Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 1,001-1,048 next last
To: Jehu
Those genes in all the same species could have all been designed...neither you or I have any way of knowing whether it was a mutation or designed. Which do you think is more likely?

Mutation is far more likely. A designer wouldn't put rubbish genes that don't work into 3 separate species?

801 posted on 12/21/2004 10:39:19 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
Fossilisation... rare event... "Why are there few fossils of modern fish?" a much tougher one for anyone who doubts evolution or supports the idea of flood geology.

What are your referring to, specifically?

I will leave it as an exercise for you to ponder why the total lack of modern forms in the fossil record (below the very uppermost strata) is a problem for flood geology and a vindication for the ToE. Not that flood geology needs any more problems as it predicts nothing, is inconsistent with observed reality in too many ways to enumerate quickly, and would require numerous miracles to even come close to working.

802 posted on 12/21/2004 10:43:09 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Evolution is a weak theory that I don't believe in. I KNOW G-d exists.

B: Translation: "I've been brain washed" TOE is among the pillars of modern science. To say it is weak theory belies a profound ignorance. And, many people accept evolution and God existence, like the Pope.

B: You can tell when a creationist has no argument, they claim that God and TOE are mutually exclusive. I suggest they try worshiping the real GOd and not the false one they created in their own image.


803 posted on 12/21/2004 10:49:35 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
I will leave it as an exercise for you to ponder why the total lack of modern forms in the fossil record (below the very uppermost strata) is a problem for flood geology and a vindication for the ToE. Not that flood geology needs any more problems as it predicts nothing, is inconsistent with observed reality in too many ways to enumerate quickly, and would require numerous miracles to even come close to working.

First of all, Genesis is older than ToE. The burden of proof rests with ToE. Secondly, what does ToE predict? All ToE does is try to cram observations into a coherent body. Coherency is not proof.

804 posted on 12/21/2004 10:53:29 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Then ...you can't even infer from your own certain knowledge that the rest of the universe outside the room that you are currently in didn't just stop existing.
This is not an "inference." Rather, it is "founded" on prior experience.

You don't demand such standards of proof anywhere else in your life.

You misunderstand my standard. Data must be found in nature or founded upon sufficient authority.

What you really mean is that you believe that evolution contradicts your interpretation of your holy book

You assume again. I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and in microevolution thereafter. How else could Noah have gotten the entire genepool onto the ark?

B: Congratulations. You've falsified your favorite Bible story. There is no evidence for a genetic bottleneck 4000 years ago. The variation of the human genome requires at least 100,000 years to obtain. Hence, considering the entire "genepool" rules out this particular Biblical tale. Its always amusing when creationist contradict themselves.


805 posted on 12/21/2004 10:53:31 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Natural selection can create NEW genes? By its definition it can only select from what exists. So I guess all life must have been a giant goo of all the genes there ever were, and selection has differentiated it all, finally into us. This is magical goo IMO, but just the properties of nature for you.

And that all this information...and it IS information, it IS a CODE...must have been inherent in matter from the beginning, it just took a hierarchy of complexity, from subatomic, to a multitude of chemical elements, to combinations of elements, all mixed in the right proportions with gravity, electromagnetic force, strong and weak forces...to produce the NATURAL biochemical forces for life to come about...then for the conditions of environment and competition for resources so that an (unmathmatically definable force) called "natural selection" could emerge to seemingly arbitrarily operate on this highest hierarchy of matter...over time..lots and lots of time.

To produce life which exhibits purpose and desire and a WILL to survive, which has a mysterious feedback loop to "natural selection," that "unknowingly," "uncaring," pushes life to its best, to the highest complexity imaginable (the human brain) so we could develop atomic weapons and annihilate ourselves and all other life, because the force that made us that was based on the absolutely keen force? desire? necessity? to survive and pass on our genes (which are not conscious are they?).

Seems to be bent on creating? producing? randomly arriving at? a being (collection of unaware biological processes) that can kill off the whole thing. Marvelous!
806 posted on 12/21/2004 10:54:11 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Ask the Pope?

/sarcasm

807 posted on 12/21/2004 10:55:18 AM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
Fish aren't mentioned in the Mosaic account. (Sorry for the non-answer.)

Of course they aren't, as the entire story is a myth that wasn't thought through at any level by the people who wrote it (who had no knowledge of the diversity of species anyway). They didn't think about the practicality of 8 people looking after a world's ecosystem in a 450ft wooden boat with one opening 2ft square in the top deck. They didn't think about what everyone would eat when they disembarked. They didn't know that there would be no topsoil (requires live earthworms) for decades, or what the predators would eat the moment they disembarked etc etc etc

I note you haven't explained how marsupials got back to Australia, or knew how to go back there, or how they survived on Antarctica.

Non-answer gobbledegook about light-speed noted.

Stuff about irrelevant ICR experiments

None of the stuff that you mention explains the phenomena that are seen in real strata in the real world, like interposed fully-formed fossil coral beds, like fossilised burrows, like thick layers of powdery material where the powder is so fine that the grains take years to fall onto the sediment, Like interposed igneous strata, coal formations, like radiometric dates that get steadily and consistently older the deeper down the column we go etc etc etc.

808 posted on 12/21/2004 10:58:26 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

No but it is a cult, just like evolution. True Christianity is almost as rare as evidence for evolution. And that an absurd theory is widely held, neither means it is accurate, nor the holders of that theory exhibit profound intelligence.


809 posted on 12/21/2004 11:01:15 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

What is the difference in this context between microevolution and macroevolution?
If I understand your question, Noah had a gorilla on the ark but not an eastern-lowland gorilla, a mountain gorilla and a western gorilla.

Do you reject the abundant physical evidence that the earth is c 4 billion years old..."

No, I interpret it differently.

B: No you interpret it wrongly.

Light was created before the stars.

B: You mean the cosmic microwave background. Which ceased being in the visible spectrum a few million years after big bang.

That gets it down to a few hundren million.

B. Wrong. The age of the Earth is 4.55 billion years old give or take 50 million years. The universe is 13.7 billion years in age give or take one billion.


It also eliminates the need for string theory.

B: What are you smoking? And creationists claim evolution is a fairy tale? LMAO!

The deluge explains the rock strata.

B: Even DiVInci realized the Noachian Deluge didn't explain rock strata. Say, Derheim.. can you explain how angular uncomformities and salt deposits form in a flood? We'd really like to know.


If you do an experiment with several thousands of gallons of water, some silt and sand and a few dead critters, you get the same thing.

B: Done that experiment many times. But I've never seen stacked reef complexes, angular uncomformities, salt deposits and a billion other things result from it.



Here's a question:How do fish leave fossils? "Modern" ones don't.

B: Yet more ignorance. You can find plenty of recent fish fossils in lakes and elsewhere. In fact fish otoliths are good barometers of environmental changes in lakes.

B: You know nothing about anything you wrote of. Not one thing. None, nada, zilch.


810 posted on 12/21/2004 11:02:08 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
The variation of the human genome requires at least 100,000 years to obtain.

This is your premise, not my contradiction. It is based on average lifespans similar to or shorter than ours, rather than the ones described in the Mosaic account. Noah lived another 350 years after the flood. Abraham (born 400 years later) lived 175 years. The numbers become more "familiar after that. This additional opportunity for more separate bloodlines more than explains your misconception.

I love it when evolutionists accuse others of believing in fairy tales.

811 posted on 12/21/2004 11:04:10 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

That was a lame list you posted. The "American Jewish Congress" is extremely liberal and certainly doesn't represent Torah Judaism. And certainly isn't a "great many Jews." In fact, there are some excellent Orthodox Jewish scientists who have debunked macro-evolution.

B: It never ceases to amaze me when fundamentalist Christian buttheads think they speak for the Jews. Evolution does not touch on any salvational issues for us. Its not a problem. Even the Late Rabbe Shneerson said it didn't matter. You can believe the world is 6000 years old, or not. It doesn't amtter.

B: Please post a list of Orthodox Jews who have debunked macro-evolution. I'd like to see it.


812 posted on 12/21/2004 11:06:00 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
None of the stuff that you mention explains the phenomena that are seen in real strata in the real world, like interposed fully-formed fossil coral beds, like fossilised burrows, like thick layers of powdery material where the powder is so fine that the grains take years to fall onto the sediment, Like interposed igneous strata, coal formations, like radiometric dates that get steadily and consistently older the deeper down the column we go etc etc etc.

And none of this contradicts the Mosaic account. your point, please? As for Antarctica, is there any proof those fossils couldn't have arrived there during the flood?

813 posted on 12/21/2004 11:10:30 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
I will leave it as an exercise for you to ponder why the total lack of modern forms in the fossil record (below the very uppermost strata) is a problem for flood geology and a vindication for the ToE. Not that flood geology needs any more problems as it predicts nothing, is inconsistent with observed reality in too many ways to enumerate quickly, and would require numerous miracles to even come close to working.

First of all, Genesis is older than ToE. The burden of proof rests with ToE. Secondly, what does ToE predict? All ToE does is try to cram observations into a coherent body. Coherency is not proof.

Lack of attempt to answer my question noted. Comments to your fresh comments interspersed following:

First of all, Genesis is older than ToE. The burden of proof rests with ToE.

Age of theories is irrelevant when assessing how well they correspond with observed reality.

Secondly, what does ToE predict?

ToE makes numerous succesful predictions. One was that marsupial fossils would be found in Antarctica. Do you know how geologists and biologists were able to predict this?

All ToE does is try to cram observations into a coherent body. Coherency is not proof.

No scientific theory is ever proven. Proof is for geometry. All any scientific theory does is combine observations into a coherent body, from which predictions are made and falsifications attempted. ToE makes numerous succesful predictions and has survived all attempts at falsification. No scientific theory can have any higher accolade than being consistend with observed data.

814 posted on 12/21/2004 11:12:31 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
None of the stuff that you mention explains the phenomena that are seen in real strata in the real world, like interposed fully-formed fossil coral beds, like fossilised burrows, like thick layers of powdery material where the powder is so fine that the grains take years to fall onto the sediment, Like interposed igneous strata, coal formations, like radiometric dates that get steadily and consistently older the deeper down the column we go etc etc etc.

And none of this contradicts the Mosaic account. your point, please? As for Antarctica, is there any proof those fossils couldn't have arrived there during the flood?

But it completely contradicts the ICR flood geology hypotheses. And marsupial fossils are *only* found in Australasia and Antarctica. Have you worked out why that is yet? (hint: it is really easy to see why if you reject flood nonsense and accept mainstream science of plate tectonics and ToE)

815 posted on 12/21/2004 11:15:29 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
You're getting hysterical.
Here, I'll prove it.
This message is not for you.
It's my bookmark :)
816 posted on 12/21/2004 11:16:19 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

I guess you are just responding to people on this thread in general and nothing that I have said since I didn't say they were "mutually exclusive." I just don't believe in the theory of macro-evolution. If you want to call me and all the scientists who also don't accept it ignorant, that's your deal.


817 posted on 12/21/2004 11:18:28 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
It never ceases to amaze me when fundamentalist Christian buttheads think they speak for the Jews.

I'd agree with that except I haven't seen any recent examples of "fundamentalist Christian buttheads" speaking for Jews. Have you?

818 posted on 12/21/2004 11:20:40 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
If you want to call me and all the scientists who also don't accept it ignorant, that's your deal.

All what scientists? Cite some peer-reviewed papers please.

819 posted on 12/21/2004 11:22:54 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
You can barely design something to put on your refrigerator with a magnet, and you are the expert on the design of the universe? You neither caused your birth or know your death. You cannot create or destroy one iota of energy.

You are an absolute parasite in this universe. You have no idea what a thought is, how the human brain works, how memory is held in the brain etc... You come into awareness in a body that heals itself, respirates, and digests, all without your conscious control!

You are simply a VISITOR in a body YOU had nothing to do in creating, designing, or are able to make one hair grow faster!

You can with your eyes perceived less than a billionth of a percent of the whole known universe, and now you are ragging on God? Finding fault about some genes, that you have no clue there full function, nobody does, and molecular biologist have one expression on their faces everyday (SUPRISE!).

I think you are pretty small to be so damn arrogant and knowing!

Your perspective reminds me of a true story. Two professors sitting in the quad. One a believer the other an evolutionist and atheist. The atheist was always bitching to the believer about how crummy a job God did in designing things. He observes a squirrel running around, and says, "Professor, if God created those squirrels why did he give them such bad memories? Do you know that they can't remember where they have buried one third of their acorns and nuts?

To which the believing professor replies, "Do you see all these trees over there in that forest?

The other professor says, "yes."

"Well who do you think planted all those trees?"

Where you see junk and futility and mistakes, I always see the creative hand of God. Even in my arguments with you evolutionists. You are the monotone canvas I paint the beauty of God's creation against. Yours is the darkness over the surface of the deep, as I (in the image of God) get to echo my great father, "Let there be light!" What a wonderful, beautiful God he is! His creation is beautiful...He is beautiful.
820 posted on 12/21/2004 11:24:47 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"B: Well then, you're behind the times. I pity the company you work for. Because things like electrical circuits are now being designed by "Genetic Algorithms" which are mathematical algorithms which mimic Darwinian evolution.

I pity the other evolutionists on this board that are getting YOUR help...these programs that "mimic" Darwinian evolution were designed by who? Evolution?

B: Actually Yes. Mathematicians were inspired by them. After all if nature could use these simple algorithms for its advantage, so should engineers and scientists. So a whole new class of mathematics, stochastic hill climbing methods, owes its existence to Darwin. Doesn't that just bake your noodle?


"In fact Genetic Algorithms such as the Monte Carlo Method have been a staple of mathematicians and engineers for decades. I suggest you consider retirement, and let a younger generation of engineers who know what they are doing have a crack at it. "

UNBELIEVABLE! You are using human designed computer programs that mimic "so called evolutionary processes (whatever they are)" to prove that blind random chance can produce the same, or similar complexity that requires directed intelligence to produce.

B: Actually more complex. GA's have been used to generate circuits which are more complex and perform better than ones designed by human engineers. Furthermore, it refutes your contention that Darwinian process can't *design anything*.



How do you even feed yourself without help?

B: ROFL. I suggest you retire now. That would help the company you work for quite a bit.

Your are the EXACT evidence that belief in evolutionary theory is a mind killer. You can't even recognize your hypothesis is self-contradictory, and proves MY point!

B: Let me get this.. A process which is based random variation, cross fertilization and natural selection out performs human designers and that contradicts my point? I'm sorry, but typing in all caps doesn't make your point. You only look shrill and unable to cope.


B: THat biological materials have complex properties and interactions is a fact of nature. Again, here we have a creationists that is at war with reality.

And here we have an evolutionist that spouts tautologies as revelation. We all know, maybe even your 5 year old brother knows that nature is complex, the question is how does insensate (mindless) matter eventually produce consciousness.

B: Thats a good question. 3000 years ago, Why does the sun rise and set, Why does the moon go through phases, Why does it rain, were also considered imponderable questions which seemingly had no solution. Of course, every school kid knows the answers to these questions. It never amazes me how creationists, because they can ask questions, somehow think the mere existence of unanswered questions is a problem for science. Incredible. Folks this is the hallmark of the argument from "Personal Astonishment" and is a logical fallacy. All we get from Jehu are incorrect statements and testimonies to his personal astonishment. No data, no facts, no nothing.


I am speaking for myself, cause I am not sure YOU are actually conscious of anything but what your professors have already thought, or allow you to think.

B: BAwahahaha. There's nothing I like to hear more from god botherers than that I'm "brainwashed". This would be funny if it weren't so sad. Jehu is simply trying to blame his ignorance on other people. No, Jehu, your problem is that you have abandoned independent thought a long time ago.


I could only wish I could threaten Hell to evolutionists, seeing they are responsible for most of the philosophical foundations for most of the hell of man against man on this earth in the 20th century.

B: BAWAHAHA. Your powerless Jehu, and butt ignorant.


It used to be religions were the base of many human wars, but the killing fields of the 20th century were first seeded with the God-hating philosophy turned loose by Darwin.

Which is a religion and holding true to form in that it first kills the spirit (see Christ and His arguments to the "learned leaders" of His day)

Heck it's all just the "survival of the fittest," don't you know? You and your pals are not innocent of blood, even though your hands never pulled the trigger.

B: ROFL. Now for a few remarks from "Der Fuher". I'm sure Jehu will appreciate this, as will most of the God botherers.

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ... we need believing people."
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during
negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
[Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]


"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the
work of the Lord." -- _Mien Kampt_, Adolf Hitler

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It
points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few
followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight
against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a
fighter." -- _My New Order_, Adolf Hitler

"When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and
look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a
very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are
plundered and exploited." -- _My New Order_, Adolf Hitler


Of course, Hitler never mentioned Darwin, natural selection or survival of the fittest. But he did speak about his sworn duty to God to many times.

Once again Jehu, swings and misses, and it comes back on him. Jehu, I pity you. I really do.


821 posted on 12/21/2004 11:25:08 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

You still haven't got any actual arguments then Jehu. LOL.


822 posted on 12/21/2004 11:25:45 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Archaeopteryx


823 posted on 12/21/2004 11:27:09 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

Exposing ignorance is fun, isn't it. You are better at it than I am though. :(


824 posted on 12/21/2004 11:28:43 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Those genes in all the same species could have all been designed...neither you or I have any way of knowing whether it was a mutation or designed. Which do you think is more likely?

So someone designed in the same mistake in the same defective protein in all three species, which just by accident happen to be the three which evolutionists claim are closest related.

Why design in a mistake in the first place? And why design in the same mistake on three independent occasions? And you're claiming this theory is scientific?

825 posted on 12/21/2004 11:30:32 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Go read what DARWIN said about the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, on more than one occasion. Or do you disagree with Darwin's assesment of the problem of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?

B: Darwin was correct. In has time, there were no bona-fide transtaionals identified as such. On the other hand since Darwin's day, Paleontologist have Identified more than 300,000 fossil species, where as in Darwin's time only a few thousand were identified. I can understand where Jehu is comming from. After all, he's chained his mind to a holy book written thousands of years ago, and figures I am beholden to what Darwin wrote 150 years ago. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Before Darwin died, a number of transitionals were found including the famous Archeaopteryx. It was also regonized that Basilosaurus which was originally identified as a big lizard by Owen, was actually a whale. A whale with very small legs. Had Darwin lived long enough to write another edition of OOS, no doubt he would've mentioned them. LOL. Jehu, your argument has to be one of the silliest arguments I've heard.


826 posted on 12/21/2004 11:32:10 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

I will leave it as an exercise for you to ponder why the total lack of modern forms in the fossil record (below the very uppermost strata) is a problem for flood geology and a vindication for the ToE. Not that flood geology needs any more problems as it predicts nothing, is inconsistent with observed reality in too many ways to enumerate quickly, and would require numerous miracles to even come close to working.
First of all, Genesis is older than ToE. The burden of proof rests with ToE.

B: Genesis is not a scientific theory.


Secondly, what does ToE predict?

B: For starters, It predicted humans evolved from the higher primates. THis prediction, initally made by Darwin, has been borne out in a plethora of transitional forms.


827 posted on 12/21/2004 11:35:17 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Here is a link http://www.hebrewworld.com/books/ByChance.html to a source called "Not By Chance," which illustrates some of the issues that have been raised about Darwin's theory. I'm thinking about putting together a documentary about Creation and the Theory of Evolution. It seems to be a hot topic lately.


828 posted on 12/21/2004 11:36:12 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
I love it when evolutionists accuse others of believing in fairy tales.

You're claiming that people lived for periods longer than 200 years? Can you cite one modern record of a human lifespan longer than 130? (Let me help you here: no, you can't). So we either have to conclude that either people's biochemistry has drastically changed in 3000 years (and, oddly enough, it had shrunk to less than 100 by the time of the Romans and has remained fixed or increased since), and that lifespans back then were totally discordant with what we know of mammalian lifespans, or that the oral tradition of an unsophisticated middle-eastern tribe embroidered history a bit.

Which is it likely to be? Hmm, that's a tough one.

829 posted on 12/21/2004 11:37:10 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

The variation of the human genome requires at least 100,000 years to obtain.
This is your premise, not my contradiction.

B: LOL. We'll see.

It is based on average lifespans similar to or shorter than ours, rather than the ones described in the Mosaic account. Noah lived another 350 years after the flood. Abraham (born 400 years later) lived 175 years. The numbers become more "familiar after that.

B: Which makes for even a stronger contradiction. TO develop the amount of variation observed, requires more generations, not less. And if you posit long life times, that makes the bottleneck problem worse, not better. Its always amusing when creationists, trying to fend off a simple argument, actually make matters worse for themselves, not better.


This additional opportunity for more separate bloodlines more than explains your misconception.

B: What opportunity? LOL. Its even more amusing when creationists don't realize how wrong they are. Perhaps this guy will get a clue.

I love it when evolutionists accuse others of believing in fairy tales.

B: THis guy beleives Noah lived 940 years and accuses evolutionists of believing in fairy tales. You're a piece of work, dude.


830 posted on 12/21/2004 11:40:36 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

None of the stuff that you mention explains the phenomena that are seen in real strata in the real world, like interposed fully-formed fossil coral beds, like fossilised burrows, like thick layers of powdery material where the powder is so fine that the grains take years to fall onto the sediment, Like interposed igneous strata, coal formations, like radiometric dates that get steadily and consistently older the deeper down the column we go etc etc etc.
And none of this contradicts the Mosaic account. your point, please? As for Antarctica, is there any proof those fossils couldn't have arrived there during the flood?

B: There's no evidence for a Noachian deluge. Period.


831 posted on 12/21/2004 11:43:32 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

I guess you are just responding to people on this thread in general and nothing that I have said since I didn't say they were "mutually exclusive." I just don't believe in the theory of macro-evolution. If you want to call me and all the scientists who also don't accept it ignorant, that's your deal.


B: OK. You and they are hopelessly ignorant.


832 posted on 12/21/2004 11:44:22 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

You can barely design something to put on your refrigerator with a magnet, and you are the expert on the design of the universe? You neither caused your birth or know your death. You cannot create or destroy one iota of energy.

B:Energy can't be destroyed, per se, but converted into mass and vice versa. THis is observed routinely. Yet again, realizing that he has no facts and no ideas, jehu resorts to his favorite chestnut, the argument from "Personal Astonishment". The basic problem with the argument from persoanl astonishment is that, when you're ignorant, just about everything astonishes you.

You are an absolute parasite in this universe. You have no idea what a thought is, how the human brain works, how memory is held in the brain etc... You come into awareness in a body that heals itself, respirates, and digests, all without your conscious control!

B: Jehu, back on your meds dear boy.


833 posted on 12/21/2004 11:48:30 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

You and Thatcherite seem to enjoy calling people who don't agree with you "ignorant." Apparently you feel very very strongly that your ancestors were chimps. I certainly have no objection to your believing that.


834 posted on 12/21/2004 11:50:14 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

Noah living longer means more generations, at least on the female side, which is what the theory examines (Mitochondrial DNA).


835 posted on 12/21/2004 11:50:57 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Exposing ignorance is fun, isn't it.

B: Better than a bowl game.

You are better at it than I am though. :(

B: Naaahhhh.


836 posted on 12/21/2004 11:52:21 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Actually I believe that chimps and I (and you) share a geologically recent common ancestor, not that we are descended from chimps. Do you know the first thing about evolutionary theory?


837 posted on 12/21/2004 12:02:42 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

You and Thatcherite seem to enjoy calling people who don't agree with you "ignorant." Apparently you feel very very strongly that your ancestors were chimps. I certainly have no objection to your believing that.

B: I've called people ignorant when they attempt to pass off as facts, things which are known not to be true. If you wish to believe God *spoke* human beings into existence, that is your deal. When you try to claim that this belief is scientifically supported, then I will debunk those claims. Its pretty simple. And by the way if you really are Jewish, and I doubt it, because no self-respecting Jew would put down the AJC, regardless of politics. Second the Jews have long understood the Torah is not always to be intepreted literally. For example, do you actually think, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth".. etc. was how the Jews of yore practiced Justice?

Do yourself and other Jews a favor, don't talk about your religion and history until you can demonstrate you know something about it. THe last group of Jews to interpret the Torah literally were the Karaites. And we all know what happened to them. They went nowhere.


838 posted on 12/21/2004 12:04:48 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
Noah living longer means more generations, at least on the female side, which is what the theory examines (Mitochondrial DNA).

Uh, no Noah living longer doesn't increase the number of female generations. The amount of time for female generations remains the same.

What do you think the significance of mitochondrial DNA is? (I'll lay odds that the answer has something to do with Noah's wife. LOL)

839 posted on 12/21/2004 12:05:47 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Noah living longer means more generations, at least on the female side, which is what the theory examines (Mitochondrial DNA).


B: How does Noah living Longer mean more generations on the female side?


840 posted on 12/21/2004 12:08:47 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine; Alouette; Yehuda; yonif; SJackson; rantblogger

Well that takes the cake, bigdakine. Now you are telling me that I'm not Jewish and I don't understand my religion. THat is something you can substantiate as well as Darwin's unsubstantiated theory of macro-evolution, I'm sure. The AJC are liberal gun-grabbers and not a group of observant Jews. I put zero weight on anything you have to offer at this point.


841 posted on 12/21/2004 12:12:59 PM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
creationism?, Cinnamon Girl wrote: Here is a link http://www.hebrewworld.com/books/ByChance.html to a source called "Not By Chance,"

I assumed that "not by chance" was a response to the oft repeated canard that evolution is solely driven by chance, but of course I was wrong.

So has the author published any peer-reviewed articles on the subject as a pop-science publication is unlikely to overturn the central theory of modern biology?

842 posted on 12/21/2004 12:13:39 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine; Thatcherite
Mitochondrial DNA is passed through the female side only. There are a limited number of types which occur. They can be traced to a common ancestor 100,000 years ago (using Thatcherite's number), if one assumes 15 - 20 year generations AND normal, 30-50 year fertility periods AND mutation rates based on these two.

(Bigdakine originally said that an old Noah means less generations. In my haste to contradict, I misspoke. I should have said: No, Noah living longer does not mean less generations.)

If females had longer fertility periods, the chance for mutation would increase. Etc.

843 posted on 12/21/2004 12:27:54 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: maestro

The Roman Catholic church finds no conflict between evolution and the Bible. What is your point?


844 posted on 12/21/2004 12:42:10 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine; Cinnamon Girl

There is no theory of macroevolution.
Micro and macro are the same process.


845 posted on 12/21/2004 12:47:46 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: shubi
There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.

Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird, etc. But, you knew that.

846 posted on 12/21/2004 12:53:37 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Well that takes the cake, bigdakine. Now you are telling me that I'm not Jewish and I don't understand my religion.

B: Obviously not. And those people who think they are are annoying to the rest of us who indeed are.


THat is something you can substantiate as well as Darwin's unsubstantiated theory of macro-evolution, I'm sure.

B: All I have to go by is the stuff you write. Not convincing so far. As Jews tend to have enough problems, only a foolish Jew would criticize other Jews in the manner you have. So its a choice, either you're not Jewish or you're Jewish and foolish. For now, I opt for the former.

B: There is plenty of substantiation for Macroevolution. That you don't know about any of it, doesn't mean it does not exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021226071202.htm

Thats for staters. Macroevolution, speciation are observed processes. But if you wish to be at war with reality, thats your business.


The AJC are liberal gun-grabbers and not a group of observant Jews.

B: We can add another subject to the list of things you're ignorant of.

I put zero weight on anything you have to offer at this point.

B: WHich disturbs me not at all.



847 posted on 12/21/2004 12:53:44 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.
Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird, etc. But, you knew that.

B: More specifically, it will never cease being a dino. Just as human beings haven't ceased being a primate, which haven't ceased being a mammal, which haven't ceased being a vertebrate. Isn't it time you actually learned what the theory of evolution is, or are you too committed to a straw-man version of it?


848 posted on 12/21/2004 12:57:47 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
"There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process."

Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird, etc. But, you knew that.

My argument is not semantic. It is factual and scientific. Microevolution is changes in allele frequency in populations that cause changes under the species level and macroevolution is changes in allele frequency accumulated at the microevolution level until there is a new species-macroevolution.

After many accumulations of macroevolution (speciation) you get things like birds from dinos occurring. Birds are descendents of certain dinos. But birds don't descend directly from dinos.

I know nothing of the sort. I know that evolution is a fact and the ToE explains that fact.
849 posted on 12/21/2004 1:01:35 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: shubi
There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.

Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird. A literalist also believes that every descendant of a bacteria is a bacteria. But, you knew that.

850 posted on 12/21/2004 1:01:41 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 1,001-1,048 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson