PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evidence for Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would like Creationists to list evidence that supports Creationism.  Then maybe we can see if the evidence stands up to scrutiny, or if it seems reasonable.

Let's try to examine just a few at a time so we don't become swamped.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:43 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Keep in mind that to qualify as evidence it needs to be observable, repeatable and refutable.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 04:43 AM on January 25, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, the evidence is in "The Book".

The book is right because it's the word of God.

We know it's the word of God, because the book says so.

;-)


 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 10:46 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with this statement 'evidence for Creationism' is that there isn't an definite evidence for Creationism because Creationism is faith based.  It has no factual basis to support it.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:36 AM on January 28, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right.

Of course, most religious people will take their own feelings as 'proof' for the existence of God (and in a lot of cases, the creationist thoughts along with it), and don't realize that feelings can betray their insights.  (hundreds of nutcases 'felt' they were Napoleon).


 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 03:55 AM on January 28, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think this thread is silly, a couple of threads here, or responces from evolution supporters is basically just talking about how creationists are stupid and such.

No matter what the case, its just childish to play that kind of "I think they are idiots".. "Oh I agree, they are definitely idiots" discussion.. It doesn't add to the debate and it only proves a bias against creationism.

This doesn't ofcourse change my stance on the evidence.

Its just hard to really accept something someone says if in the sentence, or the thread, constant little jabs are thrown like that.

At least, thats how I feel.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 3:44 PM on January 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, the point is if Creationists want to present an alternate theory to evolution, and present it as a science, then they have to play by the rules of science and provide supporting evidence for their ideas.

But they can't do that.  Why?  Because Creationism doesn't have any factual basis behind it.  

Then they try to say that to put evolution on the same footing as Creationism by trying to define it as a religion.  But that won't work because evolution clearly isn't a religion - as Entwick very deftly explained in a couple of other threads.

Without evidence they have no case.  So, no, I don't think this was a silly thread.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:09 PM on January 28, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx posted some "evidence". However, it seems to be people trying to argue against evolution, not evidence for creationisum. I have only looked at one or two articles, most of them seem quite specific and would require a while to read. If some of you would like to review some of them or summerise their points then please do. I have already commented on a few short commings in the articles and so has orion.

Since no creationists are posting anything I might as well do the job for them:
http://www.trueorigin.org/
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 10:22 AM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 5:09 PM on January 28, 2009 :
No, the point is if Creationists want to present an alternate theory to evolution, and present it as a science, then they have to play by the rules of science and provide supporting evidence for their ideas.

But they can't do that.  Why?  Because Creationism doesn't have any factual basis behind it.  

Then they try to say that to put evolution on the same footing as Creationism by trying to define it as a religion.  But that won't work because evolution clearly isn't a religion - as Entwick very deftly explained in a couple of other threads.

Without evidence they have no case.  So, no, I don't think this was a silly thread.  


I understand the question.. Its a very good question, maybe I'm not making myself very clear.
actually reading my responce, I don't think I was very clear at all, my appologies.. I was trying to make a point that is usually evident in topics like this.

The contempt for creationists often found on the evolutionist team. But in this thread, there is no such thing going on, so my appologies.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 3:04 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Aswissrole at 11:22 AM on January 29, 2009 :
Timbrx posted some "evidence". However, it seems to be people trying to argue against evolution, not evidence for creationisum. I have only looked at one or two articles, most of them seem quite specific and would require a while to read. If some of you would like to review some of them or summerise their points then please do. I have already commented on a few short commings in the articles and so has orion.

Since no creationists are posting anything I might as well do the job for them:
http://www.trueorigin.org/


This is a debate forum.. And that site is filled with countless amounts of PRATT's  (Point refuted a thousand times).. I don't think just pointing at a website will help.

The person debating would atleast need to know something of the topic to actually start debating it, if he/she just quotes websites with none of his own input, then he's just a mindless drone.

Now I'm not saying you are, but I don't think using a website and just saying "refute something from this" is a great way to debate.. Theres just too much and if something is refuted, you'll always end up with the next best pratt.


 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 3:15 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't originaly post it. I'm just refering you to it incase you want to have a look at it. I know its all rubbish but its the best they have got. I feel a slight pitty for them in that sence. lol.
No creationist seems to be posting anything so I though I might try and inspire them to help get the ball rolling. However, it seems that they have no evidence worth posting.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 4:42 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, Aswissrole. You know I am a glutton for punishment.

The evidence for creation is the same as the evidence for evolution. The differance is in interpretation.

Evidence 1. - similarities in cell structure between otherwise completely different organisms. Evidence for a common creator.

Evidence 2.- all life on earth based on the replicating double helix, proteins, and amino acids. Again, common creator.

Evidence 3. - incredible complexity in even the simplest life whereby only one tiny missing ingredient in only one "minor" process and it wouldn't live. Design.

Evidence 4. - all of the ingredients for a living organism are still in the organism even when it is dead. Why don't new organisms "spring up" out of the "primordial soup" of a dead body? The Breath of Life

Evidence 5. - bacteria that have BUILT IN THEM the ability to change their primary nutritional needs even to the point of eating an artificially occuring compound such as nylon. And then to be able to change back to a "natural" diet after multiple generations. Intelligent foresight.

Evidence 6. - Instinct. For example, if a baby didn't instinctively suckle if couldn't live. At what point in "evolution" did the babies begin to survive? At what point does a new instinct become necessary for life? Did chickens sit on their eggs before the eggs required body heat untill the eggs developed the need for body heat? Or did the eggs need body heat and not hatch for millions of years untill the chickens instinctively began sitting on them? Instinct only makes sense if it is installed by a creator.

Now it is your turn to tell me how none of this is proof. Neither is any of the same observations proof of evolution even though you can site them as such in your own arguments.

Neither creation or evolution is proven. Since they can't both be right, either one or both is wrong. Which is it?

Please be consistant in your "proofs" as the aspect of evolution I am referring to is the one in which dead stuff comes alive and turns into people after millions of years. Not the aspect where finches get longer beaks.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:34 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 9:34 PM on January 29, 2009 :

Neither creation or evolution is proven. Since they can't both be right, either one or both is wrong.


Why not?  A false dichotomy.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:23 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 9:34 PM on January 29, 2009 :

Neither creation or evolution is proven. Since they can't both be right, either one or both is wrong.
from Apoapsis: Why not?  A false dichotomy.



You mean why can't they both be right?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:57 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 11:57 PM on January 29, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 9:34 PM on January 29, 2009 :

Neither creation or evolution is proven. Since they can't both be right, either one or both is wrong.
from Apoapsis: Why not?  A false dichotomy.



You mean why can't they both be right?


Actually, saying that one is wrong thus the other is automatically right is called a false dichotomy, you falsely assume that its a 'either - or' situation, but that is false.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 07:13 AM on January 30, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't say if one is wrong the other is automatically right. I said "Since they can't both be right, either one or both is wrong." Which means possibly neither is right.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:28 AM on January 30, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:28 AM on January 30, 2009 :
I didn't say if one is wrong the other is automatically right. I said "Since they can't both be right, either one or both is wrong." Which means possibly neither is right.


ahhh, my mistake.. I retract my comment then ^^, sorries.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 12:50 PM on January 30, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidence 1 & 2 - The cell structure and DNA double helix show evolution. Surly a creator would have desided to use more efficient systems for different organisums. e.g. do bacteria require the same DNA as tigers? Surly a creator of "onipitance" would have selected a more effiecient system that is not susectable to cancer and contains the prospect for so many genetic diseases e.g. cistic fibrosis, huntingtans disorder to name a few.

Evidence 3 - those that are faulty and do not function do not live and breed, aigo, they do not pass on their DNA.

Evidence 4 - I'm not sure but I asume that it is harder to make new life that you presume. The conditions for life to arise may be very rare and so life does not originate from dead carcuses. Maybe it does in an extreamly simple form for a short period of time and we are unable to notice it.


Evidence 5 - "Intelligent foresight!" Are you suggesting that bacerium are smarter than humans and other multicellualr organisums on this planet? Bacterium have a much shorter life span than us and breed much more rapidly, sometimes every 20 minuits. This allows us to see evolution occuring relativly quickly in them as so many generations pass every day and so many mutations.

Evidence 6 - a very intresting point and I find instincts to be a very fansinating part of life, particularly human instincts.
If a baby didn't instinctively suckle if couldn't live.

Precisly, those which didn't suckle died leving only those which did suckle. As for your point about the eggs, not all reptilians or birds incubate their eggs. It is possible that chickens started sitting on their eggs to protect them against preditors. This improved the chickens chances to pass on its DNA and so this mutation would have survived. This may have also allowed the eggs to become much more advanced or requrie less insulation. This has reached a stage now where it is nessacary for a chicken to incubate its eggs.


Now it is your turn to tell me how none of this is proof.

Great strides are not made by denouncing theories. The theory of evolution is not perfect and most definatly does not explain all aspects of life. But, untill a better theory is proposed it is the best we have. Provide evidence for your theory, not against evolution, and you may recieve some more credability.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 5:24 PM on January 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

from timbrx:
Evidence 1. - similarities in cell structure between otherwise completely different organisms. Evidence for a common creator.
Why? Are you implying that God could not make life very different from what we know?

Evidence 2.- all life on earth based on the replicating double helix, proteins, and amino acids. Again, common creator.
Again, why?

Evidence 3. - incredible complexity in even the simplest life whereby only one tiny missing ingredient in only one "minor" process and it wouldn't live. Design.
Oh, my PRATT!!

We have a lot of missing ingredients. For instance, we can no longer make our own vitamin C (while your dog can). And yet we live.

Design... Man... There are so many errors in the "designs"...

Human (the pinnacle of creation) eyes are clearly an engineering mistake! The retinas are inside out. The nerves and blood vessels come out through the light-sensitive area of the retina, producing a blind spot, then spread over the front of the light-receptor cells, so that light has to get past the fibers into the receptors. Why aren't the nerves and capillaries behind the receptors, where they would be out of the way and there would be no need for a blind spot? Squid eyes are arranged just that way. Since ours aren't, one is reminded of the maxim that evolution has to work with the materials at hand, adapting systems already in place, with results that often seem jury-rigged or needlessly complicated. Would an Ultimate Engineer make such an obvious blunder, especially having got it right in creatures created earlier?

The octopus changes its range of focus by moving the entire lens closer or farther away from the retina, whereas our eye makes the silly effort of changing the shape of our cellular lens in order to bring objects into focus.

Evidence 4. - all of the ingredients for a living organism are still in the organism even when it is dead. Why don't new organisms "spring up" out of the "primordial soup" of a dead body? The Breath of Life
My bet is that nutritious ingredients get eaten by more evolved creatures.

Perhaps life arises all the time, and gets eaten by older and better adapted life. Who knows. But anyway new life could not compete. And probably any new life would seem yummy to old life.

It would be very interesting to make experiments in other planets.

Evidence 5. - bacteria that have BUILT IN THEM the ability to change their primary nutritional needs even to the point of eating an artificially occuring compound such as nylon. And then to be able to change back to a "natural" diet after multiple generations. Intelligent foresight.
Yeah, your god loves bacteria so much... And viruses... Never mind if they kill us by hundreds...

If the koala can only live on eucalyptus, it's a proof of devolution. It a bacteria evolves into a nylon eating new species, it's a proof of "intelligent foresight". Meh...

Evidence 6. - Instinct. For example, if a baby didn't instinctively suckle if couldn't live. At what point in "evolution" did the babies begin to survive? At what point does a new instinct become necessary for life?
Since that trait is common to mammals, that instinct must be quite older than humanity.

Did chickens sit on their eggs before the eggs required body heat untill the eggs developed the need for body heat? Or did the eggs need body heat and not hatch for millions of years untill the chickens instinctively began sitting on them? .
I don't know. And i don't even feel like searching for it right now. But i can easily think of several reasonable explanations, all of which would be far more likely than "Goddidit" (which is actually a lack of an explanation).

For instance:
Some chicken ancestor buried it's eggs in warm soil.
The climate got colder. Many embryos died.
Those who stayed closer to the eggs had more offspring.
Some had a strange fever after laying eggs (it could have begun even as a defense against the embryo). That trait was successful (the feverish ones had even more offspring).

I could easily provide you with another explanation. I could develop Aswissrole's idea that sitting on the eggs could be for defense against predators.

We could draw conclusions from our hypotheses, and put them to the test.

Instinct only makes sense if it is installed by a creator
Just because you say so? No reasoning behind that claim?

Now it is your turn to tell me how none of this is proof.
How? We pointed out other explanations that needed no gods. That's how.

Proof... We show you examples of evolution, and you deny them... Then you show us your lack of imagination, and you want us to take that as a proof of God...  

Please be consistant in your "proofs" as the aspect of evolution I am referring to is the one in which dead stuff comes alive and turns into people after millions of years. Not the aspect where finches get longer beaks.
Well, sorry, but that's not any aspect of evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution is about longer beaks.

You need another forum: Creationism VS Abiogenesis.

Edit:
Oh, and Creationism VS Big Bang.

Oh, and Creationism VS Geology.

I better stop... We have few creationists that know how to use Internet. We don't want to lose them to other forums.


(Edited by wisp 2/1/2009 at 02:25 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:24 AM on February 1, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You forgot:
- Creationism VS Reason and Logic.
- Creationism VS Reality.

timbrx
We don't know exaclty how everything evolved and alot of it is guess work. However, the prinicples are the same throughout, we just don't know the exact cause or the route taken.
You must understand that it is okay to admit you don't know somethings. Evolution doesn't know what caused chickens to incubate their eggs, but good estimations can be made.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 06:48 AM on February 1, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry, I must be very confused. But that stands to reason since according to wisp so few creationists are intelligent enough to actually even know how to use the internet.

I guess I mistakenly thought that this thread was about "evidence for creation" and I answered that. But for the sake of you much more intelligent and rational evolutionists I will explain it once more.

The evidence is the same. The interpretation is different. That was demonstrated in this thread quite well, thank you. We disagree on the interpretation because we have different preconceptions. I won't bother answer to wisps sarcastic and condescending remarks as the answers themselves prove my point.

I will answer, however , to the fallacy particularly aswissrole and wisp seem to be stuck on:
Please be consistant in your "proofs" as the aspect of evolution I am referring to is the one in which dead stuff comes alive and turns into people after millions of years. Not the aspect where finches get longer beaks.
Well, sorry, but that's not any aspect of evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution is about longer beaks.



Zucadragon started a thread asking creationists to define three terms but evolutionists have already answered and shown to all the level to which their intelligence far surpasses that of us backwater hick creationists so I will ignore that for now.

This whole abiogenesis thing is merely a diversion. Abiogenesis was introduced by Aristotle as spontaneous generation. Now considered to be thing that happened before evolution began it is merely a means of protecting the theory of evolution from looking ridiculous since it does in fact hinge on naturalistic explanations for everything. Organic evolution "evolved" from chemical evolution. Since the theory of evolution requires that there is life to begin with and since "everyone knows"  that life evolved from simple prokaryotes into people lets just grant that life came into being and than evolution began.

Now evolutionists demand that variation and adaptation within a species or genus, speciation, is the same as change from one type of creature to another, Phyletic evolution.

It used to be acceptable to refer to micro and macro evolution but I have been informed that this is BS. So now the argument favors evolutionists since if I say "I don't believe in evolution" you say "You are a fool since we see finch beaks." Well I see the finch beaks too. And guess what. They are still finches. Which are still birds.

Unfortunately when I see evolutionists purposely diverting the argument and ignoring the basis of the argument because of semantics I start to think that maybe evolutionists are the intolerant dogmatic close minded rubes and not us archaic simpleton God-dependant fanatic creationists.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:21 PM on February 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I won't bother answer to wisps sarcastic and condescending remarks as the answers themselves prove my point.
Sarcasm is a form of "reductio ad absvrdvm". It's cool!

Anyway, i ask you with no sarcasm: why don't we have a moving lens, like the octopus does?
Why do we have a blind spot for each eye, while other creatures don't? How does that fit into your theory?

Do you believe that Adam had a cool eye, but we devolved since his time? It doesn't look like we could develop a blind spot from a well designed eye... OR a bending lens... I mean... If we used to have a moving lens, and lost that ability, how could we develop a bending lens afterwards, if you don't even believe in evolution?

But that stands to reason since according to wisp so few creationists are intelligent enough to actually even know how to use the internet.
I didn't say that. Perhaps it's just that they have other interest. Maybe spiritual. I don't know. I don't really have a theory.

The evidence is the same. The interpretation is different.
But the evidence doesn't really support creationism.

You can say "If there's only ONE creator, He should repeat His designs". But why?
(It certainly looks like He designed the eye more than once. It even looks like He screwed it big time after having gotten it right.)

Look. I'll make a statement: All crows are black.

Can that statement be translated to "anything that's white, is not a crow"?

So i set to look for white things, and every time i see a white thing that's not a crow, i'll call it evidence supporting my statement.

But that evidence actually supports pink crows as well. Do you get it?

That's pretty much what we mean when we deny your evidence. It doesn't point towards any gods.

Now considered to be thing that happened before evolution began it is merely a means of protecting the theory of evolution from looking ridiculous since it does in fact hinge on naturalistic explanations for everything.
Nah. Seriously, man. Trust me. If the beginning of life was magic, it doesn't matter to evolution.

Perhaps some day we can put abiogenesis and evolution in a single "Theory of Life". But my guess is that that won't happen any time soon.

It used to be acceptable to refer to micro and macro evolution but I have been informed that this is BS.
Yeap. It's a pretty useless concept. It doesn't provide any intellectual advantage.

So now the argument favors evolutionists since if I say "I don't believe in evolution" you say "You are a fool since we see finch beaks." Well I see the finch beaks too. And guess what. They are still finches. Which are still birds.
Well, a variety of E-Coli evolved in a lab started to group together to go hunting for food. That's the first step towards multicellularity.

The next step is specialization. The DNA will develop instructions for a cell to become rigid (for instance), and provide a chord for the multicellular creature.

The DNA will provide instructions for a cell to become light sensitive.

And so on.

If i could direct (aid) evolution for a million years, i could turn E-Coli in a multicellular species smarter than any creationist.

Haha, just kidding. ^_^

But what will you say when my E-Coli tells you "You're right, i didn't evolve. I'm still E-Coli! Praise the Lord!"?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:41 PM on February 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where should the line between abiogenesis (or chemical evolution if you like) and biological evolution be drawn?

Do you agree that complex chemicals can be formed from simpler ones by inorganic means?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:43 PM on February 1, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by wisp at Sun February 1, 2009 - 4:41 PMAnyway, i ask you with no sarcasm: why don't we have a moving lens, like the octopus does?
Why do we have a blind spot for each eye, while other creatures don't? How does that fit into your theory?


I don't know. Maybe an octopus needs a moving lens to focus under moving water. And maybe we have a blind spot because our brains process information differently than other creatures.
But the evidence doesn't really support creationism.

You can say "If there's only ONE creator, He should repeat His designs". But why?
(It certainly looks like He designed the eye more than once. It even looks like He screwed it big time after having gotten it right.)


Again it falls to interpretation. I don't know why God does things differently than you or I would. But than if we did know, perhaps we would be God.

Posted by Apoapsis at Sun February 1, 2009 - 4:43 PM
Where should the line between abiogenesis (or chemical evolution if you like) and biological evolution be drawn?

Do you agree that complex chemicals can be formed from simpler ones by inorganic means?


The word abiogenisis means life from non life. Biogenisis means life from life. I think the line is drawn at the definition of life.
As to chemicals forming more complex chemicals by inorganic means, yes of course but it usually requires some expense of energy.


If i could direct (aid) evolution for a million years, i could turn E-Coli in a multicellular species smarter than any creationist.

Haha, just kidding. ^_^

But what will you say when my E-Coli tells you "You're right, i didn't evolve. I'm still E-Coli! Praise the Lord!"?


E-coli would turn to you as the creator since you "directed" evolution. Kind of supports ID.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:14 PM on February 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2009 :

The word abiogenisis means life from non life. Biogenisis means life from life. I think the line is drawn at the definition of life.


As is shown by the recent replicating RNA and Sidney Fox's protocells, that is not necessarily an easy line to draw.


As to chemicals forming more complex chemicals by inorganic means, yes of course but it usually requires some expense of energy.

I don't see that as a problem, do you?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:02 PM on February 1, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't see that as a problem, do you?


No,I don't see that as a problem. But what is your point? I'm not arguing entropy.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 8:46 PM on February 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then what chemistry prevents self-organization?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:34 PM on February 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 9:14 PM on February 1, 2009 :
Anyway, i ask you with no sarcasm: why don't we have a moving lens, like the octopus does?
Why do we have a blind spot for each eye, while other creatures don't? How does that fit into your theory?


I don't know. Maybe an octopus needs a moving lens to focus under moving water. And maybe we have a blind spot because our brains process information differently than other creatures.
There are other sea creatures which have a much more primitive eye, with no lens at all.

Oh, and our blind spot has nothing to do with the way our brain processes information. It's the way our physical eye has evolved (or "has been designed").

Although all vertebrates have this blind spot, cephalopod eyes, which are only superficially similar, do not. In them, the optic nerve approaches the receptors from behind, so it does not create a break in the retina.

In both (vertebrates and cephalopods) Evolution did it's best with what it had at hand. Both kinds of eye evolved independently.



Photoreceptors in each eye are located in different places on the retina. In cephalopods, the photoreceptors of the retina are located at the front, facing all incoming light while those in the vertebrate eye are on the inside on the retina, facing away from incoming light. Because of this, all incoming light must pass through multiple layers of cells (ganglion and bipolar) before it strikes any photoreceptors. Further, since the vertebrate eye develops as an outgrowth of the forebrain, it has a blind spot not found in the cephalopod eye. This blind spot lacks any photoreceptors (rods and cones) and is the area of the eye, where neural fibers gather to form the optic nerve that transmits signals to the brain in order to form images. The reason cephalopods do not have a blind spot in their eye is because during organogenesis their optic nerve is on the exterior side of the eye and does not enter into the actual eyeball. (From here: http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/animalphysiology/websites/2003/Muller/development%20of%20the%20cephalopod%20eye.htm )

Our eye is an evolutionary screw up.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that everything we see can be explained by Evolution? God could have designed animals with nuclear reactors. Evolution could not do such a thing.
It's like God was bounded to design only things that could be developed in steps. Perhaps you'd say that's the way He chose to do it... But the more you say things like that, the less you need God to explain things.


You can say "If there's only ONE creator, He should repeat His designs". But why?
(It certainly looks like He designed the eye more than once. It even looks like He screwed it big time after having gotten it right.)
Again it falls to interpretation. I don't know why God does things differently than you or I would. But than if we did know, perhaps we would be God.
I can understand that.

Can you understand that with that way of thinking we could not have developed the way we have?


If i could direct (aid) evolution for a million years, i could turn E-Coli in a multicellular species smarter than any creationist.

Haha, just kidding. ^_^

But what will you say when my E-Coli tells you "You're right, i didn't evolve. I'm still E-Coli! Praise the Lord!"?
E-coli would turn to you as the creator since you "directed" evolution. Kind of supports ID.
It really doesn't.

Directing evolution is something that natural selection does all the time. And it's not about intelligence OR design (in Nature). Human selective pressure can be more refined than Nature's, but Nature had a very long time. Oh, and we can have a purpose, while Nature can't.

www.swimbots.com That's an Evolution simulator. You can put selective pressure. You can use your intelligence, but you won't design anything. And if you leave it to chance, they may evolve on their own. Sometimes they die.

They evolve in a very limited 2D waterlike world. Small, no seasons, no different environments, no predation, no parasitism... And yet they manage to evolve.

Some people evolve very functional 3D creatures, with the use of computers (and knowledge on Evolution).

Evolution is a concept a little too useful to be false. The "Goddidit" approach isn't useful at all. Do we agree on this one?


(Edited by wisp 2/2/2009 at 10:22 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:19 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

İ YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
İ 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.