Creation vs Evolution

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think more. But not more than 100,000. 100,000 would really be pushing it.

So you argue the Bible is completely wrong on the age of the earth?

Look, crossroad, I have this book that argues the world is actually flat and rides through space on the back of a turtle. I find it really convincing, because, let's face it, if you look really hard at the horizon in a squinty manner, it's sort of curved like a big turtle shell.

Can you provide logical arguments as to why my book is wrong and yours is right?

(Martyr, I too have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage and 'tis only through his Sauce that I find the courage to engage in this 'debate')

[crossroad]

Rubiduim used in a geochronometer makes the earth 4.55 billion years old. Apparently the half life of Rubidium isn't known for sure, so how one can measure something with a "ruler" of unknown length I don't know.

I wonder where the old God from the Bible went. He was something to believe in! Phophets of Baal? Kill them all! Egyptians? Wipe 'em out! Numerous tribes living in the wrong place - massive slaughter! Ethiopians attack - 1 million killed!

OK, so you had no idea how to please God as His temper made him like a psychotic off medication but He was certainly there!

Then after an interlude of something like 450 years we then get the "flower power" attack where apart from some people cured of a disease and some wine God has run out of steam. Insults that would have meant the purpetrator was the centre of a vitrified crater are now forgiven.

Personally I think God got married. Suddenly it all becomes clear - the teenager has grown up and has settled down. 450 years off whilst the newly weds got settled in, and then He's Mr Respectable.:

I'm going to ask Him about all that. Seriously, He created them, He can do whatever the heck He wants with them. Weak arguement, I know, but you have to consider that He is a God with a plan.

Death as a way of advancement? Oh, so that's why Christians have killed so many people - they're helping them! Obvious really...:

The bible clearly states what a Christian is. And a murder is not one. Because Hitler called himself superior, did that make his so?

Yeah, Creationism came first, and was found to be marred with errors and unworkable. Eventually the Christians realised they couldn't kill everyone that disagreed with them (nor for want of trying!), so they backed off and regrouped.:

You really don't know what it means to be Christian, do you?

Propaganda - what propaganda? You yourself seem to agree that survival of the fittest takes place. So, considering that that is a key part of evolution, what part are you not so keen on?

I just love repeating myself over and over. A species does not change into another species.

[crossroad]

That again is based on faith. To be able to use a few bones to detect the nuances of evolution is going to be extremely difficult.

New species can be created by scientists, so we don't need to go far to show that it does happen.

Ahh, so you're saying species need the help of a scientist to make it happen. So it does not happen on its own...

[crossroad]

Not quite sure I follow your distinction. Evolution is demonstrable among bacteria and viruses. If it were not, a lot of drug makers would be out of business, and microbiology would be a very boring field indeed.

Are you drawing a distinction between adaptation and evolution? I would like to follow your reasoning, but you may need to connect some dots for a lemur ...

Yes, I am drawing a distinction. Viruses and bacteria adapt, but they will and forever shall be viruses and bacteria. I'll say again. A species will not evolve into another species.

It just accured to me that God could make evolution start happening if He wants to, but it has not happened in the past.

[crossroad]

But what did that Something come from then ?

If you say that Something is God, why not say that something is the universe and it has always been, possible expanding and contracting, forever and ever and ever... ?

Are you kidding me? You're trying to impose God-like characters on the Universe.

[Lemur]

Viruses and bacteria adapt, but they will and forever shall be viruses and bacteria.

What is the cause of viral "adaptation"? Is it caused by selective breeding, or by another mechanism?

[doc_bean]

Are you kidding me? You're trying to impose God-like characters on the Universe.

Why wouldn't I ? How is your theory of a God better than mine of an Eternal universe ?

Seriously, i can see the universe, or at least part of, God has yet to reveal Himself...

[_Martyr_]

I point you towards the Vostok or EPICA ice cores which can be dated to 420,000 and 720,000 years respectively. These cores are many km long, having been drilled vertically downward into the ice caps. When the cores are examined, the snowfall of each year can be chemically and otherwise examined, and then by adding up the number of anual layers, we get the age of the oldest layer. How do you explain this? Snow that fell 620,000 years before the earth was formed?

Also, if the Bible implies that the world is 6000 years old, why do you as a Creationist claim it is 100,000 years old? Surely the Bible knows best in this matter? Or is it aligorical?

Also, explain sedamentary rock, the existence of fossils in general, fossil fuels which came from once living organisms, pretty much the entire area of radiometric dating (explain Pb/Pb isochron age of the earth as about 4.55 (+- 1%) billion years for instance...), the common age of the rest of the solar system, I could go on and on...

[crossroad]

So you argue the Bible is completely wrong on the age of the earth?

Can you provide logical arguments as to why my book is wrong and yours is right?

Oh, right, I forgot that on page 72 of the Bible, it says the age of the earth is exactly... No, the Bible never says. The truth is, we really don't know. How old was Adam, the day after he was created? One day? Thirty? If a doctor examined him how old would he appear?

The truth is, I don't know how old the Universe is. It could appear to be billions of years old, and may only have existed for 6,000 years.

God can do what He wants.

[Ronin]

not this damn discussion again.....


It´s evolution baby!.....case closed....

but....better than any argument I can present......here are my views on creationism, spoken by a true poet....


MR. Bill Hicks on creationism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDTqRnFccY0


P.S. - warning - a couple of F* bombs in there......but the truth shines through none the less...:P

[Duke of Gloucester]

New species can be created by scientists, so we don't need to go far to show that it does happen.

Interesting. Examples please.

So if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly, what is the cause of "adaptation"? Is it caused by selective breeding, or by another mechanism?

Evidence for adaptation is strong, especially for bacteria and viruses, but you can't claim that this alone is strong support for the theory of evolution. A weakness in the evidence base is that, as far as I know, there is no actual direct evidence to demonstrate one species changing in to another. That is why I am interested in Rory's claim, because this would bolster the evidence for the theory of evolution.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It´s evolution baby!.....case closed....

As unscientific a statement as any made by a creationist. In science, the case is never closed.

[Lemur]

Evidence for adaptation is strong, especially for bacteria and viruses, but you can't claim that this alone is strong support for the theory of evolution.

Once again we have the distinction between adaptation and evolution. I ask again, what is the mechanism for adaptation? If you do not agree that selective breeding is the cause, what is your proposal? This is a straightforward question.

[crossroad]

Why wouldn't I ? How is your theory of a God better than mine of an Eternal universe ?

Seriously, i can see the universe, or at least part of, God has yet to reveal Himself...

I think you may be on to something doc. One more step and you may see what I see! And, if you look in the right places, maybe God will reveal Himself to you.

[KafirChobee]

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.

Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation, which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.

Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.

CROSSROAD, first you use an evolutionary concept - "survival of the fittest". The primary theory expounded by Darwin; that and natural selection.

Second, you attempt to claim that evolutionists are re-acting to creationism. In fact, if you knew anything about Darwin as a man, you would know that he was a very devote Christian. That his observations, studies, and ultimate theories bothered him - however, he adjusted his faith to the realization that no man can fully know, comprehend, or understand the workings of God - or why he allowed evolution to progress beyond the dinasours.

Then you come to the time or measure of earth's, nay the universes existance. First you said it might be 60billion years, but once someone pointed out that the creationists believe it is 6,000 years you back it down to maybe 100,000.

A young earth? Well, if 3billion years is young - yes. It is younger than the universe.

I hold in part, with Doc Bean though. However for me a true Christian has no difficulty resolving evolution with their beliefs. Where as one that is in doubt feels it imparative to justify that the bible be taken verbatim - attempting to deny that God is wiser than they are.

BTW, which God? The old one or the new one?

*edited for spelling and some grammar - some.

[Ronin]

As unscientific a statement as any made by a creationist. In science, the case is never closed.

fine....show up with another explanation with some evidence behind it and I´ll look at it.

some old book that we don´t even know when, why, and who wrote is not what i´d call "proof" of anything.

[crossroad]

BTW, thank you for playing this game with me. I'm trying to answer all posts necessary, between work, home, family. I hope I do not sound abrasive in any of my posts, so please do not take offense.

Happy posting!

[Lemur]

It's our pleasure, Crossroads, and you're being a very good sport.

Why is it always creationists, though? Why can't we get a Flat Earther or a Geocentrist in here sometime?

[Duke of Gloucester]

Once again we have the distinction between adaptation and evolution. I ask again, what is the mechanism for adaptation? If you do not agree that selective breeding is the cause, what is your proposal? This is a straightforward question.

Well I go along with Darwin and say it is the "survival of the fittest". Btw selective breeding is not the answer because that is artificial selection. Natural selection says that, especially in difficult times, those orgamisms of a population best adapted to survive do so, reproduce and pass those advantageous traits to their offspring. Add in the possibility of the introduction of random traits which can also be passed on and we can see how organisms remain adapted to a changing environment (or not and become extinct). Where I disagree with you is when you say that because we see this process, evolution must be true.

As I said before, there is no evidence of one species changing into another (unless Rory provides me with some) but Darwin's theory does provide a plausible explanation of how that might happen. It is not just plausible, it is elegant and powerful, since if it is accepted, organisms must be adapted to their environment and traits must be useful, so in studying an organism you ask of every trait "what is this for?" "how does it help this orgamism reproduce?"

This is why I don't like Ronin's "case closed" statement. It's not that I think that the Theory of Evolution is wrong; I like it, and it is the best explanation we have at present, but in science, the jury is always popping in and out and revising its verdict as new evidence is discovered. It's one of the things that makes science interesting.

some old book that we don´t even know when, why, and who wrote is not what i´d call "proof" of anything.
Today 20:58

It is not appropriate to talk about "proof" when discussing evolution, only the balance of probabilities. Any creationist with intellectual rigour would have to accept the weight of scientific evidence is against the bible account of creation (strictly speaking against either of the bible's two acounts of creation), but they are still free to believe it if they wish. Personally, I don't think the bible is a science text-book.

[Lemur]

Well I go along with Darwin and say it is the "survival of the fittest".

Actually, Darwin never said that; the phrase came from Herbert Spencer.

You are quite right, however, in that "natural selection" is a much more correct description of the process than "selective breeding." Mea culpa.

All I am attempting to establish is whether or not selective breeding is the mechanism we observe when "adaptation" occurs in microbiology. If it is not, what is the mechanism. You're getting a lot of mileage by arguing about whether or not this "proves" evolution, a step I have deliberately not taken.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll just jump in here, I'm not an evelutionary biolagist but this occurs to me. The basic genes contained in all animals are the same. The same gene governs your arm and a fly's wing. That surely is compelling evidence of a common ancestor.

Now, take a snake for example. The snake has the genes to create legs but it's genome switches the gene off on every vertebrae and they all register a chest cavety with ribs instead but should the switch be flicked back on the snake could have ten legs.

Look at Coyotes and Wolves, virtually the same genetically, they must have a common ancestor, if evolution is true, they look different but genetically the difference is close to nill. So maybe in looking at the record you need to fuzz the definition of species to see the crossover.

[Tribesman]

The bible clearly states what a Christian is. And a murder is not one
Don'tya jusrt love confronting some feckwit who claims shite from the bible , yet who has probably not read or understoodfeical from the bible .
So come on crossroads , you want to talk biblical shite ,lets get real old testament , as in answering genesis and book of Genesis , throw in book of Enoch and any other faith based thoughts you might have, been through it all before and it don't amount to a pile of beans .

Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ? or are we talking King Panzer vs Type XXII

[Tribesman]

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?

They lacked faith .

[rory_20_uk]

Interesting. Examples please.

Sorry, real life intervened... Link

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Two butterfly species have been bred in the lab to make a third distinct species, the journal Nature reports.

In a species, individuals need to be capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

The study demonstrates that two animal species can evolve to form one, instead of the more common scenario where one species diverges to form two.

The process has been likened to building a new bike from a pair of second-hand ones.

The Heliconius heurippa butterfly appears to be the product of a process called hybrid speciation.

Most species are thought to form when groups of organisms gradually diverge from one another over successive generations.

But these distinctive red and yellow butterflies seem to be the product of two existing varieties.

Genetic mismatch

Hybrid speciation is thought to be rare or absent in animals where, it has been argued, hybrid offspring would be less likely to survive and breed than the parent species.

This is because genes from different species are sometimes "incompatible".

A well known example is the mule - a sterile hybrid between the donkey and the horse. It is useful for carrying heavy loads but is a reproductive dead-end.

A team of researchers from Panama, Colombia and the UK managed to recreate Heliconius heurippa in the laboratory by crossing two other species of butterfly; Heliconius cydno and Heliconius melpomene.

"The fact we've recreated this species in the lab provides a pretty convincing route by which the natural species came about," co-author Chris Jiggins, of the University of Edinburgh, told BBC News.

Jesus Mavarez, another author from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, explained: "We found that a wing pattern almost identical to that of the hybrid can be obtained in months - just three generations of lab crosses between H. cydno and H. melpomene.

Wing patterns

"Moreover, natural hybrids from San Cristobal, Venezuela, show wing patterns very similar to H. heurippa, further supporting the idea of a hybrid origin for this species."

In addition, there is growing circumstantial evidence for hybrid speciation in Ragoletis fruit flies, swordtail fish and African cichlid fish.

Some also suspect the American red wolf could be the product of hybridisation between coyotes and wolves.

Colour patterns on the wings of the butterflies may be crucial in forming new species, because they serve as mating cues. These butterflies are extremely choosey about finding mates with their own, species-specific wing pattern.

The wing patterns of H. heurippa individuals make them undesirable as mates for members of their parent species, but attractive to each other - reinforcing patterns of mating that lead to a new species.

These species-specific patterns are also crucial in deterring predators. The butterflies produce toxins when eaten and predators learn to recognise and avoid a specific wing pattern.

This is so finely tuned that butterflies with even slight deviations in colour pattern suffer from higher predation.

[Tribesman]

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature.
Well bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , crossroads understands evolution

[Duke of Gloucester]

All I am attempting to establish is whether or not selective breeding is the mechanism we observe when "adaptation" occurs in microbiology. If it is not, what is the mechanism. You're getting a lot of mileage by arguing about whether or not this "proves" evolution, a step I have deliberately not taken.

True, but others have.

I'll just jump in here, I'm not an evelutionary biolagist but this occurs to me. The basic genes contained in all animals are the same. The same gene governs your arm and a fly's wing. That surely is compelling evidence of a common ancestor.

Now, take a snake for example. The snake has the genes to create legs but it's genome switches the gene off on every vertebrae and they all register a chest cavety with ribs instead but should the switch be flicked back on the snake could have ten legs.

Of course this could also be evidence of the same creator, although a common ancestor is a plausible explanation.

Look at Coyotes and Wolves, virtually the same genetically, they must have a common ancestor, if evolution is true, they look different but genetically the difference is close to nill. So maybe in looking at the record you need to fuzz the definition of species to see the crossover.

The definition of species is pretty fuzzy in any case. The Cyote/Wolf situation could also be explained by reference to a creator.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Thanks, Rory. I would like to see the original article though. The BBC link is not clear and I can't see why this is a new species. Nature probably explains it better.

"Colour patterns on the wings of the butterflies may be crucial in forming new species, because they serve as mating cues. These butterflies are extremely choosey about finding mates with their own, species-specific wing pattern."

This is interesting though, because it suggests that the butterflies know what they look like. Strange.

[Kralizec]

Yes, I am drawing a distinction. Viruses and bacteria adapt, but they will and forever shall be viruses and bacteria. I'll say again. A species will not evolve into another species.

You're right, bacteria evolve into different species of bacteria. Next: "until I see a cat turn into a plant right before my eyes, evolution is false"

Now, about the merits of creatinism as a scientific theory:


A real scientific theory is made like this: a scientists observes facts, notes patterns or apparent connections, make an early conclusion, see if this fits with the observed facts and if not, repeat the process until you have a sound theory (one that is not in disagreeance with the facts)
In addition, it must be falsifiable: meaning that by crosschecking the theory with additional facts that may not be known at the time, the theory or some aspects of it could turn out false.

Creationists already knew the conclusion before they started. Of course, a scientist may have a hunch or some idea that he is trying to prove, but if he's a good scientist he will put that aside and formulate patterns and perceived causalities based on all facts he encounters. Not by disregarding facts that don't support, or cherrypicking only facts that support the initial conclusion (as it appears in Genesis, for example)
In addition, creationists themselves are always happy to shed light on its lack of scientific merits by pointing out that the theory is not falsifiable.

Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Even the Bible puts belief without "having seen" above belief that is based on (percieved) facts. So why don't you? I have no trouble with people who say who say they have faith, but I do have a problem with people who disguise their beliefs as science to further their dogma.

[Quietus]

crossroad, take the Leprechaun Test:

Do Leprechauns exist? (how did you know?)

Does God exist? (how did you know?)

What's the difference between God and Leprechauns? :)

[_Martyr_]

Leprechauns have red beards and green clothes, whilst God has a white beard and white clothes. They have a lot in common though, I mean for a start, they're both Irish...