Cration Vs. Evolution

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by wrath99, Dec 25, 2009.

  1. truthguild

    truthguild New Member

    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no scientist claims that life began, nor evolved in volcanic eruptions. it is believed to have occured in water near thermal vents.
    not very relevant.
    evolution has been directly observed multiple times both in the lab and in the wild. not very good fairy tale material. creation ex nihilo, however, has never been observed nor has any evidence for it ever been discovered.
    it's an important part. mutation +natural selection is evolution.
    viruses, not technically being alive, don't have species. formation of new species among living organisms has been observed many times, however.
    in other words, they evolve.
    logical fallacy - argument from personal incredulity.
     
  2. fractalfeline

    fractalfeline New Member

    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like how some of the early posters essentially said that you can't compare Creation to Evolution. Apples and oranges, so to speak. The laws of nature and the way things ARE has little to do with HOW THEY CAME TO BE. The main contention in the misnamed argument "Creation vs. Evolution" is whether God created the raw materials and laws, or if there is no intelligent force that drove the creation of said raw materials and laws. Was it pure random chaos, something out of nothing? Was there something before the beginning? Was there a primordial firecracker before the Big Bang? When did time begin? (There are even some out there who believe that Time doesn't really even exist, but I digress.) Is this even the first incarnation of the Universe as we know it, or was there a previous universe? Are there multiple universes? Is there something outside of/removed from the universe and all contained within?

    Anyone who claims to KNOW with CERTAINTY the answers to these questions is outright lying. With our current understanding, there is no KNOWING. It's just... belief. One way or the other. Beliefs can be justified with observations... that's the essence of Science, to observe existence and attempt to describe it accurately. Many philosophers and scientists have hit the proverbial wall; that is, how can we trust our own observations and perceptions to be correct? Or like the Schrodinger's dilemma: does the observation tend to influence the behavior of the universe?

    The idea with Science is that we create models, theories, systems to describe how things work, so as to accurately predict the behavior, based on prior observations. The universe is rigid enough that we CAN make fairly accurate observations, and behavior tends to be pretty stable. But what if the chaotic factor was a little bit greater? Are there such things in nature that cannot be accurately described and predicted because they change too much, subject to too much entropy? Or is it all just so complicated that we haven't discovered the most basic laws and equations yet, and once we do, we'll understand the whole universe enough to predict it to the most minute detail?

    Are we even capable of this level of understanding?

    Fun questions. :) :) :)
     
  3. ejweb

    ejweb New Member

    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It all comes down to what you believe is true based on what is seen (physical) and what is not seen (spiritual). It's amazing how many people may not believe in creation but believe in a "devil". Yes, I'm a strong believer in the Almighty God and Yeshua. Evolution and Darwin(ism) has too many holes in it. That's why it's still a "theory" and not fact. Here's an interesting article (if anyone is interested); http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/evolution-intelligent-design-debate.htm.
     
  4. truthguild

    truthguild New Member

    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    calling it a theory and not a fact is nothing more than a demonstration of ignorance to scientific terminolgy.
    in science, theories and facts are unrelated, and one never becomes the other. a fact is an observation - a theory explains a related set of facts. evolution, thus, is both a fact and a theory.
    regarding the interview with wells, it should also be noted that intelligent design - or as i like to call it, creationism in a labcoat, has not produced a single paper in a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal (evolutionary theory has about a quarter million of them).
    no valid evidence has ever been provided to support creationism, creationism provides no answer to much of the evidence that is available (human chromosome 2, common interspecies ERV insertions, etc), creationism makes no testable predictions like evolutionary theory does (the location to search for what became known as tiktaalik was chosen based on it), and creationism has no explanatory power while requiring explanations for itself.
     
  5. joejv4

    joejv4 New Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And at the same time, evolution theory has far too many holes in it to explain life on planet earth today. As was previously mentioned, we do not know "The Origin of the Species", rather Evolution is one way we attempt to explain it. Maybe 50 or 100 years from now, we will have learned enough to understand "where we came from", but right now evolution and intelligent design both leave too much unexplained.

    According to evolution, all life started from the same single celled organism that somehow came to life. How that organism came to be alive as opposed to being inert, can be left out of the equation here. From the basic premise that all life originated from a single cell, evolution can not explain how random mutations could have possibly gone from one cell to plant cells and animal cells , vertabrates and invertabrates, connifers and desiduous trees, annual and perennial flowers, insects, mammals, reptiles, birds, bacteria, viruses, plankton, and zooplankton, aquatic and terrestrial life forms. Not to mention all of the different phylums, families, genus' and species of the different types of "living" things. Evolution does a great job explaining the nature of sub-species and how similar species may have come from a common species, but that's about as far as it goes.
     
  6. truthguild

    truthguild New Member

    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i'm guessing you have never taken a college course on evolutionary theory, it does a very good job of explaining all that except the origin of life - which is a different scientific discipline altogether. on the other hand, intelligent design leaves everything to be explain since it fails to explain any of it.

    Creationists often complain that science supposedly says there was only one universal ancestor of all livings and that along the way, we evolved both into, and then from, bacteria. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. 21st century revelations in genomic research now imply that the origins of evolution come quite a while after the origin of life. There are now indications that at the root of each of the largest possible taxonomic divisions, there was a point when “descent” (as it is currently understood) was not yet occuring, (at least not in any determinable lineage) and instead there was a sort of horozontal gene transfer going on which could not truly be considered part of the evolutionary process.

    By definition, evolution requires inherited genetic frequencies, but the co-requirement of "descent with modification" only allows for one series of ancestors rather than multiple lines of largely unrelated ones being inexplicably blended together. While taxonomy still points to a single common ancestor for all eukaryotes, that ancestor seems to be one of two or maybe three cellular siblings who evidently did not all descend from any sort of shared conventional parent! So at the point where an actual evolutionary phylogeny began to take over more or less exclusively, the domain, Eukarya had evidently already emerged separately and quite distinct from either of the "prokaryote" lineages.

    The only way to objectively categorize all sorts of life is by their common characters, those features shared by every member of that collective and only by them. This is how their traits become diagnostic and directly indicative of unique groups. Let us also remember that the first man to attempt to classify all living things was a convinced Christian creationist who knew of no other option as he had never heard of evolution, and had never even conceived of common ancestry, and therefore certainly wasn’t trying to defend or promote either one. But the system he originally devised, -which is still in use today- determines that everything that is truly alive can be divided into two main branches which each then continue diverging in an ongoing series of subdivisions emerging within parental sets, henceforth known as clades.

    The accuracy of divisions at the base of Eukarya are still being explored, because Protista turned out to be way too diverse to be considered a single grouping. But there’s no speculation required to determine that humans definitely descend from eukaryotes because it is a verifiable fact that every one of our cells is initially nucleic.

    Moving on, one notable subset of Eukarya is Opisthokonta, who's gammete cells have a single posterior flagellum. One subset of this this group is Metazoa, also known as Kingdom, Animalia, multicellular opisthokonts which must ingest other organisms in some sort of digestive tract in order to survive. The biological definition, and in fact even the common dictionary defintions describe humans as belonging to the animal kingdom. Creationists howl at that idea that they should be animals, but if you have any knowledge at all of what an animal even is, then you know that you are one! This isn’t a matter of opinion either; It is a fact, and we can prove it!

    Taxonomy is based as much on an organism's physiognamy, reproduction, and development as it is on the form itself. For this reason, the animal kingdom is then divided between the sponges, and everything more advanced than that -including Bilateria. These are triploblast animals which at some stage of development are bilaterally-symetrical. One subset of that is Coelomata, bilaterally-symetrical animals with a tubular internal digestive cavity. One of its subsequent subdivisions is Deuterostomia, coelomates in which early development of the digestive tract begins with a blastopore opening the anal orafice before the one for the mouth.

    This is a strange thing to have in common with every other 'higher" life form. If they were specially-created, one might think that any of them could develop by some other means, or in some other order. Maybe snails would develop like mammals, and fish develop like squids, something like that, something that wouldn't only indicate an inherited trait consistent with both the genetics and morphology of common ancestry. But instead, every vertebrate has red blood while chelicerates and mollusks all have blue blood, with no exceptions on either side. Everything we see in nature consistently adheres to everything we would expect of a chain of inherited variations carried down through flowering lines of descent, just as it is in this case too. Starfish, sea urchins, acorn worms and every single thing that ever had a spinal chord all develop the opening for the anus first. Isn't that odd? The common ancestry model obvious explains this fact, but to date no would-be critic of evolution has ever been able to offer any explanation of this, or any of the other trends we see in taxonomy.

    The next definitely determinable division includes Chordata, Deuterostomes with a spinal chord. This group includes Craniates, which are Chordates with a brain enclosed inside a skull. A subset of this group also includes vertebrates, which also have spinal vertebrae descending from the skull. And the next subset is Gnathostomata, vertebrates that have all that plus a jawbone.

    Remember that we’re only following one lineage, and that each of the left or right turns we take cause us to overlook the other branches that may become just as hugely diverse as the one we’re on; sometimes much more so. But staying on our course, the next fork in the road lies between Gnathostomes who’s skeletons are either cartilaginous or calcified. The right turn here leads us to Sarcopterygii, bony vertebrates which have both lungs and legs. One subset of that are the Stegocephalians; limbed vertebrates with digits on the ends of their appendages. This clade includes a sub-clade called Tetrapoda, which are now gill-less Stegocephalians which are skeletally-adapted for four limbs. Included in that are the Anthracosaurs, pentadactyl post-aquatic 'terrestrial' tetrapods. We now also begin to see more pronounced development of the brain.

    One of the anthracosaurian subsets reveals a seemingly small aberration but one which is among the rarest and most profound because the difference is developmental. These are usually the most integral and therefore the hardest things to change, and normally wouldn’t be expected to be significant –unless the environment changed profoundly, as it would in the adaptation from sea to land. The development of the amnion made this transition possible, and was evidently inherited by all the mammals, reptiles, and birds to come since.
    [cont]
     
  7. truthguild

    truthguild New Member

    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [cont]
    Here another division occurs, this time determined by the number of holes appearing in a particular place in the structure of the skull. On the one-hand we have Synapsids with one temporal fenestra. On the other hand, we have what are traditionally known as “reptiles”, starting with anapsids that have no temporal fenestra, and Diapsids which have two. That line can be shown to divide again between Lepidosaurs on one side, which divide into plesiosaurs and other things including lizards, which also divided into many different sub-groups including snakes. The Archosaurs on the other side also divide into crocodilians, phytosaurs, pterosaurs, and dinosaurs, which themselves divide again and again, and eventually include a subset we now know as birds.

    All the taxonomic levels are readily evident of course with many more clades now than anyone ever expected to find –so many in fact that the original construct can no longer bear the weight of all the new data. But not all the organisms in these clades are yet “fully” in the forms we find familiar today because there are so many obvious transitions at every level. One of the many examples of that is a Synapsid subset known as Therapsids, with increasingly mammal-like skeletal formations as well as vestigial stages evident in the continually advancing development of the brain.

    Within that set are Cynodonts, therapsids with canine teeth. They’re actually a parent clade of Theria, the mammals, themselves identified are endothermic warm-blooded therapsids with lactal glands. Even the ones who eventually lost their canines still belong to this group because some members of usually fangless mammals still have those teeth. That, and of course because even when something is born without one or more features diagnostic of its parents, it must still be recognized as part of that family.

    All the mammals alive today belong to one of three major divisions which are only a fraction of the major mammal forms that used to exist. In some respects, the platypus is the sole surviving karyotype illustrating what was the norm of mammalian diversity but which is now found only in fossil record.

    The most familiar race of modern mammals are eutherians, which have nipples like marsupials, but are born in a placenta. This clade contains many subgroups at various levels, one of which includes the clades for both bats and primates.

    Remember how we can objectively verify that every member all these groups still belongs to every parent clade already listed, and we can do the same for every subdivision from this point on.

    For example,

    “Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

    We don’t believe this because we want to! And why would we want to? We believe it because we can prove it really is true, and that applies to everyone whether you want to believe it or not. We’re not just saying you’ve descended from primates either; we’re saying you ARE a primate! Humans have been classified as primates since the 1700s when a Christian creationist scientist figured out what a primate was –and prompted other scientists to figure out why that applied to us.

    It wouldn’t be this way if different “kinds” of life had been magically-created unrelated to anything else; not unless God wanted to trick us into believing everything had evolved. Because the phylogenetic tree of life is plainly evident from the bottom up to any objective observer who dares compare the anatomy of different sets of collective life forms. But it can be just as objectively confirmed from the top down when re-examined genetically. This is why it is referred to as a “twin-nested hierarchy”. But there’s still more than that because the evident development of physiology and morphology can be confirmed biochemically as well as chronologically in geology and developmentally in embryology. Why should that be? And how do creationists explain why it is that every living thing fits into all of these daughter sets within parent groups, each being derived according to apparently inherited traits? They don’t even try to explain any of that, or anything else. They won’t because they can’t, because evolution is the only explanation that accounts for any of this, and it explains it all.
     
  8. joejv4

    joejv4 New Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice... however, evolution does not explain it all. Where in this great taxonomic tree can a divergence between plant and animal be observed? From the mysterious first living organism, how, in such a short time frame, did hundreds or thousands of different distinct species of plants and animals "evolve" in parallel so rapidly? Evolution can not explain that, and I don't care how many obscure terms you use to support it, it still doesn't explain how all life on this planet has a common origin. The simple examination of the genome of different life forms disproves the common origin theory.
     
  9. truthguild

    truthguild New Member

    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    pretty early on, it's a divergence within Opisthokonta.
    over 3 billion years is rapid? esp. when many of those organisms have a generation span of about 20 minutes?
    it just did, and that was only using a taxonomic approach. you can follow the genetic record in the other direction and you get the exact same result.
    let's test that...
    in genetics, protein sequence is produced through translation of a non-overlapping degenerate triplet code, eg. GCA, GCT, GCG, and GCC all code for Alanine).
    so if there is:
    GCT GCT GCT GCT GCT and it gets the following 2 mutations
    GCT GCC GCT GCA GCT it won't be afected.
    but there is a complication, codon bias affects the rate of translation, and thus has an impact on fitness.
    1 amino acid is special - Glutamic Acid (coded by GAA or GAG) shows no codon bias.
    where am i going with all this? simple; evolutionary theory makes a prediction. closely related species should still show these identical in the same locations of the genome due to it's low mutation rate, even though that mutation would not matter.
    intelligent design and creationism: make no prediction, are not testable (and thus not theories).
    so let's look at the coding for Glutamic Acid in the hemoglobin alpha and beta chains of 3 species evolutionary theory considers closely related: Human, Chimp, and Rhesus Monkey.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    12 of 12 codons match exactly in 2 species closely related to us - just as evolutionary theory predicts, and for which there is no reason if each was specially created. The probability of that occuring without common ancestry is 1:16,777,216.
    every discovery we ever make about genetics universally supports evolutionary theory.

    your turn - post an example of positive evidence supporting creationism and explain how it could potentially flasify creationism.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2010

Share This Page