Evolution VS Creation - Page 7 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 161Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #91 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 10:40 AM
UMP
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,279
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
The problem with your last question of probe, is that we don't see with our eyes we see with our brains. The eyes merely collect external energy and allow a transduction response to which our brains interprets it as vision. As such, blind people see, they just don't see as a person who has these collection and transducing devices.
You speak like Nicodemus after Jesus Christ told him that he must be born again to "see the kingdom of God."

John 3:
[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

UMP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 10:45 AM
Member
 
VermisciousKnid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,984
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by inmyprime View Post
I hadn't realised evolution is still regarded a "theory". Is it a US thing? Over here, it's accepted as the standard model and taught in schools as fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Shocking, isn't it?

Fundamentalists have opposed the fact of evolution since it was introduced.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

My kids (3 of them) each got through public high school biology understanding that evolution is a fact. I think the approach to teaching it varies greatly depending on the region and the amount of control politicians have over the curriculum.
VermisciousKnid is offline  
post #93 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 10:48 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,533
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP View Post
You speak like Nicodemus after Jesus Christ told him that he must be born again to "see the kingdom of God."



John 3:

[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


Well, no, I speak like a post-god H sapien.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Ikaika is offline  
 
post #94 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 10:49 AM
UMP
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,279
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
Well, no, I speak like a post-god H sapien.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
So be it.
UMP is offline  
post #95 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 11:05 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,456
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by inmyprime View Post
I hadn't realised evolution is still regarded a "theory". Is it a US thing? Over here, it's accepted as the standard model and taught in schools as fact.
It's a testimonial to the stupidity of our society.
browser is offline  
post #96 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 11:17 AM
Member
 
VermisciousKnid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,984
Re: Evolution VS Creation

This is a good read. Even addresses the misquoting of Stephen Jay Gould. 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...o-creationist/
VermisciousKnid is offline  
post #97 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 11:56 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 565
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
No, it is not impossible to dismiss a creator, based on how science is conducted. First and foremost there is no way to test for a creator. If one cannot be observed (EVOLUTION has never been observed, only theorized and attempted to be proven) using the scientific method then one has to utilized methodologies and observation that draw a conclusion based on ignorance rather than trying to base science on one's biased conclusion. (Are you saying that there is no bias to further prove evolution?) Thus creation, simply is one where science does just that, test for a biased conclusion without any actually observable evidence. (I would say that this is also the case for evolution) This leaves no possibility for any alternative thought. (This is what I was confronted with when I first discussed my masters thesis. I was not allowed to challenge conventional thought on evolution, only to present more data/evidence to prove it.) Thankfully, actual science attempts as much as possible to remove bias(I did not see this or believe it to be true) and allow conclusions to be drawn on the building block of evidence. And, thus over the last 200 years that evidence has given more credibility toward an evolutionary origin than of a created biology. The only exception is based on modern science where man has become the god of creation using biotechnology as our driving force. (This sounds like an argument for at least intelligent design. Outside of designing and executing these experiments/studies evolution has never been observed.)

The idea of abiogenesis is founded on the principle of what many scientific simulations have concluded, with simple organic matter and external energy (sun mainly) complex molecules can and do in fact form (nature of organic molecules). ("Simple"? Where do we now see these quantities of simple organic matter or have evidence for their existence? In nature they don't exist and if they do form are quickly broken down. Proteins or amino acid chains are very unstable outside of their functioning environment. So how do we theorize their ability to exist in quantities and time sufficient to form more complex and functional molecules?) It has been well postulated that life emerged from the building block of RNA, having both genetic and enzymatic qualities - providing us with the two basic characteristics to define life, metabolism and continuity (reproduction). (Postulated based on observance? The postulate is very purposeful because if simple organic matter were in quantities large and stable enough with energy applied they would have to have both genetic and enzymatic properties at the same time. If these more complex molecules possessed only one of these functions it would be a dead end to evolution. So, for me, it is a very large leap of faith to accept the postulate that two functions simultaneously evolved and were in a stable enough environment to proliferate and further evolve. I'm not convinced.)

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the theory of abiogenesis a completely different topic than evolution. Mixing the two as support for or against evolution or creation seems to be misguided.


Mathematics (probability) absolutely helps to support evolution. Yes, if the experiment could be run again, it may not provide us with the world we see now, but that does not discount the experiment that the world has already run.
I think it's fair to say that a creation story is accepted based on faith and unlikely that science will ever be used to prove the existence of God or creation. As a skeptic I also am not convinced that science has proven evolution. There may be evidences to support a conclusion. I also think it's fair to say that evolution theory has many holes in it that make it difficult to accept as proven fact.

~ Passio
Idyit is online now  
post #98 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 12:04 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 10,497
Re: Evolution VS Creation

VK,

If we begin with common (what almost everyone in the US believes - even creationists) ground, it looks something like this:

1. Natural selection is a basic process which results in evolution
2. Certain 'types' of evolution are easily seen at a glance:
- Insect resistance to pesticides
- Pathogen resistance to antibiotics

The folks who favor creation seem to focus on (2) elements of evolution:
1. How the BIG jumps in the process happen: (these things are not yet understood)
- How is it that life began in the primordial soup of the earth (even simple life is pretty complicated)
- How other large 'jumps' occur - development of major new organs - including hearts, brains - etc
2. How this model applies to 'man', since 'man' is special and of Gods image

While there are gaps - ummm - it's also true that we humans share a very large amount of 'homologous DNA' with other mammals including horses, cats, dogs, etc. It seems statistically kind of impossible for us to share all that DNA - and not also share a common - very distant ancestor.

Those are parts of DNA which are the same

Me personally - I think humans like 'creation' stories since all major religions have them.

No offense intended to anyone as my wife and most of my friends are Christian. That said, the Christian or Jude's/Christian creation story doesn't seem inherently more rooted in science than any other religions. So if I were Hindu - I'd want my creation story in there on equal footing with the start of the Old Testament.






Quote:
Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
Shocking, isn't it?

Fundamentalists have opposed the fact of evolution since it was introduced.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

My kids (3 of them) each got through public high school biology understanding that evolution is a fact. I think the approach to teaching it varies greatly depending on the region and the amount of control politicians have over the curriculum.
MEM2020 is online now  
post #99 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 12:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,533
Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyit View Post
I think it's fair to say that a creation story is accepted based on faith and unlikely that science will ever be used to prove the existence of God or creation. As a skeptic I also am not convinced that science has proven evolution. There may be evidences to support a conclusion. I also think it's fair to say that evolution theory has many holes in it that make it difficult to accept as proven fact.



~ Passio

And, this is all that is necessary. Every theory is like a puzzle with missing pieces, however there are enough pieces to see what the picture looks like (trends). If one was putting together a puzzle of a farm house with a blue skyline and a lot of pieces were already in place. Enough pieces are in place that even if you lost some puzzle pieces you could still make out picture. So, just because some pieces are missing one would not suddenly claim it is a puzzle of a pig in mud puddle and double on that claim until every piece is in place. This is the fallacy behind suggesting missing pieces make the theory of evolution hard to believe. However, even my suggesting such a thing will no doubt cause one to double down even more.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Ikaika is offline  
post #100 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 12:30 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 565
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
And, this is all that is necessary. Every theory is like a puzzle with missing pieces, however there are enough pieces to see what the picture looks like (trends). If one was putting together a puzzle of a farm house with a blue skyline and a lot of pieces were already in place. Enough pieces are in place that even if you lost some puzzle pieces you could still make out picture. So, just because some pieces are missing one would not suddenly claim it is a puzzle of a pig in mud puddle and double on that claim until every piece is in place. This is the fallacy behind suggesting missing pieces make the theory of evolution hard to believe. However, even my suggesting such a thing will no doubt cause one to double down even more.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
If the theory of evolution were as simple as a puzzle picture I would agree with you. Where you and I likely disagree is on how many pieces are missing and how critical they might be to the picture.

~ Passio

Idyit is online now  
post #101 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 12:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,533
Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyit View Post
If the theory of evolution were as simple as a puzzle picture I would agree with you. Where you and I likely disagree is on how many pieces are missing and how critical they might be to the picture.



~ Passio


Well, it has a lot more pieces than any evidence suggesting creation (which there is zero). For one to conclude creation as a default conclusion because not every piece of evidence is available is not a science based discussion. It's assuming a conclusion before all evidence is available. The puzzle (the trends) are a lot better visualized today than even last year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Ikaika is offline  
post #102 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 12:41 PM
UMP
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,279
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
And, this is all that is necessary. Every theory is like a puzzle with missing pieces, however there are enough pieces to see what the picture looks like (trends). If one was putting together a puzzle of a farm house with a blue skyline and a lot of pieces were already in place. Enough pieces are in place that even if you lost some puzzle pieces you could still make out picture. So, just because some pieces are missing one would not suddenly claim it is a puzzle of a pig in mud puddle and double on that claim until every piece is in place. This is the fallacy behind suggesting missing pieces make the theory of evolution hard to believe. However, even my suggesting such a thing will no doubt cause one to double down even more.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Missing pieces are fine, unless you're putting together the Pratt & Whitney Jet engines that go on the commercial aircraft I fly on, while passing it off as complete to me and my children.
UMP is offline  
post #103 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 12:44 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,533
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP View Post
Missing pieces are fine, unless you're putting together the Pratt & Whitney Jet engines that go on the commercial aircraft I fly on, while passing it off as complete to me and my children.


This is the communication problem between engineers and scientists. I would never trust a scientist to design a bridge, however equally I would never assume engineers create theories based on trends that deals with acceptable uncertainties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Ikaika is offline  
post #104 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 12:53 PM
UMP
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,279
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
This is the communication problem between engineers and scientists. I would never trust a scientist to design a bridge, however equally I would never assume engineers create theories based on trends that deals with acceptable uncertainties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Yet I should allow scientists who state as fact, along with "missing pieces" mind you, tell me and my children how I was created? Is that not called faith?

No thanks.

Joshua 24
[15] .......................: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
UMP is offline  
post #105 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:00 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 565
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM2020 View Post
VK,

If we begin with common (what almost everyone in the US believes - even creationists) ground, it looks something like this:

1. Natural selection is a basic process which results in evolution Nope
2. Certain 'types' of evolution are easily seen at a glance:
- Insect resistance to pesticides Nope
- Pathogen resistance to antibiotics Nope

These are poor evidences of evolution of species. Lumping selection and mutation to produce a fitter organism with speciation is inaccurate as a proof of the latter. 1) Is more in line with Darwinian evolution which is not supported by the evidence or even evolutionary scientists. 2) The first part is more correctly categorized with natural selection. The second is a mix of the two. There is definite selection going on with pathogen resistance as well as transduction which produces a fitter organism for the environment. But none of these process creates a different species to support evolution on a macro scale.

The folks who favor creation seem to focus on (2) elements of evolution:
1. How the BIG jumps in the process happen: (these things are not yet understood)
- How is it that life began in the primordial soup of the earth (even simple life is pretty complicated)
- How other large 'jumps' occur - development of major new organs - including hearts, brains - etc
2. How this model applies to 'man', since 'man' is special and of Gods image

While there are gaps - ummm - it's also true that we humans share a very large amount of 'homologous DNA' with other mammals including horses, cats, dogs, etc. It seems statistically kind of impossible for us to share all that DNA - and not also share a common - very distant ancestor.

This is a big leap. How much of that "homologous DNA" is functional? How much of it is regulatory? How much of it supports common characteristics? When you extract out these and are left with the dissimilar DNA the numbers are not surprising. Common DNA = common ancestor is only supported by theory and opinion.

Those are parts of DNA which are the same

Me personally - I think humans like 'creation' stories since all major religions have them.

Not that it's evidence for creation but why do you think this is so? Creation stories from across the globe produced by some who did and some who did not have contact with each other. If using the logic above concerning common DNA one could conclude that a creation did indeed take place.

No offense intended to anyone as my wife and most of my friends are Christian. That said, the Christian or Jude's/Christian creation story doesn't seem inherently more rooted in science than any other religions. So if I were Hindu - I'd want my creation story in there on equal footing with the start of the Old Testament.

Creation stories are not rooted in science. They are stories that were recorded for some purpose but not as scientific evidence. Challenging them in this way is akin to bashing a scientific study for it's lack of prose or poor grammar. What I do appreciate is when science is challenged and forced to do it's job better, not relying upon consilience or agreement within a field of study. The better the creationist of intelligent design scientists do their job the clearer the picture will actually be for or against the theory of evolution.
~ Passio
Idyit is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior tech-novelist The Social Spot 2 09-08-2016 02:34 AM
Religion Mr The Other Politics and Religion 585 02-20-2016 07:44 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome