Creation vs Evolution

[Quietus]

I know, I couldn't help but use it. Sorry Quietus.

There's nothing to apologize for actually.

You do know that you forced yourself to say Leprechauns exists (or at least existed).

[Quietus]

I think that Stephen Hawking was not remembering properly. He has made this claim before:

Hawking and the Pope

This is what the Pope actually said:

Message ON EVOLUTION to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Of course, this is not nearly so good a story.

(From your first link: http://sycophants.info/hawking.html) Hawking did use very specific phrases:

- "all right to study the evolution of the universe"
- "after the big bang"
- "should not inquire into the big bang itself"
- "moment of Creation"
- "therefore the work of God"

He will make all that up and flat out lie?

[Divinus Arma]

(Oh, and DA, nice try but the bible is a story - a bunch of myths collected in the middle east. Why on God's Green Earth do it's pretty tales have more relevance to reality than the Dreamtime of the Australian aborigines - stories that are at least 30,000 years older? Or any other myth? Why do you accept biblical pre-eminence just because it's familiar to you?)

What are you talking about? I am not trying to say that the bible is factual- only that there are themes in all major religions that closely match what science has discovered today.

I absolutely do not accept the Torah as anything more than equal to every single other major religion.

[Zain]

Wow, I just sat there and read all of those posts. It must have taken hours! Either way, I joined the thread rather late, and I wish I wouldn't have waited.

I've noticed that Crossroad (There is NO "S" at the end of that!) has been giving TONS of links and proof of his evaluations, and so have some of the others. But, what's the use of proof when one doesn't even look at it? Doesn't even think of it? They all say they are baised. NOBODY is unbaised, all information you find on the internet is baised on way or the other because that's human nature. Many of you are demanding textual evidence of Crossroad's evaluations, and when he gives them you say something like,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp


Now then , how many creationist topics have we had here recently , and how many times have they posted links to that bollox of a site

and...

wow isn't it amazing how much rubbish you can find on the internet .

creation vs evolution
religeous theories vs science theories
what a pile of tripe
whatever next , house vs tree , submarine vs colour ?

This was said after Crossroad gave all of these links!

Don't like that one? How about these:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://www.creationdigest.com/
http://www.creationfaq.net/

If you would like more, just let me know.

Interesting how ONLY Crossroad's links have been knocked down. And he hasn't done that to you.

I am a Creationist because the idea of the bible being wrong doesn't work in my mind. The bible said He created MAN on the sixth day in His image. And if my memory serves me right, evolution says that man evolved from monkeys, and back and back to single celled organisms.

Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect? Aren't the monkeys supposed to become more human-like?

I believe in Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest, and God's Will. No evolving just because it wants to. Change doesn't happen for no reason in nature. God made it that way, and he's not going to change it because he is reliable, just like when he promised Noah that he would never flood the Earth again.

This post was longer then I wanted, but hopefully I answered questions, and I'm ready to get second guessed, because that's what happens on these kind of threads. Bring the heat, you can't bring me down. (hence my sub-name)

[crossroad]

There is no book of Enoch in the Bible. It was removed from Scriptures by the Sanhedrin in 90AD.

Oh , I see
So this book that gives you all the answers has had bits taken away from it , whodathunkit .
So your arguement for creation is based on a heavily altered , heavily edited multiply mistranslated document .

The silence comes as a result of loaded questions.
perhaps you should have remained silent

Let me educate you on how the Bible came about. Although the details are some what sketchy, depening on who you talk to, The earliest Christian canon is dated to around 100 AD, and at the time did not include the New Testament. The Bible is actually a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching and was not canonized until around 397 AD. So, the Bible did not exist as the Bible until the 4th century. The books you speak of that were omited (BTW, there are thousands of writings that are not in the Bible) say nothing about creation, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject (other than more rantings from grasping-at-straws evolutionists).

[rory_20_uk]

Who set the cannon? A man did. Who edited out all the other stuff? Men. I don't see where god fits in at all. All the other books contained nothing about creation??!? WOW! You're read them all? All of them! I thought many of them were incomplete or destroyed. Or you're lying.

I guess I can see how you think most of the workd is grasping at straws. Any person who compares the world to a greenhouse can believe anything...

One explanation from one site...
"Question: Where did the light come from before the sun and moon were created?
Answer: The light in the first three days was probably from God himself."

He created the light coming from himself? I have to take my hat off to them managing to shoehorn something to fit the text...

Question: Why should I believe that the Christian Bible's story of creation rather than evolution?

Answer: Creation and evolution are frameworks to think about the past. In the strict sense neither is science since science is done by REPEATABLE experiments in the PRESENT. The Christian version is the only correct one because it is true and is documented from the very beginning. All other creation stories can't be true if the Christian version is true. Either it's true or not. If it's not what historical documentation can be produced to substantiate another view? None as powerful as the Bible!!! Order from chaos conflicts with ALL we know about the real world. The laws of physics, the order in living things, information theory, etc. etc. I recommend the newly published book by Michael Behe (an evolutionist) as a place to help answer the question of order from chaos.

I love the bit "all others can't be true if the Christian version is true... Oh, and the Bible is the Best! (Ignoring it is a rip off of the Torah).

Thus I view this site as extremely low grade "evidence", since it is "we're right, you're wrong" when it comes down to requiring proof.

Why the bible? Loads of other "holy" books around. Why not one of them? And which version of the Bible? There are so many! And let's not get into the inconsistencies...

Since you'd not accept microevolution unless you saw it with your own eyes (made even more difficult as yours would most likely be closed) the evidence required to prove this to you is greater than the proof for any event in the Bible itself.

[crossroad]

Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect?

Great point Zain. We should be able to see evolution in the trees and caves right now. From the monkeys, through the different stages of cavemen, to humans as we know them now. Where are these animal-people? Why did they die off - hundreds if not thousands of stages of them, gone, but strangly, the monkeys did not!?!?!?!?

[rory_20_uk]

Oh dear oh dear... A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but complete ignorance...

Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.

Other types of "animal person" have been found. They are no longer around, either out fought or out bred by our ancestors (NOT us - they were slightly different).

I'm assuming you've never heard that human features are becoming more delicate as time goes on, human brains are increasing in size slowly and the expression of certain genes is showing a population shift (such as ones to digest milk, and for brain size).

Species are the snapshot of "now". We don't have a tail of our ancestors - they're dead. Perhaps ones from 5,000 years ago would on average be noticably different to us, 50,000 probably different to us. Genes drfted slowly to what we are now. There was not a fork in each species, the ancestral line of the humans metamorphosed and has almost artificial distinctions as to the nomenclature of the different types - in some cases possibly unhelpful.

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

[Zain]

Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.

There was not a fork in each species,

Unless I misinterpreted what you said, i'm going to say that those two statements are COMPLETELY contradictory.

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

How about another argument, how did the reproductive system come out PERFECT without God?

[rory_20_uk]

Great point Zain. We should be able to see evolution in the trees and caves right now. From the monkeys, through the different stages of cavemen, to humans as we know them now. Where are these animal-people? Why did they die off - hundreds if not thousands of stages of them, gone, but strangly, the monkeys did not!?!?!?!?

There's an oak tree outside my house. It's bloody big. There's no trace of the acorn it once was, but it grew from the acorn. You can't see the tree grow. There are no smaller trees embedded in the larger one. But it did grow from the acorn.

You'll just have to take that one on belief ok?

[Zain]

There's an oak tree outside my house. It's bloody big. There's no trace of the acorn it once was, but it grew from the acorn. You can't see the tree grow. There are no smaller trees embedded in the larger one. But it did grow from the acorn.

You'll just have to take that one on belief ok?

That had nothing to do with the question. Why aren't there other monkey-humans walking around these days? I think in your mind you answered it in your other post, but just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about.

[Ser Clegane]

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

Naah ... you only missed it - see post #85

[Kralizec]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

[Zain]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?

[doc_bean]

Hey creationists: explain rudimentary organs: you know like the tail bone, or some people actually being born with a tail. Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ? And why do some people have tails ?

Also, the appendix, what's it still good for ?

[KingOfTheIsles]

I am a Creationist because the idea of the bible being wrong doesn't work in my mind. The bible said He created MAN on the sixth day in His image. And if my memory serves me right, evolution says that man evolved from monkeys, and back and back to single celled organisms.

You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, simply the current money species of today had a common ancestor with humans.

Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect? Aren't the monkeys supposed to become more human-like?

Again, you completely misunderstand the process of evolution. It is not pre-destined that monkeys will evolve into human-like creatures. Each species evolved due to its circumstances, not some magical, pre-ordained destiny. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys was probably a tree-dwelling primate. Some of these went onto the plains as the forest dwindled, forced to by habitat change and the need to adapt, and gradually developed into humans (and other species) whereas the ones living in the trees did not need to evolve in this way, and instead adapted to their own environment differently.

Evolution is determined by circumstance, it is not a linear path.

That had nothing to do with the question. Why aren't there other monkey-humans walking around these days? I think in your mind you answered it in your other post, but just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about.

There were human species living until very recently. As they were competing with homo sapiens, they were either less adapted and became extinct, or perhaps were absorbed into the more successful species in part (the neanderthal gene theory is controversial). Natural selection has (we think) wiped out all other species of human.

That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?

Also knows as.....evolution. See, we made it in the end.

Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?

[Zain]

Hey creationists: explain rudimentary organs: you know like the tail bone, or some people actually being born with a tail. Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ? And why do some people have tails ?

The tail bone protects your rectum and other parts in that area from getting smashed whenever you fall on your butt. Deformities exist all the time, this one simply resembles a tail.

Also, the appendix, what's it still good for

I don't know, I'm not a doctor, and that's not my strong point. Do you know of what the appendix DID?

[rory_20_uk]

He did... the human eye!!! More "evidence"! Oh my god! The amount of research to show how eyes could evolve... At least stick to picking holes in things, such proofs are only own goals.

Zain: there are some forks, just not always forks. Two different things. Simple.

A fork is one species becoming two, no fork is one species drifting over time to become what is termed a seperate one.

Reproduction perfect ROFLMAO!!!

Infertility clinics.
it takes 20 million sperm for one egg.
the sheer number of early abortions that the mother didn't even know was a pregnancy
recurrent miscarriages
ectopic pregnancies
deaths of the mother before modern medicine
parasitic twins
conjoined twins
congenital abnormailties

Yeah, perfect... NEXT!

[Zain]

You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, simply the current money species of today had a common ancestor with humans.



Again, you completely misunderstand the process of evolution. It is not pre-destined that monkeys will evolve into human-like creatures. Each species evolved due to its circumstances, not some magical, pre-ordained destiny. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys was probably a tree-dwelling primate. Some of these went onto the plains as the forest dwindled, forced to by habitat change and the need to adapt, and gradually developed into humans (and other species) whereas the ones living in the trees did not need to evolve in this way, and instead adapted to their own environment differently.

Evolution is determined by circumstance, it is not a linear path.



There were human species living until very recently. As they were competing with homo sapiens, they were either less adapted and became extinct, or perhaps were absorbed into the more successful species in part (the neanderthal gene theory is controversial). Natural selection has (we think) wiped out all other species of human.

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

[rory_20_uk]

The appendix and the caecuma re extremely well developed in herbivores where it is a key part in digestion. Over time it is slowly decreasing in size as it has no / limited use and so evolutionary pressure is against it.

Rather like some snakes that have vestigial back legs.

[Ser Clegane]

Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ?

Ahh ... that's the keyword ... no creation vs. evolution thread without chick tracts (sorry for regularly postings these ... but I am a regular aficionado, and as everything in these discussions is a repitition anyway...):

Big Daddy?

This should answer all your questions

Please note the spectacularly witty and convincing:

Even if they were "vestigial" organs, isn't losing something the opposite of evolution?

[Zain]

He did... the human eye!!! More "evidence"! Oh my god! The amount of research to show how eyes could evolve... At least stick to picking holes in things, such proofs are only own goals.

Zain: there are some forks, just not always forks. Two different things. Simple.

A fork is one species becoming two, no fork is one species drifting over time to become what is termed a seperate one.

Okay then, I didn't missunderstand you. Common language means a fork, like a fork in the road. That's what I imagined when I read that and it completely struck me misinterpretly.

Reproduction perfect ROFLMAO!!!

Infertility clinics.
it takes 20 million sperm for one egg.
the sheer number of early abortions that the mother didn't even know was a pregnancy
recurrent miscarriages
ectopic pregnancies
deaths of the mother before modern medicine
parasitic twins
conjoined twins
congenital abnormailties

Yeah, perfect... NEXT!

The process is perfect, you think chance could make all of those little parts and little processes work perfectly??? No! If it were chance it wouldn't be near as complicated. It would be simple, like calling in a stork or something.

[Zain]

The appendix and the caecuma re extremely well developed in herbivores where it is a key part in digestion. Over time it is slowly decreasing in size as it has no / limited use and so evolutionary pressure is against it.

Rather like some snakes that have vestigial back legs.

I didn't know that. That's interesting.

[Kralizec]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

Now you're just being lazy. Louis pointed out early in this thread that all species are transitionary in the theory of evolution, as a species that live today could be the precursor of species living in the future.

[rory_20_uk]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

[Sigh]. Everything that you see around is an example of transition from the past into the future.
What do you want? To walk down the road and a dog to spring up and converse in English? That would pretty much prove creationism.

The tail bone protects one's arse? Hardly - we'd be better off without it. The gluteals absorb most impact. All it does is occasionally get fractured. It is a vestigial browth from the embryo. the human goes through phases of looking like an amphibian, then a reptile, then finally a mammal. Why if not as that is how animals evolved? God and his little jokes?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

I am so going to hate myself for getting back into this, but:

Since you want stunningly obvious transitional forms that you can see, try amphibians. You know, frogs, newts etc.

Not quite fish, not quite reptiles. What you might call fish-reptiles. See there's this fish with a simple lung called - guess what, a lung-fish. And it has some amphibian characteristics. Then there are fish which use their fins as limbs on the margins of land, but live almost wholly in the water. These fish have the basic pentadactyl (five-toed) arrangement in those fins which is found in all land animals.

Is that simple enough for you? Or does it have to be a monkey-cat or a mollusc-rhinocerous?

[rory_20_uk]

Okay then, I didn't missunderstand you. Common language means a fork, like a fork in the road. That's what I imagined when I read that and it completely struck me misinterpretly.



The process is perfect, you think chance could make all of those little parts and little processes work perfectly??? No! If it were chance it wouldn't be near as complicated. It would be simple, like calling in a stork or something.

Zain...

It works firstly as it's had billions of years to improve the model. Amoebas replicate very simply. They divide down the middle. Easy peasy. Over time things did get more complex.

But the failsafes thrown into the system are evident in how imperfect it is. 20 MILLION sperm to fertilise one egg. Talk about wastage. And there's not a 100% chance of success that copulation will result in fertilisation. A certain time of the month is required for starters.

Oh, and you left / ignored the long list of errors that I could think of off the top of my head. ERRORS = LACK OF PERFECTION!

The argument "it's complicated so God had to have done it" only works in Church. It has evolved to the state it is, and it works well enough, even with the large numbers of errors inherent the system.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

I love this method of arguing.

"My argument has been shown to have been flawed. Insert identical and irrelevant argument."

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, we just haven't always found what they are transitioning between yet. Mankind is the transitional state between our ancestors and what we will evolve into. The simple fact is that a tiny proportion of dead animals will a) fossilise and b) be found in an identifiable state.

That said, there have been several well-documented finds that have species of human which show a progressively less sloping forehead and a gradually larger cranial capacity. This tends to point to the features of modern humans developing.

[Zain]

Now you're just being lazy. Louis pointed out early in this thread that all species are transitionary in the theory of evolution, as a species that live today could be the precursor of species living in the future.

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Look, I know this is a waste of time, but can I make a suggestion to the creationists out there to actually read On the Origin of Species?

I would also recommend to enquiring minds the book 'Darwin and the Barnacle' by Rebecca Stott (ISBN 0-571-21609-9). It's not at all dry, and provides the real story of Darwin's work in taxonomy. By classifying and researching the humble barnacle over twenty years, he established his reputation as a serious biologist and found staggering amounts of evidence for the theory of natural selection. The evidence you keep asking for and then dismissing.

It's also the story of how this man of deep faith (he was planning to be a cleric) found his observations challenging that faith, and his reluctance to change his mind until he could convince himself.

After all, guys, I have read your Bible