Creation vs Evolution Debate

OK so here is 1 of the biggest factors disproving evolution (in my opinion)

Ok so supossedly the animals a billion years ago developed wings and could fly

that right there is disproving it

for an animal species to not have wings at all and over a course of generations it has wings that is not possible because for somthing to pass on a genetic (Wings) it must have it in its genetic code but since the said creature did not have wings and it developed it means that it went through a mutation. and that disproves all of it.

If you people can not understand wat i mean then let me explain one simple fact

Mutations are not genetic!!! so that means if an animal did develop wings then it couldnt have passed it done the bloodline beacuse it was a mutation not a genetic strip of encoded DNA.





[edit on 3-8-2007 by pumert]

I'm not being taking, I've studied both creation and evolution on my own.
I have took physics classes (not degreed in it, only classes for a different degree) and have did some leg work on the creation stuff. Also I never paid money to study the creation stuff. However I have paid for physics classes. My degree is in Industrial Instrumentation.

But anyway all that aside, I ask yet again....

If not rocks, how do you think we got here?


[edit on 3-8-2007 by ebe51]

Originally posted by ebe51
If not rocks, what do you believe?

This, while by no means conclusive, strikes me as a reasonable avenue for consideration - as far as the first steps towards life on earth go.

en.wikipedia.org...

The problem to be resolved is that there are potentially scores of means of abiogenesis, but it may be impossible to prove which is the definitive process. I can live with that uncertainty.

Originally posted by pumert
Mutations are not genetic!!!

Eh? Care to explain?

Mutations are changes in DNA sequences, i.e., genetic material.

Originally posted by ebe51
It's worth it, if only to watch Michael Shermer lose.

I'll watch this again later, but I've already seen it.

I would say that Shermer doesn't come across well. But that means absolutely nothing to the essence of the issue.

Debates are not science. Science is in the evidence, and Hovind is not a good source of logically consistent, reliable, valid, and evidence-based arguments.

He has a very well-honed debating technique, nothing more. Essentially most of the stuff he spouts is specious piffle.

Maybe you can present some of what you believe are the most reliable Hovind arguments. We'll see how robust they are...

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by pumert
Mutations are not genetic!!!

Eh? Care to explain?

Mutations are changes in DNA sequences, i.e., genetic material.

The thing about mutations is that it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout an entire species plus mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity (wings) have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Originally posted by pumert
The thing about mutations is that it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout an entire species plus mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity (wings) have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Oh, OK, you want to see a wing happen in a lab experiment, even though we've only been doing such experiments for a short period, and it would likely be a difficult process to simulate.

We have seen new species evolve, i.e., species which are reproductively isolated, we can see species undergoing speciation (e.g., Ensatina salamanders), we have seen new functions evolving by genetic change in organisms (e.g., nylon bug), we have seen mutations spreading through populations aided by natural selection (e.g., Samoan butterflies).

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by ebe51
If not rocks, what do you believe?

This, while by no means conclusive, strikes me as a reasonable avenue for consideration - as far as the first steps towards life on earth go.

en.wikipedia.org...

The problem to be resolved is that there are potentially scores of means of abiogenesis, but it may be impossible to prove which is the definitive process. I can live with that uncertainty.

I read it again but I've seen this before. There are problems with the experiment, 1st off they didn't produce life and the uses of the word organic compound only means they created carbon molecule not life. For example protein was not made only some of the molecule that are in protein was made. Also when oxygen is added to the experiment they can't even produce carbon molecule. When oxygen is left out they can produce the molecule yet UV light becomes a problem for any complex life to from sense UV kills bacteria type life. It becomes a catch 22, oxygen cause compound not to form, no oxygen cause UV light which cause bacteria not to forum.

Now there are some new theories that say UV might have actually helped create life, yet this is still got problems because UV does in fact kill bacteria. Also the RNA is what they say protect against UV and allows life to form. However RNA itself as never been formed in any such experiment and also brings in a chicken and egg problem.

Here is a web-site that talks in detail about the RNA and protein problems with the evolution theory.
www.biblestudymanuals.net...

evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner modern biology shows this not to be the case Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility


"Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA they cannot do anything themselves."
David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

Here is a quote from Sir Isaac Newton

"This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

To add a little something to mutation it have never been observed that any NEW information has been added by reproduction, or cross breading. That is if by chance you can make a dog mate with a cat (which I don't think you can) you will never get an offspring with new body parts that did not already exist between the dog and cat. So no wings or anything that wasn't already present. This observation is different then what evolution teaches, evolution says new body are added.

It's never been observed, and not for a lack of trying.

No NEW information has been observed adding to DNA.



[edit on 3-8-2007 by ebe51]

(aug. 3 12:50 Central time)
I'm about to leave for the day, I have stuff to do. However I must say I'm disappointed. I offered to debate on the science of creation, and so far All I've gone people making personal attacks on Kent from the video. Which is not unfounded but not why I put the video there.

I want to debate some science stuff, is there not anybody wanting to go through the science?

Not to sound mean, but I see a few people want to say (in a nutshell) creation is stupid, yet nobody has been ready to defend and/or debate it.

Come on people lets do a friendly debate. Put you best evolution stuff out there I really would like to see the info and try to find answers.

I promise I want try and save you, or talk smack about you, I just want debate.

Originally posted by ebe51
No NEW information has been observed adding to DNA.

Information as in what?

Extra genes? New proteins functions? What exactly?

I'm up for a debate, Ebe. As I said, present what you consider the strngest arguments from Hovind's vid. We'll see how good they are.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by melatonin]

I think the major problem here is the assumptions that are being made on each case. The Creationist is assuming that the world is only 6000 years old, so for evolution to take place we must be able to see changes in the structure of animals through just a few decades, otherwhise it is bunk.

I might suggest that the Creationist tries to think of the evolutionary process as taking BILLIONS of years. If we could try to do lab experiments to get a new species then eve .1% of even 1 billion years is 1 MILLION YEARS. So if you wanted to see even .1% of that wing form on a dog (or whatever evolutionay trait you are trying to see) then you would have to wait 1,000,000 years to see .1% of a wing.

So you are trying to tell me that because we don't see drastic changes in a species over the course of say, 100 years that evolution is false? COME ON!!!

Did we see the continents move from Pangea to now? NO! But we know FOR A FACT that it happened. we can see them move centimeters a year. Over billions of years that is a long distance. Same with evolution. We see slight changes to animals as they adapt to their environment, over BILLIONS of years, those changes are major. Creating tons of new........SPECIES!!! YAAAY

Hope that helps everyone

I'm up for a debate, Ebe. As I said, present what you consider the strngest arguments from Hovind's vid. We'll see how good they are.

Sorry, I have no time tonight, I'll pickup this Monday. However to give you a heads up, I think chemical evolution is one of evolutions biggest problems. I can debate why monday, but for now I'll give you time to look into it.



[edit on 3-8-2007 by ebe51]

Originally posted by ebe51
Sorry, I have no time tonight, I'll pickup this Monday. However to give you a heads up, I think chemical evolution is one of evolutions biggest problems. I can debate why monday, but for now I'll give you time to look into it.

No need to. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.

You favoured omnipotent telic entity could have created the first organism and evolutionary theory be true.

Abiogenesis is a science at a very early stage, but we see the building blocks of life even in deep space, so there is no reason to think that it needed help from some disembodied telic dude.

I'm still interested in this information stuff. I keep hearing people talk about how 'information' is an issue for evolution, but no-one seems to be able to produce a vaild reason why...

[edit on 3-8-2007 by melatonin]

I see you post before I could correct what I meant. I didn't mean Abiogenesis, I meant the conversion of Hydrogen into all other atoms. I realized after I posted Chemical evolution has 100 meanings.

Originally posted by ebe51
I see you post before I could correct what I meant. I didn't mean Abiogenesis, I meant the conversion of Hydrogen into all other atoms. I realized after I posted Chemical evolution has 100 meanings.

Well, this is still not part of the theory of evolution. I guess it is evolution in the general sense, but conflating the two meanings doesn't help much.

So, I suppose instead I should state - your omnipotent magic-dude could have created the heavier elements from hydrogen, and the ToE still be true.

Do you not think stellar nucleosynthesis is sufficient to produce heavier elements?

[edit on 4-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by ebe51
I looked through many of them (not all of them) they were mostly personal attacks on him. Which one would be the best to debunk his claims?

pointing out that someone lied isn't a personal attack.

I'll look through and give my honest opinion.

ok, one fine gem from hovind that i found using the site:

The Neanderthals were perfectly normal humans. Their DNA was well within the span of human DNA today - plus or minus 4%
Truth Radio - December 19 2003 @ 38:55

now a contradictory gem from hovind:

They try to minimize [the difference between humans and apes], you know, 5% difference. "Its only 5%" Man, that's millions and millions of differences.
Truth Radio - July 8 2003 @35:10

let's see... what else has he said...
oh, he has claimed that light is a variable with time being a constant. (essentially saying, with ABSOLUTELY NO scientific backing or legitimate reason or evidence to support his argument, that einstein was 100% wrong).

he's claimed to be a teacher... without mentioning it was as a religion teacher. he also repeatedly forgets to mention that his degree is in evangelism... even though he is required to state as much by florida state law because that's the state he resides in.

here's a clear example of his weak grasp of science, a direct quote of the good "doctor"

The electromagnetic spectrum contains all the different wavelengths. Radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, radar, sonar, including a small piece in the middle called light.

(emphasis mine)

sonar isn't on the electromagnetic spectrum, you learn that in highschool physics.

think it was a singular slip up? another quote

(Mid 1990’s) Suppose when we get to heaven God [...] gives you an eyeball that is capable of seeing all the frequencies on the [electromagnetic] spectrum. That means that you would be able to see the radio waves going through the air as a color. Also, you would be able to see the sounds that come from a piano.

(emphasis mine again)

and:

(Circa 2002) Can you imagine if we get eyes [in Heaven] that can see the entire [electromagnetic] spectrum? You're going to be able to see the sounds coming off the piano and organ. Right now we can only hear them. What if we get new ears that can hear the entire [electromagnetic] spectrum? What if you could hear the colors? [2]

(emphasis mine once more)

the man clearly doesn't have any scientific understanding... and from his arguments against evolution he clearly doesn't understand it. here's an example from when he was on "Da Ali G Show"

Ali G : So, you is sayin' we ain't come down from monkeys?
Hovind: No. Monkeys are still having babies, why don't they have another human today?
Source: Ali G Show - Science (HBO), Season 1 Episode 5 @ 3:15

that's a tired argument against evolution. it's clear that we have a common ancestor with monkeys and apes if you look at the evolutionary arguments, not that we evolved from modern day apes and monkeys.
....it's kind of odd when you watch an ali g round table discussion... and ali isn't the dumbest one in the lot.

creationists, am i right in thinking that the belief for this type of christian would be that the world began as it depicts in the genesis section of the bible? if so, and i'm unfortunately going to have to quote bill, dinosaurs!

now that thats out of the way, life in general is protean in nature. we change to adapt to our environments over long periods of time, centuries and millenia of breeding. things do develope wings, take for example those flying squirrel things...they dont fly but they have a membrane that allows them to glide, come back in a 1000 years and they may have actual wings, if you partially submerge a land critter with a mate, feed them for a millenia they will either get gills or they will find a new way to cope with their surroundings. its all part of natrues deepest desire to survive and continue the survival of the species. there are instincts we cannot control.

also, the bible was written many many moons after genesis...how did they know?

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ZGhorus]