Creationist Vs Evolutionary Theory

[Fjool]

if ... there was a form of deity which indeed existed outwith the perceived linear constraints of time as we react to it, we could no more hope to comprehend it than could the 2D creature comprehend the sphere.

 

The following page is a good place to start if you want to have a go at grasping what may lay outside our conventional four dimensions:

 

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

[Njugle]

Right you heathen skeptic nihilist atheist sophists ( ).

 

Here something else to ponder over during the festive holiday that you all receive for christian reasons (sucks eh?), the nominal birthday of a prophet of some repute, though perhaps not miracle maker nor actual son of a deity.

 

 

Evolution: survival of the fittest yada yada yada, true for animals, to a reasonable extent. Yet! The very creature who has identified the theory to exist does not in any way uphold the theory itself? Why does man seek to preserve man. Why do the infirm, disabled, weak and so on all have the right and ability to procreate? What does evolution do for them/us? There's a word for this theory, but i can't be bothered to look it up just now.

 

 

Secondly: Each evolutionary example of note reveals the change in the attributes of a species to adapt and/or progress, but missing from the evolutionary equation are the introduction of the traits that indeed change. The light receptive cells that became eyes, the requirement for feathers on archaeopteryx( once considered a bridge species, now considered 'awkward') etc. what means of mutation originated the special transformations?

 

Also: Check out cosmologist Bernard Carr for a boffin who questions the random nature of 'everything'

 

Just some brain fodder to chew over while we all over-indulge for the next few day. No evangelism from me, i can assure you. Just stirring up embers.

[Fjool]

Right you heathen skeptic nihilist atheist sophists

 

 

Why do the infirm, disabled, weak and so on all have the right and ability to procreate?

 

This is a value judgement though is it not? It is not for me to say whether a 'weak' or 'disabled' person has traits that would be beneficial if passed on. If you go down this route then you are in dangerous territory indeed.

 

Your question assumes that physical weakness, disability or illness are attributes that must not be allowed to pass on; regardless of other aspects which are desirable.

 

what means of mutation originated the special transformations?

 

(I have a feeling that I've missed your point here, but anyhoo)

 

In the case of acheoperyx, I was under the impression that the feathers initially evolved from scales as a way of helping a cold-blooded creature stay warm for longer.

 

In the following link, Richard Dawkins argues that the evolution of an 'eye' is considerably more likely than you would think:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20011031150450/http:/www.world-of-dawkins.com/peepers.htm

 

For balance, here is an argument against the evolution of eyes:

 

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html

 

Unfortunately this paper simply follows the standard argument of improbability; i.e. that the chances of such things happening are so small that it's impossible. Improbable and impossible are, of course, not the same thing.

 

The 'special transformation' could have been a miniscule changed caused by a single damaged gene; a mother lizard's children have slightly rougher scales, for example. Or a single skin-cell becomes slightly photosensitive (as plants and aglae already are).

[Evil Inky]

Right you heathen skeptic nihilist atheist sophists ( ).

 

Evolution: survival of the fittest yada yada yada, true for animals, to a reasonable extent. Yet! The very creature who has identified the theory to exist does not in any way uphold the theory itself? Why does man seek to preserve man. Why do the infirm, disabled, weak and so on all have the right and ability to procreate? What does evolution do for them/us? There's a word for this theory, but i can't be bothered to look it up just now.

I'd suggest it's a combination of a couple of things:

 

1) Although old people might need looking after, they've got a lifetime of memories and experiences to draw on, so it could be advantageous to the tribe to keep them alive.

 

2) Human children need years of care before they're capable of looking after themselves: perhaps we're hard-wired to automatically look out for individuals ( especially ones related to ourselves ) who require it ?

 

"Survival of the fittest" really means "survival of those most likely to produce children who grow up to produce children of their own".

[ex-isle]

The word 'fittest' is ambiguous - the association with physical strength is obviously the general connotation these days, what with gyms and organised sport, but we should remember that in former times the connotation of 'best-suited' was common.

 

So an individual who is in broad physical terms weak or disabled might well be the 'fittest' for certain tasks or conditions. For instance, a 'weak' specimen whose 'light-sensitive cells' have mutated to give better than average sight, or one with a particular gift with language, say, would clearly have an evolutionary advantage - as would a mind that has greater problem-solving powers or useful life experience, even if encased in a disabled body.

 

So there probably have been 'Hawkings' throughout human history - 'weak' specimens revered - though perhaps not as disabled as he has become. And similarly with age - the wisdom accumulated in a long life was just as, if not more, important in what we refer to as more primitive societies.

 

The caring-sharing aspect of humanity is far from widespread, sadly - indeed is most often in conflict with the selfish and individualistic. But I suppose we might posit that the individual and the herd instinct are both necessary and potentially useful, depending on circumstances?

 

The idea of 'rights' is problematic. These may be a glorious ideal, but are far from reality even today, though they are enshrined in bills. Beyond the wealthy 'western' world, the reach of such ideals is very limited, I'm afraid ...

[Pooks]

Why does man seek to preserve man. Why do the infirm, disabled, weak and so on all have the right and ability to procreate?

 

If we didn't keep them who would we feed to the lions when we are being chased????

 

Only kidding, please don't throw me to the lions.

[OriginalUsername]

Just spotted this thread for the first time and had a read through. I'm not really in the mood to give a comprehensive guide as to my opinion on the subject, but I must say that I have really enjoyed reading everything here (especially Njugles posts, I think we share a similar stance).

The debates concerning "faith" particularly interested me because I feel that they aren't really disputable. Both parties seem to have a very different take/definition on the same concept. Two different views on a scene, if you will. That's the beauty of humanity, but also a cause of major strife.

Aaaannnywaaayy... I agree with those who have said they don't like having other people's beliefs "shoved down their throats." But for the most part the people who have mentioned this are talking about religious beliefs. With my devil's advocate hat on I'm going to point out that I find it just as offensive when I see atheists attempting to force their beliefs on non-atheists or the unsure. Not because I am a religious person, but purely on the basis that they are doing the same thing as they often claim to deplore.

As someone said (I don't remember who, sorry!) It's like debating your favourite comedy in the pub. No matter how much you argue, Eddie Izzard is always going to be king to you and not to your friend. (I just wanted to say that )

[Guest Pronto]

This site gives me a larf

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org

[invader]

Yeah I kinda agree with Originalusername here. u can't go pokin your ideas down other peoples throats. Not like we are politicians! we can't control how we think or react to others can we?

 

Or can we ?

 

Our Politicians are certainly trying their damnest to control our thoughts.

 

 

 

Religion, like politics, I'm afraid is all man made.

 

Man invented both to help keep him above woman.

 

However God is a different ball game. He doesn't need religion. He needs us.

 

Yes He needs us just as much as we need him for , think about it, what would you have if you didn't have God?

 

 

 

 

Christmas no more

Easter no more

 

No more Muslims/Christians/Seiks/Hindus etc etc etc !!!!

 

HOPE!

 

A want for something better!

 

 

Maybe a better world perhaps?

 

Well maybe, just maybe God gives hope to millions (yes millions) of people all aver the world every day. You can mock religion - it's man made your catholics/ protestants/ jews/ christians/ muslims/ seiks(if thats the right spellin?) hindus etc etc etc etc etc. All man made with rules made by man.

 

All God wants is you.

 

Yes you, naked as you came into this world.

 

When you die you can take nothing of this world with you as life has proved to us all. rich man, poor man all go out with nothing taken. They leave everything behind, even the husk that was their body!

 

So you ask what is the point of this. Well its two fold.

 

i) God gets u no matter what.

 

ii) you can do something about it. You can believe in Jesus/Or not, that he is our sacrificial lamb who died in our place covered in our sin (all our sin - murder, rape, pornography, lies, theft, adultery, etc etc etc) he was covered in it and as such died for it. But then as he was part of God he rose from that grave taking the keys of hell with him and vanquished hell so we MIGHT have a way to eternal life. If only we believe in him???

If you can shield yourself in him then you can get through to God.

 

 

Remember the Bible(That silly book that no-one really takes for granted anymore, but which is actually the true account of God) says that God is so pure and FREE of sin that for us to appear in his prescence would result in us being burnt up, remember Moses and the way he shone so bright after being in the prescence of God on the mountain.

 

We are so full of sin - just to say you don't believe in God is sin so to mock this is more sin. But it's up to you. Maybe I'm mocking you, Maybe not. Maybe what I'm telling you is truth, Maybe not. Its up to the individual to make his/her own mind up.

 

But to say God gives you no way out is a lie. He gives you Jesus. as above. Believe in hime and have eternal life. That is Gods only way out. It tells us this in the bible.

 

Ah you say (and I once) this is just a tale.

 

Yes its a tale, but it's also a tale of the truth. There have been many men who set out to disprove the bible and there have been the same many men who have had to eat humble pie. Every day events in the old testament are proved to have happened - eg the Isrealites being in Egypyt. For hundreds of years this was believed to be a fairy story and yet during the 1990's a city was uncovered next to the nile that was certainly a city belonging to the Isrealites, and not Egyptians. How fickle we people really are when we start to disbelieve our past as it is written down for us.

You might as well dis-believe the vikings invaded and settled in Shetland!!

 

Its that black and white.

 

This is despite what our Parlaimentary dictatorship tells us.

 

Well thats all folks. I dare say this will invite many replies - especially from the folk who are too scared to believe in God but proud enough to believe in Man.

 

Does creation exist? Well Does evolution exist. Is it possible that if a gale of wind blows through a junk yard then out the other side would emerge a fully functional 747 aircraft?

 

Is it possible that just like a baker, Humans, animals, plants etc all share the same similar dna because they are made with the same baking ingredience. Also did you know we are actually closer to the pig dna wise than the monkey. Not many evolutionaries like to tell you, or even know this fact. If this is the case then how are monkeys our second evolutionary cousins???? four trotters rule ok!!

 

I've always been partial to roast pork.

[NewMagnie]

Yes its a tale, but it's also a tale of the truth. There have been many men who set out to disprove the bible and there have been the same many men who have had to eat humble pie. Every day events in the old testament are proved to have happened - eg the Isrealites being in Egypyt. For hundreds of years this was believed to be a fairy story and yet during the 1990's a city was uncovered next to the nile that was certainly a city belonging to the Isrealites, and not Egyptians. How fickle we people really are when we start to disbelieve our past as it is written down for us.

You might as well dis-believe the vikings invaded and settled in Shetland!!

 

Its that black and white.

 

Interesting.

 

Unfortunately, when we discuss the literal truth of the bible there are two parallel 'truths' which the religious have an unfortunate habit of conflating.

 

The actual events - terrestrial or temporal events at least - described in this neglected volume, are often proven right. There is little doubt that many of the characters therein existed, the israelites might very well have spent 40 years wandering around the sinai peninsula, etc, etc.

 

Far from choking on humble pie, many scientists, whether secular or not, are happy to treat the bible as a moderately reliable source document for some historical events - although others, such as the great flood or the Methusalan lifespans of certain OT characters are clearly flights of fantasy or clumsy interpretations of allegorical tales.

 

Unfortunately non of it actually indicates the existence of a divine entity - proof of the existence of Moses' perambulations in the wilderness are not proof of the existence of the deity that impelled him to quit his pyramid building career.

 

And as far as humankind evolving by accident goes - I see no difficulty with that - the kind of 'pride in man' which holds that our species is so utterly perfect that it could not possibly have evolved by chance is rarely found among atheists.

[JAStewart]

Yes its a tale, but it's also a tale of the truth. There have been many men who set out to disprove the bible and there have been the same many men who have had to eat humble pie.

 

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

 

Check out the docu "The God That Wasn't There"

 

also: Penn and Teller's episode of "sprootle!" where they DESTROY the bible's main claims.

 

Also, this pretty much destory's the creationists theory

[peeriebryan]

Does creation exist? Well Does evolution exist. Is it possible that if a gale of wind blows through a junk yard then out the other side would emerge a fully functional 747 aircraft?

An interesting, if somewhat simplistic analogy. Evolution, as I understand it, is not based on pure coincidence

 

Evolution is based on the principal of subtle genetic variation between generations over a very long period of time. If the variation proves to be beneficial to survival, it is more probable that the creature exhibiting the variation will go on to procreate, thus passing on its genetic make up.

 

Also did you know we are actually closer to the pig dna wise than the monkey. Not many evolutionaries like to tell you, or even know this fact. If this is the case then how are monkeys our second evolutionary cousins????

Humans do indeed share many genetic features and synteny with certain species of pig, notably in terms of immune systems and major organ structure. Pigs are also very different to humans when the composition of many 'important' DNA strings are compared. However, species lineage is not solely determined by how much DNA they may share with another species. Tomatoes also share much of our DNA

 

But to clarify your point re: monkeys - I myself am a chimp, and humans are considered to be part of the Hominoidea 'superfamily' which includes the Hominidae (humans, gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees etc) and the Hylobatidae (gibbons, siamangs, "lesser apes" etc). To be included in the Hominoidea family, creatures must share at least 97% of the DNA which comprises the modern human genome (chimps are less that 1.3% sequence divergent) and specific physical characteristics (inc. opposable thumbs, lack of tail, etc etc). Many also consider the capacity for language and culture to be a prerequisite

 

The above species are more likely to be classed as your "evolutionary cousins" than monkeys or other simian primates

[JAStewart]

Here is something to consider:

 

If you gave a creationist a grant to create an experiment that would show creationism in practise - could he? Answer: No.

[PoolHaddock]

Depends how big the grant is...

 

 

 

 

... big enough to buy a packet of Sea Monkeys?

 

sooorry

[Njugle]

Here is something to consider:

 

If you gave a creationist a grant to create an experiment that would show creationism in practise - could he? Answer: No.

You seem to have been in very abrupt mood today JAS. Your "wrong, wrong, etc.," answer was not your most eloquent.

 

Anyway, here is something to consider:

 

If you give a creationist a grant to create an experiment with an ocean of primordial soup, lightning generator, comet simulator and climate control sooner or later he's going to create a primitive lifeform, if you believe in the scientific theories behind the evolutionary origins of life.....so the answer is yes, isn't it?

 

Or did life come from another planet, perhaps?

 

Or perhaps the experiment could be genetic alteration, akin to that described by some of the more "far-out" evolutionists, creating new forms of life. Playing god.