Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Vs Creation: What Can We Agree On?


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

#1 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • South Carolina

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:59 AM

Hi,
My pastor, shortly before he died in 1988, shared this pearl of wisdom. He said "Chuck, you need to learn to 'spit' seed!" He meant that in life I would have to sort through information such as viewpoints, knowledge, and opinions, keeping the good stuff (truth) and spitting the bad stuff (falsities).

Evolutionists and creationists can be scientists, doctors, weekend scientists (those of us that enjoy science topics but have no advanced training), teachers, ordinary folks, and other groups that can be classified.

I owe a great deal to evolutionists. For example, one pays my paychecks, another saved two of my children's lives in the hospital, another passed onto me the joy of science and experimentation. I'm certain we can all think of evolutionists that have made an impact in our lives. I owe creationists too. A couple of them taught me the Word of God, I married one, and four of my five children are creationists. God has brought all of these people into my life for good.

What do we share in common? I'll begin.

* We (e and c) believe in the application of the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, results).

* We have biases that can't be proved scientifically. Creationists cannot directly prove that God created life. Evolutionists cannot directly prove that life resulted from abiogenesis. (Technically, this is no longer an evolutionary topic, but I seem to recall it was in the 70s).

* We accept the basics of micro-evolution within a species.

* We love to dig up dinosaur bones and other fossils.

* We love dinosaurs.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,
Chuck

#2 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1917 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:02 PM

Hi,
My pastor, shortly before he died in 1988, shared this pearl of wisdom. He said "Chuck, you need to learn to 'spit' seed!" He meant that in life I would have to sort through information such as viewpoints, knowledge, and opinions, keeping the good stuff (truth) and spitting the bad stuff (falsities).

Evolutionists and creationists can be scientists, doctors, weekend scientists (those of us that enjoy science topics but have no advanced training), teachers, ordinary folks, and other groups that can be classified.

I owe a great deal to evolutionists. For example, one pays my paychecks, another saved two of my children's lives in the hospital, another passed onto me the joy of science and experimentation. I'm certain we can all think of evolutionists that have made an impact in our lives. I owe creationists too. A couple of them taught me the Word of God, I married one, and four of my five children are creationists. God has brought all of these people into my life for good.

What do we share in common? I'll begin.

* We (e and c) believe in the application of the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, results).

* We have biases that can't be proved scientifically. Creationists cannot directly prove that God created life. Evolutionists cannot directly prove that life resulted from abiogenesis. (Technically, this is no longer an evolutionary topic, but I seem to recall it was in the 70s).

* We accept the basics of micro-evolution within a species.

* We love to dig up dinosaur bones and other fossils.

* We love dinosaurs.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,
Chuck


Quote: "Creationists cannot directly prove that God created life."

Well, in a way we can. Since life on earth only comes from already existing life forms (this is scientific law) then since the natural can't do it then the only other option is the supernatural. AND...if one chooses the extra-terrestrial idea that life here on earth was planted by space beings from another world, that only pushes back the problem of natural generation but is still the same problem.

Best wishes and glad to see you posting.

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 27 October 2012 - 01:22 AM

Quote: "Creationists cannot directly prove that God created life."

Well, in a way we can. Since life on earth only comes from already existing life forms (this is scientific law) then since the natural can't do it then the only other option is the supernatural. AND...if one chooses the extra-terrestrial idea that life here on earth was planted by space beings from another world, that only pushes back the problem of natural generation but is still the same problem.

Best wishes and glad to see you posting.


Exactly, though this is evidence that life requires something more than nature, it doesn't specify what. However in my opinion the name of God really doesn't matter, whether we say Allah or Jesus or something else its still an all powerful supernatural being who created the universe.

#4 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 993 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 October 2012 - 02:00 PM

I take the guess that a Creationist would actually agree with Evolutionists on many things as long as they are scientifically founded. For example I think we'd all agree that there are laws of nature that guide the behavior of physical things and that one can know those laws or causality and actually use them for the benefit of human beings. That's the essence of science actually and the foundation of this has been laid by thinkers that were also Christians AND Creationists by that.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#5 Raisemeup

Raisemeup

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Wisconsin

Posted 28 October 2012 - 05:34 PM

Hi, this is my first post here, so I hope this doesn't sound confrontational. I don’t mean it to be. However, you asked for my thoughts, so I’m going to give them. I’m trying to understand exactly what you are driving at with your post. I fully appreciate one’s desire to find common ground and be charitable with their feelings as Christians ought. However, evolution is one of those ideas that fall into the “spitting the bad stuff” category, as you put it. We owe nothing to evolutionists. On the contrary, evolutionary philosophy has contributed to the extermination of hundreds of millions of people and potentially deprived us of life giving medical cures due to lack of research into supposed “junk” organs and DNA (among many other negative consequences).

In addition, you may correctly feel that we have things in common, but evolutionists certainly don’t! I've not met an evolutionist who doesn't feel that being a creationist disqualifies you from even being a scientist. They certainly don’t believe that creation scientists know or use the scientific method even though we came up with it. They also think we invented “micro-evolution” to move the goalposts even though evolutionists came up with the term. From my standpoint, we have almost everything in common except their insistence that evolution is a “fact” despite the evidence. The problem lies in convincing evolutionists that we have anything in common.

While I don’t know the evolutionists you cite in your post, I doubt they are “evolutionists” as I would define them. They simply happen to believe in evolution as most of us once did because of the forced indoctrination at the hands of an atheist evolutionary establishment. That is, are they “practicing” evolutionists? To put it another way, the physician that saved your children’s lives could just as well have been a creationist. It wouldn't have mattered either way; therefore you don’t “owe” anything to evolutionary philosophy having made a difference. On the other hand, the creationists you cite are practicing their creationist beliefs. No evolutionist could have given you those things whereas creationists could have taught you a love of science and experimentation just as well as any evolutionist.

Again, I respect your desire to find common ground, but I think you are being naive The true test comes regarding the teaching of alternative scientific theories in our schools. Nearly all creationists are willing to have students understand both sides. However, not only do evolutionists outlaw the teaching of creation theory, but they don’t even allow evidence contrary to evolution to be taught.

Lastly, science itself does not allow for “proof” of anything regarding historical scientific theories like evolution and creation. However, creationists have direct eye-witness accounts of those events upon which to base their theories. Evolutionists have only their fallible imaginations. There is a big difference between the two. And despite the fact that evolutionists insist that abiogenesis is not part of evolution, I've yet to see a biology textbook that doesn't cover it in the section on evolution.
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#6 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:45 PM

Hi, this is my first post here, so I hope this doesn't sound confrontational. I don’t mean it to be. However, you asked for my thoughts, so I’m going to give them. I’m trying to understand exactly what you are driving at with your post. I fully appreciate one’s desire to find common ground and be charitable with their feelings as Christians ought. However, evolution is one of those ideas that fall into the “spitting the bad stuff” category, as you put it. We owe nothing to evolutionists. On the contrary, evolutionary philosophy has contributed to the extermination of hundreds of millions of people and potentially deprived us of life giving medical cures due to lack of research into supposed “junk” organs and DNA (among many other negative consequences).

In addition, you may correctly feel that we have things in common, but evolutionists certainly don’t! I've not met an evolutionist who doesn't feel that being a creationist disqualifies you from even being a scientist. They certainly don’t believe that creation scientists know or use the scientific method even though we came up with it. They also think we invented “micro-evolution” to move the goalposts even though evolutionists came up with the term. From my standpoint, we have almost everything in common except their insistence that evolution is a “fact” despite the evidence. The problem lies in convincing evolutionists that we have anything in common.

While I don’t know the evolutionists you cite in your post, I doubt they are “evolutionists” as I would define them. They simply happen to believe in evolution as most of us once did because of the forced indoctrination at the hands of an atheist evolutionary establishment. That is, are they “practicing” evolutionists? To put it another way, the physician that saved your children’s lives could just as well have been a creationist. It wouldn't have mattered either way; therefore you don’t “owe” anything to evolutionary philosophy having made a difference. On the other hand, the creationists you cite are practicing their creationist beliefs. No evolutionist could have given you those things whereas creationists could have taught you a love of science and experimentation just as well as any evolutionist.

Again, I respect your desire to find common ground, but I think you are being naive The true test comes regarding the teaching of alternative scientific theories in our schools. Nearly all creationists are willing to have students understand both sides. However, not only do evolutionists outlaw the teaching of creation theory, but they don’t even allow evidence contrary to evolution to be taught.

Lastly, science itself does not allow for “proof” of anything regarding historical scientific theories like evolution and creation. However, creationists have direct eye-witness accounts of those events upon which to base their theories. Evolutionists have only their fallible imaginations. There is a big difference between the two. And despite the fact that evolutionists insist that abiogenesis is not part of evolution, I've yet to see a biology textbook that doesn't cover it in the section on evolution.


Yes I agree its a common thought that somehow ones belief in where we came from determines how critical we are when making judgments and looking at evidence etc... Its a common dishonest ploy evolutionists use since it now pervades the mindset of most people. Believing in God or random chance has nothing to do with ones own IQ and processes of logic, yet in physiology class in first year we were told that if you didn't believe in evolution you won't be a good doctor.... How this makes sense is unknown to me since a belief on where we come from makes no determination of how we assess and treat diseases or injury.

In fact its actually a demonstration of the lack of critical thinking on behalf of the evolutionist who propagates such a claim since it is inherently false. One can easily ask what happens when a Christian becomes an atheist? Does he or she instantly get smarter or more logical? No the person stays the same....


Yes contrary evidence is taboo in most science classes. It truely is a huge indoctrination session... If contrary evidence was allowed then that would break the spell allowing doubt... However introducing contrary evidence / viewpoints allows for a more critical view of evolution thus involve more critical thinking... Which is what they want to teach students, don't they? (rather than teach them what to think, teach them how to think and let them make their own choice).

#7 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • South Carolina

Posted 13 November 2012 - 06:33 PM

Hi,
Just getting back to posting. Thanks for your responses. There are two things that come to my mind.

1. Scriptures teaches to "follow after peace with all men (make every effort) and to be holy..."

I must admit this is difficult when discussing my core beliefs with those who differ. In fact it becomes nearly impossible for me to maintain my cool if the other person is using inflammatory remarks, misquoting scripture, or offering counter arguments which are ridiculous. My self-imposed challenge over the past year has been to work this out in my mind and attempt at best to follow the reference from Hebrews quoted above. Now this applies to evolution, doctrinal discussions with other Believers, political banter in the office, and specialized forum topics I like to visit.

I've noticed that I get much farther along in a discussion if I remember a few things. First is I don't make it personal by challenging their belief or calling them 'stupid'. Second, I like to ask them to explain in their own words what they think (not to trap them but to understand what they understand). Third, remember that if I'm discussing an issue with a unbeliever it really isn't about me. It's about the Holy Spirit working in their lives and thoughts to bring them to a saving understanding of Christ.

2. This leads me to this point from Thessalonians. "For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false".

Many evolutionists have become creationists not because they were won over by great arguments for creation. Rather its that life changing knowledge of Christ that opens their eyes and melts away their resistance to the Truth. The folly of their thinking then seems obvious, a real 'no' brainer.

I became a believer at 17, hard-core evolutionist with a belief that God was an ancient astronaut orbiting the earth. I was in my early 20's when I came to believe in all of scripture. I was challenged by the Word. Jesus in the NT believed in Noah, the global flood, and the six days of creation. That was a major dilemma I had to grasp, and to eventually accept.

My closing thoughts are focused between ourselves as Believers and those unbelievers who embrace evolution and consider the Bible to be a mythological work. What do we share in common? Clearly, without Christ we are stuck in ignorance, without hope, depraved, and condemned to an eternity without Him. Those of us who believe, we count it grace that we have been saved, not only our souls, the remainder of our lives on earth, but in our understanding of creation and all that God has done.

My point is that winning evolutionists to creationism has little to do with scientific debate, but rather the true knowledge of the gospel.

Those are my two-cents. =)

Regards,
Chuck

#8 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:57 PM

I've never heard of a creationist or intelligent design experiment which had the potential to falsify the hypothesis in question, and to my knowledge that is logically impossible. So ixnay there.

But creationists and "evolutionists" have a lot in common, we actually share most of our values (though we disagree on what the source of many of them are) and the same emotions and most of the same beliefs about the world. Almost all of our DNA is the same...

#9 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:02 PM

Exactly, though this is evidence that life requires something more than nature, it doesn't specify what. However in my opinion the name of God really doesn't matter, whether we say Allah or Jesus or something else its still an all powerful supernatural being who created the universe.

As socrates said, "the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms". No one has yet been able to explain to me what the difference is between a natural thing and a supernatural thing, and as far as I can tell something is pretty much just called "supernatural" if we don't understand it. Lightning and viruses and the movements of the planets were "supernatural" before we understood them, now they're not. I don't think they ever were, nor do I think anything we call supernatural is - we just use words like "supernatural" to feel like we have a handle on things when we have no clue.

Even if there was some kind of eternal being that made everything we still wouldn't have a clue what it was we were really talking about.

#10 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:14 PM

Hi, this is my first post here, so I hope this doesn't sound confrontational. I don’t mean it to be. However, you asked for my thoughts, so I’m going to give them. I’m trying to understand exactly what you are driving at with your post. I fully appreciate one’s desire to find common ground and be charitable with their feelings as Christians ought. However, evolution is one of those ideas that fall into the “spitting the bad stuff” category, as you put it. We owe nothing to evolutionists. On the contrary, evolutionary philosophy has contributed to the extermination of hundreds of millions of people and potentially deprived us of life giving medical cures due to lack of research into supposed “junk” organs and DNA (among many other negative consequences).

In addition, you may correctly feel that we have things in common, but evolutionists certainly don’t! I've not met an evolutionist who doesn't feel that being a creationist disqualifies you from even being a scientist. They certainly don’t believe that creation scientists know or use the scientific method even though we came up with it. They also think we invented “micro-evolution” to move the goalposts even though evolutionists came up with the term. From my standpoint, we have almost everything in common except their insistence that evolution is a “fact” despite the evidence. The problem lies in convincing evolutionists that we have anything in common.

While I don’t know the evolutionists you cite in your post, I doubt they are “evolutionists” as I would define them. They simply happen to believe in evolution as most of us once did because of the forced indoctrination at the hands of an atheist evolutionary establishment. That is, are they “practicing” evolutionists? To put it another way, the physician that saved your children’s lives could just as well have been a creationist. It wouldn't have mattered either way; therefore you don’t “owe” anything to evolutionary philosophy having made a difference. On the other hand, the creationists you cite are practicing their creationist beliefs. No evolutionist could have given you those things whereas creationists could have taught you a love of science and experimentation just as well as any evolutionist.

Again, I respect your desire to find common ground, but I think you are being naive The true test comes regarding the teaching of alternative scientific theories in our schools. Nearly all creationists are willing to have students understand both sides. However, not only do evolutionists outlaw the teaching of creation theory, but they don’t even allow evidence contrary to evolution to be taught.

Lastly, science itself does not allow for “proof” of anything regarding historical scientific theories like evolution and creation. However, creationists have direct eye-witness accounts of those events upon which to base their theories. Evolutionists have only their fallible imaginations. There is a big difference between the two. And despite the fact that evolutionists insist that abiogenesis is not part of evolution, I've yet to see a biology textbook that doesn't cover it in the section on evolution.

Evolution and darwin's writings did not contribute to or justify any mass-murder, in reality darwin was opposed to forced eugenics and said it would be an "overwhelming present evil" which is why his works are explicitly named in lists of books that were banned by the nazis. Furthermore "purifying" any race is in darwinian terms systematic inbreeding which not only goes against every evolutionary principle, but would've been known to be scientifically backward even before darwin by any farmer versed in the basic principles of animal husbandry. The reason the nazis' fake, made up version of science was accepted was that it came not from the scientists, but was forced into the schools and the media by the political wing and there was no free speech, so anyone who disagreed with it would be threatened, arrested or executed. Hitler also explicitly stated that he believed he was doing god's work, 96.4% of the people in nazi germany were christian according to census data, the nation didn't even practice separation of church and state, nazi soldiers swore an oath to god and the feurer and the waffen SS wore belt buckles that said "gott mitt uns", or "god with us" which is the literal meaning of the word immanuel, the name of the messiah in some parts of the bible. The official religion of the nazi party was what they called "positive christianity" which was just as much a distortion of the bible as their "science" was a distortion of actual scientific findings.

To claim that the holocaust happened because darwin wrote a book is just as ignorant as claiming it happened because of the bible. The holocaust was justified by countless lies in all areas of science, philosophy, politics and racist ideology.

#11 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:19 PM

Believing in God or random chance has nothing to do with ones own IQ and processes of logic, yet in physiology class in first year we were told that if you didn't believe in evolution you won't be a good doctor.... How this makes sense is unknown to me since a belief on where we come from makes no determination of how we assess and treat diseases or injury.

Evolution is considered the unifying theory of biology and in a more specific medical context understanding how and why life evolves is important for treating bacterial infections (which adapt to antibiotics), cancer (which adapts to both chemotherapy and radiation) etc. If a doctor rejected evolution and rejected that cancer cells adapt to chemo he could keep poisoning his patient long after the treatment had lost it's effectiveness, killing him in the process.

#12 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:23 PM

"Clearly, without Christ we are stuck in ignorance, without hope, depraved..."

What I find helps is to not start a conversation having total contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview.

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5546 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 November 2012 - 01:09 AM

Evolution is considered the unifying theory of biology and in a more specific medical context understanding how and why life evolves is important for treating bacterial infections (which adapt to antibiotics), cancer (which adapts to both chemotherapy and radiation) etc. If a doctor rejected evolution and rejected that cancer cells adapt to chemo he could keep poisoning his patient long after the treatment had lost it's effectiveness, killing him in the process.

Common descent (Darwins idea of evolution, read his book) has nothing to do with how cells adapt and survive within their own species.... Who ever said that things do not adapt ever? No-one has made this argument here, we just reject the unfounded extrapolation that small changes can "add up" for something to become a new species.

Please demonstrate how a doctor who believes we "evolved" from bacteria would be a better doctor than one who doesn't believe such.

#14 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:29 AM

Common descent (Darwins idea of evolution, read his book) has nothing to do with how cells adapt and survive within their own species.... Who ever said that things do not adapt ever? No-one has made this argument here, we just reject the unfounded extrapolation that small changes can "add up" for something to become a new species.

Please demonstrate how a doctor who believes we "evolved" from bacteria would be a better doctor than one who doesn't believe such.

When I asked "isn't natural selection pretty much accepted at this point?" your answer was:

"It is accepted as a means of deleting information from the gene pool and restricting the differences within a species."

Now you claim everyone accepts that it allows bacteria and cancer cells to adapt freely and no creationist rejects it. I see creationist websites fence-sitting the same way. They say "of course natural selection happens" but then keep repeating the same false claims they have repeated for years no matter how many times they're debunked about all or most mutations being harmful and mutations not being able to add "information".

#15 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • South Carolina

Posted 14 November 2012 - 05:59 PM

Hi,

As socrates said, "the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms". No one has yet been able to explain to me what the difference is between a natural thing and a supernatural thing, and as far as I can tell something is pretty much just called "supernatural" if we don't understand it.


I can't disagree with Socrates on this point, especially in discussing issues. Words and concepts matter. I've see two things as barriers to meaningful discussion. Word usage is one. The other is changing the premise.

Here's a word usage barrier: 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. Most creationists and evolutionists could come to some agreement about the concept of micro-evolution. (I've seen some try to parse it down for the point of arguing). I won't try to work with 'macro' evolution because the two camps do not agree on this concept. I tried...and it failed. I dislike arguments on semantics, they are boring, tiring, and unfortunately at times necessary.


Changing the premise. For those of you my age and older you will remember how evolution used to be taught in high school and college. I've learned recently that evolutionist no longer like to discuss primordial ooze and the development of proto-life. It has been assigned to a field of abiogenesis and that the poor chemists have taken this hot potato from biologists. Consequently this no longer 'valid' in the EvsC debate.

I know it was important for evolutionary philosophers to remove this problem from the discussion since it was not founded on empirical data (e.g. constructing life from non-life in a simulated prehistoric environment). It was clearly faith driven. Now with that element of faith removed, the theory can seem 'more scientific' and not simply pseudo-science.

Now we end up with this issue. I believe this is an acceptable statement describing the core issue.

The issue at stake is the long-term implication of evolution, that man eventually 'micro evolved' from a proto-life organism over a period of a billion years via natural and randomized processes.

This is my opinion and assessment of evolution related to the issue above: I know that when all of the current scientific data is reviewed that falls under the umbrella of 'micro evolution' there is is hardly sufficient evidence to indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that man evolved from proto-life. There remains far, far too many unproven pieces. In fact our knowledge of the human genome is just now entering the pre-adolescence phase. We've a long way to go before scientists can state unequivocally that man has evolved in this manner.

Evolutionists that attack this assessment are often 'philosophically and religiously' invested in evolution. It forms their world view. Now, this is not a problem to me. We seem to be religious creatures and we will find it somehow.

What do we have in common?
* seek to understand the human genome and how to read its 'information' correctly
* seek evidence to understand biological development of life
* seek to cure all diseases associated with the health of man, to improve quality of life and possibility its longevity

I may have digressed. But reading what you wrote has given me a lot to think about.

Regards,
Chuck

#16 eclectic1993

eclectic1993

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • South Carolina

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:29 PM

What I find helps is to not start a conversation having total contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview.

Gotta agree with this point. Years ago I would have called you weak. =) But with time I've come to appreciate respectful dialog and opposing ideas. j/k

I think you can honestly admit that many evolutionists on evolutionary leaning origin websites are often quite disrespectful and insulting? I don't mean taking issue with points and facts but personally libeling those of different viewpoints. I understand the reaction of creationists, quite human, still not a good excuse.

Of course the URL 'evolutionfairytale.com' doesn't scream 'fair and balanced' does it? =) However, I do share a common 'belief' and 'world-view' with many people here and have read many reasonable posts focusing on facts.

As a creationist, I will continue to allow God to convict others to speak nicely to others. As an evolutionist, you'll need to be patient as we humans continue to evolve and eliminate all forms of sarcasm, contempt, ridicule, etc. from our speech. One way or the other it might just happen. =) I'm just kidding here and am not trying to be offensive.

Regards,
Chuck

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5546 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 November 2012 - 07:58 PM

When I asked "isn't natural selection pretty much accepted at this point?" your answer was:

"It is accepted as a means of deleting information from the gene pool and restricting the differences within a species."

Now you claim everyone accepts that it allows bacteria and cancer cells to adapt freely and no creationist rejects it. I see creationist websites fence-sitting the same way. They say "of course natural selection happens" but then keep repeating the same false claims they have repeated for years no matter how many times they're debunked about all or most mutations being harmful and mutations not being able to add "information".


Firstly you have dodged demonstrating how a doctor who believes we "evolved" from bacteria is any better than a doctor who doesn't believe in that.


Secondly you have demonstrated that you don't actually know what natural selection is...

Natural selection (obviously) selects traits from the genepool over time this limits the genepool and the variablity within. Natural selection has no mechanism for the creation of information... Unless you are alluding to something totally different, like mutation, (which therefore isn't natural selection, and my point stands), however even Dawkins cannot specify of the actual mechanism by which NEW information is created.

Here is a paradox for you. DNA contains our genetic information :) Mendels laws state that an offspring will normally have the same amount of DNA as the parents, therefore if we "evolved" from bacteria which only had one chromosome, where did all the other chromosomes come from?

I have asked this before and have yet to recieve a satisfying answer.

In order to cut away the chaff I will pre-emptively debunk the most popular (false) evo answers.


- replication with errors create offspring with extra chromosomes- correct however this leads to either death or disfunction (like downs syndrome), if this were the true face of evolutionary new information, then we can claim that people with downs syndrome are the next evolution of humans....

- Plants can do it.. Yes they can, to a degree, however animals can't and generally animals are the big topic in evolutionary discussions.

#18 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:00 AM

Hi,


I can't disagree with Socrates on this point, especially in discussing issues. Words and concepts matter. I've see two things as barriers to meaningful discussion. Word usage is one. The other is changing the premise.

Here's a word usage barrier: 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. Most creationists and evolutionists could come to some agreement about the concept of micro-evolution. (I've seen some try to parse it down for the point of arguing). I won't try to work with 'macro' evolution because the two camps do not agree on this concept. I tried...and it failed. I dislike arguments on semantics, they are boring, tiring, and unfortunately at times necessary.


Changing the premise. For those of you my age and older you will remember how evolution used to be taught in high school and college. I've learned recently that evolutionist no longer like to discuss primordial ooze and the development of proto-life. It has been assigned to a field of abiogenesis and that the poor chemists have taken this hot potato from biologists. Consequently this no longer 'valid' in the EvsC debate.

I know it was important for evolutionary philosophers to remove this problem from the discussion since it was not founded on empirical data (e.g. constructing life from non-life in a simulated prehistoric environment). It was clearly faith driven. Now with that element of faith removed, the theory can seem 'more scientific' and not simply pseudo-science.

Now we end up with this issue. I believe this is an acceptable statement describing the core issue.

The issue at stake is the long-term implication of evolution, that man eventually 'micro evolved' from a proto-life organism over a period of a billion years via natural and randomized processes.

This is my opinion and assessment of evolution related to the issue above: I know that when all of the current scientific data is reviewed that falls under the umbrella of 'micro evolution' there is is hardly sufficient evidence to indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that man evolved from proto-life. There remains far, far too many unproven pieces. In fact our knowledge of the human genome is just now entering the pre-adolescence phase. We've a long way to go before scientists can state unequivocally that man has evolved in this manner.

Evolutionists that attack this assessment are often 'philosophically and religiously' invested in evolution. It forms their world view. Now, this is not a problem to me. We seem to be religious creatures and we will find it somehow.

What do we have in common?
* seek to understand the human genome and how to read its 'information' correctly
* seek evidence to understand biological development of life
* seek to cure all diseases associated with the health of man, to improve quality of life and possibility its longevity

I may have digressed. But reading what you wrote has given me a lot to think about.

Regards,
Chuck

Macro evolution is defined as evolution above the species level, ie speciation and anything above that. Speciation (the splitting of one species into two) is well observed in nature and in the lab and has been for some time. And common ancestry is considered extremely well supported by biologists, geneticists and paleontologists. Here is what you get when you plug the data of every genome sequenced so far into a computer and have a computer program map them by their level of genetic relatedness:

http://upload.wikime...of_life_SVG.svg

This not only supports the idea of common ancestry in and of itself, but follows the exact pattern predicted by the fossil record of relatively when different parts of the family tree of life branched off from each other. Common ancestry can be verified genetically, chronologically in the fossil record and through embryology which shows species developing and losing traits in the womb from their evolutionary past.

The claim that "I've learned recently that evolutionist no longer like to discuss primordial ooze and the development of proto-life. It has been assigned to a field of abiogenesis and that the poor chemists have taken this hot potato from biologists. Consequently this no longer 'valid' in the EvsC debate." is not accurate. It was never considered a valid part of the debate, as darwin said in On The Origin Of Species "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated". Darwin assumed there was a creator, he didn't even believe in abiogenesis. How can it be a valid part of the debate if life observably evolves regardless of how it originated? And it's never been an article of faith or to my knowledge dogmatically promoted as fact. It has been experimentally tested, though of course this is incredibly hard since we know nothing of what a proto-organism would even be. But experiments in chemestry are still scientific and are not "faith based".

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:18 AM


1. Macro evolution is defined as evolution above the species level, ie speciation and anything above that.

2. Speciation (the splitting of one species into two)

3. is well observed in nature and in the lab and has been for some time. And common ancestry is considered extremely well supported by biologists, geneticists and paleontologists. Here is what you get when you plug the data of every genome sequenced so far into a computer and have a computer program map them by their level of genetic relatedness:


4. This not only supports the idea of common ancestry

5. in and of itself, but follows the exact pattern predicted by the fossil record of relatively when different parts of the family tree of life branched off from each other.

6. Common ancestry can be verified genetically, chronologically in the fossil record and through embryology which shows species developing and losing traits in the womb from their evolutionary past.

7. It was never considered a valid part of the debate, as darwin said in On The Origin Of Species "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated". Darwin assumed there was a creator, he didn't even believe in abiogenesis. How can it be a valid part of the debate if life observably evolves regardless of how it originated? And it's never been an article of faith or to my knowledge dogmatically promoted as fact.

8. It has been experimentally tested, though of course this is incredibly hard since we know nothing of what a proto-organism would even be. But experiments in chemestry are still scientific and are not "faith based".


1. Correct

2. Wow two in a row, also correct

3. Damn no hattrick... Please give evidence of this statement, your words are not golden, if they are please claim that I have $10000000000000000 in the bank so it magically it appears :D

4. Glad you admit its merely an idea :D

5. Any prediction made ad hoc is not a PREdiction.. In otherwords you've demonstrated that the evolutionists "know" that evolution is true and then try to make the evidence fit and then claim it as a "prediction" despite it being made ad hoc...

Its as scientific as me saying "I predicted Obama would be reelected, after I found out he was reelected, and then claiming that "prediction" was evidence of me being a psychic.

6. Again, evidence!

7. You've just given evidence of Dawin being unscientific :D :D :D

- we rightly are concerned about HOW evolution works (nerve becoming sensitive to light), that is one of the biggest problems with evolution- see my statements about Biochemistry and evolution, read Darwins Black Box.

- considering that Dawkins has proclaimed that evolution has solved everything for Biology, that there is nowhere for God to hide, that evolution ties all Biology together, this would indeed infer that evolution would have something to do with abiogenesis... Or is the beginning of life not a part of Biology?

8. Again evidence... (could say more but I want to hear what you say rather than me building strawmen)

#20 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:20 AM

"Firstly you have dodged demonstrating how a doctor who believes we "evolved" from bacteria is any better than a doctor who doesn't believe in that."

No, I explained it in my first response and you went "la la la la I can't hear you". Like you always do.

"Secondly you have demonstrated that you don't actually know what natural selection is...
Natural selection (obviously) selects traits from the genepool over time this limits the genepool and the variablity within. Natural selection has no mechanism for the creation of information... Unless you are alluding to something totally different, like mutation, (which therefore isn't natural selection, and my point stands), however even Dawkins cannot specify of the actual mechanism by which NEW information is created."

You're just being childish, obviously natural selection and mutation go hand in hand. Do I need to explain everything about basic biology in every single comment? Bear in mind you also criticized me for failure to explain that my views are my views. This is the hyper-critical nonsense people focus on when they have no argument.

"Here is a paradox for you. DNA contains our genetic information Posted Image Mendels laws state that an offspring will normally have the same amount of DNA as the parents,"

No, his laws do not state that as they were published many years before the discovery of DNA, long before "DNA" was even coined as a term, and over a century before the sequencing of the first genome.

"therefore if we "evolved" from bacteria which only had one chromosome, where did all the other chromosomes come from?
I have asked this before and have yet to recieve a satisfying answer."

First of all, no you haven't. Second of all I posted a brief video in one of my responses to you that deals specifically with with the fusion and separation of human chromosomes which you refused to watch.

"In order to cut away the chaff I will pre-emptively debunk the most popular (false) evo answers.
- replication with errors create offspring with extra chromosomes- correct however this leads to either death or disfunction (like downs syndrome), if this were the true face of evolutionary new information, then we can claim that people with downs syndrome are the next evolution of humans...."

The beginnings and ends of chromosomes changing due to mutation and having a chromosome be copied twice are two different things, as the video you demanded I post and then refused to watch explains chromosomes are just chunks of DNA separated during mitosis. Duplication mutations are common and cause harmful effects depending entirely on the placement of the DNA duplicated and the content of the DNA duplicated. Many duplications are completely neutral and to give an example of this there are organisms that contain multiple entire copies of their genome - wheat has I think six copies of it's entire genome and some microbes have genomes over 100 times the size of the human genome due to duplication mutations.

"- Plants can do it.. Yes they can, to a degree, however animals can't and generally animals are the big topic in evolutionary discussions."

Do what, survive duplication mutations? The video I posted at your request which you refuse to watch gives specific examples of duplicated DNA in our genome.

See no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users