To all Creationists/Evolutionists

reply to post by TechUnique

Our genetic code could have been written by someone/something to allow evolution to happen.

But you could make this argument about the fusion taking place in stars or any other natural chemical process. Life is reliant upon perfectly natural chemical reactions to function and exist, to bring in the supernatural is unnecessary and baseless. Order and complexity do not necessarily mean something is designed.

Creationism and Evolution will never co-exist peacefully because some creationists want to teach mythology in science classrooms. Not only is creationism not science but teaching it as science is a direct violation of the first amendment. Sorry but I'm gonna want to lock horns with anyone who wants religious myth taught to children as if it's just as valid as centuries of scientific objectively verifiable evidence.

i heard a scientist say this the other day " it isn't that science is anti god, it isn't science requires proof, and mathematical precision. I wouldn't go so far as to say god does not exist but statistically every year the odds of it being true diminish and where never great to begin with."

reply to post by mb2591


It does sound fun But it also sounds like work. Its a lot easier to do while listening to or watching them. It kinda gets lost in translation writing it down.

reply to post by vjr1113


Genetic recombination:

This doesn't add any new information to the genome, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. In fact, the very page you've quoted lists genetic recombination as a process which "allows sexually reproducing organisms to avoid Muller's ratchet, in which the genomes of an asexual population accumulate deleterious mutations in an irreversible manner", essentially reinforcing my point; that all organisms "accumulate deleterious mutations", and that, despite having a mechanism to avoid such mutations, the organisms in question still aren't adding new information; merely finding inventive ways to avoid genetic corruption.

As for the list of "transitional forms", I see no reason why these should be considered transitional, nor does that page contain any evidence to suggest that they are so. If evolution were true, however, we should see literally MILLIONS of transitional forms; not a handful of tenuously linked (by the theory, no less - not by observation) forms (many of which could certainly be argued to be valid species or subspecies in their own right).

reply to post by TechUnique


There isn't really such a thing as an "evolutionist", but thats beside the point.

Most proponents of evolution have no problem with the possibility of a creator. That isn't really the issue. It is an issue of evidence, which creationists are lacking. It's an issue of them wanting to teach our children creationism as science when it does not belong in a science classroom.

We can speculate until the day we die about a prime mover, but until we have evidence its nothing more than speculation.

The entire creationist argument rests on misrepresenting evolution.

They try so hard with the micro-evolution vs macro-evolution argument but they just display their ignorance.
Macro-evolution is nothing more than evolutionary change at the species level or higher. In other words speciation, which has been observed multiple times. They are still looking for a "crock-a-duck" which is completely absurd and would actually benefit their arguments against evolution.

If they would like to look at it as the mechanism that a god or gods used, thats fine but it is a well understood fact and is not going to be overturned with the book of genesis. And it should not be taught to our children as science.

reply to post by vjr1113

creationism is not dis-proven and not proven. so why even argue for it?

Creationism is disproved in the way they present it. We know that man did not just appear in its current form. We know the earth was not created in 6 days. We know the earth is not 6,000 years old. We know man did not walk with dinosaurs. We know there was not a world wide flood etc. etc. etc.

It is not science and should never be presented as science.

Originally posted by IKTOMI
reply to post by TechUnique

 

Im sorry but the whole "big bang" theory sounds just as dumb as all the others if not more so.

Probably because you do not know much about it and believe the straw man that science says "something came from nothing"

And the big bang theory has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Salutations,
I have never seen a book, CD, DVD or computer program nor any device that is used to capture and transmitt information. That wasn't both designed and created. To presume this suggests a Designer/Creator is not the least bit absurd ?

Science Dictionary
genome (jē'nōm) Pronunciation Key
The total amount of genetic information in the chromosomes of an organism, including its genes and DNA sequences. The genome of eukaryotes is made up of a single, haploid set of chromosomes that is contained in the nucleus of every cell and exists in two copies in the chromosomes of all cells except reproductive and red blood cells. The human genome is made up of about 35,000 genes.

Informatiom from ?

SnF

Originally posted by mb2591
reply to post by IKTOMI

 

Well it's not all dumb. but that's not to say its true either its still is a 'theory'

It is not "just a theory"

Please learn the difference between a scientific theory and the everyday use of the word.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[7]

wiki

Besides the big bang theory has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

reply to post by TechUnique


Micro-evolution is a 100% scientific certainty. So we know there is evolution for sure. Macro-evolution is probable and likely though not 100% proven.

Creationism ... a complete and utter, total lack of any evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by IKTOMI
reply to post by mb2591

 

Ok lets see. First there was nothing at all whatsoever.. Then it blew up.

Na I'm sure its pretty dumb

Straw man! Straw man! Straw man!

No one ever said first there was nothing whatsoever then it blew up.
Do you read much about the topics you discuss?

Originally posted by megabytz

Originally posted by mb2591
reply to post by IKTOMI

 

Well it's not all dumb. but that's not to say its true either its still is a 'theory'

It is not "just a theory"

Please learn the difference between a scientific theory and the everyday use of the word.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[7]

wiki

Besides the big bang theory has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Thanks although I've read this already, it doesn't mean all scientific theories are irrefutable. Also the big bang is exactly as I said. Also your right the big bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution but if you reread the thread you will see how we got here.

reply to post by Scytherius


Can you give me the creationist definition of macro-evolution? There entirely contrived category of macro-evolution.

There are multiple examples of speciation. Macro-evolution has been observed.

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by vjr1113

 

creationism is not dis-proven and not proven. so why even argue for it?

Creationism is disproved in the way they present it. We know that man did not just appear in its current form. We know the earth was not created in 6 days. We know the earth is not 6,000 years old. We know man did not walk with dinosaurs. We know there was not a world wide flood etc. etc. etc.

It is not science and should never be presented as science.

Right on all accounts except... no world wide flood you say? Just about every b.c. culture talks about a world wide flood.. do you have a source to prove that they were wrong?

reply to post by Awen24

oh gees im gonna have to take a class on evolution.

ill reply to you when im ready.

if anyone wants to help me, feel free to.

reply to post by mb2591


No scientific theories are always refutable.

If you have read that before, which I am sure many people in this forum have, then why do you still use the phrase "its just a theory"?

Scientific theories are hypothesis that have passed many empirical tests. Could the big bang be wrong? Sure but it is not very likely. Maybe certain aspects of the theory will change but the basic premise is pretty solid.

When people refer to scientific theories as "just a theory" they are presenting it as an untested hypothesis, such as creationism, and not a theory backed by a great deal of evidence.

Originally posted by megabytz

Originally posted by IKTOMI
reply to post by TechUnique

 

Im sorry but the whole "big bang" theory sounds just as dumb as all the others if not more so.

Probably because you do not know much about it and believe the straw man that science says "something came from nothing"

And the big bang theory has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

edit on 4-7-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)

Ok there guy on the internet. Thanks for clearing that up for me. If not for you I would have died never having realized much of anything. You are a living saint.

reply to post by Awen24


ok i found some cites

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

www.talkorigins.org...

again im no expert but apparently, new info can be added to dna.


Edit: and here is a link talking about transitional fossils with citations
www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by IKTOMI
reply to post by TechUnique

 

Im sorry but the whole "big bang" theory sounds just as dumb as all the others if not more so.

I know to think this endless universe started as some super tiny super heated blob that all of a sudden pops and expands at rates faster than the speed of light is so outrageous it is comical, it is a theory that is designed to negate the possibility of a creator . The fact of the matter is of you believe in science then look at the Torah bible codes and the statistical science of the probabilities of these matrixes not being there by design therefore proving the bible was written by a being with knowledge of the future . This would be God.

When did the pissing contest become an event in the special olympics?