Which theory do you believe and why, Evolutionary theory or the Creation Theory?

I believe in the creation theory. Not just because I'm a Baptist christian, but because the evolution theory has so many gaps that are unexplained.

clemsonfan:

Which theory do you believe and why, Evolutionary theory or the Creation Theory?

The thread is on the first page: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-11284.0.html

clemsonfan:

I believe in the creation theory. Not just because I'm a Baptist christian, but because the evolution theory has so many gaps that are unexplained.

Okay, I'll humour you. What are some of the many gaps in the theory of evolution, and how are they explained by the "creation theory"? In fact, why not start off telling us about the "creation theory", and explain the evidence for it.

This topic has been covered so many times on this board.

Having said that I still laughed when I saw the following:

clemsonfan:

I believe in the creation theory. Not just because I'm a Baptist christian, but because the evolution theory has so many gaps that are unexplained.

jerrymania:

Those of you that believe in the evolution theory now answer this "can something come out from nothing"?

Even though i'm a creationist, i cant support you on this because as a matter of fact its creationist that believe something came out of nothing.

jerrymania:

Those of you that believe in the evolution theory now answer this "can something come out from nothing"?

What does that have to do with the theory of evolution? Anyway, yes. Now for another poorly thought out cliche, where did your God come from?

@Evolutionists

Why is it that after so many years of mutations artificially, scientists have not been able to create a new specie of a well defined plant/animal. In fact, the consensus is shifting towards the idea that mutations do not lead to new species. So I ask, how did evolution occur?

"Our God" did not come from anywhere. As it states in the Christian Bible not Koran, God has just always "been"
.

Donzman:

@Evolutionists

Why is it that after so many years of mutations artificially, scientists have not been able to create a new specie of a well defined plant/animal.

What do you mean by "well defined"?

In fact, the consensus is shifting towards the idea that mutations do not lead to new species.

So I ask, how did evolution occur?

Mutations, selection, genetic drift.

clemsonfan:

"Our God" did not come from anywhere. As it states in the Christian Bible not Koran, God has just always "been"

Making up stuff is fun.

Donzman:

Why is it that after so many years of mutations artificially, scientists have not been able to create a new specie of a well defined plant/animal.

Define your terms concretely and we can discuss. Vague assertions based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology don't do the trick. You're definitely smart enough to learn about the subject if you're willing to open up your mind. Go to the Understanding Evolution site at Berkeley University and familiarise yourself with the basics. If you still have doubts, be precise in your objections and we can talk

Donzman:

In fact, the consensus is shifting towards the idea that mutations do not lead to new species.

Where did you pick up that bizarre idea?

Donzman:

So I ask, how did evolution occur?

Go to the Understanding Evolution site at Berkeley University and familiarise yourself with the basics.

Listen:

Stop giving me stupid links, I've done enough research on evolution on my own to know that it's SHIT. It has no well defined beginning. You claim it's scientific, how come nobody has been able to show up until this day how chemical compounds can turn into a living organism?. . .There is no model that has been put forward to explain this face but yet I'm expected to believe it.

Define your terms concretely and we can discuss.

Oh, you don't know what a specie is now? *hiss*. . .Ok. A goat with 2 noses is still a goat, mutation has not been able to transform a goat into a cow. Mutation has not been able to transform a corn into something entirely new.

Where did you pick up that bizarre idea?

Haven't you been learning?. . .When mutations occur and occur, there's some sort of boundary that limits the mutation that can take place. After sometime, the same type of mutations continue to occur AND we do not get a new specie of plant/animal.

Mutations, selection, genetic drift.

Mutation does not do it my friend. After almost a century of laboratory induced mutations, intelligent scientists have not been able to produce a new specie of plants/animal.

Selection does not produce new organisms. It helps existing organisms adapt to their environment.

Donzman:

Listen:

Stop giving me stupid links, I've done enough research on evolution on my own to know that it's SHIT.

Obviously you've used more credible sources than Berkeley University.
You could be right of course, but why don't you present us your irrefutible falsification of evolutionary theory. Tell us which concept of evolutionary theory has been falsified by what finding?

Donzman:
It has no well defined beginning.

And how is that relevant?

Donzman:

You claim it's scientific, how come nobody has been able to show up until this day how chemical compounds can turn into a living organism?

It happens every second, it's called metabolism, but that's not what you're after, I guess
1. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary theory - confounding the two is standard practice among creationists
2. Let me copy a definition of evolution I used in another thread:

Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that in the past there were countless life forms that are no longer here. It is a fact that these lifeforms differed depending on the time they lived on our planet.
The theory of evolution offfers a scientific explanation for that fact. It explains that all current life forms originated from a common ancestor and diverged and evolved over time. The processes that caused these changes are:

* natural selection
* sexual selection
* gene drift

All these processes work from the natural genetic variations witin the populations that stem from sexual recombination, mutations and DNA copying errors.

Donzman:

. . .There is no model that has been put forward to explain this face but yet I'm expected to believe it.

Of course I can still take follow your diversion into abiogenesis, so, there are models, several actually. You should know by now that Google is your friend, even if you only pay him a visit for 1 minute:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/search?&submit.y=0&submit.x=0&submit=GO&fulltext=%22Origin+of+life%22&sortspecbrief=date&sortspec=date
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/science/bkup_of_RNA.html
http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_life.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738204935/thesecularweb
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Abiogenesis

Donzman:

Oh, you don't know what a specie is now? *hiss*

Most biologists would have some trouble defining a specie, as there is no clear dividing line between different species (ring species would be a good example to show just that). When you go to species that do not sexually reproduce, the differences between species even become murkier.

Donzman:

. . .Ok. A goat with 2 noses is still a goat, mutation has not been able to transform a goat into a cow.

Your attempt at humour hasn't yet reached full maturity, but carry on, you'll get there eventually

Donzman:

Mutation has not been able to transform a corn into something entirely new.

You mean like a cat evolving into a dog? Which idiot would even come up with these kind of predictions anyway. Ah, I know: someone who hasn't got a freaking clue what evolutionary biology is about.

Donzman:

Haven't you been learning?. . .When mutations occur and occur, there's some sort of boundary that limits the mutation that can take place.

Explain to me that magical barrier and send your article to Nature, asap, you'll be first in line for a Nobel Prize

Donzman:

After sometime, the same type of mutations continue to occur AND we do not get a new specie of plant/animal.

Says who? Donzman the Great?

Donzman:

Mutation does not do it my friend. After almost a century of laboratory induced mutations, intelligent scientists have not been able to produce a new specie of plants/animal.

They have actually been able to produce/find countless new species. Maybe this example would tickle your fancy?

Donzman:

Selection does not produce new organisms. It helps existing organisms adapt to their environment.

What is a [i]new [/i]organism and what separates it from an [i]existing [/i]organism?

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

There is nothing informative in that link, only created to confuse those who do not know. Try again!

And how is that relevant?

How is telling us how life started in the first place relevant?

Explain to me that magical barrier and send your article to Nature, asap, you'll be first in line for a Nobel Prize

It's nothing special, scientists have been creating mutated organisms now for over a century, they haven't been able to transform a bird into a lizard. Ok, till someone is able to use mutation to turn a fish into a frog, STFU!

What is a new organism and what separates it from an existing organism?

As an evolutionist who claims that new organisms appear through mutation, you should be telling me. As a creationist, I believe that there cannot be an entirely new organism.

It happens every second, it's called metabolism, but that's not what you're after, I guess

Metabolism turns chemical compounds into living organisms?. . .No wonder you think with your stomach, too much eating has turned your stomach into a mini-brain via. metabolism. Ha!

Donzman:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

There is nothing informative in that link, only created to confuse those who do not know. Try again!

Probably not. Would the paper describing exactly how a frame shift mutation caused the bacterium to synthesise a protein that enables it to metabolise nylon, a compound that did not exist before 1935 be sufficient? New information: check. Mutation increasing fitness of organism: check. New species: check. Now would be the time to shift goalposts and define information in such a way that it doesn't fit the bill, wouldn't it?

In your mind probably only a dog turning into a cat in a few generations would be evidence for evolution, while that actually would be a falsification of evolutionary theory, but then again, I never expected a creationist to do the hard labour of actually learning some science and studying the evidence.

Donzman:

How is telling us how life started in the first place relevant?

As it is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, it is irrelevant to the question at hand

Donzman:

Explain to me that magical barrier and send your article to Nature, asap, you'll be first in line for a Nobel Prize

It's nothing special, scientists have been creating mutated organisms now for over a century,

Have they now? Maybe that happened in Lysenko's laboratory in the good old USSR. Try looking up that name, Lysenko. You might actually learn something new - evil Commie Russia was actually really evil .
While you're visiting the cold dark places of the north, maybe you could take a look at Fox taming experiment in Siberia. Wolves are a different [i]kind [/i]than dogs in biblespeak, aren't they?

Donzman:

they haven't been able to transform a bird into a lizard. Ok, till someone is able to use mutation to turn a fish into a frog, STFU!

Isn't it satisfying to smithe a strawman in a galant charge. Maybe, after familiarising yourself with the field, could you understand that the TOE would never, ever predict such a thing. Maybe I'm just delirious when I expect people to a somewhat civilised way without shouting insults.

Donzman:

What is a new organism and what separates it from an existing organism?

As an evolutionist who claims that new organisms appear through mutation, you should be telling me. As a creationist, I believe that there cannot be an entirely new organism.

I really thought you were talking about species. I am most definitely a different organism than you, although we are of the same species. Just tell me how you can separate different species in a consistent way. I know of no method, because all life is connected in different degrees. Could you tell me when exactly the water stopped being cold and started being hot. When I put my hand in boiling water though, I'll bloody well know that it is hot. The timespan needed for evolutionary changes to result in speciation for "higher" organisms, such as tetrapods is too large to be observed in the lifespan of a human being. Unless you would take the extremely rare case of very high selective pressure under near extinction conditions in order for genetic drift to lead to sufficient phenotypical differences between populations to prevent interbreeding, resulting in speciation.

Maybe you're just suffering from the tyranny of the discontinuous mind (just read question 8 and the answer to that question) and are unable to comprehend things in a non-essentialist framework (I know you like philosophy, so maybe that will make you ponder over the issue )

Donzman:

It happens every second, it's called metabolism, but that's not what you're after, I guess

Metabolism turns chemical compounds into living organisms?. . .No wonder you think with your stomach, too much eating has turned your stomach into a mini-brain via. metabolism. Ha!

Well, at least I realise that what we consider rationality is, in most cases, just rationalisation. Your answer definitely is witty. Smart on the other hand, it is not.

Isn't it satisfying to smithe a strawman in a galant charge. Maybe, after familiarising yourself with the field, could you understand that the TOE would never, ever predict such a thing. Maybe I'm just delirious when I expect people to a somewhat civilised way without shouting insults.

Is Evolutionary theory not connected to how we all have common ancestors?. . .Coming from one unicellular organism that changed over a trillion years for all I care?. . .How then do you claim that Evolutionary theory does not predict that a specie will change into something entirely new after sometime?

In the link you gave me, the guy was talking about intermediates. If Evolution theory does not predict a specie changing over time into something ENTIRELY different, why are we talking about intermediates?

A National Geographic report awhile ago states precisely that proving the theory of evolution using fossils is like watching a movie of 1000 parts with 999 parts missing. There is no solid proof of these intermediates and when exactly a bird lost its wings, it's all speculation based on fossils that could have undergone a million chemical reactions while buried underground.

As it is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, it is irrelevant to the question at hand

Listen to yourself talk. . .A theory that tries to explain the beginning of things cannot tell us how things began? . . .What use is it then?. . .If it is to be used as something to explain how life started and developed on earth, it should be able to tell us when and how exactly life started. How does a chemical get life?. . .

Ask yourself this question Mr. Nferyn. . .What in this world will give a chemical life and turn it into a unicellular organism that will develop to what we call human beings or you call Homo Sapiens( ) today? . . .Till evolutionary theory can explain that, you haven't taken off yet. Where did LIFE come from?

Donzman:

Isn't it satisfying to smithe a strawman in a galant charge. Maybe, after familiarising yourself with the field, could you understand that the TOE would never, ever predict such a thing. Maybe I'm just delirious when I expect people to a somewhat civilised way without shouting insults.

Is Evolutionary theory not connected to how we all have common ancestors?

Yes, common ancestory is a central claim of evolutionary theory

Donzman:
. . .Coming from one unicellular organism that changed over a trillion years for all I care?. . .

Not exactly. Not all life is cellular and many organisms that make up our common ancestory were non-cellular life. The endosymbiotic origin of mytochondria and chloroplasts is well supported by the evidence. The molecular evidence is actuallly the strongest line of evidence for common ancestory. The predictions from mutation rates in non-coding DNA (especially in mitochondrial DNA) match exactly the philogenetic trees that have been created from other lines of evidence (such as radiometric dating of fossils). Something that can only be explained by assuming common ancestory.
The for all I care part is really telling. It indicates your unwillingness to learn about what evolutionary theory actually says. You rather make unsubstantiated claims about the TOE, which then - in your view - beg for an explanation, and behold, your God-of-the-gaps provides that explanation (or at least you think it does)

Donzman:
How then do you claim that Evolutionary theory does not predict that a specie will change into something entirely new after sometime?

No, it does not make that claim. In the absence of selective pressure, natural selection does not work and genetic drift alone does not explain adaptations. Many organisms hardly undergo any phenotypical change, as their selective environment doesn't change. Take for example the Coelacanth, an order of fish that didn't change significantly over the last few millions of years.
Something changing into something entirely new over sometime [/i]is indeed a predicition one can make, but [i]something entirely new and sometime can be narrowed down consideralbly.
Something entirely new would still need to fall within the phylogenetic tree and bear the specific characteristics of that tree. A dog would never get wings and retain it's 4 paws at the same time, not even in 100 millions of years. A dog wouldn't turn into a salamander either. Observing something like that would be evidence against the TOE. When asked what would falsify the TOE, the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, i.e. something the TOE would predict to be impossible.
Concerning the sometime part, for most species generational spans are too long to observe speciation, but for some others with ver short lifespans (such as fruit flies), speciation has been observed on multiple occasions. The demand for an experiment whereby a dog changes into a cat only comes from a faulty understanding of the TOE.

Donzman:

In the link you gave me, the guy was talking about intermediates. If Evolution theory does not predict a specie changing over time into something ENTIRELY different, why are we talking about intermediates?

Again, see my reply above. The problem is that for each objection the creationisist brings against the TOE, once that objection is refuted, the creationist changes goalposts and starts to redifine concepts. That's also why I ask you to define the terminology precisely: it's pretty hard to chase ghosts when their nature constantly changes.

Donzman:

A National Geographic report awhile ago states precisely that proving the theory of evolution using fossils is like watching a movie of 1000 parts with 999 parts missing.

Exactly, that's why there are other lines of evidence that are far stronger than dating from the fossil record and all point in one direction: a universal philogenetic tree and common ancestory

Donzman:

There is no solid proof of these intermediates and when exactly a bird lost its wings,

Actually proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science, but there is sufficient solid evidece of intermediate species. Unfortunately a new intermediate found is an answer to the creationist's prayer (pun intended), as before there was only one gap and now there are two.

Donzman:
it's all speculation based on fossils that could have undergone a million chemical reactions while buried underground.

So does your creationist sources tell you. Maybe you could check out what biologists, geologists and paleontropologists say.

Donzman:

As it is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, it is irrelevant to the question at hand

Listen to yourself talk. . .A theory that tries to explain the beginning of things cannot tell us how things began?

Could you point me to the version of the TOE that tries to explain the beginning of things. I'm not familiar with that theory.

Donzman:
. . .What use is it then?

None, but then again, it does not make such claims.

Donzman:
. . .If it is to be used as something to explain how life started and developed on earth, it should be able to tell us when and how exactly life started. How does a chemical get life?. . .

The TOE explains the origin of biodiversity, starting from the first self-replication organic molecules. The origin of those self-replicating molecules can be explained by the different abiogenesis hypotheses. You must realise that, even though there are credible explanations for the origin of life, there is currently no smoking gun.
Whatever the outcome, your god-of-the-gaps argument from personal incredulity doesn't cut the chase. It's not because your limited imagination fails to give you insight, that an inscrutible, overly complex creator is an alternative explanation.

Donzman:

Ask yourself this question Mr. Nferyn. . .What in this world will give a chemical life and turn it into a unicellular organism that will develop to what we call human beings or you call Homo Sapiens( ) today?

And when did you stop beating your girlfriend? Come on now, stop putting up strawmen based on faulty assumptions and a lack of understanding of the TOE

Donzman:
. . .Till evolutionary theory can explain that, you haven't taken off yet.

Why? Untill you start explaining why sociology doesn't explain the origin of quarks, sociology hasn't taken off yet; get a grip, or better, get an understanding.

Donzman:

Where did LIFE come from?

I don't know and neither do you, but that has nothing to do with the TOE

Actually proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science, but there is sufficient solid evidece of intermediate species. Unfortunately a new intermediate found is an answer to the creationist's prayer (pun intended), as before there was only one gap and now there are two.

Proof is not for science?. . .A scientist should help this guy out please!

Something entirely new would still need to fall within the phylogenetic tree and bear the specific characteristics of that tree. A dog would never get wings and retain it's 4 paws at the same time, not even in 100 millions of years. A dog wouldn't turn into a salamander either. Observing something like that would be evidence against the TOE. When asked what would falsify the TOE, the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, i.e. something the TOE would predict to be impossible.

Are you then suggesting that Macroevolution does not occur?. . .How then did human beings come from the same ancestors as apes? . . .You look like Mike Tyson, a supposed heavyweight giving up before the fights has even started.

Look at the baseless claims you're making, "science does not require proofs".

Exactly, that's why there are other lines of evidence that are far stronger than dating from the fossil record and all point in one direction: a universal philogenetic tree and common ancestory

All other evidence can as well be evidence creation. All kinds were created with an ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment, couldn't I make that argument?

I don't know and neither do you, but that has nothing to do with the TOE

So you have admitted that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, why then do you insist on pitching it against creation?. . .I might as well argue that evolution is one of those natural processes like metabolism and aging.

You know fully well that evolutionary theory has no clue as to how life started and can only try to explain (barely) how life came to be today. Why then do evolutionists think they have something against creation?. . .A creationist can always argue that evolution (microevolution to be precise) is a built-in adaptive mechanism built in by the creator.

The darwinism theory is one the most disaster on our age for explaining the himanity and life origin, 

this book explains the deceit of this theory, he wrote:

Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, the truth is that Darwin was not its originator, and neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of the ancient dogma of materialist philosophy. Although it is not backed up by scientific discoveries, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy."

book can be found full written in this site without neccessary to download , 

http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php

and this for "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions"
http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions01.php

Donzman:

Proof is not for science?. . .A scientist should help this guy out please!

He's right though, proof is not for science. Science can't prove anything, it can strongly show with evidence, but it doesn't deal in proof. For example, gravity and the theory of relativity give a strong parsimonious explanation of the attraction of bodies; however, it can't be proved, therfore angels could be the unlikely reason for attraction.

Are you then suggesting that Macroevolution does not occur?. . .

Macroevolution does occur, unfortunately you don't know what macroevolution is.

How then did human beings come from the same ancestors as apes? . . .You look like Mike Tyson, a supposed heavyweight giving up before the fights has even started.

Evolution of course. Incidentally, humans are still apes, so we share a common ancestor with other apes.

Look at the baseless claims you're making, "science does not require proofs".

Perhaps you don't understand the implication of the word "proof".

All other evidence can as well be evidence creation. All kinds were created with an ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment, couldn't I make that argument?

You could make that argument, vacuous though it may be, but you will then be required to: define "kinds", show how your model can be falsified, give predictions based on your model and see if they stand up to scrutiny. You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms).

So you have admitted that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, why then do you insist on pitching it against creation?. . .

I don't know if you've noticed, but it's Creationists that tend pit the two against each other (for good measure, many even include the Big Bang theory and planetary formation with the theory of evolution). Also, Creationists are proud of the fact Creationism includes origins of everything and the "ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment".

By the by, if you want to discuss the origin of life, do so, but don't confuse it with the theory of evolution.

I might as well argue that evolution is one of those natural processes like metabolism and aging.

Why?

You know fully well that evolutionary theory has no clue as to how life started and can only try to explain (barely) how life came to be today. Why then do evolutionists think they have something against creation?. .

Of course the theory of evolution doesn't (shouldn't) touch on the origin of life (see the title of Darwin's book for example), however it does a quite stellar job in explaining how species have diversified.

Why do evolutionists think they have something against Creationism? Why do scientists have something against the flat Earthers?.

.A creationist can always argue that evolution (microevolution to be precise) is a built-in adaptive mechanism built in by the creator.

Present the argument then.

We have a bunch of FAKE scientists here, science does not deal with proofs?. . .That's a new one. 

You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms).

Easy, I do not believe that chemical suddenly got life out of nowehere and started evolving to the million different species we see today. Even though evolution is yet to tell us how the first organism came to be, I wonder what kind of theory that is.

Of course the theory of evolution doesn't (shouldn't) touch on the origin of life (see the title of Darwin's book for example), however it does a quite stellar job in explaining how species have diversified.

Why do evolutionists think they have something against Creationism? Why do scientists have something against the flat  Earthers?.

I don't know who you think you're decieving here, evolution tries to explain how life came to be the way it is today. If it cannot tell us how life came to be in the first place then it hasn't taken off, sorry, cry me a river!

Evolutionists believe that there is no CREATOR. If there is no creator, do you mind telling me how LIFE came to be in the first place?. . .Am I going nuts here? If you deny the creator, the onus is on you to show me how LIFE came to be. Till you do that, your theory stays out of touch with reality.

Your theory cannot say there is no creator yet fail to show us how life came to be, it doesn't make sense. It's like telling me electricicity does not shock but failing to tell me what shocks me when I touch a live wire.

Donzman:

We have a bunch of FAKE scientists here, science does not deal with proofs?. . .

I presume you're a "real" scientist, then?

That's a new one.

It's not really. There's even a catch phrase for it: "proof is for maths and alcohol"

Easy, I do not believe that chemical suddenly got life out of nowehere and started evolving to the million different species we see today.

"you will then be required to: define "kinds", show how your model can be falsified, give predictions based on your model and see if they stand up to scrutiny. You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms)."

Even though evolution is yet to tell us how the first organism came to be, I wonder what kind of theory that is.

A theory that deals with the origin and diversity of species? Like I said, if you want to discuss the origins of life (Abiogenesis), do so, but stop confusing and conflating it with the theory of evolution.

I don't know who you think you're decieving here, evolution tries to explain how life came to be the way it is today. If it cannot tell us how life came to be in the first place then it hasn't taken off, sorry, cry me a river!

Well over 95% of Biologists and 150 years of not getting falsified, say otherwise

Evolutionists believe that there is no CREATOR.

No, Atheists and probably some pantheists believe there is no creator. Don't make me have to bust out my "evolution is not atheism sign.

If there is no creator, do you mind telling me how LIFE came to be in the first place?. .

I don't. My opinion is that some kind of abiogenesis occured, and it was probably a process that was somewhere between Fox's protocells and the PreRNA-RNA, etc models.

.Am I going nuts here?

You aren't nuts already?

If you deny the creator, the onus is on you to show me how LIFE came to be. Till you do that, your theory stays out of touch with reality.

Actually there really is no onus even if there's a denial of a creator.

Your theory cannot say there is no creator yet fail to show us how life came to be, it doesn't make sense. It's like telling me electricicity does not shock but failing to tell me what shocks me when I touch a live wire.

We do, however, know it's nothing of the sort, and we know you still have no idea what evolution is.



[quote][/quote]

Nyfern, KAG. Both of you may argue your points on the evolution theory, but when it comes down to it , we who believe in GOD and all of his works will see who, in the end, will be in Heaven.

Donzman:

Proof is not for science?. . .A scientist should help this guy out please!

Great comeback. Trying asking a scientist, any scientist for that matter, and he'll explain you quite clearly that science is built on evidence, not proof. Unfortunately, your skull seems to be too thick to let anything pass through that doesn't already fit your preconceived notions of reality

Donzman:

Something entirely new would still need to fall within the phylogenetic tree and bear the specific characteristics of that tree. A dog would never get wings and retain it's 4 paws at the same time, not even in 100 millions of years. A dog wouldn't turn into a salamander either. Observing something like that would be evidence against the TOE. When asked what would falsify the TOE, the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, i.e. something the TOE would predict to be impossible.

Are you then suggesting that Macroevolution does not occur?. . .How then did human beings come from the same ancestors as apes? . . .You look like Mike Tyson, a supposed heavyweight giving up before the fights has even started.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Obviously it isn't on par with your rhetorical skills. Where did I say that Macroevolution doesn't occur?

Donzman:

Look at the baseless claims you're making, "science does not require proofs".

Maybe you can sit through an introductory course in philosophy of science and learn a little about the scientific method. Pick up a good book by Popper, learn something about falsifiability, testable predictions, parsimony and other concepts that are at the core of scientific reasoning. But then again, why would you read anything that might upset your prejudices?

Donzman:

Exactly, that's why there are other lines of evidence that are far stronger than dating from the fossil record and all point in one direction: a universal philogenetic tree and common ancestory

All other evidence can as well be evidence creation. All kinds were created with an ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment, couldn't I make that argument?

And what predictions does creation make? How can creation [/i]be falsified? What exactly does the [i]scientific [/i]theory of [i]creation [/i]say?
You're just talking out of your photonically challenged rear-end.

Donzman:

So you have admitted that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, why then do you insist on pitching it against creation?

Because someone here was speaking about [i]Creation Theory, a gross misnomer for religiously biased ignorance.

Donzman:

. . .I might as well argue that evolution is one of those natural processes like metabolism and aging.

It is, indeed.

Donzman:

You know fully well that evolutionary theory has no clue as to how life started

Why should it? Do you ask your car mechanic to give you a double bypass?

Donzman:

and can only try to explain (barely) how life came to be today.

In your extremely limited imagination, maybe. just a hint, read The Ancestor's Tale or even better still, get yourself a copy of The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll

Donzman:

Why then do evolutionists think they have something against creation?. . .

It can be made to fit the facts (barely and with a lot of mental gymnastics), but it isn't science in the slightest. Putting it as an alternative to evolutionary biology is dishonest braindead idiocy.

Donzman:

A creationist can always argue that evolution (microevolution to be precise) is a built-in adaptive mechanism built in by the creator.

A creationist can argue anything he likes, as creation is so plastic that it can be rationalised into anything he pleases, therefore it couldn't possibly be further removed from science than any other kind of neurological activity.

From your arguments, it's obvious that you feel it's the same battle thrashing Christians give atheists time and time again.

Creation is more than religion my friend, it is a fact of life that there is a creator. That is the only reasonable way you can explain the way things are without looking like a fool. My forefathers knew that and so did all other wise men on the face of the earth back then. They all tried to represent and adore the creator the best way they knew how.

Great comeback. Trying asking a scientist, any scientist for that matter, and he'll explain you quite clearly that science is built on evidence, not proof. Unfortunately, your skull seems to be too thick to let anything pass through that doesn't already fit your preconceived notions of reality

Keep making a fool of yourself. . .Science requires you to prove whatever theory you have beyond reasonable doubt. What is proof?. . .Proof is made through collection of evidence, evidence that is meant to prove your theory. Saying science is all evidence and no proof sounds ignorant, sorry no offense.

Why should it? Do you ask your car mechanic to give you a double bypass?

If my mechanic tells me that doctors are not special and that he can do whatever I claim my doctor can do then the mechanic has to give me my double bypass. If evolutionists claim there is no creator, they need to tell us how life started.

I'm done with this argument, I've rattled your feeble feathers enough. Creation is the only way the beginning and nature of life can be explained, every other theory fails.

Donzman:

You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms).

Easy, I do not believe that chemical suddenly got life out of nowehere and started evolving to the million different species we see today. Even though evolution is yet to tell us how the first organism came to be, I wonder what kind of theory that is.

And that's your attempt at theorising. You're even more clueless than I thought, Donzman

Donzman:

Of course the theory of evolution doesn't (shouldn't) touch on the origin of life (see the title of Darwin's book for example), however it does a quite stellar job in explaining how species have diversified.

Why do evolutionists think they have something against Creationism? Why do scientists have something against the flat Earthers?.

I don't know who you think you're decieving here, evolution tries to explain how life came to be the way it is today. If it cannot tell us how life came to be in the first place then it hasn't taken off, sorry, cry me a river!

Strawmen gallore. Come and see, made out of the finest straw. They may not look like the real thing at all, but we've got lots of them.

Donzman:

Evolutionists believe that there is no CREATOR. If there is no creator, do you mind telling me how LIFE came to be in the first place?. . .Am I going nuts here?

Tha's a new one. Ever heard of Kenneth R. Miller?
Maybe you're really going nuts.

Donzman:

If you deny the creator, the onus is on you to show me how LIFE came to be. Till you do that, your theory stays out of touch with reality.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]Occam's Razor[/url] does just fine. Your Creator is entirely unnecessary.

Donzman:

Your theory cannot say there is no creator yet fail to show us how life came to be, it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't deal in unnecessary entities like creators that have zero explanatory power. If you need the comfort of a skydaddy watching over you, well, that's just you.

Donzman:

It's like telling me electricicity does not shock but failing to tell me what shocks me when I touch a live wire.

Apt analogy, maybe you've touched too many live wire's already. By the way, how do you [i]measure [/i]and [i]detect [/i]your creator?

Occam's Razor does just fine. Your Creator is entirely unnecessary.

Are you being a plain idiot now?. . .How does Occam's razor explain the beginning of things?

I stopped taking you seriously when you claimed science has nothing to do with proofs. In the Economics dept. here in my school, they're trying to get more 'scientific'. What do they do?. . .They teach graduate students a bunch of proofs upon proofs of several theories and Lemmas. I wonder why they'll lay so much emphasis on proof if it has nothing to do with science. . .

Take your atheistic ass out of here. At the end of the road, I have nothing to lose while being a believer in God, that is the dominant strategy. You on the other hand have chosen to play the dominated strategy in this game of life i.e. choosing to ignore God.

Donzman:

Occam's Razor does just fine. Your Creator is entirely unnecessary.

Are you being a plain idiot now?. . .

Maybe I learn from the master

Donzman:

How does Occam's razor explain the beginning of things?

You introduce a creator as explanatory factor. That factor should answer more questions than it raises. It does exactly the opposite, because now you need to explain that creator. Do not unnecessary multiply entities!

Donzman:

I stopped taking you seriously when you claimed science has nothing to do with proofs.

Maybe you'll take these people seriously:
From http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html (emphasis mine):

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are [b]not [/b]about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html :

", in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. , This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

Donzman:

In the Economics debt. here in my school, they're trying to get more 'scientific'. What do they do?. . .They teach graduate students a bunch of proofs upon proofs of several theories and Lemmas. I wonder why they'll lay so much emphasis on proof if it has nothing to do with science. . .

As a social scientist myself, I always deplored the ill advised application of the scientific method in the social sciences. Economics is probably the worst offender, as it regularly hides behind smokescreens of complex mathematical formulas that are based on shaky premisses.

Donzman:

Take your atheistic ass out of here. At the end of the road, I have nothing to lose while being a believer in God, that is the dominant strategy.

I hear a Pascal's Wager is coming our way. Second rate philosophy.

Donzman:

You on the other hand have chosen to play the dominated strategy in this game of life i.e. choosing to ignore God.

I usually ignore imaginary beings. I wish I could also ignore imaginary intelligence

Donzman:

From your arguments, it's obvious that you feel it's the same battle thrashing Christians give atheists time and time again.

Creation is more than religion my friend, it is a fact of life that there is a creator.

No, it isn't a fact that there is a creator. It is the very antithesis of a fact, especially given the reluctance of Creationists to give any falsifiable evidence for the creator - there's a reason it's faith.

That is the only reasonable way you can explain the way things are without looking like a fool.

It clearly isn't.

My forefathers knew that and so did all other wise men on the face of the earth back then. They all tried to represent and adore the creator the best way they knew how.

Including the atheistic, agnostic and pantheistic ones?

Keep making a fool of yourself. . .Science requires you to prove whatever theory you have beyond reasonable doubt. What is proof?. . .Proof is made through collection of evidence, evidence that is meant to prove your theory. Saying science is all evidence and no proof sounds ignorant, sorry no offense.

Scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

By the way, it's not prove beyond reasonable doubts, it's show beyond reasonable doubt.

If my mechanic tells me that doctors are not special and that he can do whatever I claim my doctor can do then the mechanic has to give me my double bypass.

You'd let your mechanic give you a double bypass just because he says Doctor's arent special and he can do whatever you claim your doctor can do? Seriously?

If evolutionists claim there is no creator, they need to tell us how life started.

No they don't, but I went ahead and gave you my opinion anyway.

I'm done with this argument, I've rattled your feeble feathers enough. Creation is the only way the beginning and nature of life can be explained, every other theory fails.

OMG, you're right, how could we not realise it. Now all you have to do is contact Science or National Geographic and submit your groundbreaking discovery. Go, the world is depending on you. Gob speed.

clemsonfan:

Nyfern, KAG. Both of you may argue your points on the evolution theory, but when it comes down to it , we who believe in GOD and all of his works will see who, in the end, will be in Heaven.

Good for you. Now maybe you can do what I asked in my first post in this thread, although I wont hold my breath.

P.S There are many Christians that accept the theory of evolution too, but if you want to believe they, like we baby eating atheists, are going to the "palce" that isn't Christian heaven, then it's no skin off my back.