Creationist - The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven

This thread is in response to the UK banning Creationism while teaching Evolution in public shcools. You can join that debate here if you would like to.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven.

Step 1 - Abiogenesis

The first requirement for life to evolve is to become.

Currently we have no evidence that this is possible. The simplest form of known life could not have spontaneously arose. Currently there is no evidence to suggest that life simpler than a cell has ever existed.

Viruses, according to Occoms Razor, must be viewed as mutations or defective cells, as they can not reproduce outside of a viable host cell.

DNA and the human genome are irruducibly complex.

Step 2 - Cross Kingdoms

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's kingdom.

Step 3 - Cross Phylum

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Phylum.

Step 4 - Cross Class

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Class.

Step 5 - Cross Order

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Order.

Step 6 - Cross Family

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Family.

Step 7 - Cross Genus

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Genus.

Step 8 - Cross Species

Currently we can prove that flies can no longer procreate when separated for several generations and are subjected to different external conditions.

In the 8 steps that science has defined for itself we have only been able to scratch the surface of step 8.

Evolution has become the science of imagination. If you can imagine it happened then you can be a scientist.

I am a creationist who believes that when God speaks of the animals according to their kind, he is talking about the class/phylum. I put both because I believe it is possible we still have much to learn about class/phylum and the adaptation of life, which is also known as micro evolution.

I do not believe that life arose absent a creator. I believe that all life was created according to their kinds.

This is how I use my imagination. They tell me I can't be a scientist because what I my imagine is not what they imagine.

When scientists stop claiming to prove what they have not proven, then I will rearguard them as scientists. Currently they resemble theologians.

Mod Edit

Mod Edit

Mod Edit

Mod Edit

Mod Edit

Mod Edit

Mod Edit

Wow, that's an impressive amount pseudo-scientific crap wrapped in a thin veil of religious dogma.

Mod Edit

a reply to: Isurrender73

You do realize that disproving Evolution does not Prove Creationism, right???

Whether or not anything you just wrote is true or not doesn't matter because disproving one thing doesn't automatically prove another.

Maybe you should work on actually getting some proof for Creationism for once instead of trying to discredit Evolution.

What created the creator?

Well for starters your thread touches on the fact that the theory of evolution is based on abiogenesis. This is not true.the theory of evolution merely describes how species came to be how they are and how different species arose. It is not concerned with how first life began at all. If you doubt the theory of evolution i do suggest you take a long hard look at the species present on the galapagos islands. I assurd you that the information you gather will amaze and maybe even enlighten you.

As for the rest of your post. Seriously? Just do a bit of reading. Its all available on the internet. I just think creationists. (and also scientists...me included) have a harz time visualising the amount of time it took to evolve different species. Seems impossible to a layman. But given enough time. Speciez will evolve and become something completely different.

And in reference to the last part of your op. Its a good job that science relies on verifiable results and observations and not just the imagination of the one doing the observing.

a reply to: Isurrender73

How about you try proving creationism as opposed to a tried and tested attack on evolution. Which consistently fails. For once on these threads I would like creationists to try and make an argument for their beliefs. Just ONCE.

originally posted by: moosevernel
But given enough time. Speciez will evolve and become something completely different.

This is your imagination at work. I don't imagine the same thing as you.

I have nothing to prove. I don't care about evolution or creationism. I believe the religious texts from most major religions, created.

I will have no problem changing my mind when or if science proves anything.

originally posted by: SepticOverflow
Mod Edit

Audio's Jason .


I have an evolutionary chart To prove evolution does in fact exist .

originally posted by: Isurrender73
This thread is in response to the UK banning Creationism while teaching Evolution in public shcools. You can join that debate here if you would like to.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven.

Step 1 - Abiogenesis

The first requirement for life to evolve is to become.

Currently we have no evidence that this is possible. The simplest form of known life could not have spontaneously arose. Currently there is no evidence to suggest that life simpler than a cell has ever existed.

Viruses, according to Occoms Razor, must be viewed as mutations or defective cells, as they can not reproduce outside of a viable host cell.

DNA and the human genome are irruducibly complex.

evolution says nothing about the origin of life. still there are recent studies into abiogenesis. in 2014, a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of rna by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions. a 2015 paper showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light.

viruses are viruses according to occams razor. arguably all life could be viewed as mutations. you are caught up in semantics.

the human genome has been completely mapped, it is not irreducibly complex.. the human genome project is an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of chemical base pairs which make up human dna, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and functional standpoint. it remains the world's largest collaborative biological project. the project was proposed and funded by the u.s. government; planning started in 1984, got underway in 1990, and was declared complete in 2003.

Step 2 - Cross Kingdoms

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's kingdom.

Step 3 - Cross Phylum

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Phylum.

Step 4 - Cross Class

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Class.

Step 5 - Cross Order

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Order.

Step 6 - Cross Family

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Family.

Step 7 - Cross Genus

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Genus.

Step 8 - Cross Species

Currently we can prove that flies can no longer procreate when separated for several generations and are subjected to different external conditions.

cross out all of this. this is irrelevant and not necessary.

to understand evolution it is very important to understand the types of natural speciation and how it occurs. for example:

allopatric speciation occurs when an animal population is forced to be split between two geographical areas as a result of geographical change. as a result, there are mutations that occur in the split populations which affect the ability of the two groups to reproduce if and when they are reintroduced.

peripatric speciation occurs when new species arise in isolation. as in allopatric speciation, the new species is unable to reproduce with others in the original population.

parapatric speciation occurs when populations are only partially separated and therefore do sometimes make contact. in this situation, the reproduction is based on selection of the best traits within the group.

sympatric speciation is differentiated from the other three because it occurs in one geographic location. some scientists would call this type of speciation controversial and there are some who do not believe it exists. the cause of sympatric speciation is not known but could be based on varied food sources or traits that spontaneously develop.

In the 8 steps that science has defined for itself we have only been able to scratch the surface of step 8.

Evolution has become the science of imagination. If you can imagine it happened then you can be a scientist.

science of imagination is an oxymoron. that would be science fiction. if you understand the scientific method you can understand evolution. you don't have to be a scientist.

I am a creationist who believes that when God speaks of the animals according to their kind, he is talking about the class/phylum. I put both because I believe it is possible we still have much to learn about class/phylum and the adaptation of life, which is also known as micro evolution.

I do not believe that life arose absent a creator. I believe that all life was created according to their kinds.

This is how I use my imagination. They tell me I can't be a scientist because what I my imagine is not what they imagine.

When scientists stop claiming to prove what they have not proven, then I will rearguard them as scientists. Currently they resemble theologians.

the reason you cannot be a scientist is not because of what you or they imagine, it's because you do not understand scientific method. if you want to be a scientist, study science. its findings are self explanatory and self evident.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Well you show yourself to be very small minded. There is for more evidence to be had for evolution than there is for a divine creator. But you choose to believe that. That is your choice. I dont want to chamge your mind. And i suspect i could not even if i tried. All that i axk is that you consider at least some of the evidence that has heen put forth considering tue theory of evolution. Read darwin. Do a google scholar search on evolution at least.

Peace to you brother/sister

originally posted by: Isurrender73
I have nothing to prove. I don't care about evolution or creationism. I believe the religious texts from most major religions, created.

Hmm, that's a lot of conflicting information you must be juggling around in your mind trying to make sense of.

I will have no problem changing my mind when or if science proves anything.

Riiight..

Really not trying to be "that guy" here but..

How can you honestly make a statement like that?