Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Silmarien]

That is just one of many, many evidences showing Creation science has empirical proof and evolution only has theories or suppositions.

Evolution has plenty of evidence when it comes to genetics and the fossil record. If Creationism does, I'm unfamiliar with it, so you're going to have to provide actual sources.

Have you ever looked at the intricate workings of a DNA strands and how it replicates and repairs itself? Chance or random in the making?... statistically impossible. You would have to be a fool to come up with that idea after seeing how impossibly complex the smallest particle is designed.

Irrelevant to the question of a literal six day creation. Theistic evolutionists would deny that the development of DNA was entirely random at all, as we tend to accept one version or another of directed evolution. (I prefer immanent teleology, the idea that the natural world is in some sense intrinsically directed towards ends.)

If you want to argue with an atheistic materialist, there are plenty of them around. I am neither of those two things.

 

[Hank77]

So you don't believe the Word of God? If you doubt the creation story, why would you believe the burning bush story, or the red sea experience or even the flood?

Because the evidence that God Himself has left us with. Did the the dinosaurs live at the same time as Adam, Abel, and many, many other people? Dino remains have been found all over the earth. How were they all destroyed but all the animals we see today and man weren't?

 

[Ophiolite]

Completely agree. The main premise for evolution is continual improvement upward in biological complexity and refinement. Problem is, there's a beautiful actual scientific standard called the second law of thermodynamics that obliterates the evolution farce cold.

This is possibly the most succinct example of a member demonstrating they do not understand evolution or physics I have seen this year. I realise you will take my thanks as a form of sarcasm, which is a pity. My thanks is genuine. I now know your posts on anything related to evolution and physics can be safely ignored. Thank you.

For those who are uncertain why I reach that conclusion:
1. Evolution does not hold as part of its main premise that evolution involves continual improvement.
2. Evolution does not hold as part of its main premise that evolution is about increases in complexity. (That's a secondary consequence of random, or drunkard's walk within the range of evolutionary options.)
3. Evolution does not hold as part of its main premise that refinement is a natural consequence of the process - unless by refinement you include simplification.
4. Application of the Second Law of Thermodyanmics is irrelevant to evolution. For one thing the Earth is not a closed system.

 

[USincognito]

It's conjectured guess work to fill in the obvious gaps...

Again, such vacuous rhetoric suggests you don't know anything about science in general, much less what a scientific theory is in particular.
Science at multiple levels

Theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise (i.e., generally don't have a long list of exceptions and special rules), coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable. In fact, theories often integrate and generalize many hypotheses.​

 

[USincognito]

If life developed from evolution we would become a bunch of tumor cells.

Why do you think that? And please, show us the details.

 

[USincognito]

Nobody living on Earth today was alive when the Earth came into existence.
But, there was One alive at that time, ask Him, only He knows how the Earth came into being.

The earth itself was, and it "speaks" to us through geologic record. Loud and clear it says that it formed ~4.5 billion years ago.

 

[Kenny'sID]

When creationists attempt to claim the superiority of creation "science" versus mainstream science only to reveal an obvious lack of familiarity with the latter, it completely undermines their point.

I'll take that to mean my point slipped right by you.

 

[USincognito]

Such as? Do you know that in the granite around the world are found polonium halos trapped in the granite. In order for this fast decaying isotope to be captured in the rock it would have had to cool within minutes or the decaying uranium would have escaped to atmosphere. How long does evolutionary theory say the planet cooled? What evidence?

No, I don't know that. Primarily because it's not true. Gentry's claims are, to put it simply, bunk.
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness.​

That is just one of many, many evidences showing Creation science has empirical proof and evolution only has theories or suppositions.

This overblown rhetoric is laughable to the extent that it doesn't even warrant address.

Have you ever looked at the intricate workings of a DNA strands and how it replicates and repairs itself? Chance or random in the making?... statistically impossible. You would have to be a fool to come up with that idea after seeing how impossibly complex the smallest particle is designed.

Yeah, the DNA we share with our close cousin the chimpanzee sure is complex and it's an amazing source of evidence for evolution.

 

[Tayla]

this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man...

I believe in evolution, but that God intervened at the beginning and at every step of the process. It appears random because the intelligent design can't be detected since these interventions occurred so infrequently compared with all the random stuff.

 

[sfs]

Did you just make that up? lol gas migrating through a crack in a rock does not deposit isotope halos in the rock where no cracks exist.

No, I didn't just make that up. You can read a detailed explanation of the processes involved here.

 

[sfs]

Don't think so... you know the man personally? Don't get caught up with self aggrandizement of internet personalities.

Mark's known me long enough to know who I am, and that I have a PhD in physics. Here is my blurb.

 

[mark kennedy]

Don't think so... you know the man personally? Don't get caught up with self aggrandizement of internet personalities. Sincerely, the King of Siam

Yes I know him, he worked on the Chimpanzee Genome paper as a staff scientist. He sent me a spreadsheet of all the amino acid sequences that diverged between Chimpanzee and human genomes. He is also more of a gentleman then the average poster and really hasn't said or done anything to be treated so harshly.

You would be surprised what you can learn from someone who you strongly disagree with, I personally have found his contributions to these discussions to be invaluable.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark's known me long enough to know who I am, and that I have a PhD in physics. Here is my blurb.

It's rather curious that I've never asked you about your work after all these years. I could just tell from the content of your posts that you knew what you were talking about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Belief in creation/creationism is a religious belief.

Evolution (the theory of) is a science.

That's about it really.

I believe in creation as a practical matter. It is unthinkable that things create themselves. There are many who believe in God but refuse to worship him in the religious sense. There are many who so worship him but believe in evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, I didn't just make that up. You can read a detailed explanation of the processes involved here.

Just as a passing remark, I've never thought the age of the earth effected the doctrine of creation much one way or the other. I don't know what the problem is with creationists making a big deal of it, but they get kind of feisty when I tell them original creation wasn't a part of creation week, it happened previously. One of the strangest issues is the sun, moon and stars being created on day 4. It does kind of look like that from a cursory reading but it's more likely on day four God continued to work on the atmosphere, making them readily visible. When I look at a Christian group, the first order of business is to learn what they teach concerning Scripture and if you can get genuine insight from them.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Completely agree. The main premise for evolution is continual improvement upward in biological complexity and refinement. Problem is, there's a beautiful actual scientific standard called the second law of thermodynamics that obliterates the evolution farce cold.

There are lots of statements for the second law:
The entropy of the universe is increasing.
OR
A heat engine cannot be 100% efficient.
I would assume you meant the first one, but I don't see how that applies. You do know that the living state is a non-equilibrium state i.e. has entropy?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Nothing I could make it to the end because of the obvious gaps ad leaps of faith necessary to get to where they were trying to lead.

I would pay good money to someone who got fooled by this comment.

 

[xianghua]

I don't pretend to understand everything. But to me, a certain amount of evolution is undeniable.

can you give an example? maybe you refer to speciation. but basiclaly its just variation of the same creature and not something new.

 

[xianghua]

I personally fully subscribe to the theory of Evolution, and mostly anything else that has some sort of consensus among scientist

the problem is that the argument from consensus isnt a scientific argument. science was wrong many times in the past.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution (the theory of) is a science.

if its science we can falsfy or test it. can you give such a test for evolution?