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

originally posted by: Isurrender73


What is a scientists? Anyone who partakes in the study and discussion of science.

What is a theologian? Anyone who partakes in the study and discussion of religion.

No, sorry, that doesn't make you a scientist. Would you trust a doctor who calls himself a doctor because he likes to study and discuss medicine? I wouldn't, I want a doctor who has a gained a degree. Would you visit a dentist who has never gone to college but learned everything online? I wouldn't. You may like to study and discuss science, but that doesn't make you a scientist. Same with me, I have a degree but not in science, which makes me an aficionado about science, not a scientist.

Back to your OP: true, we have not been able to replicate abiogenesis but you can't expect this to happen easily as it took billion of years of cumulative selection of self replicating molecules for the first cells to form.... the jump between a non-living material to a single celled organism probably took millions of failed events in as many millions of years.

But, non being able to prove abiogenesis doesn't prove God is real and that he created us.

Yes but that's the whole point of evolution. It proves how small changes or mutations in a species, based on environmental chages over time, have the capability to be passed down through generations to result in major differences over a much longer period of time. Nowhere in evolution does it try to define how life began.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Let's take a quick look at your source -

If you are a person of faith who has always known in your heart that Darwin was wrong, the revelations on this website will help you to know with certainty that you were right all along, and that Darwin was wrong all along.

Not exactly a non biased source, now is it?
If this is your "proof" I'll stay an Atheist thank you.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Isurrender73
That study proves nothing, except chemical compounds necessary for life can form. We have assumed this for ages.

How we get from chemicals to life is not even close to answered by that research. You should probably read it before you continue to comment.

No, I don't need to read anything. Your argument was that before evolution can even occur, the initial first step must occur. You then continued by saying no such evidence has ever been presented to show that.

Spygeek then countered your position by showing that such evidence has been presented to show that such an event can in fact occur.

You then responded with: "Step one of one million in defining a cell. I am well aware of this study. It proves nothing except you can continue to imagine the rest just happened."

That response is not contesting spygeek. That response is in agreement with him. However, you then dismiss that first step as being what your position is and try and change it in to being about every step after it. But that wasn't the argument. The first step is what you were challenging and that is what spygeek showed you.

You can't just change your position because you were proven incorrect. You can contest spygeek by showing his position as incorrect but that's about it.

The fact that you don't see that makes me seriously doubt you're a scientist or anything else for that matter.

Wow, a Creationist moving the goal posts after he just got done saying he will believe in science if you can offer him proof, never would have seen THAT coming.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: boymonkey74

Actually modern science is accepting that we all have One common ancestor.

People need to keep up with the genome project, something I actually do. Science is changing it's views by the minute.

And these changes keep putting a bigger dent in the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin.

Well done Isurrender73 throughout this you have presented yourself and your ideas very well. The evolutionist cant disprove what you wrote in your opening statement so they run to the " prove creationist theory instead" argument.

Do you think there was a DNA manipulation 6000 years ago that created modern man or what? Why tie yourself to that number?

"Evolution Theologian" very well put. They have "faith" in unproven ideas. Sounds religious. That must feel hypocritical to them.

a reply to: nfflhome

What is an "Evolutionist"?

I personally believe that evolution is a real thing. I think that a fair amount, if not most of the scientific information that we have regarding the age of the Earth is true or very close.

With that said, if we're the only species that has reached this level of evolution, then it is either something unique about apes specifically that made this possible, or we're missing something.

If it's triggered by genetic mutations passed on from adaptations to environmental stressors, why just us? To this level, anyways.

One thought is, if it's caused by stressors, maybe Homo Sapiens dominating the planet as we do in such a fashion in regards to the use of space and resources will trigger evolution. Maybe our existence could trigger genetic mutations in other animals, causing there to "one day" (a long time from now) be an intelligent creature comparable to us.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven.

Step 1 - Abiogenesis

WRONG.

I'll stop you right there. It's absolutely hilarious how folks that attack evolution know almost nothing about it. Abiogenesis is not required or necessary for evolution to take place. Life evolves. This is a fact. It happens and will keep happening whether life was created, or life arose naturally. I'm not going to go into any more detail because I'm sure dozens of folks have already ripped you for this one. It's not worth reading the rest when your very first point is dead wrong.

good stuff, OP…

“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My mother taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”
--Nikola Tesla

“(modern science) was born out of a Christian worldview.”
--J. Robert Oppenheimer “On Science an Culture”, Encounter, Oct. 1962

"My worldly faculties are slipping away day by day. Happy it is for all of us that the true good does not lie in them.
As they ebb, may they leave us as little children, trusting in the Father of Mercies and accepting His unspeakable gift.
I bow before Him who is Lord of all.”
--Michael Faraday, on his death bed, one of the greatest experimental philosophers, Doctorate from Oxford University, holding 97 unsought for distinctions who discovered Electricity

“Education is useless without the Bible.”
--Noah Webster, Webster’s Dictionary

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”
--Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, Book 3

“I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood.”
--Galileo (Letter to Grand Duchess of Tuscany)

“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”
--Kepler

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
--Max Planck

“When the answer is simple, God is answering.”
“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”[20]
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”[21]
"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.”
“Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous.”
--Einstein

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
--Dr. Fred Hoyle (scientist who coined the term "Big Bang" who was unafraid to go wherever the facts led him, and who consequently recanted his atheism.)

Head of Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, converts to Christianity
"I set out to prove that my atheist position was correct."

and for those who think it's all "aliens":

Hundreds of cases of ufo/abductees calling on Jesus to end their abuse have been documented.
yt:Unholy Communion: The Fourth Kind Unveiled - Joseph Jordan and Guy Malone
www.youtube.com...


“Human beings are under the control of a strange force that bends them in absurd ways, forcing them to play a role in a bizarre game of deception.”
--Dr. Jacques Vallee
“The UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical.”
--Dr. Pierre Guerin
“The UFO phenomenon simply does not behave like extraterrestrial visitors. It actually molds itself in order to fit a given culture.”
--John Ankenberg
“One theory that can no longer be taken seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships.”
--Sir Arthur C. Clarke
“The evidence suggests that this is a program.”
--Prof. David Jacobs, Temple Univ.

YT: Nephilim: TRUE STORY of Satan, Fallen Angels, Giants, Aliens, Hybrids, Elongated Skulls & Nephilim
youtu.be...

Great premise and great thread.
You can tell the good threads by the amount of replies one receives.
The statement in the OP must be valid as it has caused much anger.

I love the argument of the evolutionists about abiogenesis not being relevant, it always puts a smile on my face....aliens.

Evolution is a science fiction, though I do have questions about the creation story.

i could be swayed to evolution but it has way too many holes to be considered a science

then there's GENOMIC ENTROPY

yt: Prof. John Sanford on Genomic Entropy
youtu.be...
Geneticists:
Dr. Crow: we are inferior to caveman.
Dr. Knodrashov: no human geneticist doubts man is degenerating.
Dr. Lynch Even assuming a lower mutation rate, we are degenerating at 1%-5% per generation.
Implies a young Creation and as with DNA complexity, theory of evolution is unlikely.

Average cell in 15 yr old - up to 6,000 mutations per cell. (all your cells are different)
Skin cell in 60 yr old - up to 40,000 mutations
Mutations primary cause of aging and death.
“...little potential for substantially increasing the upper limit of human life span.” (upper limit: 120 yrs)
--Michael Lynch (Population Geneticist)
50% reduction in sperm count in men.

Around 100 new mutations per generation.

Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project, converted to Christ partly due to the data he found working in genetics.

originally posted by: mOjOm
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.

I don't think he's TRYING to prove anything. He's merely pointing out the fact that both are religious and belief oriented in nature.

Jaden

a reply to: Agartha

sorry, no, there are many with degrees in science whom I would not consider scientists. A scientist is anyone who studies reality utilizing the scientific method.

Many you would consider scientists do NOT utilize the scientific method and most conclusions regarding evolution fall so short of using even valid logic, let alone the scientific method, it's laughable.

Jaden

a reply to: Verum1quaere

When it doubt post a bunch of quote mines that do not prove a single thing. Good job.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I don't think he's TRYING to prove anything. He's merely pointing out the fact that both are religious and belief oriented in nature.

And he's 100% wrong because evolution is based on facts and experiments, not blind faith. Sorry.

Many you would consider scientists do NOT utilize the scientific method and most conclusions regarding evolution fall so short of using even valid logic, let alone the scientific method, it's laughable.

Wrong again. Can you please address the evidence?

www.talkorigins.org...

Start here and show me where they are wrong or drawing unscientific conclusions. No creationist EVER addresses the evidence, they pretend it doesn't exist, call it faith and bury their heads in the sand when confronted with the evidence. Saying evolution has no evidence or is not scientific is an absolute joke. Unfortunately it stopped being funny a while ago.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Agartha

sorry, no, there are many with degrees in science whom I would not consider scientists. A scientist is anyone who studies reality utilizing the scientific method.

Many you would consider scientists do NOT utilize the scientific method and most conclusions regarding evolution fall so short of using even valid logic, let alone the scientific method, it's laughable.

Jaden

Got any proof of that? Would you care to give us some examples of noted scientists who don't use the scientific method and direct us to some papers of theirs along with remarks about where they deviated from the scientific method? After all, if you are making that claim, you MUST have done your homework on it and aren't just pulling some stupid strawman argument out of your ass right?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Their are no simpler forms of life than a single cell organism.

According to current science the cell is irruducibly complex, and we have no evidence of any form of life thay predates the cell.

I'm guessing the OP has vanished by now, but he just keeps posting lie after lie after lie. When you use the phrase "according to science", it should actually mean that it IS according to science, not something that creationists have made up. Science does not say the cell was irreducibly complex and if you are still even around I challenge you to prove it.

That theory violates many known scientific principles. I don't think any scientists actually support that one.

Another flat out lie.

Don't get me started on dating rocks and fossils. That is another nightmare of pseudo science all in itself.

Completely wrong.

I have studied evolution extensively. What I am saying can't be refuted with proof.

Anybody who says that evolution requires abiogenesis has not studied evolution extensively. I'm guessing that "studying it extensively" means "I read it on a creationist website and believe it hook line sinker"

We are far from understanding how life came from nothing to what it is.

This has nothing to do with evolution, and nobody claims life came from nothing except creationists.

I am not an uneducated creationist, I could explain evolution better than most. I can explain the science behind what has and has not been proven.

Not based on the lies and falsehoods you posted in the OP. You would get laughed out of an evolution class and fired on the spot if you attempted to teach such nonsense as science.

Why is every creationist either an idiot or uneducated?

I've been asking myself this question for years. Generally it seems this way because they post lies and misunderstandings about science in order to attack an established scientific theory in favor of a literal version of holy scriptures. Maybe if a single one of you folks would break the stereotype and prove that you DO know something about science and evolution, rather than just regurgitating falsehoods you find on creationist websites, then folks might begin to take you guys seriously. You have offered nothing but false claims.

Yes, but we have never seen a monkey give birth to anything but a monkey.

Ah yes. You just answered the question above perfectly. This is why folks think young earth creationists are idiots. If a monkey ever gave birth to a human or another animal it would DEBUNK evolution. Evolution doesn't work that way, funny you would claim to have extensively studied evolution and then demonstrate such an obvious misunderstanding.

And you realize that we can't date rocks, so we date the surrounding sediment

And you do realize this is a lie, right? Where do you get your information on dating to make such a silly Kent Hovindish statement?

I know what I am talking about.

Clearly you don't. It's funny though, it's always the people that know the least that speak the loudest and need to put in extra sentence about having knowledge when they have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that they do not.

Evolutionist say micro evolution is proof of Marco evolution, that they are the same.

Nope. There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There is only evolution. Micro or macro describes how much time is involved. Everything else is exactly the same. Decent with modification via genetic mutations and natural selection, both of which are proven 100%. If you wish to argue that macro evolution uses a different mechanism or something prevents mutations from accumulating past a certain point, then you must demonstrate this with citations and scientific proof.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Agartha

sorry, no, there are many with degrees in science whom I would not consider scientists. A scientist is anyone who studies reality utilizing the scientific method.

Many you would consider scientists do NOT utilize the scientific method and most conclusions regarding evolution fall so short of using even valid logic, let alone the scientific method, it's laughable.

Jaden

Got any proof of that? Would you care to give us some examples of noted scientists who don't use the scientific method and direct us to some papers of theirs along with remarks about where they deviated from the scientific method? After all, if you are making that claim, you MUST have done your homework on it and aren't just pulling some stupid strawman argument out of your ass right?

Thank you, I was just about to ask the same.
True that many degrees in science do not make a scientist, but reading and discussing science does not make anybody a scientist either!

a reply to: Agartha

I always think it is funny when Creationists make this blanket assertions about scientists and science and general. It really shows how uneducated they are on the subject.