Creationists: What exactly is your problem...

reply to post by Essan





This statement is only your opinion and proves nothing nor even lends any plausibility to your side of the arguement.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by 2XOHsurf

 

We actually have observed species evolving into other species. Take for example the species of wildflower known as goatsbeard or the cichlid fish of Lake Nagubago, or the Faeroe Island house mouse. There are more, these are just some of the more clear cut cases.

I am supposed to believe this just because you say so. Personally I doubt you know what you are talking about. And whom do you mean by "we". Because I can tell you I have never observed one species evolving into another. I doubt that you or any of your friends have.

Originally posted by TheKnave
You guys do know that evolution (at least on a micro level) is 100% proven in a closed lab study, right? futurismic.com...

There is no more saying evolution is just a theory any more. Eventually your going to have to admit it like the church did with heliocentrism (earth revolving around the sun). However...intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive, I completly accept that there is a possibility something may have designed DNA at the start of it all but evolution would DEFINATLY be the mechanism progressing the intelligent design.

edit on 26-9-2010 by TheKnave because: (no reason given)

I quote the article referenced by the Knave: "For the first time, a major evolutionary change has been observed in laboratory conditions, giving even greater weighting to evolutionary theory."

The article doesn't say that evolution is 100% proven. The Knave is a victim of wishful thinking.

What did this article show? It showed that a bunch of slime turned into a bunch of slime which may or may not be a new species of bacteria.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
with evolution?

Yes, I know I was being a bit deceptive, but I'd like to attract a lot more readers to this thread and if making it look more provocative does this, then let me be provocative.

So creationists, exactly what problems do you have with evolution?

Does it conflict with your belief in a deity? I don't understand how it could.
Is the science not enough for you?
Do you not understand it?

What's your reason for not accepting the scientific fact of evolutionary biology?

i dont have any problem with that , last time i checked it was you evolutionists asking me about my faith and having problem with it, even though i dont have any problem with evolution , in fact i see our creation from sperm to death is some kind of evolution , reaching the peak and then at last reach the point of death.

now do you believe in creationists that you dont have a problem with?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13

 

As has been pointed out numerous times before, theory has a different connotation in science than it does in everyday language. A theory is an explanation for an observed phenomenon. In this case the observed phenomenon is evolution, the theoretical part is the mechanism through which evolution occurs.

I like your tap dancing.

I don't need you to tell me what scientific theory is. I doubt you are qualified to teach science. This post of Xcalibur254 is pure drivel.

Mod Note: Please keep your remarks on the actual thread topic and refrain from personal attacks against fellow members. Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

edit on 9/26/2010 by maria_stardust because: left mod note

reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13


Fine, if you don't want to believe me, here is the list of sources I used. Feel free to look through them. Also, I used we in the sense of humanity as a whole.

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Soltis, D., & Soltis, P. (1989). Allopolyploid Speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from Chloroplast DNA American Journal of Botany, 76 (8)

reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13


It's drivel because it's stating facts? Evolution occurs. If it didn't, explain how we have different strains of the flu and other viruses every year. To deny the fact that evolution occurs is pure ignorance and shows that you've either been blinded by faith or people telling you lies.

reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13


Problem is, it seems, those who subscribe to "creationism" have a very simplistic view ---- colored, no doubt, by their upbringing/mental indoctrinations from the various religious dogmatic principles that have been force-fed to them.

AND, when pressed, the "creationist" minded folk simply don't understand (or wilfully choose to ignore) the aspects of TIME --- to encompass the extant of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of year (or more) that are involved, and that are NOT in dispute (at least for most reasonable people) as having been involved, in the scheme of things.

Instead, too many people tend to think only in terms of THEIR lifespans, or at most, those of a few generations of their family, when considering these concepts.

Perhaps, it's time for some science, yet again. I have YET to see a "creationist" adequately explain the Laryngeal Nerve (in mammals, and in other Phyla as well) and HOW this is any indication of any sort of "creation", or, dare we ask? "Intelligent Design"???

The giraffe in this example, in the following video, is used as a most EXTREME example (exclusively because of the length of its neck, and for example as such. However, it is NOT limited just to this mammalian species, as the video demonstrates and explains):

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


How many which ways to Sunday can you go with the same thread? I'm afraid this is starting to come off a
little wierd if you ask me. I'm a believer that we have an almighty God creator of the universe who is the most high. Who resides in another realm and is in spirit form.
What you should worry about is wheather or not he has a problem with evolution.
From what I understand he's pretty intimidating.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
I am an open minded person. I have no problem with creationism or intelligent design. Maybe evolution is true but any one who says that evolution has been proven is greatly mistaken.

I provided proof. Early on. In a link! A lot of proof, not even just a tiny shred of it, and you and the other posters dismissed it.

Which is why it's called the "theory" of evolution. These 'scientific' types are just as much given to dogma as any religious zealot. They make me laugh.

Are you honestly a troll? Seriously, just fess up if you are. I already pointed out that a 'theory' is something that is proven and has applications. I even listed theories that you use in your everyday life. How about you address specific things, point by point, or maybe you could just look at the evidence I provided.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
You pro evolution types are highly amusing. Someone even said math is not useful in biology. I am guessing this individual never had a biochemestry class. Genetics is ultimately bio chemistry.

Way to turn a statement into a straw man! I said I didn't understand what you were referring to in math. I also said that mathematics may not be the best way to define a species. It may be the most precise way, but biology has a more workable definition. You clearly didn't address anything I've said.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
Adaptation is not evolution but if you believe it is as 1 poster or part of it then i must agree to say (based on this) that evolution is fact.

Adaptation is a portion of evolution. Evolution, if you look at the link I provided has plenty of evidence to support it.

That is just one example of what i called taboo ancient history. As far as the 250,000 years let me correct that it was Darwin that said about 150,000 years ago man came on the scene ans a science news article that said the human genome is no more then 250,000 years old.

Nobody disputes that Darwin was wrong about a few things. He didn't have access to the most advanced methods and was making the best conclusions he could from the evidence at hand. That's the marvelous thing about science, it's a process that allows us to change our conclusions when we have more accurate evidence.

But until i can remember where i read that science news article i can't use it for anything more then hear/say.
However there are many example you can find and i'm sorry but your link gave me nothing, i will admit i skimmed so if you can point it out for me or hold off till i have the time to read every little thing then ok.

Well this is the directory to 29+ proofs of macroevolution. I don't expect you to get through it quickly. Don't worry, it's a massive thing to read through but you can take it at your leisure as long as you're open to reading it.

Yet they say that maybe the raptor dinosaurs evolved into modern birds if so show me every step be it a raptor or snake or anything that became a cat,dog,bird,stick bug or whatever.

You can't see every step. That's an insane level of data to require. It's impossible to get the thousands of generational fossils. There is the evidence that raptors had feathers It's impossible to document every step because that's just not how fossilization works. Only a small portion of specimens fossilize, the rest just decay. We do have plenty of evidence that individual species have possible ancestors, but the most telling instances are those we've observed. The problem is that this is a quite complex article to read, just take your time with it.

Adaptation is a dragon fly that was 2 foot long (millions of years ago) and is now only a few inches. Is that what you call evolution? If so i must agree that evolution is fact.

That's speciation. The two foot long dragonfly would be genetically incompatible (aside from the practical mechanics of mating) with its descendant due to genetic drift and speciation. There's also the fact that the 'dragonfly' is a classification that contains up to 40 species within different genus and 11 different families.

Are you unclear what the definition of a 'species' is?

Originally posted by 2XOHsurf
Species do not change into other species. Features can change, ex: some men have grown tits.

That's called mutation and is a step in the development of a species.

That doesn't make them a new species.

Obviously.

Give one example of species changing, it doesn't exist, not even closely.

I gave plenty of examples of speciation

Which human is evolved over another human? Only racist think this way. See where this is heading?

"Evolved" doesn't mean "better". A species can "evolve" to be smaller and weaker, but they'll survive better because they'll be able to crawl around and hide better. Evolution isn't about being "better" it's about surviving. So clearly the only people that would use evolution for racism are the sort of idiots that are racists in the first place.

The more we learn about biology the more implausible evolution becomes.

Except that it doesn't. You can't just make these sort of blanket statements without backing them up with evidence. Why is it that not a single creationist or opponent of evolution has provided a single piece of evidence while I've provided a plethora of evidence that proves macroevolution and speciation?

Start with the single cell, there is no reason to discuss anything more "advanced" because the single cell is more advanced than anything mankind can conceive of.

The argument from irreducible complexity? That's been answered for ages. Kenneth Miller answers that better than I do though.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by 2XOHsurf

 

We actually have observed species evolving into other species. Take for example the species of wildflower known as goatsbeard or the cichlid fish of Lake Nagubago, or the Faeroe Island house mouse. There are more, these are just some of the more clear cut cases.

I am supposed to believe this just because you say so.

Well, you could do the legwork.

Here's the evidence you'll ignore on cichlid fish
Here's more that you'll ignore
Here's something that you'll ignore that includes the Faeroe island house mouse

There's quite a bit of evidence there.

Personally I doubt you know what you are talking about.

You're attacking the individual instead of the arguments. Just like you've been ignoring my posts.

And whom do you mean by "we". Because I can tell you I have never observed one species evolving into another. I doubt that you or any of your friends have.

You were given examples. Aside from these examples

And I'm quite sure the other poster means 'the human species' as 'we'.

Originally posted by Dr UAE
i dont have any problem with that , last time i checked it was you evolutionists asking me about my faith and having problem with it,

I may have a problem with your religious views, but that is entirely separate of my acceptance of the scientific fact of evolutionary theory. Also, as I have stated thousands of times before. I am no more an 'evolutionist' than I am a 'heliocentrist' or a 'circuitist' or a 'germist' or a 'cellist' for accepting those particular scientific theories.

even though i dont have any problem with evolution , in fact i see our creation from sperm to death is some kind of evolution , reaching the peak and then at last reach the point of death.

...that is nothing at all like evolution. Evolution is the change of life over time via natural selection.

now do you believe in creationists that you dont have a problem with?

Nope, I have a problem with those who are ignorant.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

How many which ways to Sunday can you go with the same thread? I'm afraid this is starting to come off a
little wierd if you ask me.

If a passion for denying ignorance is weird I'll be weird.

I'm a believer that we have an almighty God creator of the universe who is the most high. Who resides in another realm and is in spirit form.

Alright, I don't see what that has to do with this thread though. We can discuss that in another thread of mine.

What you should worry about is wheather or not he has a problem with evolution.

Um, my worries are about the humans rejecting scientific facts.

well i am going to jump in here with how i think that both possibilities could coincide...but i am sure it will be unacceptable.
creation comes from that which was already evolving...it is a interference with that which was already evolving.

This is just an theory:

•PGE level 0: (Before Adam) The first, difficult to define level before creating Adam. The "modern" human created like 40.000 - 20.000 years is being modulate, genetic transformed. All the inferior species ware destroyed (Neanderthal man, like 33.000/34.000 years ago).
•PGE level 1: (AdamI-AdamII = ca 1500 years) This is the real start. At this point (9.000 - 10.000 years ago). If we ask the church: how many Adams ware? they surely answer: only one. Wrong answer. The good answer we're going to find in II.Corintians chapter 15, 45.As was written: The first man has being made, with a living soul; but the last Adam was the one with life giving spirit.
Another example of genetic engineering is Eve's creation. Adam was put asleep, lost a rib(DMA molecule) and Eve was made. This is the same idea of what the genetics can do this days. Here start the biggest incest process of all times. Adam and Eve get Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel, but is not punished and he will find (how?, from where?) he's woman, getting a child: Enoch. This is getting to complicate, so i'm going to stop here (for now). I recommend you to read: Terra Program by Toni Victor Moldovan.

source

of course all theoretical...but then most things biblical are theoretical...but i tend to look at the bible as a hypothesis...It is a very scienticfic study and one in which we don't look at it scientificly.

I think personally that we need to look at the ancient texts much more literally than we do...but i mean very literal.. god did drive a spaceship....

when these people lived to hundreds of years old...heck if you think about the theory of relativity it is absolutly possible...as the closer to the speed of light one travels the more time slows down.

just one example to explain the ages that noah and others were able to reach. Puts things more into perspective for me, It is a scientific journal the book of (gene)sis and should really be treated as such...as we become more intelligent then i think we need to look at our creators as being extremely intelligent.

just my opinion.

To 'madnessinmysoul' 'weedwhacker' 'xcaliber' 'theknave'.... I argue with you pro evolution types and you shoot you links at me. Not once in all of the "scientific papers" that I have bee refered to have I seen where a scientist says that evolution is proven. The old greeks used to write QED after a proof. There is no QED after any of the body of work going into evolution. I get comments like, "it lends weight to the arguement". One pro evolution guy sent me a link from a scientific magazine article on finches which I read and in the article the statement was made (to paraphrase): scientist can't actually tell when evolution has happened. In other words there is no defined point where one species ends and another begins.

I read about the Michigan State experiment which only proves that bacteria can change into bacteria. What makes this new bacteria a different species? If I remember correctly it is that eventually all of the bacteria being produced developed a flagella. Does that really mean it is a different species? Or does it mean that trait was dormant in the original variation? Or, maybe, a different strain entered into the experimental group unbeknownst to the observers. In any case you can't always believe what scientists say as scientist will say anything for a grant. And there are a lot of closed minded people like you out there who would be dishonest just because they don't like religion and it gives them a bias.

Someone suggests I might be a troll. I give as much respect as I get and I don't get much from you technocratic types. You guys argruments are so weak that is your problem. If you were honest with yourselves you would admit that you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know the difference between what you can prove and what is your opinion.

theory means explanation...it doesn't say the explanation is proven. Another synonym for theory is guess.
If you debate a proposition you are tacitly admitting that the proposition has not been proven.

Your entitled to your beliefs but don't expect the rest of us to buy into your lame crap.

I am a creationist. I also believe in evolution.

Maybe thats contradictory, but that is my believes nonetheless.

God created organisms to evolve. So it mixes creationist believes with evolutionary ideas.

I believe both are valid points.

VVV

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Just pointing out that it's ignorant not to realise IT'S OLD.

Um, my worries are about the humans rejecting scientific facts.

Los'in a lotta sleep over that huh! Rest your neck they'll come around.

vreemde
I've done some reading on this lately. I find myself in agreement with the Idea that our belief systems
and science should never be talked about at the same time. Since God isn't going to be poked at and proded by
some lab technician. The only thing science can prove is science. That is the total futility of this thread.
And many others, including my own that have come before it.
OP you have some catching up to do. I've found it harder than hell to come up with an angle for any more threads. That is, with this in mind. I'm ready to write a thread announcing the end of this type discussion on ATS.

What are your thoughts Hobson?

reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
To 'madnessinmysoul' 'weedwhacker' 'xcaliber' 'theknave'.... I argue with you pro evolution types and you shoot you links at me. Not once in all of the "scientific papers" that I have bee refered to have I seen where a scientist says that evolution is proven.

Did you actually read any scientific papers? And that's sort of true, scientific papers don't tend to just randomly state that sort of thing. However, they do have 'conclusions', typically those conclusions then support a theory. I didn't actually present you any academic work, as I didn't want to alienate anyone who is unfamiliar with biological sciences.

The old greeks used to write QED after a proof.

Yes, logical and mathematical proofs.

There is no QED after any of the body of work going into evolution.

There's no QED after any of the body of work going into any science whatsoever. I don't see any geologists, chemists, physicists, neuroscientists, doctors, etc writing QED at the end of their papers.

That is because scientists understand the scientific method. It's a process that allows for slight errors to be corrected in the future. It would be insane to think that your scientific conclusions were absolutely sound

I get comments like, "it lends weight to the arguement".

Because that's the sort of thing scientists say. They use their best guesses based on the evidence. Those sorts of best guesses have brought us modern medicine and the computer, so they're pretty damn good.

One pro evolution guy sent me a link from a scientific magazine article on finches which I read and in the article the statement was made (to paraphrase): scientist can't actually tell when evolution has happened.

They actually probably said something about their being no definite point of evolution happening as it essentially happens all the time on some level.

In other words there is no defined point where one species ends and another begins.

Obviously. All species are transitional forms. There isn't going to be a situation where one species all of a sudden gives birth to another one.

I read about the Michigan State experiment which only proves that bacteria can change into bacteria.
What makes this new bacteria a different species? If I remember correctly it is that eventually all of the bacteria being produced developed a flagella. Does that really mean it is a different species? Or does it mean that trait was dormant in the original variation?

...there's no such thing as a 'dormant trait'. And yes, it is an obvious instance of speciation. Developing a flagella for a bacteria is a big step.

Or, maybe, a different strain entered into the experimental group unbeknownst to the observers.

They would have readily observed that and took all sorts of precautions in a sterile lab environment.

In any case you can't always believe what scientists say as scientist will say anything for a grant.

Did you seriously just say that scientists will lie for money? Wow.
Lying in the scientific community is basically the best way to end your career. The second you're exposed for it you're rejected and ridiculed for the rest of your life and will find no more work in the community.
What's more, how would an entire discipline of biology arise out of scientists lying for grant money?

And there are a lot of closed minded people like you out there who would be dishonest just because they don't like religion and it gives them a bias.

So now you're calling me a liar?
And I'm quite open minded, I just don't let my mind stay so open that my brain falls out.
Um...I've repeatedly stated that religious people can be supporters of evolutionary theory. This isn't a thread about the conflict of theism versus atheism.
One of the most ardent supporters of science is biologist Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic who defended evolution in the Dover Board of Education case.

Someone suggests I might be a troll. I give as much respect as I get and I don't get much from you technocratic types.

I suggested it because you've ignored repeatedly multiple points and then kept insisting your position as if it's gone unchallenged.

You guys argruments are so weak that is your problem.

You mean an entire field of biology that has brilliant experts is a weak argument? Which argument is specifically weak?

If you were honest with yourselves you would admit that you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know the difference between what you can prove and what is your opinion.

I take great care to not speak about things I don't know about. I won't speak about a subject until I've studied up on it.
This is a case where what can be proven is quite delineated from my opinion. My opinion is that whatever is scientifically verified is factual.

theory means explanation...it doesn't say the explanation is proven. Another synonym for theory is guess.
If you debate a proposition you are tacitly admitting that the proposition has not been proven.

You're using a colloquial definition for a scientific term. That would be like telling a mechanic that a 'hub' is a place where a lot of people meet.

A scientific theory is something that has evidence to support it. Again I'll cite an example: Circuit Theory.
It's a theory but we're sure as hell proving it right now.
In science a guess is referred to as a hypothesis

Your entitled to your beliefs but don't expect the rest of us to buy into your lame crap.

It's not a belief, it's science. It's supported. Unlike what you claim to believe.

I guess I'll be closing the door on this thread, as creationists and intelligent design proponents don't have anything to actually add to these conversations. There doesn't seem to be a single scientific problem that people have with evolution, simply one of ignorance.

I want to reopen this discussion, because I'm still curious as to what specific problems creationists (and any others who have problems with evolution) actually have with evolution.

Maybe we can clear the air on misconceptions, maybe we'll all learn something, maybe someone might actually find a legitimate hole in evolutionary theory (very unlikely).

Let's try to keep this civil.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I believe the concept of God in Judaism. I am going to post source from other site and you can comment what you think.

Everything in the universe was created by G-d and only by G-d. Judaism completely rejects the dualistic notion that evil was created by Satan or some other deity. All comes from G-d. As Isaiah said, "I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the L-rd, that does all these things." (Is. 45:6-7).

G-d transcends time. He has no beginning and no end. He will always be there to fulfill his promises. When Moses asked for G-d's name, He replied, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh." That phrase is generally translated as, "I am that I am," but the word "ehyeh" can be present or future tense, meaning "I am what I will be" or "I will be what I will be." The ambiguity of the phrase is often interpreted as a reference to G-d's eternal nature.

Source

I link the concept of God to the Universe and the Big bang. God was the beginning and he caused the Big Bang and or created the universe and the Earth.

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


Ok, no conflict with evolutionary theory there.

The theoretical astrophysicists and cosmologists might have issues with your ideas, but it gels entirely with the idea of evolution via the mechanisms outlined in evolutionary theory.

Evolution only concerns the diversity of life the second life arises, not where that life comes from, where the universe comes from, or anything else.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet

 

I don't understand. Tell me more please!

The theoretical astrophysicists and cosmologists might have issues with your ideas, but it gels entirely with the idea of evolution via the mechanisms outlined in evolutionary theory.

What is an astrophysicists and an cosmologists?