Creationism isn't Right

[A_Wanderer]

But it does prove without doubt that it wasn't created in 6 days.

Technically it doesn't prove it 100% because there is the off chance that our understanding of basically everything is wrong, the possibility that what we understand today could be wrong does exist even if in some things it is overwhelmingly unlikely. The threshold that we live on an earth that is billions of years old for instance has a very high confidence level on the basis of different lines of evidence.

 

[BVS]

Technically it doesn't prove it 100% because there is the off chance that our understanding of basically everything is wrong, the possibility that what we understand today could be wrong does exist even if in some things it is overwhelmingly unlikely. The threshold that we live on an earth that is billions of years old for instance has a very high confidence level on the basis of different lines of evidence.

Well I do think there is a fine line between an "absolute" and a "without a doubt", granted a fine line, but yes you are right there are no absolutes...

 

[BVS]

Maybe he thought my email address was phillyfan36 instead of 26.

No, he sent it through God, mine came delivered by a dragon.

 

[INDY500]

But the question of speciation and the fossil record is reconciled by the discoveries in modern biology of allopatric speciation mechanisms where peripheral small populations are able to change rapidly unlike large stable ones then overtaking the geographical extent of the original one thus providing a new species in their place as well as the discoveries in epigenetics which reveal the plasticity in organism development from which macroevolutionary changes emerge.

Doesn't sound like the origin of a species to me. To me, that sounds like a trait that already exists in a species simply becoming more prominent in the whole population in response to a changing environment.

 

[phillyfan26]

Well I do think there is a fine line between an "absolute" and a "without a doubt", granted a fine line, but yes you are right there are no absolutes...

I'd hate to imagine 2861U2 on a jury.

 

[BVS]

I'd hate to imagine 2861U2 on a jury.

Don't scare me like that...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Doesn't sound like the origin of a species to me. To me, that sounds like a trait that already exists in a species simply becoming more prominent in the whole population in response to a changing environment.

So you accept that there is variation within species through mutuation and sexual reproduction and that those variations are heritable. If the population is small then genetic drift isn't as strong a stabilising factor and the degree of change in the entire population can be greater. If the change in a peripheral population reaches a point where it means members of those populations can't mate with members of the main population then it is a new biological species and over time because of the genetic barrier between them variations will accumulate.

Measuring the degree of variation between sequences of DNA in different species can be used as a measurement for relatedness.

 

[2861U2]

You guys are pretty funny. I dont speak for all Christians. I never said I did and I do not want to.

philly: God did not write the Bible. Look at most Bibles, at the beginning of each book it will state the author or compiler of the stories. The Bible is full of many stories and accounts written by many people. The Bible is God's Word because each story, every word, informs us about God, His love, His plan, etc, not because He wrote it. That's not right.

BVS: I already explained how the story of creation was told. It was told by God to Adam, Abraham and finally Moses on Mount Sinai.

You know what? I feel like I am wasting my time here. In a debate like this, where you guys think facts are all thats important, you will win every time. I have defended my faith and cannot back it up with these golden facts because it is impossible. That's what Christianity is. It is living a life of faith that others on the outside simply cannot comprehend.

Every single Sunday School class I attended, every church service I have sat through, every youth camp I went on has made me who I am. I live every day of my life through Jesus Christ and for Jesus Christ. I am not going to throw it all away because some scientist found a fossil. Am I "ignoring the facts" then? Fine. So be it. I'll "ignore the facts." My God is greater than that.

In the end, my God is going to judge me on a number of things. He is going to judge me based on whether or not I believed solely and completely in Him, whether or not I cried His name in the bad times, whether or not I praised His name in the good times, and whether or not I let the sinful world dictate to me what to follow. I dont think He is going to judge me based on how many scientific facts I knew or accepted.

Science is good. Science is interesting. Science is important. But science is only science. God is God. Nothing compares to the understanding of what He can do, and the greatness of what He can accomplish.

I am done with this thread.

 

[INDY500]

So you accept that there is variation within species through mutuation and sexual reproduction and that those variations are heritable. If the population is small then genetic drift isn't as strong a stabilising factor and the degree of change in the entire population can be greater. If the change in a peripheral population reaches a point where it means members of those populations can't mate with members of the main population then it is a new biological species and over time because of the genetic barrier between them variations will accumulate.

Measuring the degree of variation between sequences of DNA in different species can be used as a measurement for relatedness.

The slow division of a population into separate populations that cannot interbreed does not, to me, prove that given enough time a fish can evolve into a mammal. You are creating a new species only in definition.

Thousands of years of breeding dogs have
1) produced dogs that can't interbreed with all other dogs
2) produced nothing but dogs

 

[BVS]

BVS: I already explained how the story of creation was told. It was told by God to Adam, Abraham and finally Moses on Mount Sinai.

My point of asking you that question was to get you to think.

For two reasons...

Don't you think God may have told the story of creation in a metaphor because that was the only way they would have understood it? How do you tell someone who thinks the Earth is flat about the all the complexities and scientific reasoning of how the universe was created? You can't, so you tell them in a way they understand.

Plus there was no means of recording history in these times, so these stories got passed down for generations before the written language. So picture a big game of 'telephone' for years and years before someone actually wrote them down. The stories would have changed...

This is why I take nothing in the OT to be literal.

 

[hardyharhar]

Haven't you got anything constructive to say...about Japanese men in rubber monster costumes.

This looks like a pretty good time

A 400 ft. T- Rex, rising from it's undersea hibernation cuz of atomic testing, determined to destroy Tokyo. Only Dr. Serizawa can save us.........

 

[BVS]

2) produced nothing but dogs

That's only if you consider this to be a dog

 

[hardyharhar]

That's only if you consider this to be a dog

 

[INDY500]

Science is good. Science is interesting. Science is important. But science is only science. God is God. Nothing compares to the understanding of what He can do, and the greatness of what He can accomplish.

I am done with this thread.

Hate to see you go as you bring up an excellent point.

Christianity versus Darwinism is not, as most here would like to define it, faith versus fact, but is closer to philosophy versus philosophy, or worldview versus worldview.

You took more BS and gruff than I ever could.

God bless.

 

[INDY500]

This looks like a pretty good time

A 400 ft. T- Rex, rising from it's undersea hibernation cuz of atomic testing, determined to destroy Tokyo. Only Dr. Serizawa can save us.........

With the oxygen thingy.

By the way, is your screen name a reference to Ralph Kramden or Lippy the Lion?

 

[BVS]

Can anyone tell me what other religions say about the creation of the universe?

 

[hardyharhar]

I give 2861U2 credit because he is a bit outnumbered here. And everyone is civil with each other, which can be difficult with an emotional subject.

 

[BVS]

I give 2861U2 credit because he is a bit outnumbered here. And everyone is civil with each other, which can be difficult with an emotional subject.

And I do agree to a certain extent, but it's extremely difficult(for me at least) to talk to someone who has such a hard time backing themselves up.

This is a poster who when asked why you believe this, has answered well "Rush told me", or "the Bible says" etc.

And you can't really have a discussion with someone like that.

I wonder if the Bible said "humans have 4 legs" would he argue that humans had 4 legs?

 

[INDY500]

Can anyone tell me what other religions say about the creation of the universe?

Well, since we're turning Japanese (I think I like it)

First came the 3 creating Deities, then some more heavenly Deities were born but with nothing really to do, two of these were sent to earth, Izanagi and Izanami, to basically form the island of Japan, they eventually begot all kinds of gods and goddesses to rule over the wind, seas, clouds, trees, mountains.

And I apologize if I don't have it exactly right or have missed something.

 

[hardyharhar]

It is kinda like And the lemming factor does concern me, because it seems people are much more easily manipulated these days by fear.

 

[INDY500]

I wonder if the Bible said "humans have 4 legs" would he argue that humans had 4 legs?

You guys are the ones saying humans had 4 legs, not the Bible, if I understand the "facts" of Darwinism.

 

[hardyharhar]

Then, out of the seas. The monster of all monsters............................. Godzilla!!!!!!!!!

Breathing fire and extremely pissed.

 

[hardyharhar]

You guys are the ones saying humans had 4 legs, not the Bible, if I understand the "facts" of Darwinism.

Touche

 

[BVS]

You guys are the ones saying humans had 4 legs, not the Bible, if I understand the "facts" of Darwinism.

They weren't humans then.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The slow division of a population into separate populations that cannot interbreed does not, to me, prove that given enough time a fish can evolve into a mammal. You are creating a new species only in definition.

Thousands of years of breeding dogs have
1) produced dogs that can't interbreed with all other dogs
2) produced nothing but dogs

A new species in definition is the finely graduated organic chain of evolution, a fish doesn't pop into a mammal there are stages of evolution recorded in the fossil record and living fish today such as the evolution of lungs and bony limbs. In amphibians for the adaptions to life on land. To reptiles and the amniotic egg and to mammals with the mammary gland and varied dentition.

On the scale of a tens to hundreds of millions of years not thousands accumulated change can have dramatic impact.

 

[phillyfan26]

You guys are pretty funny. I dont speak for all Christians. I never said I did and I do not want to.

philly: God did not write the Bible. Look at most Bibles, at the beginning of each book it will state the author or compiler of the stories. The Bible is full of many stories and accounts written by many people. The Bible is God's Word because each story, every word, informs us about God, His love, His plan, etc, not because He wrote it. That's not right.

I explained how you equated yourself. If you don't see it, oh well.

Then why trust the Bible if God didn't write it?

If you think that God made these people write it word for word as he wanted it, I don't understand that. It's pretty clear that the Bible is filled with politics and agendas of those writing it.

 

[INDY500]

A new species in definition is the finely graduated organic chain of evolution, a fish doesn't pop into a mammal there are stages of evolution recorded in the fossil record and living fish today such as the evolution of lungs and bony limbs. In amphibians for the adaptions to life on land. To reptiles and the amniotic egg and to mammals with the mammary gland and varied dentition.

On the scale of a tens to hundreds of millions of years not thousands accumulated change can have dramatic impact.

Well, that's the theory anyway. But it's no more observable or reproducible than any other creation story.

And since it take thousands of accumulated changes -- exactly how does it benefit a creature, for example, that relies on speed and agility to elude predators to be slowed by the flap of what, in thousands of generations, may become a wing. Progressively becoming more prominent but still nowhere near functional.

In other words, given the complexity of new structures, what good is 1% of a wing..or a lung? What makes them the fittest for survival and more likely to pass on their DNA?

 

[Irvine511]

Well, that's the theory anyway. But it's no more observable than any other creation story.

this is the mindless equivocation we're trying to prevent from entering the public schools in the guise of "science."

do we need to reiterate the differences between a theory -- 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll -- and a Scientific Theory?

 

[INDY500]

this is the mindless equivocation we're trying to prevent from entering the public schools in the guise of "science."

do we need to reiterate the differences between a theory -- 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll -- and a Scientific Theory?

Yes, there is a difference, a scientific theory is no better than an economic theory or a conspiracy theory -- until it's observable or reproducible.

There are , if you need reminding, more than enough WRONG scientific theories in the wake of what we believe to be facts today. That is the true splendor of science, that it challenges paradigms, and replaces those that don't hold up to scrutiny.

Darwinism, however, seems to be the exception. It is to be defended with almost religious zeal, regardless of the facts.

Therefore, I don't believe Intelligent Design to be a science. But to my satisfaction, it better explains the origin of Man and life better than evolution.

 

[Irvine511]

Darwinism, however, seems to be the exception. It is to be defended with almost religious zeal, regardless of the facts.

Therefore, I don't believe Intelligent Design to be a science. But to my satisfaction, it better explains the origin of Man and life better than evolution.

Darwinism isn't a scientific theory.

evolution is.

[q]The term Darwinism is often used by promotors of creationism to describe evolution, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement.[1] In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?, Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[2][3][4] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, which they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools.

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent theories such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought — particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern synthesis. A notable example of a scientist who uses the term in a positive sense is Richard Dawkins.
[/q]

the defensiveness you see is in response to the fanatics who want to qualify it -- and only it, when it comes to scientific theories -- with conservative christian crap, called Creationism or Intelligent Design, or some other fabrication that's come from the annals of american conservative christianism.

i'm sure you do find ID lovely and comforting. you're a Christian. and if you try to poison a science curriculum with that garbage, then i'm going to fight you tooth and nail. it is no more scientific than any other religiously-based creation myth.

if you want to discuss this over beers, gosh, go ahead. we can also argue about Santa Claus, Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, the exitence of Bigfood, and the UFO abdunction phenomenon. it'd be fun.

just don't pretend that there's a scientific foothold.