Jump to content


Photo

Evolutionists: What Have You Devoted To Creationism?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
91 replies to this topic

#81 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:30 PM

Calypsis says: Let him handle my simple proposition above and demonstrate that biological organisms can be empirically viewed from scratch...to maturity

What prposition would that be? If you'd like to start a discussion with me, you'll need to state your premise clearly - I'm certainly not going to rred back through all those kengthy posts to try to find where you proposed something.

Rich


I already did in no uncertain terms. So stop pretending and give us an example of non-living chemicals that have developed or can develop into a living organism. After that demonstrate that living organisms can change genetically into classifiably different organisms by empirical investigation. It should be easy since 'evolution is a fact'...right?

#82 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:54 PM

I already did in no uncertain terms. So stop pretending and give us an example of non-living chemicals that have developed or can develop into a living organism. After that demonstrate that living organisms can change genetically into classifiably different organisms by empirical investigation. It should be easy since 'evolution is a fact'...right?


Yes it should be easy. Consider that scientists have been breeding fruit flies generation after generation (600 generations from 1991 till the article below was published in late 2010). We still only come out with a variety of fruit flies. Not even so much as functional double wings! So I guess it isn't as easy as expected. This quick breeding of flies represents 12,000 years worth of human evolution. I wonder how many generations it will take to convince the most hard-core evolutionists... http://www.icr.org/article/5779/

Note that although they are a creationist source, they pull their data from Nature! (sources 2, 3, and 5)

#83 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:29 AM

Sigh. Creationists just can't seem to get out of the ruts they've "created" for themselves.

How many times do Creationists have to be told that evolution is not about the origin of life? That is another topic entirely, and one which doesn't interest me personally at all. There are scientists who are interested in the question of the origin of life, and they are doing some interesting work, but they are mostly biochemists, and they work at a level (molecular) which is completely outside of the realm I work in, the realm of the organism.

Evolution is about the history of life on earth once life was present.

Tell me, Calypsis, what do you think of our modern system of Western jurisprudence? If we extend your approach to evolution to jurisprudence, then we can immediately reject punishment for any crime which was not directly witnessed. No witness to the murder? Then the murder didn't actually take place. No trial, no punishment possible.

Your approach to evolution is the same - the old Creationist saw "How do you know that the three-toed horse evolved into the one-toed horse? Were you there to see it?"

Silly question, and a question that doesn't have anything to do with either science or specifically evolution. The fossil record is replete with examples of change within a population; of species evolving into other species; and the origin of major groups of animals. Those of us who read the fossil record can appreciate its enormity. The evidence is overwhelming, and no other theory, scientific or otherwise, explains the diversity of life we see on Earth today as well.

So, bottom line, I am not going to tell you about non-living chemicals becoming living things. Go ask a biochemist if that is what interests you. But if you'd like to talk about evolution I'd be happy to do so.

Secondly, the whole point to evolution is that it takes place over long periods of time. Fruit flies have been observed to change radically in the breeding experiments geneticists have done, but you are correct, they have not changed into a "new" species. The time scale simply isn't sufficient. Where can we have the proper time scale in which to observe the evolution of one species into another? In the fossil record.

You several time have made a big deal out of "I've asked this question, no one can answer it". Turns out you've asked the question to the wrong people. You've also asked for what you think constitutes experimental evidence in a science whcih is not experimental, but is rather historical. So I'll throw the challenge right back at you:

Over the last 20 or so years online and in debates, I have challenged Creationists and ID proponents to a discussion of evolution. Pick any group of animals you'd like - the evolution of dogs, the evolution of horses, the evolution of amphibians from fish, the evolution of whales from their fully terrestrial, 4-legged ancestors. You name it. Then let's go through the evidence, fossil by fossil. You show me where my interpretations of the fossil record are incorrect. But more importantly, show me your alternative explanation, and how it better explains the evidence.

I can tell you that in 20+ years I have never had someone take up this challenge.

Rich

#84 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:36 AM

Sigh. Creationists just can't seem to get out of the ruts they've "created" for themselves.

How many times do Creationists have to be told that evolution is not about the origin of life? That is another topic entirely, and one which doesn't interest me personally at all. There are scientists who are interested in the question of the origin of life, and they are doing some interesting work, but they are mostly biochemists, and they work at a level (molecular) which is completely outside of the realm I work in, the realm of the organism.

Evolution is about the history of life on earth once life was present.

Hi Rich,

This is their forum and they define evolution as including the origin of life. I understand that the Theory of Evolution is about changes and natural selection after a certain point. However, I can see things from their point of view also. Chemical changes occur differently under different conditions. In nature, the environment dictates which chemical reactions are favored and which are not. So, in a way, evolution can be traced to those chemical reactions that started moving things toward what is obviously "Life". When you get right down to it, there is some difficulty in delineating exactly where we can say something is "alive" instead of simply performing sets of chemical reactions that inexactly reproduce the form and chemisty of the original.

Just because science has set the demarcation point for the Theory of Evolution does not mean that someone has to accept that origin of life is not controversial.

Besides, I thought this thread was about how much have we "evolutionists" have devoted to studying creationism and what problems we have with their theory.

On a side note, while I am aware that you have probably been studying the creationism-evolution "controversy" for quite some time, I don't think you should be so dismissive. Starting out your post with "Sigh" just sets the tone that you believe you are superior to them. I doubt that very many of the creationists here bothered to comprehend what you wrote after that. Anyway...just my take on things.

Many evolutionists have been banned from this board and claim that it was unfairly biased. I don't know how accurate their assessment is, but I am trying to stay here and learn their point of view based on the responses I get. So, I am following their rules and going slowly enough to avoid sanction...I hope.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#85 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:05 PM

Sigh. Creationists just can't seem to get out of the ruts they've "created" for themselves.


Is this some kind of joke? Let me tell you straight as an ex-evolutionist that it is you and those like you who are the ones in the 'rut', not us.

How many times do Creationists have to be told that evolution is not about the origin of life? That is another topic entirely, and one which doesn't interest me personally at all. There are scientists who are interested in the question of the origin of life, and they are doing some interesting work, but they are mostly biochemists, and they work at a level (molecular) which is completely outside of the realm I work in, the realm of the organism.

Evolution is about the history of life on earth once life was present.


Oh, really? Well maybe you should inform your many equally messed-up comrades in Darwinism about this because they have repeatedly written things that prove your point is dead wrong.

Observe:

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

I can give you another dozen examples like these. Is that necessary or are you still going to cling to the lie you just promoted here?

The real truth is that you and your unbelieving companions who hold to such nonsense are running from the truth and that truth is Biogenesis; the very Law that God established to refute any notion that nature can create or is even capable of creating life.

By the way, it's called 'chemical evolution' and it has been known by that terminology since the days of Alexander Oparin in the 1930's.

So you have the freedom to lie to yourself if you wish but you aren't going to lie to us and get away with it here.

P.S. Notice especially Neil de Grasse Tysons subtitle, '14 billion years years of cosmic evolution.' It'S ALL ONE GREAT BIG PACKAGE, fella. So say the 'experts' that those of your ilk look to for leadership.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#86 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 October 2012 - 05:28 PM

1. How many times do Creationists have to be told that evolution is not about the origin of life? That is another topic entirely, and one which doesn't interest me personally at all. There are scientists who are interested in the question of the origin of life, and they are doing some interesting work, but they are mostly biochemists, and they work at a level (molecular) which is completely outside of the realm I work in, the realm of the organism.

2. Evolution is about the history of life on earth once life was present.

3. Tell me, Calypsis, what do you think of our modern system of Western jurisprudence? If we extend your approach to evolution to jurisprudence, then we can immediately reject punishment for any crime which was not directly witnessed. No witness to the murder? Then the murder didn't actually take place. No trial, no punishment possible.

4. Your approach to evolution is the same - the old Creationist saw "How do you know that the three-toed horse evolved into the one-toed horse? Were you there to see it?"

5. Secondly, the whole point to evolution is that it takes place over long periods of time. Fruit flies have been observed to change radically in the breeding experiments geneticists have done, but you are correct, they have not changed into a "new" species. The time scale simply isn't sufficient. Where can we have the proper time scale in which to observe the evolution of one species into another? In the fossil record.

Rich


1. If that is the case, and evolution doesn't solve the origin of life, (despite the title of Darwin's book)... Then why do evolutionists like Dawkins state that evolution has banished God from Biology (or something to that effect). Sounds like double standards....

They claim evolution solves all problems, but then complain when the origin of life is discussed with it.

2. No, evolution is about the proposed history of Earth, unless you have a time machine you cannot verify the proposed history you claim

3. Science has nothing to do with how law works, you're attempt to muddy the water has failed. Unless you wish to claim that evolution doesn't follow the rules of science (empirical verification and experimentation)

4. I thought a scientist was meant to be "quick to doubt" seems like Calypsis is the scientist here. The question can easily be reversed, how do you "know" that it did evolve.

5. If its not a new species then no "radical" change has occured... Honestly evolution claims that species evolve into different species and you admit here that this is not what is observed.... Its not what the experiments indicate, (they only display changes within the species).... So why even believe in evolution when experiments don't support it?

6.

#87 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:39 PM

Jonas, Thanks for your comments. I quite agree wit them. However, Creationists don't get to define what evolutionary biology covers and what it does not. Evolutionary biologists get to do that. They can try to include it, but they will be completely unable to have any "civil discourse" on the topic, at least with evolutionary biologists.

I did not say that the origin of life is not controversial - it is certainly one of the topics in science about which we know the least today, and so there is room for a great deal of controversy. But it is a different realm of science. If folks here want to discuss evolution, then it behooves them to know what evolution is, and isn't, and to construct their arguments accordingly.

But, one might ask, why do they insist upon including the origin of life within evolution? For many of them, they do so simply because the Creationist literature they read, and the Creationist websites they view, tells them to do so. But for some - the ones with the most education, the "leaders" of their movement - I believe they do so for a very specific reason. By including the origin of life in evolution, they can point to the topic and say "See, evolution can't explain the origin of life. Evolution is not a complete theory, so you should dismiss anything evolution has to say. And by the way, if evolution is wrong, then Creationism is right by default." Evolution also can't explain why a cake changes its physical state from a liquid batter to a solid delight, but that doesn't mean we reject evolution as incomplete.

This is particularly ironic from those who identify themselves as proponents of Intelligent Design, or Creation Science. They so desperately want to be "like scienctists" and yet they reject the scientific method. Falsifying one of two competing hypotheses does not validate the remaining hypothesis.

Rich

#88 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:59 PM

1. However, Creationists don't get to define what evolutionary biology covers and what it does not. Evolutionary biologists get to do that. They can try to include it, but they will be completely unable to have any "civil discourse" on the topic, at least with evolutionary biologists.

2.I did not say that the origin of life is not controversial - it is certainly one of the topics in science about which we know the least today, and so there is room for a great deal of controversy. But it is a different realm of science. If folks here want to discuss evolution, then it behooves them to know what evolution is, and isn't, and to construct their arguments accordingly.

3. But, one might ask, why do they insist upon including the origin of life within evolution? For many of them, they do so simply because the Creationist literature they read, and the Creationist websites they view, tells them to do so. But for some - the ones with the most education, the "leaders" of their movement - I believe they do so for a very specific reason. By including the origin of life in evolution, they can point to the topic and say "See, evolution can't explain the origin of life. Evolution is not a complete theory, so you should dismiss anything evolution has to say. And by the way, if evolution is wrong, then Creationism is right by default." Evolution also can't explain why a cake changes its physical state from a liquid batter to a solid delight, but that doesn't mean we reject evolution as incomplete.

4. This is particularly ironic from those who identify themselves as proponents of Intelligent Design, or Creation Science. They so desperately want to be "like scienctists" and yet they reject the scientific method. Falsifying one of two competing hypotheses does not validate the remaining hypothesis.

Rich


1. As I said if that is the case and we separate them then why do Dawkins and his ilk claim that evolution is the all encompassing "theory" of Biology... They claim that there is nothing in Biology for God to influence due to evolution... Yet that would be assuming that abiogenesis is therefore covered by evolution. If they are separate, and that the natural method is still unknown then Dawkins and his ilk are misinformed when they state that evolution makes sense of all things in Biology, and that evolution is the all encompasing "theory"... Which is it? You cannot have your cake and eat it.

2. Actually its what we do know about the world that makes it controversial, these two threads discuss how modern science have shown that abiogenesis is literally impossible. Due to the limitations we have found about nature from science.

http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=5158
http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=5132

3. You have no evidence to claim this... I cannot claim what you had for breakfast today with anymore or less certainty as what you claim here.

4. Actually I find its the evolutionists who defy the empirical scientific method.. see my point above about how you admitted that the experiments do not bring about new species... If the experimental data doesn't support it then according to the scientific method it is debunked!...

#89 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:23 AM

Jonas, Thanks for your comments. I quite agree wit them. However, Creationists don't get to define what evolutionary biology covers and what it does not. Evolutionary biologists get to do that. They can try to include it, but they will be completely unable to have any "civil discourse" on the topic, at least with evolutionary biologists.

I did not say that the origin of life is not controversial - it is certainly one of the topics in science about which we know the least today, and so there is room for a great deal of controversy. But it is a different realm of science. If folks here want to discuss evolution, then it behooves them to know what evolution is, and isn't, and to construct their arguments accordingly.

But, one might ask, why do they insist upon including the origin of life within evolution? For many of them, they do so simply because the Creationist literature they read, and the Creationist websites they view, tells them to do so. But for some - the ones with the most education, the "leaders" of their movement - I believe they do so for a very specific reason. By including the origin of life in evolution, they can point to the topic and say "See, evolution can't explain the origin of life. Evolution is not a complete theory, so you should dismiss anything evolution has to say. And by the way, if evolution is wrong, then Creationism is right by default." Evolution also can't explain why a cake changes its physical state from a liquid batter to a solid delight, but that doesn't mean we reject evolution as incomplete.

This is particularly ironic from those who identify themselves as proponents of Intelligent Design, or Creation Science. They so desperately want to be "like scienctists" and yet they reject the scientific method. Falsifying one of two competing hypotheses does not validate the remaining hypothesis.

Rich


"But, one might ask, why do they insist upon including the origin of life within evolution?"

That is nothing but Orwellian deception. They did not argue this when I was still an evolutionist. It is an effort to escape the reality of the law of Biogenesis and he knows it. Evolution has to have a point of origin but they refuse to discuss that necessity because they know they cannot win on that point...a very, very powerful point./

Notice that he didn't answer what I said above.

#90 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 October 2012 - 11:01 AM

Biological evolution is used to support the naturalist philosophy that atheists, and some agnostics hold. Naturalism is a philosophical rejection of supernatural occurrences or beings as an explanation for events, natural laws, etc. As a part of naturalism, you have abiogenesis (a part of chemical evolution) as the start of biological evolution. Theistic evolutionists are not naturalists and do not believe in abiogenesis nor do they reject supernatural beings or occurrences. They believe God used or set in motion a process of evolution. Rich does have a point, that biological evolution is not inextricably linked to abiogenesis, but if you deny abiogenesis, then you automatically become a theistic evolutionist.

The problem is then that many major science publications hammer home naturalistic suppositions as explanations for scientific data. Whenever they discuss the beginning of evolution, they invoke abiogenesis. Then you have anti-theists and anti-Creationists such as Dawkins and Stephen Hawking suggesting that science has ruled out, or at least gotten rid of the need to explain things by supernatural occurrences.

So as you can see, it is kind of a tangled mess. If someone is a naturalist, then they are open to rebuttals against abiogenesis, plain and simple. Agnostics such as Rich and jonas usually avoid discussing abiogenesis for this very reason.

#91 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 October 2012 - 12:54 PM

Biological evolution is used to support the naturalist philosophy that atheists, and some agnostics hold. Naturalism is a philosophical rejection of supernatural occurrences or beings as an explanation for events, natural laws, etc. As a part of naturalism, you have abiogenesis (a part of chemical evolution) as the start of biological evolution. Theistic evolutionists are not naturalists and do not believe in abiogenesis nor do they reject supernatural beings or occurrences. They believe God used or set in motion a process of evolution. Rich does have a point, that biological evolution is not inextricably linked to abiogenesis, but if you deny abiogenesis, then you automatically become a theistic evolutionist.

The problem is then that many major science publications hammer home naturalistic suppositions as explanations for scientific data. Whenever they discuss the beginning of evolution, they invoke abiogenesis. Then you have anti-theists and anti-Creationists such as Dawkins and Stephen Hawking suggesting that science has ruled out, or at least gotten rid of the need to explain things by supernatural occurrences.

So as you can see, it is kind of a tangled mess. If someone is a naturalist, then they are open to rebuttals against abiogenesis, plain and simple. Agnostics such as Rich and jonas usually avoid discussing abiogenesis for this very reason.


"but if you deny abiogenesis, then you automatically become a theistic evolutionist."

Yes, or a space cadet that thinks that E.T.'s planted us here aeons ago. But that still does not answer as to how life originated...without God.

#92 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 October 2012 - 01:03 PM

"but if you deny abiogenesis, then you automatically become a theistic evolutionist."

Yes, or a space cadet that thinks that E.T.'s planted us here aeons ago. But that still does not answer as to how life originated...without God.


No, since ET without God would require abiogenesis to produce the aliens somewhere long ago and far far away.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users