes a point that challenges the mainstream paradigm or provides evidence that refutes macro-evolutions theory.

Counter-point: Macro-evolutionists counters with articles from off the internet that speaks to the original point or evidence but does not refute it.

2. Re-confirmation of original point or issue of evidence:

Counter response: To attack the original poster as being ignorant not understanding the facts.

Sound familiar?

No, because you've been directed to the primary, peer-reviewed literature numerous times. Examples:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46242484&postcount=25

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46232322&postcount=20

 

[zon3d]

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12)

So that verse states that death came about through sin, but if God used evolution to make the world that would contradict that Scripture as there would be death before the fall. But there cannot have been death before the fall of man as then that would make God a liar and mean that through the one Man, Jesus Christ, we cannot be justified (Romans 5:18,19).

 

[Assyrian]

Doesn't that depend on what sort of death Paul is talking about? It could be physical, spiritual, or even an amalgam the two. What kind of death was Paul talking about in Rom 7:9? I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. It cannot be physical death because Paul was still alive when he wrote the epistle, yet like Rom 5:12 it is a death that came to Paul, as it spreads to all men, when he sinned.

An even bigger problem for your interpretation is Paul is talking about this death spreading among humans, not animals, so claiming the verse tells us that no animals died before the fall takes takes the verse way out of context. Worse, Paul tells us how this death spread to all men, because all sinned. The spread of death Paul is describing here simply cannot be applied to animal because animals do not, and cannot sin. Animals die, but not because of the sort of death Paul is describing here. The verse tells us nothing about death of animals either now or before the fall.

 

[Bsman]

SIn affects everthing not only just humans.

 

[Assyrian]

You would need to back that up with scripture. Animals are affected by hunting and destruction of habitat, but how for example, are crabs living on an uninhabited stretch of coast affected by sin?

 

[SLP]

Spending thousands of their dollars and years studying a field with the wrong perspective will not create knowledge base of truth.

True. This is why, I suppose, creationsits do not actually doi any research.

Here's how it usually goes.

1. Point: A creationists makes a point that challenges the mainstream paradigm or provides evidence that refutes macro-evolutions theory.

No, they THINK they have done so, but are usually wrong. Like Kennedy.

Counter-point: Macro-evolutionists counters with articles from off the internet that speaks to the original point or evidence but does not refute it.

And creationists only refer to original scientific research? I'm aghast!

2. Re-confirmation of original point or issue of evidence:

Counter response: To attack the original poster as being ignorant not understanding the facts.

Sound familiar?

God bless
Jim Larmore

Yes - it is familiar to see creationists ignorant of facts claim superior knowledge. You admitted that you have no knowledge of these issues, yet here you are claiming that creationists are right.

Prime example.

 

[Jim Larmore]

Go your hardest, guys.

I think one of the strongest evidences against macroevolution is the reproductive barriers that exist taxonomically between species in the biota, especially in the animal kingdom. There is just no evidence to support that it's ever been different either.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Melethiel]

On the contrary, those reproductive barriers between species are well documented and part of the theory itself...

 

[gluadys]

I think one of the strongest evidences against macroevolution is the reproductive barriers that exist taxonomically between species in the biota, especially in the animal kingdom. There is just no evidence to support that it's ever been different either.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Sure there is: one such piece of evidence is Orthrozanclus

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/3/1/7278

 

[Assyrian]

I think one of the strongest evidences against macroevolution is the reproductive barriers that exist taxonomically between species in the biota, especially in the animal kingdom. There is just no evidence to support that it's ever been different either.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Yet scientists produced reproductive barriers within a single interbreeding group of drosophila by providing them with a choice of feeding strategies in their environment. If reproductive barriers can arise spontaneously as the same species adapts to different ecological niches, then finding a reproductive barrier between species now, does not mean it was always there in the past. In fact the reproductive barriers we see now are what you would expect with evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You know wht they say about common ancestry...

 

[Dr. Unk]

You know wht they say about common ancestry...

Firstly, not only are there hundreds of fossils (ALL consistent with the theory of evolution), even if we had no fossils, there is still overwhelming evidence for evolution.
For example, endogenous retroviruses and DNA evidence.
Also search DonExodus2 on YouTube. He has great videos about transitional fossils.

 

[zon3d]

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12)

So that verse states that death came about through sin, but if God used evolution to make the world that would contradict that Scripture as there would be death before the fall. But there cannot have been death before the fall of man as then that would make God a liar and mean that through the one Man, Jesus Christ, we cannot be justified (Romans 5:18,19).

Thus God did not use evolution.

 

[gluadys]

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12)

So that verse states that death came about through sin, but if God used evolution to make the world that would contradict that Scripture as there would be death before the fall. But there cannot have been death before the fall of man as then that would make God a liar and mean that through the one Man, Jesus Christ, we cannot be justified (Romans 5:18,19).

Thus God did not use evolution.

Not so simple as that. Consider this thread.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7245310

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12)

So that verse states that death came about through sin, but if God used evolution to make the world that would contradict that Scripture as there would be death before the fall. But there cannot have been death before the fall of man as then that would make God a liar and mean that through the one Man, Jesus Christ, we cannot be justified (Romans 5:18,19).

Thus God did not use evolution.

Evolution doesn't require death, only reproduction with variation.

 

[busterdog]

Evolution doesn't require death, only reproduction with variation.

And breathing does not require that you exhale either.

You must agree that evolution is incomprehensible without the death of successive generations. Lets just agree on that baseline. The ability to imagine an evolutionary process without death is not pertinent. Evolutionary theory is founded on millions and millions of years of dying.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And breathing does not require that you exhale either.

Actually, it does: breathing is the cyclical expansion and compression of the lungs.

You must agree that evolution is incomprehensible without the death of successive generations.

Why? As I said before, it only requires reproduction with variation. Even if the ancestors do not die, the population still evolves by way of the descendants.

Lets just agree on that baseline. The ability to imagine an evolutionary process without death is not pertinent. Evolutionary theory is founded on millions and millions of years of dying.

No, it is not.

 

[busterdog]

Actually, it does: breathing is the cyclical expansion and compression of the lungs.


Why? As I said before, it only requires reproduction with variation. Even if the ancestors do not die, the population still evolves by way of the descendants.


No, it is not.

Its always the reactionary response to deny everything.

What exactly is natural selection? Survival of the fittest? So, if you are not a successful mutation, are you like raptured to atheistic Darwin-land where you are spoon fed by Princess Ponies? Or do you die?

You silly assumption is, what, that parent and adapted child are a seemless parabola of evolution toward better genes? Not exactly "natural" selection at all. But, then we know that secretly all evolutionists don't put much stock in random mutation or natural selection. They already know it needs a God to work.

 

[Dr. Unk]

Its always the reactionary response to deny everything.

What exactly is natural selection? Survival of the fittest? So, if you are not a successful mutation, are you like raptured to atheistic Darwin-land where you are spoon fed by Princess Ponies? Or do you die?

Was this poor attempt at being funny or just a display of ignorance? (I think both.) "Survival of the fittest" is not an accurate description of natural selection. It's more like survival of those best adapted to their environment.

You silly assumption is, what, that parent and adapted child are a seemless parabola of evolution toward better genes? Not exactly "natural" selection at all.

I don't really know what your getting at here.

But, then we know that secretly all evolutionists don't put much stock in random mutation or natural selection. They already know it needs a God to work

Why is a God necessary?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Its always the reactionary response to deny everything.

Naturally: a misunderstanding is more likely than a refutation. To determine which, we debate.

What exactly is natural selection?

"Those mutant genes which just so happen to confer reproductive benefits to their host organism are more likely to be proliferated than their less advantageous counterparts. Thus, 'good genes' are selected by natural processes alone, without intervention".

Survival of the fittest?

No. Though this is roughly accurate, it fails under close examination. Hence why evolutionary biologists rarely use the term: it is survival of those genes which just so happen to be passed on.

So, if you are not a successful mutation, are you like raptured to atheistic Darwin-land where you are spoon fed by Princess Ponies? Or do you die?

By 'successful' mutation, I can only assume you mean a mutation that confers a benefit to its host, or to itself. If so, then an unsuccessful mutation simply does whatever it has evolved to do. It goes to the same place all DNA molecules go: back into the ecosystem to be used by some other organism in some other biochemical pathway.

That said, I have no idea what you're on about with "atheistic Darwin-land", which is seemingly populated by "Princess Ponies" (a stab at My Little Pony, perhaps?).

You silly assumption is, what, that parent and adapted child are a seemless parabola of evolution toward better genes?

Evolution doesn't occur 'towards' anything; it simply happens. I'm not sure what assumption of mine you're referring to, though. Could you clarify?

Not exactly "natural" selection at all. But, then we know that secretly all evolutionists don't put much stock in random mutation or natural selection.

We also know that the Sun goes round the Earth, that dust is made of dead skin, that Queen Victoria was rarely amused, that pre-Columbus peoples thought the Earth was flat, that solid matter is continuous, and that cats washing behind their ears forewarns of rain.

"Everyone knows" an awful lot of stuff. A pity that rarely is any of it actually true. Now, if you can justify your allegations, instead of throwing around bemusing ad hominems, we may get somewhere.

They already know it needs a God to work.

What a strange claim, especially since there is exactly zero evidence to imply that divine intervention is required for common descent to work.