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
     Creationists beliefs about ToE
       What do creationists believe evolution says?

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

    
Dorfl

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

After reading some posts on this forum it seems to me like many creationists are not really sure what the theory of evolution says.
This seems to lead to a lot of time-wasting as creationists spend a lot of their time refuting non-existing parts of the ToE, forcing evolutionists to waste their time explaining that the creationists' arguments are based upon misunderstanding.
If any creationists here could describe in this thread what they think the theory of evolution says, evolutionists would be able to point out any misunderstandings, thus saving a lot of time in the future.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:00 AM on July 11, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, it seems to me like they are absolutely certain they know what it says.

The problem is that they are wrong.

Like the old saying goes, it's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you do know that ain't so. . .


-------
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: 1:22 PM on July 11, 2005 | IP
JohnDSM

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution says that we all came out of chaos and that we continue to evolve and greater beings as a society and from the beginning of time...Creation says there is organization that a creator who was capeable of thinking was the reason for the chaos here.  I would rather thing that there was a creator for the big bang (my birth father) that caused me to come into existence than that there was just a big bang that made a monkey and out popped me...Did I miss where evolution was a valid option???


-------
I am a demon...
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 12:33 PM on October 21, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JohnDSM at 12:33 PM on October 21, 2005 :
Evolution says that we all came out of chaos and that we continue to evolve and greater beings as a society and from the beginning of time...


No, it doesn't say that.  Can you find any textbook that states that?


-------
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: 1:03 PM on October 21, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JohnDSM at 07:33 AM on October 21, 2005 :
Evolution says that we all came out of chaos and that we continue to evolve and greater beings as a society and from the beginning of time...Creation says there is organization that a creator who was capeable of thinking was the reason for the chaos here.  I would rather thing that there was a creator for the big bang (my birth father) that caused me to come into existence than that there was just a big bang that made a monkey and out popped me...Did I miss where evolution was a valid option???



perfect example of the thread starter's observation.

Evolution says that we all came out of chaos and that we continue to evolve and greater beings as a society and from the beginning of time...
first of all, this isn't even a coherent sentence.  second, evolution doesn't work that way (though i can hardly tell what exactly that way is from the way you said it).

(Edited by RoyLennigan 10/21/2005 at 6:53 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 6:50 PM on October 21, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, just my two cents (which are worth a nickle or a centavo depending on your point of view).  My understanding is that evolution believes that from the time of the creation of life (just how the first "living" organism is created is up to much dispute) mutation, natural selection, what-have-you has continually changed organisms, piece by piece, bit by bit, from the "original" (amino acid?) up unto the multi-celled, multi-organed (and in some cases, thinking) animals we have today.  How exactly those original amino acids managed to get linked up in the proper sequence without being affected by any of the other myriad molecules, et al, is largely unknown.  (Simplified, if DNA string equals A-B-C-D then why exactly did a-b-c-d line up as b would be just as likely to be attracted to a as to c, since pre-DNA would not have yet had any information to base it's organization on {like, i said SIMPLIFIED, don't argue the letter useage or sequence, I made it as easy as possible}?)   Evolution ignores anything it can not scientifically test.  It does not try to answer where life came from.  Life exists, therefore it must have originated somewhere.  Evolution cannot answer what original life looked like.  Based on the ToE, scientists must assume that the original life form was the most basic form of life currently known.  As scientists continually discover more basic life forms, the original form keeps changing (early evolutionists though the cell was the most basic form of life).  The funny thing is, people use science to prove that the origin of life was this tiny, little, insignificant nanobe (depending upon whom you ask).  People also use science to prove that an unborn multi-celled, multi-organed fetus is not alive, and therefore abortion is not murder.  Information is what you make of it I suppose.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:57 PM on October 22, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:57 AM on October 22, 2005 :People also use science to prove that an unborn multi-celled, multi-organed fetus is not alive, and therefore abortion is not murder.  Information is what you make of it I suppose.

people might say this, but it wouldn't be true.  the fetus is alive, but it is not alive in the sense that we would call it human.  it is a complex collection of cells that are alive, but there is no consciousness until the brain is developed to a certain point.  murder is the unlawful killing of a human.  a fetus is not yet a human until it is conscious.  also, abortion is not yet illegal, so it is not murder.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 7:01 PM on October 22, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's... not go any further with that one. I vehemently abhorr the issue altogether.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:04 PM on October 22, 2005 | IP
Huxley

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello to everyone on here; first post and I just wanted to respond to some of these interesting points:

"My understanding is that evolution believes that from the time of the creation of life (just how the first "living" organism is created is up to much dispute) mutation, natural selection, what-have-you has continually changed organisms, piece by piece, bit by bit, from the "original" (amino acid?) up unto the multi-celled, multi-organed (and in some cases, thinking) animals we have today."

Evolutionists don't dispute that life arose. Evolutionary theory doesn't set out to explain how molecules became self replicating.  I suspect that will fall under the province of Chemists to explain.  It would appear that given the right circumstances self replicating molecules will arise. It's not a giant leap of faith needed here.Once simple molecules did reproduce, without compunction or thought I might add, they would become subject to the environmental pressures that have driven all replicating molecules since.  

"How exactly those original amino acids managed to get linked up in the proper sequence without being affected by any of the other myriad molecules, et al, is largely unknown. "

There are billions of random ways that amino acids might assemble, many probably did and 'progressed' no futher.  That a random sequence of amino's would lead to self replication of certain acids does not require too much imagination.  it must be noted that these would have been simple chemical changes that were not imbued by a "breath of life" but replication of molecules.

"(Simplified, if DNA string equals A-B-C-D then why exactly did a-b-c-d line up as b would be just as likely to be attracted to a as to c, since pre-DNA would not have yet had any information to base it's organization on."

Random pairing would have occured, once the sequence began, with many sequences that proved to be 'dead ends' in the ability to replicate.  Bear in mind that DNA precursors would not 'need' to bind in certain sequences; this is why they were not recognised as DNA as we now describe it. Any binding of RNA withing mutually beneficial pairings would be subject to the same evolutionary pressures as all living things are.

"Evolution ignores anything it can not scientifically test."  

Whoever told you that?  It is an old adage about science that it ignores what it cannot explain.  This is untrue.  The scientific process will examine anything that can be examined.  Evolution in particular does not argue the fact of evolution;  the process may be open to debate.  This process should not be mistaken for a dilution or negation of the fact of evolution.  I wonder what you mean precisely about evolution ignoring anything it cannot scientifically test?

"It does not try to answer where life came from. "

it isn't the sole preserve of evolution to answer this point.  Chemistry and physics will I am sure bring much to the debate. It isn't even Evolution's role to explain how self replication began but there are strong models to suggest how replication would evolve into a process that would prosper.  There would be countless "attempts" at replication which would fall by the wayside.

"Life exists, therefore it must have originated somewhere.  Evolution cannot answer what original life looked like."

Very true because it does exist. The site of origination may not be as important as many might think.  For instance the theory of "Transpermia"- that life came from other planets via bombardment does not explain how the life formed originally; the process however would be, predictably, the same everywhere.

"Based on the ToE, scientists must assume that the original life form was the most basic form of life currently known.  As scientists continually discover more basic life forms, the original form keeps changing (early evolutionists though the cell was the most basic form of life)."

So what you are really saying is that we are learning more and digging deeper.  The actual point is that no matter how much we delve by sytem of reduction,  the process remains evidentally sound.  The greeks thought the iota and atom were the smallest units of stuff in the world.  That we now know that these atoms are made up of smaller things by several magnitudes does not negate what atoms do;  our understanding of how and why they behave is increased by several magnitudes also.  The original life forms were greatly different to what we have now.  Evolution, the process, is good for all that.

"The funny thing is, people use science to prove that the origin of life was this tiny, little, insignificant nanobe (depending upon whom you ask). "

The really funny thing is that is takes a scientific approach to get close to any kind of answer that is intellectually satisfying.  Everyone "uses" science.  You and I do science everyday.  it is the only way we can make any asessment and react to our world in any meaningful way.  It is how, for most of us, we can determine that a person is mis-led if he insists there are Fairies at the bottom of his garden.  We know by experience, evidence and prediction that, on this world at least, fairies do not exist.

"People also use science to prove that an unborn multi-celled, multi-organed fetus is not alive, and therefore abortion is not murder."

No they don't.  That is a moral and political decision. I don't see the relevence of this to any debate on the process of evolution.  

Well; that's it folks, my two- pennorth.  Thank you for listening.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 11:29 PM on November 1, 2005 | 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

 

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