Stats: 3,192,244 members, 7,947,219 topics. Date: Thursday, 12 September 2024 at 02:36 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory (2942 Views)
The Seven Day Theory Or Seven Thousand Years From Creation Theory / God, The Narrator And Creation: Who Was The Narrator? / The Evolutionary Basis For Morality (A Lesson For Christians) (2) (3) (4)
Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by clemsonfan(m): 10:45pm On Jan 22, 2007 |
Which theory do you believe and why, Evolutionary theory or the Creation Theory? |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by clemsonfan(m): 10:49pm On Jan 22, 2007 |
I believe in the creation theory. Not just because I'm a Baptist christian, but because the evolution theory has so many gaps that are unexplained. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by KAG: 11:21pm On Jan 22, 2007 |
clemsonfan: The thread is on the first page: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-11284.0.html clemsonfan: Okay, I'll humour you. What are some of the many gaps in the theory of evolution, and how are they explained by the "creation theory"? In fact, why not start off telling us about the "creation theory", and explain the evidence for it. 1 Like |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by exu(m): 11:41pm On Jan 22, 2007 |
This topic has been covered so many times on this board. Having said that I still laughed when I saw the following: clemsonfan: |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by jerrymania(m): 12:55am On Jan 23, 2007 |
Those of you that believe in the evolution theory now answer this "can something come out from nothing"? |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by layi(m): 5:19am On Jan 23, 2007 |
jerrymania:Even though i'm a creationist, i cant support you on this because as a matter of fact its creationist that believe something came out of nothing. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by jerrymania(m): 9:58am On Jan 23, 2007 |
ah Layi you need to understand me. That was a rhetorical question aimed at the evolutionists, they are the one who really believe somethin came out of nothing. Something never came out of nothing! |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by KAG: 6:01pm On Jan 23, 2007 |
jerrymania: What does that have to do with the theory of evolution? Anyway, yes. Now for another poorly thought out cliche, where did your God come from? |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by Nobody: 5:15am On Jan 24, 2007 |
@Evolutionists Why is it that after so many years of mutations artificially, scientists have not been able to create a new specie of a well defined plant/animal. In fact, the consensus is shifting towards the idea that mutations do not lead to new species. So I ask, how did evolution occur? |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by clemsonfan(m): 11:12pm On Jan 24, 2007 |
"Our God" did not come from anywhere. As it states in the Christian Bible not Koran, God has just always "been" . |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by KAG: 3:02pm On Jan 26, 2007 |
Donzman: What do you mean by "well defined"? In fact, the consensus is shifting towards the idea that mutations do not lead to new species. Mutations, selection, genetic drift. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by KAG: 3:03pm On Jan 26, 2007 |
clemsonfan: Making up stuff is fun. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by nferyn(m): 9:09pm On Jan 26, 2007 |
Donzman:Define your terms concretely and we can discuss. Vague assertions based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology don't do the trick. You're definitely smart enough to learn about the subject if you're willing to open up your mind. Go to the Understanding Evolution site at Berkeley University and familiarise yourself with the basics. If you still have doubts, be precise in your objections and we can talk Donzman:Where did you pick up that bizarre idea? Donzman:Go to the Understanding Evolution site at Berkeley University and familiarise yourself with the basics. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by Nobody: 9:22pm On Jan 26, 2007 |
Listen: Stop giving me stupid links, I've done enough research on evolution on my own to know that it's SHIT. It has no well defined beginning. You claim it's scientific, how come nobody has been able to show up until this day how chemical compounds can turn into a living organism?. . .There is no model that has been put forward to explain this face but yet I'm expected to believe it. Define your terms concretely and we can discuss. Oh, you don't know what a specie is now? *hiss*. . .Ok. A goat with 2 noses is still a goat, mutation has not been able to transform a goat into a cow. Mutation has not been able to transform a corn into something entirely new. Where did you pick up that bizarre idea? Haven't you been learning?. . .When mutations occur and occur, there's some sort of boundary that limits the mutation that can take place. After sometime, the same type of mutations continue to occur AND we do not get a new specie of plant/animal.
Mutation does not do it my friend. After almost a century of laboratory induced mutations, intelligent scientists have not been able to produce a new specie of plants/animal. Selection does not produce new organisms. It helps existing organisms adapt to their environment. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by nferyn(m): 10:01pm On Jan 26, 2007 |
Donzman:Obviously you've used more credible sources than Berkeley University. ![]() You could be right of course, but why don't you present us your irrefutible falsification of evolutionary theory. Tell us which concept of evolutionary theory has been falsified by what finding? Donzman:And how is that relevant? Donzman:It happens every second, it's called metabolism, but that's not what you're after, I guess ![]() 1. Abiogenisis is not part of evolutionary theory - confounding the two is standard practice among creationists 2. Let me copy a definition of evolution I used in another thread: Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that in the past there were countless life forms that are no longer here. It is a fact that these lifeforms differed depending on the time they lived on our planet. Donzman:Of course I can still take follow your diversion into abiogenesis, so, there are models, several actually. You should know by now that Google is your friend, even if you only pay him a visit for 1 minute: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html http://www.pnas.org/cgi/search?&submit.y=0&submit.x=0&submit=GO&fulltext=%22Origin+of+life%22&sortspecbrief=date&sortspec=date http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/science/bkup_of_RNA.html http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_life.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738204935/thesecularweb http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Abiogenesis Donzman:Most biologists would have some trouble defining a specie, as there is no clear dividing line between different species (ring species would be a good example to show just that). When you go to species that do not sexually reproduce, the differences between species even become murkier. Donzman:Your attempt at humour hasn't yet reached full maturity, but carry on, you'll get there eventually ![]() Donzman:You mean like a cat evolving into a dog? Which idiot would even come up with these kind of predictions anyway. Ah, I know: someone who hasn't got a freaking clue what evolutionary biology is about. Donzman:Explain to me that magical barrier and send your article to Nature, asap, you'll be first in line for a Nobel Prize Donzman:Says who? Donzman the Great? Donzman:They have actually been able to produce/find countless new species. Maybe this example would tickle your fancy? Donzman:What is a [i]new [/i]organism and what separates it from an [i]existing [/i]organism? |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by Nobody: 10:17pm On Jan 26, 2007 |
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm There is nothing informative in that link, only created to confuse those who do not know. Try again! And how is that relevant? How is telling us how life started in the first place relevant? Explain to me that magical barrier and send your article to Nature, asap, you'll be first in line for a Nobel Prize It's nothing special, scientists have been creating mutated organisms now for over a century, they haven't been able to transform a bird into a lizard. Ok, till someone is able to use mutation to turn a fish into a frog, STFU! What is a new organism and what separates it from an existing organism? As an evolutionist who claims that new organisms appear through mutation, you should be telling me. As a creationist, I believe that there cannot be an entirely new organism. It happens every second, it's called metabolism, but that's not what you're after, I guess Metabolism turns chemical compounds into living organisms?. . .No wonder you think with your stomach, too much eating has turned your stomach into a mini-brain via. metabolism. Ha! ![]() |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by nferyn(m): 1:34am On Jan 27, 2007 |
Donzman:Probably not. Would the paper describing exactly how a frame shift mutation caused the bacterium to synthesise a protein that enables it to metabolise nylon, a compound that did not exist before 1935 be sufficient? New information: check. Mutation increasing fitness of organism: check. New species: check. Now would be the time to shift goalposts and define information in such a way that it doesn't fit the bill, wouldn't it?http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htmThere is nothing informative in that link, only created to confuse those who do not know. Try again! In your mind probably only a dog turning into a cat in a few generations would be evidence for evolution, while that actually would be a falsification of evolutionary theory, but then again, I never expected a creationist to do the hard labour of actually learning some science and studying the evidence. Donzman:As it is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, it is irrelevant to the question at hand Donzman:Have they now? Maybe that happened in Lysenko's laboratory in the good old USSR. Try looking up that name, Lysenko. You might actually learn something new - evil Commie Russia was actually really evilExplain to me that magical barrier and send your article to Nature, asap, you'll be first in line for a Nobel PrizeIt's nothing special, scientists have been creating mutated organisms now for over a century, ![]() While you're visiting the cold dark places of the north, maybe you could take a look at Fox taming experiment in Siberia. Wolves are a different [i]kind [/i]than dogs in biblespeak, aren't they? Donzman:Isn't it satisfying to smithe a strawman in a galant charge. Maybe, after familiarising yourself with the field, could you understand that the TOE would never, ever predict such a thing. Maybe I'm just delirious when I expect people to a somewhat civilised way without shouting insults. Donzman:I really thought you were talking about species. I am most definitely a different organism than you, although we are of the same species. Just tell me how you can separate different species in a consistent way. I know of no method, because all life is connected in different degrees. Could you tell me when exactly the water stopped being cold and started being hot. When I put my hand in boiling water though, I'll bloody well know that it is hot. The timespan needed for evolutionary changes to result in speciation for "higher" organisms, such as tetrapods is too large to be observed in the lifespan of a human being. Unless you would take the extremely rare case of very high selective pressure under near extinction conditions in order for genetic drift to lead to sufficient phenotypical differences between populations to prevent interbreeding, resulting in speciation.What is a new organism and what separates it from an existing organism?As an evolutionist who claims that new organisms appear through mutation, you should be telling me. As a creationist, I believe that there cannot be an entirely new organism. Maybe you're just suffering from the tyranny of the discontinuous mind (just read question 8 and the answer to that question) and are unable to comprehend things in a non-essentialist framework (I know you like philosophy, so maybe that will make you ponder over the issue ![]() Donzman:Well, at least I realise that what we consider rationality is, in most cases, just rationalisation. Your answer definitely is witty. Smart on the other hand, it is not.It happens every second, it's called metabolism, but that's not what you're after, I guessMetabolism turns chemical compounds into living organisms?. . .No wonder you think with your stomach, too much eating has turned your stomach into a mini-brain via. metabolism. Ha! |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by Nobody: 3:24am On Jan 27, 2007 |
Isn't it satisfying to smithe a strawman in a galant charge. Maybe, after familiarising yourself with the field, could you understand that the TOE would never, ever predict such a thing. Maybe I'm just delirious when I expect people to a somewhat civilised way without shouting insults. Is Evolutionary theory not connected to how we all have common ancestors?. . .Coming from one unicellular organism that changed over a trillion years for all I care?. . .How then do you claim that Evolutionary theory does not predict that a specie will change into something entirely new after sometime? ![]() In the link you gave me, the guy was talking about intermediates. If Evolution theory does not predict a specie changing over time into something ENTIRELY different, why are we talking about intermediates? A National Geographic report awhile ago states precisely that proving the theory of evolution using fossils is like watching a movie of 1000 parts with 999 parts missing. There is no solid proof of these intermediates and when exactly a bird lost its wings, it's all speculation based on fossils that could have undergone a million chemical reactions while buried underground. As it is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, it is irrelevant to the question at hand Listen to yourself talk. . .A theory that tries to explain the beginning of things cannot tell us how things began? . . .What use is it then?. . .If it is to be used as something to explain how life started and developed on earth, it should be able to tell us when and how exactly life started. How does a chemical get life?. . . Ask yourself this question Mr. Nferyn. . .What in this world will give a chemical life and turn it into a unicellular organism that will develop to what we call human beings or you call Homo Sapiens( ![]() |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by nferyn(m): 10:31am On Jan 27, 2007 |
Donzman:Yes, common ancestory is a central claim of evolutionary theoryIsn't it satisfying to smithe a strawman in a galant charge. Maybe, after familiarising yourself with the field, could you understand that the TOE would never, ever predict such a thing. Maybe I'm just delirious when I expect people to a somewhat civilised way without shouting insults.Is Evolutionary theory not connected to how we all have common ancestors? Donzman:Not exactly. Not all life is cellular and many organisms that make up our common ancestory were non-cellular life. The endosymbiotic origin of mytochondria and chloroplasts is well supported by the evidence. The molecular evidence is actuallly the strongest line of evidence for common ancestory. The predictions from mutation rates in non-coding DNA (especially in mitochondrial DNA) match exactly the philogenetic trees that have been created from other lines of evidence (such as radiometric dating of fossils). Something that can only be explained by assuming common ancestory. The for all I care part is really telling. It indicates your unwillingness to learn about what evolutionary theory actually says. You rather make unsubstantiated claims about the TOE, which then - in your view - beg for an explanation, and behold, your God-of-the-gaps provides that explanation (or at least you think it does) Donzman:No, it does not make that claim. In the absence of selective pressure, natural selection does not work and genetic drift alone does not explain adaptations. Many organisms hardly undergo any phenotypical change, as their selective environment doesn't change. Take for example the Coelacanth, an order of fish that didn't change significantly over the last few millions of years. Something changing into something entirely new over sometime [/i]is indeed a predicition one can make, but [i]something entirely new and sometime can be narrowed down consideralbly. Something entirely new would still need to fall within the phylogenetic tree and bear the specific characteristics of that tree. A dog would never get wings and retain it's 4 paws at the same time, not even in 100 millions of years. A dog wouldn't turn into a salamander either. Observing something like that would be evidence against the TOE. When asked what would falsify the TOE, the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, i.e. something the TOE would predict to be impossible. Concerning the sometime part, for most species generational spans are too long to observe speciation, but for some others with ver short lifespans (such as fruit flies), speciation has been observed on multiple occasions. The demand for an experiment whereby a dog changes into a cat only comes from a faulty understanding of the TOE. Donzman:Again, see my reply above. The problem is that for each objection the creationisist brings against the TOE, once that objection is refuted, the creationist changes goalposts and starts to redifine concepts. That's also why I ask you to define the terminology precisely: it's pretty hard to chase ghosts when their nature constantly changes. Donzman:Exactly, that's why there are other lines of evidence that are far stronger than dating from the fossil record and all point in one direction: a universal philogenetic tree and common ancestory Donzman:Actually proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science, but there is sufficient solid evidece of intermediate species. Unfortunately a new intermediate found is an answer to the creationist's prayer (pun intended), as before there was only one gap and now there are two. Donzman:So does your creationist sources tell you. Maybe you could check out what biologists, geologists and paleontropologists say. Donzman:Could you point me to the version of the TOE that tries to explain the beginning of things. I'm not familiar with that theory.As it is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, it is irrelevant to the question at handListen to yourself talk. . .A theory that tries to explain the beginning of things cannot tell us how things began? Donzman:None, but then again, it does not make such claims. Donzman:The TOE explains the origin of biodiversity, starting from the first self-replication organic molecules. The origin of those self-replicating molecules can be explained by the different abiogenesis hypotheses. You must realise that, even though there are credible explanations for the origin of life, there is currently no smoking gun. Whatever the outcome, your god-of-the-gaps argument from personal incredulity doesn't cut the chase. It's not because your limited imagination fails to give you insight, that an inscrutible, overly complex creator is an alternative explanation. Donzman:And when did you stop beating your girlfriend? Come on now, stop putting up strawmen based on faulty assumptions and a lack of understanding of the TOE Donzman:Why? Untill you start explaining why sociology doesn't explain the origin of quarks, sociology hasn't taken off yet; get a grip, or better, get an understanding. Donzman:I don't know and neither do you, but that has nothing to do with the TOE |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by Nobody: 5:20pm On Jan 27, 2007 |
Actually proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science, but there is sufficient solid evidece of intermediate species. Unfortunately a new intermediate found is an answer to the creationist's prayer (pun intended), as before there was only one gap and now there are two. Proof is not for science?. . .A scientist should help this guy out please! ![]() Something entirely new would still need to fall within the phylogenetic tree and bear the specific characteristics of that tree. A dog would never get wings and retain it's 4 paws at the same time, not even in 100 millions of years. A dog wouldn't turn into a salamander either. Observing something like that would be evidence against the TOE. When asked what would falsify the TOE, the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, i.e. something the TOE would predict to be impossible. Are you then suggesting that Macroevolution does not occur?. . .How then did human beings come from the same ancestors as apes? ![]() Look at the baseless claims you're making, "science does not require proofs". Exactly, that's why there are other lines of evidence that are far stronger than dating from the fossil record and all point in one direction: a universal philogenetic tree and common ancestory All other evidence can as well be evidence creation. All kinds were created with an ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment, couldn't I make that argument? ![]() I don't know and neither do you, but that has nothing to do with the TOE So you have admitted that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, why then do you insist on pitching it against creation?. . .I might as well argue that evolution is one of those natural processes like metabolism and aging. You know fully well that evolutionary theory has no clue as to how life started and can only try to explain (barely) how life came to be today. Why then do evolutionists think they have something against creation?. . .A creationist can always argue that evolution (microevolution to be precise) is a built-in adaptive mechanism built in by the creator. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by Nrbn: 7:52pm On Jan 27, 2007 |
The darwinism theory is one the most disaster on our age for explaining the himanity and life origin, this book explains the deceit of this theory, he wrote: Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, the truth is that Darwin was not its originator, and neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of the ancient dogma of materialist philosophy. Although it is not backed up by scientific discoveries, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy." book can be found full written in this site without neccessary to download , http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php and this for "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions" http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions01.php |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by KAG: 11:37pm On Jan 27, 2007 |
Donzman: He's right though, proof is not for science. Science can't prove anything, it can strongly show with evidence, but it doesn't deal in proof. For example, gravity and the theory of relativity give a strong parsimonious explanation of the attraction of bodies; however, it can't be proved, therfore angels could be the unlikely reason for attraction. Are you then suggesting that Macroevolution does not occur?. . . Macroevolution does occur, unfortunately you don't know what macroevolution is. How then did human beings come from the same ancestors as apes? Evolution of course. Incidentally, humans are still apes, so we share a common ancestor with other apes. Look at the baseless claims you're making, "science does not require proofs". Perhaps you don't understand the implication of the word "proof". All other evidence can as well be evidence creation. All kinds were created with an ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment, couldn't I make that argument? You could make that argument, vacuous though it may be, but you will then be required to: define "kinds", show how your model can be falsified, give predictions based on your model and see if they stand up to scrutiny. You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms). So you have admitted that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, why then do you insist on pitching it against creation?. . . I don't know if you've noticed, but it's Creationists that tend pit the two against each other (for good measure, many even include the Big Bang theory and planetary formation with the theory of evolution). Also, Creationists are proud of the fact Creationism includes origins of everything and the "ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment". By the by, if you want to discuss the origin of life, do so, but don't confuse it with the theory of evolution. I might as well argue that evolution is one of those natural processes like metabolism and aging. Why? You know fully well that evolutionary theory has no clue as to how life started and can only try to explain (barely) how life came to be today. Why then do evolutionists think they have something against creation?. . Of course the theory of evolution doesn't (shouldn't) touch on the origin of life (see the title of Darwin's book for example), however it does a quite stellar job in explaining how species have diversified. Why do evolutionists think they have something against Creationism? Why do scientists have something against the flat Earthers?. .A creationist can always argue that evolution (microevolution to be precise) is a built-in adaptive mechanism built in by the creator. Present the argument then. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by Nobody: 5:42am On Jan 28, 2007 |
We have a bunch of FAKE scientists here, science does not deal with proofs?. . .That's a new one. ![]() You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms). Easy, I do not believe that chemical suddenly got life out of nowehere and started evolving to the million different species we see today. Even though evolution is yet to tell us how the first organism came to be, I wonder what kind of theory that is. Of course the theory of evolution doesn't (shouldn't) touch on the origin of life (see the title of Darwin's book for example), however it does a quite stellar job in explaining how species have diversified. I don't know who you think you're decieving here, evolution tries to explain how life came to be the way it is today. If it cannot tell us how life came to be in the first place then it hasn't taken off, sorry, cry me a river! Evolutionists believe that there is no CREATOR. If there is no creator, do you mind telling me how LIFE came to be in the first place?. . .Am I going nuts here? If you deny the creator, the onus is on you to show me how LIFE came to be. Till you do that, your theory stays out of touch with reality. Your theory cannot say there is no creator yet fail to show us how life came to be, it doesn't make sense. It's like telling me electricicity does not shock but failing to tell me what shocks me when I touch a live wire. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by KAG: 12:50pm On Jan 28, 2007 |
Donzman: I presume you're a "real" scientist, then? That's a new one. It's not really. There's even a catch phrase for it: "proof is for maths and alcohol" Easy, I do not believe that chemical suddenly got life out of nowehere and started evolving to the million different species we see today. "you will then be required to: define "kinds", show how your model can be falsified, give predictions based on your model and see if they stand up to scrutiny. You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms)." Even though evolution is yet to tell us how the first organism came to be, I wonder what kind of theory that is. A theory that deals with the origin and diversity of species? Like I said, if you want to discuss the origins of life (Abiogenesis), do so, but stop confusing and conflating it with the theory of evolution. I don't know who you think you're decieving here, evolution tries to explain how life came to be the way it is today. If it cannot tell us how life came to be in the first place then it hasn't taken off, sorry, cry me a river! Well over 95% of Biologists and 150 years of not getting falsified, say otherwise Evolutionists believe that there is no CREATOR. No, Atheists and probably some pantheists believe there is no creator. Don't make me have to bust out my "evolution is not atheism sign. If there is no creator, do you mind telling me how LIFE came to be in the first place?. . I don't. My opinion is that some kind of abiogenesis occured, and it was probably a process that was somewhere between Fox's protocells and the PreRNA-RNA, etc models. .Am I going nuts here? You aren't nuts already? If you deny the creator, the onus is on you to show me how LIFE came to be. Till you do that, your theory stays out of touch with reality. Actually there really is no onus even if there's a denial of a creator. Your theory cannot say there is no creator yet fail to show us how life came to be, it doesn't make sense. It's like telling me electricicity does not shock but failing to tell me what shocks me when I touch a live wire. We do, however, know it's nothing of the sort, and we know you still have no idea what evolution is. [quote][/quote] |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by clemsonfan(m): 10:53pm On Jan 29, 2007 |
Nyfern, KAG. Both of you may argue your points on the evolution theory, but when it comes down to it , we who believe in GOD and all of his works will see who, in the end, will be in Heaven. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by nferyn(m): 9:17pm On Jan 30, 2007 |
Donzman:Great comeback. Trying asking a scientist, any scientist for that matter, and he'll explain you quite clearly that science is built on evidence, not proof. Unfortunately, your skull seems to be too thick to let anything pass through that doesn't already fit your preconceived notions of reality Donzman:You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Obviously it isn't on par with your rhetorical skills. Where did I say that Macroevolution doesn't occur?Something entirely new would still need to fall within the phylogenetic tree and bear the specific characteristics of that tree. A dog would never get wings and retain it's 4 paws at the same time, not even in 100 millions of years. A dog wouldn't turn into a salamander either. Observing something like that would be evidence against the TOE. When asked what would falsify the TOE, the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, i.e. something the TOE would predict to be impossible.Are you then suggesting that Macroevolution does not occur?. . .How then did human beings come from the same ancestors as apes? Donzman:Maybe you can sit through an introductory course in philosophy of science and learn a little about the scientific method. Pick up a good book by Popper, learn something about falsifiability, testable predictions, parsimony and other concepts that are at the core of scientific reasoning. But then again, why would you read anything that might upset your prejudices? Donzman:And what predictions does creation make? How can creation [/i]be falsified? What exactly does the [i]scientific [/i]theory of [i]creation [/i]say?Exactly, that's why there are other lines of evidence that are far stronger than dating from the fossil record and all point in one direction: a universal philogenetic tree and common ancestoryAll other evidence can as well be evidence creation. All kinds were created with an ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment, couldn't I make that argument? You're just talking out of your photonically challenged rear-end. Donzman:Because someone here was speaking about [i]Creation Theory, a gross misnomer for religiously biased ignorance. Donzman:It is, indeed. Donzman:Why should it? Do you ask your car mechanic to give you a double bypass? Donzman:In your extremely limited imagination, maybe. just a hint, read The Ancestor's Tale or even better still, get yourself a copy of The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll Donzman:It can be made to fit the facts (barely and with a lot of mental gymnastics), but it isn't science in the slightest. Putting it as an alternative to evolutionary biology is dishonest braindead idiocy. Donzman:A creationist can argue anything he likes, as creation is so plastic that it can be rationalised into anything he pleases, therefore it couldn't possibly be further removed from science than any other kind of neurological activity. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by Nobody: 9:30pm On Jan 30, 2007 |
From your arguments, it's obvious that you feel it's the same Creation is more than religion my friend, it is a fact of life that there is a creator. That is the only reasonable way you can explain the way things are without looking like a fool. My forefathers knew that and so did all other wise men on the face of the earth back then. They all tried to represent and adore the creator the best way they knew how. Great comeback. Trying asking a scientist, any scientist for that matter, and he'll explain you quite clearly that science is built on evidence, not proof. Unfortunately, your skull seems to be too thick to let anything pass through that doesn't already fit your preconceived notions of reality Keep making a fool of yourself. . .Science requires you to prove whatever theory you have beyond reasonable doubt. What is proof?. . .Proof is made through collection of evidence, evidence that is meant to prove your theory. Saying science is all evidence and no proof sounds ignorant, sorry no offense. Why should it? Do you ask your car mechanic to give you a double bypass? If my mechanic tells me that doctors are not special and that he can do whatever I claim my doctor can do then the mechanic has to give me my double bypass. If evolutionists claim there is no creator, they need to tell us how life started. I'm done with this argument, I've rattled your feeble feathers enough. Creation is the only way the beginning and nature of life can be explained, every other theory fails. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by nferyn(m): 9:31pm On Jan 30, 2007 |
Donzman:And that's your attempt at theorising. You're even more clueless than I thought, DonzmanYou'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms).Easy, I do not believe that chemical suddenly got life out of nowehere and started evolving to the million different species we see today. Even though evolution is yet to tell us how the first organism came to be, I wonder what kind of theory that is. Donzman:Strawmen gallore. Come and see, made out of the finest straw. They may not look like the real thing at all, but we've got lots of them.Of course the theory of evolution doesn't (shouldn't) touch on the origin of life (see the title of Darwin's book for example), however it does a quite stellar job in explaining how species have diversified.I don't know who you think you're decieving here, evolution tries to explain how life came to be the way it is today. If it cannot tell us how life came to be in the first place then it hasn't taken off, sorry, cry me a river! Donzman:Tha's a new one. Ever heard of Kenneth R. Miller? Maybe you're really going nuts. Donzman:[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]Occam's Razor[/url] does just fine. Your Creator is entirely unnecessary. Donzman:It doesn't deal in unnecessary entities like creators that have zero explanatory power. If you need the comfort of a skydaddy watching over you, well, that's just you. Donzman:Apt analogy, maybe you've touched too many live wire's already. By the way, how do you [i]measure [/i]and [i]detect [/i]your creator? |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by Nobody: 10:15pm On Jan 30, 2007 |
Occam's Razor does just fine. Your Creator is entirely unnecessary. Are you being a plain idiot now?. . .How does Occam's razor explain the beginning of things? I stopped taking you seriously when you claimed science has nothing to do with proofs. In the Economics dept. here in my school, they're trying to get more 'scientific'. What do they do?. . .They teach graduate students a bunch of proofs upon proofs of several theories and Lemmas. I wonder why they'll lay so much emphasis on proof if it has nothing to do with science. . . Take your atheistic ass out of here. At the end of the road, I have nothing to lose while being a believer in God, that is the dominant strategy. You on the other hand have chosen to play the dominated strategy in this game of life i.e. choosing to ignore God. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by nferyn(m): 11:29pm On Jan 30, 2007 |
Donzman:Maybe I learn from the masterOccam's Razor does just fine. Your Creator is entirely unnecessary.Are you being a plain idiot now?. . . ![]() Donzman:You introduce a creator as explanatory factor. That factor should answer more questions than it raises. It does exactly the opposite, because now you need to explain that creator. Do not unnecessary multiply entities! Donzman:Maybe you'll take these people seriously: From http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html (emphasis mine): Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are [b]not [/b]about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html : ", in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. , This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." Donzman:As a social scientist myself, I always deplored the ill advised application of the scientific method in the social sciences. Economics is probably the worst offender, as it regularly hides behind smokescreens of complex mathematical formulas that are based on shaky premisses. Donzman:I hear a Pascal's Wager is coming our way. Second rate philosophy. Donzman:I usually ignore imaginary beings. I wish I could also ignore imaginary intelligence ![]() |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by KAG: 7:34pm On Jan 31, 2007 |
Donzman: No, it isn't a fact that there is a creator. It is the very antithesis of a fact, especially given the reluctance of Creationists to give any falsifiable evidence for the creator - there's a reason it's faith. That is the only reasonable way you can explain the way things are without looking like a fool. It clearly isn't. My forefathers knew that and so did all other wise men on the face of the earth back then. They all tried to represent and adore the creator the best way they knew how. Including the atheistic, agnostic and pantheistic ones? Keep making a fool of yourself. . .Science requires you to prove whatever theory you have beyond reasonable doubt. What is proof?. . .Proof is made through collection of evidence, evidence that is meant to prove your theory. Saying science is all evidence and no proof sounds ignorant, sorry no offense. Scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method By the way, it's not prove beyond reasonable doubts, it's show beyond reasonable doubt. If my mechanic tells me that doctors are not special and that he can do whatever I claim my doctor can do then the mechanic has to give me my double bypass. You'd let your mechanic give you a double bypass just because he says Doctor's arent special and he can do whatever you claim your doctor can do? Seriously? If evolutionists claim there is no creator, they need to tell us how life started. No they don't, but I went ahead and gave you my opinion anyway. I'm done with this argument, I've rattled your feeble feathers enough. Creation is the only way the beginning and nature of life can be explained, every other theory fails. OMG, you're right, how could we not realise it. Now all you have to do is contact Science or National Geographic and submit your groundbreaking discovery. Go, the world is depending on you. Gob speed. |
Re: Evolutionary Theory And Creation Theory by KAG: 8:19pm On Jan 31, 2007 |
clemsonfan: Good for you. Now maybe you can do what I asked in my first post in this thread, although I wont hold my breath. P.S There are many Christians that accept the theory of evolution too, but if you want to believe they, like we baby eating atheists, are going to the "palce" that isn't Christian heaven, then it's no skin off my back. |
Should A Good Christian Be Playing "baba Ijebu" Or Lotto? / Jesus: Man Of Peace Or Man Of War / A Shocking Revelation
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 196 |