Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

  1. #1

    Default Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

    My debate challenge has been accepted by Sudden death.

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ge-here/page10


    Thank you Sudden Death for accepting this debate and I apologize for the wait. To be honest my heart and interests are not in this debate at the moment. I accepted because I posted the offer awhile back and you accepted so I will follow through. Because my interest are other places at the moment I ask that this debate end after the first full page is done, if it goes that long. Perhaps we could give some ending comments on page two. I of course will be more than willing to do a second debate later on down the road when my interest returns. I also cannot promise that my responses will come very often. Likely pretty slow in fact.My op will not go into great detail on what is presented as I am sure this will come along as the debate goes. This is more a summary of some main points on why I reject evolution. When I say evolution I mean to say common decent Darwinian evolution.



    From Evolutionist to Creationist

    I was raised to believe in evolution through the politically correct government school system and also influenced my media and documentary types. At this time in my life [22 and under] I did not know how to think critically, I simply was taught to accept anything I was told and repeat it back, the better I could the better I was. It was not until around 23 I was challenged to look critically at what I had accepted without question. This led me to read sources I did not knowexisted and was given information that was deliberately left out of textbooks. I started watching debates and time and again the creation side was verified and the evolutionist side was shown to be built on faith and assumptions contrary to observation.I also found evolutionist had distorted evidence and lied to get me to believe in their religion. This pushed me from their faith. The final straw is in their inability to point to anyone example for upward complexity evolution. Despite million of tax money and many years invested, not one evidence can be found to support evolution by common decent. However there are added issues, there are many lines of evidence from observation that refute evolution and put it in the faith alone category. It is ok to believe it, but that is a faith statement.



    Mutations/Information



    Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity.Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts.






    Mutations work against evolution by destroying information. We have done millions of years worth of experiments with fruit fly's and bacteria and no one has ever observed new information being created. We also have all of our observation with living things that show evolution is impossible by mutations. If evolution cannot explain the origin of genetic information than evolution is refuted by observation.

    “Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory.”
    -Spetner,L. 1997. Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of evolution.Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press


    ‘biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry …(and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.’
    -Davies,P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.


    “There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
    -DR Werner Gitt head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology


    “The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it.” remains a formidable problem.”
    -Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions inEvolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p81

    "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."
    Spetner,L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution.Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.

    “the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex over time.”
    Dr.Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics 2012

    “The main mechanism for producing gentic variety required for evolution,random mutation, has been falsified”
    -JerryBergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and forgeries 2017


    Origin of Life From Non life

    For life to come from non life a few scientific laws such as the law of information and the law of The law of biogenesis must be violated. It has been attempted by evolutionist and the attempts have failed.

    "Geologists,chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
    -Horgan,J. Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have aclue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011.

    "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
    —*FrancisCrick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88

    ‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
    -Davies,P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998


    Irreducible complexity

    There are many examples of biological systems that could not have arisen one at a time over long periods of time, but had to be there together at same time. An example, certain protein machines are needed to read DNA, but the protein machines themselves are codded for in the DNA.Or that the heart kidney and lung all work together, without any one of them the others could not survive. Enzymes controlled dna systems replication dna controlled rna systems transcription, rna controlled protein sythesis translation

    “According to evolution this toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all phyla, before first appearance of phyla, prior to Cambrian explosion, prior to muticulular life. The gens that control body plans had to originate, when there were no bodies to control embryonic development. Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plans—and these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the variousphyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the ‘Developmental Genetic Toolkit’. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must haveoriginated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phyla—in other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian— prior to the origin of multi cellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos.
    “At the point when the modern animal body plans first emerged [half a billion years ago] just about all the genes that are used in modern organisms to make embryos were already there. They had evolved in the single-celled world but they weren’t doing embryogenesis [Mazur’sbraces]” (Stuart Newman, p. 52).

    Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot ‘look ahead’ and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the ‘tools’ for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization.
    StuartNewman’s paper, which “served as the centerpiece of the Altenbergsymposium” (Mazur, p. 12), claims that all 35 or so animal phylaphysically self-organized by the time of the

    Cambrian explosion, and selection followed later as a ‘stabilizer’ of the self-organized novelties.
    “Look,when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] has,in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321).
    Areview of TheAltenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry bySuzan Mazur
    NorthAtlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010


    How do things like immune system and digestive system evolve?There are many things like the bacteria flagelum that has 40 parts that would not work together unless all there from beginning. The heart and placenta. A pregnant woman’s placenta secretes progesterone, a hormone that signals her tiny baby’s cells to take up less cholesterol.Cholesterol is a vital component of all body cells, including heart cells, and the placenta regulates cholesterol levels. Thus, the healthy development of a baby’s heart depends on the mother’s placenta. Likewise, the placental cells would fail to manufacture progesterone or perform their other vital tasks without a blood supply,which the mother’s heart generates. Thus, the placenta and heart function interdependently to knit a baby.So,which came first? The heart could not have come first since it would not have formed without the placenta. But if the placenta came first,it could not have worked without a heart. Both organs had to arise simultaneously, pointing toward a sudden miracle!


    The Cambrian Explosion

    “To be honest , to most people not emotionally invested in the matter,it falsifies Darwinism, something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”
    -Walter Remine p 26 JOC 2012 26 [1]


    In the early Cambrian Rocks 100 phylum [only 30 living today, phylum is largest category of organism species, genus, family etc. ] Are found in the "lowest" level of rocks called the Cambrian. It is were life first appears in the fossil record. So more diversity of life appears there, than alive today, with no fossils before it at all. No transitional forms for them. There are vast numbers—billions—of fossils of thousands of different species of complex creatures in the Cambrian,—and below it is next to nothing. The vast host of transitional species leading up to the complex Cambrian species are totally missing. Darwin said about the Cambrian explosion I can give no satisfactory answer.

    “all of the known animal bodies plans seem to have appeared in the Cambrian”
    -Rudol fraff evolutionary biologist 2009

    “Cambrian period of only 20 mya”
    -Richard Dawkins the greatest show on earth

    “ It know appears that this Cambrian explosion during which nearly all the extinct animal phyla have emerged lasted only 6-10 million years And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
    -Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton &Co., 1987), p. 229.

    "First,and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there,and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form. The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits."
    —*Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p.56



    “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.”
    -Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to DieFor,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

    Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian, and none are ever found beneath it in the Precambrian
    *Preston Cloud, "Pseudo fossils: A Plea for Caution," in Geology, November 1973, pp. 123-127).



    Origin of Sexually Reproduction


    Reproduction needs complete complementary reproductive organs, but evolution is not goal orientated or able to plan ahead, how could all the complex organs develop over thousands of generations when the organism cannot produce without them? And suppose to happen in same place and time?

    Complexity of reproductive system
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...nderfully-made


    Origin of non Material Things like Information, Love, Memory, Laws of Logic, Science, Morality etc

    If evolution were true and all there was is just matter and motion. How could things like love memory morality information exist? If evolution were true, science would not make sense.

    Science only Makes Sense in a Biblical Worldview

    ‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident,and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
    -C.S.Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K.,p. 97, 1984.


    Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
    -John Lennox prof fellow of mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university 2009


    Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth.We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

    Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

    Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them.evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.

    But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic,reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes,ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.


    Design and Complexity

    If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?

    "Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:]‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon here quires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design."
    —*Richard Dawkins, TheBlind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence,p. 23.

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mindthat what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    -Crick,F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.

    So it seems to me the clear answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation. There are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.

    If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimeter across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1
    -Feringa, B. L. 2000.Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408(6809): 151-154.


    biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information. each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over,and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt?

    The DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were , how many and when.
    Some functions ofcellular machines DNA maintenance robots that proofreadinformation, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice incorrections, and rewind the strands

    • Intracellular elevators
    • Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports
    • Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states
    • Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion
    • Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor
    • A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks

    A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Realengines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2
    Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines ofcreation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.

    Biovision harvard
    http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/
    proteinbeing made
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pXtceGbjLI

    An adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion)electrical connections,dmore than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.e
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences11.html


    “if all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books.If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin!”
    -In the beginig walt brown
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI3.html


    Fully-Developed Organs

    All species appear fully developed, not partly developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin,tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs(dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird,it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.

    Law of Thermodynamics

    evolution teaches matter is not conservative but self originating - the first law of thermodynamics disproves this

    first law -energy cannot by itself be created or destroyed .energy may be changed from one form into another but the total amount remains unchanged the sum total of the energy (or its matter)will always remain the same

    no new matter or energy will make itself. since matter /energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself only a outside agency or power can make or destroy it. the creation of the universe must be non material because if it was material it would be subject to decay like all material, so the creator must be non material spiritual and eternal psalm 90.2


    The Second Law of Thermodynamics

    Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.

    This law is completely constant with creation from order to disorder.Stars blow up, run out of fuel, mutations kill destroy, things go from complex to disorganized. We see stars dying not being created,life is not just pooping up around us. You have to make repairs to your car and house when things are left to themselves they disintegrate deteriorate, most jobs are because of the second law. We have never observed the opposite things going from disorder to order less complex to more[without outside intelligence].


    The Fossil Record

    If evolution were true, than there should be millions of perfect transitional fossils all over the earth. With all the variety of life today, you cannot evolve all life without leaving a trace. There has been many claimed "missing links" but they are usually frauds, faked, or proven wrong shortly after. The difference between the major phylum or even family groups, would leave a clear trail in the fossil record, the only missing links we have,are the ones that are within the family kind. Organisms come into the fossil record sudden and fully formed just as creation would predict. Here are a few quotes from leading evolutionist


    ".. intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."—*
    --Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quotedin *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,"in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979

    "No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species]confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of theproper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links."There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."
    —*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered,"in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

    "Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
    —*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," inNatural History, May 1977, p. 14.

    "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." —*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit.

    After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution,*Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:

    "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.


    "[Steven]Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
    —*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther -Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p.89.

    "Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."
    —*David Raup,"Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

    "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
    —*G.G. Simpson,in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.


    Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule . . The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated."
    —*Newsweek, November 3, 1980

    ‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still one xhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
    –Dr.Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, ina recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’sEnigma: Fossils and Other Problems,Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.

    “in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”

    -raop daivd education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982p289

    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches;the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
    - Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May1977,

    "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."
    —*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and EvolutionaryTheory (1974), p. 467


    "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist,uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
    —*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

    “...there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.”
    -Francisco J. Ayalaand James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

    There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil records provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution”.
    -Dr.Michael Denton.Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books,1985, Page 172.

    “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps(saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?


    "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation.
    - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University,England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.),Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p.97[84]HYPERLINK"http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-83"[85]

    "When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."
    —*A.H.Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100
    Last edited by twc01; August 13, 2018 at 05:37 PM.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
    Malcolm maggeridge

  2. #2

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

    I won't write my starting arguments as of yet, but to succinctly give an overview of my position, it's essentially the standard evolutionary model of science taught today and peer-reviewed around the world. The Earth is certainly not 10,000 years old, and the evidence of a global flood is lacking.

    twc01, I'm assuming from your signature that you're of the belief that christianity provided the western world with its morality?

  3. #3

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    I won't write my starting arguments as of yet, but to succinctly give an overview of my position, it's essentially the standard evolutionary model of science taught today and peer-reviewed around the world. The Earth is certainly not 10,000 years old, and the evidence of a global flood is lacking.

    twc01, I'm assuming from your signature that you're of the belief that christianity provided the western world with its morality?
    Thanks for accepting this debate. I think what we should do is go back and edit our posts once we are set to go. So I will turn the op into my opening arguments. So I just want to know are their any rules you would like us to follow? and thanks for clarifying your position as I assumed it was the standard. You are atheist correct?


    My sig really is just saying that when God is rejected, man will believe anything, such as evolution for example.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
    Malcolm maggeridge

  4. #4

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    Thanks for accepting this debate. I think what we should do is go back and edit our posts once we are set to go. So I will turn the op into my opening arguments. So I just want to know are their any rules you would like us to follow? and thanks for clarifying your position as I assumed it was the standard. You are atheist correct?
    That sounds like a good idea, I'll wait for you to edit and make your opening arguments, then I will respond by editing my own post, then we can go from there

    As for rules, I don't really have any. We're both under RL constraints, so double posting and stuff like that shouldn't be a major issue. I'm sure whatever rules you want are fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    My sig really is just saying that when God is rejected, man will believe anything, such as evolution for example.
    The twist on that is that man will believe anything, including stuff more fantastical and unrealistic than the Judaeo-Christian God.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    That sounds like a good idea, I'll wait for you to edit and make your opening arguments, then I will respond by editing my own post, then we can go from there

    As for rules, I don't really have any. We're both under RL constraints, so double posting and stuff like that shouldn't be a major issue. I'm sure whatever rules you want are fine.
    Great, and thanks for accepting this it should be fun. I have a few things to do [work/kids related] and I will look to edit my post this weekend i hope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    [LEFT][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana]

    The twist on that is that man will believe anything, including stuff more fantastical and unrealistic than the Judaeo-Christian God.
    Agreed.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
    Malcolm maggeridge

  6. #6

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01
    Thank you Sudden Death for accepting this debate and I apologize for the wait. To be honest my heart and interests are not in this debate at the moment. I accepted because I posted the offer awhile back and you accepted so I will follow through. Because my interest are other places at the moment I ask that this debate end after the first full page is done, if it goes that long. Perhaps we could give some ending comments on page two. I of course will be more than willing to do a second debate later on down the road when my interest returns. I also cannot promise that my responses will come very often. Likely pretty slow in fact.My op will not go into great detail on what is presented as I am sure this will come along as the debate goes. This is more a summary of some main points on why I reject evolution. When I say evolution I mean to say common decent Darwinian evolution.

    If one full page of argumentation is what you wish, then so be it. Perhaps this discussion will rekindle your interests in this area, but limiting it is probably a very good idea. Usually, these types of discussions are only worthwhile for the first three or so responses until they devolve into semantics and fundamental disagreements about definitions and meanings etc. There’s no need to rush however, my responses will be slow as well, as I’m studying and working. Add on top that this sort of discussion requires a lot of research and evidence to support arguments or form arguments from. I take it from this last sentence here:


    Quote Originally Posted by twc01
    When I say evolution I mean to say common decent Darwinian evolution.

    that you accept micro evolution, as even the staunchest of young earth creationists like Kent Hovind do, and that your objection is to macro evolution, that is, significant changes over a significant period of time. I would also like to ask here, despite the fact that I will be talking about him regardless, as to whether you’re a fan/supporter of the infamous Kent Hovind?


    Quote Originally Posted by twc01
    I was raised to believe in evolution through the politically correct government school system and also influenced my media and documentary types. At this time in my life [22 and under] I did not know how to think critically, I simply was taught to accept anything I was told and repeat it back, the better I could the better I was. It was not until around 23 I was challenged to look critically at what I had accepted without question. This led me to read sources I did not knowexisted and was given information that was deliberately left out of textbooks. I started watching debates and time and again the creation side was verified and the evolutionist side was shown to be built on faith and assumptions contrary to observation.I also found evolutionist had distorted evidence and lied to get me to believe in their religion. This pushed me from their faith. The final straw is in their inability to point to anyone example for upward complexity evolution. Despite million of tax money and many years invested, not one evidence can be found to support evolution by common decent. However there are added issues, there are many lines of evidence from observation that refute evolution and put it in the faith alone category. It is ok to believe it, but that is a faith statement.

    I find this sort of reasoning pointless in that people from both sides will claim the same thing. Atheists or non-believers who were brought up Christians will say exactly the same thing. What we can agree on, I believe, is that evolutionary theory isn’t really taught and advertised well to both kids and the population at large. The movie Borat comes to mind, where we see a churchgoer addressing all in attendance, saying “I didn’t evolve out of a monkey, I didn’t used to be a tadpole, I is what I is.” It’s very clear, despite the fact that I’m referencing a movie, that many people don’t actually know what evolutionary theory actually is, and instead have this concept that one species gives birth to another, or something along those lines. Therefore, in this light I sympathise with you in that I don’t believe evolutionary theory is taught well enough. Though, on balance, a lot of these “science creationist” websites, like answersingenesis.org peddle a lot of misinformation about evolutionary theory, and when I saw that the dog “kind” picture was sourced from that particular website, I was immediately disappointed. I also noticed that you talk about tax payer money being funded. I would like to point out that one of the more popular and successful young earth ‘scientists’, Mr. Kent Hovind (he doesn’t have an actual doctorate) used to argue that he didn’t want his tax money funding evolutionary theory. He was later put in prison for ten years for intentionally dodging his taxes, despite making millions a year.


    Quoting Darwin and other scientists out of context


    Now, I’m going to be honest, I didn’t like the way you’ve just dumped a bunch of quotes out of context to support your positions. I understand you may not have heaps of time/interest, but young earth creationists tend to quote mine. That is, they misrepresent a sentence or phrase someone makes out of context in order to make it seem like the author supports their position when it doesn’t. One of the most popular authors to quote mine is none other than Charles Darwin himself. To be sure, when I used the search function, I found a quote from Darwin. Let’s explore this a little more in-depth.


    Here is what you’ve quoted:


    [quote=twc01]".. intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."—*
    --Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quotedin *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,"in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979



    Unfortunately, this quote is a straight up dishonest quote mine that takes Darwin completely out of context. In fact, if you read the paragraph beginning, and the sentence after the aforementioned quote, we find that Darwin is exploring all the different arguments against his theory in order to disprove them: (I place the text quoted out of context underlined)


    In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed… Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


    You can find the text here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html


    As you can see, Darwin’s sentence was taken dishonestly out of context. This is a common practice among young earth creationists to look like they have support from scientists, because the reality is that the vast majority of scientists endorse evolutionary theory (and by the way, there isn’t a conspiracy to shut out creationists from the scientific community).


    What makes this even worse is that the journal article you’re referring to doesn’t even disagree with Darwin, and actually supports evolutionary theory. Since I’m used to looking at articles for information, I went to the second last page and started on a random paragraph, since naturally the last section will be summarising the main points. Let’s have a look at what I found:


    Let me return now to the fossil record of evolution. The dinosaurs died out at the end of the Cretaceous period (about 65 million years ago).


    To my un-surprise, the author is actually factually referring to the dinosaurs existing 65 million years ago. Though I think his conclusion sums up what the real argument of the article is:


    The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance!


    This is extremely embarrassing, as the article is about a new way looking at evolutionary theory. This is what scientists do, they attempt to expand the horizons, and if their research and ideas are good enough, they get endorsed by their peers. Hence why science and scientific advancement moves so quickly.


    You can find the aforementioned journal article here from archive.org:
    https://ia800704.us.archive.org/23/i...dpaleo1930.pdf


    I feel like it’s now my obligation to examine the other quotes you’ve provided mentioning Darwin so that we can get the record straight for you and the observers here in terms of what Darwin actually believed and wrote. Which is somewhat ridiculous because you could just go read Darwin’s book for free online instead of mindlessly trusting out of context quotes, *cough*Kent Hovind*cough*. No seriously, the guy actually cited a quote from a scientific paper that was never in the paper. Anyway, I’ll address the quotes (a lot of which presumably are mined out of context) when I get to them.


    Let’s have a look at the next one:


    Quote Originally Posted by twc01
    “Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory.”
    -Spetner,L. 1997. Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of evolution.Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press

    I wonder why during the time I’ve spent extensively looking into this stuff that I’ve never heard of this book. Probably because it wasn’t as shattering as the author thought it was. Anyway, posting a random sentence from a book that doesn’t represent the scientific consensus is exactly that, a quote that does not represent the scientific consensus.


    Mutations/Information


    Quote Originally Posted by twc01
    volutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity.Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts.


    Mutations work against evolution by destroying information. We have done millions of years worth of experiments with fruit fly's and bacteria and no one has ever observed new information being created. We also have all of our observation with living things that show evolution is impossible by mutations. If evolution cannot explain the origin of genetic information than evolution is refuted by observation.

    Before we get into the actual argument, I checked the first quote that you provided, found a digital copy of the book and, oddly enough, the quote you provided, or even parts of it, are not in the actual book. Here’s the quote:


    Quote Originally Posted by twc01
    ‘biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry …(and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.’

    Now, it seems like the quote didn’t actually come from this book, or that each couple of words have are parts of different sentences. Take for example ‘cannot come into existence spontaneously’. The only match I found was this:


    Nobody wrote the message; nobody invented the code. They came into existence spontaneously. Their designer was Mother Nature herself…


    Later on, in the chapter, the author concludes:


    Darwinism is the central principle around which our understanding of biology is constructed. It offers an economical explanation of how a relatively simple genetic message elaborates itself over the eons to create molecules of DNA complex enough to produce a human being.


    Hardly the stance you would expect considering how the quote pulled from this book was done, which is to say, it appears that every couple of words have been pulled out of different paragraphs to create an artificial sentence, nor does it gel well with the general gist of the book itself, which scanning through seems to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, and appears to be more a book exploring ideas instead of promoting creationism.


    A quick google search of Davies give us a physicist who “During his time in Australia he helped establish the Australian Centre for Astrobiology.” I can’t find anything related to his opposition of evolutionary theory at all.


    For the second book that you’ve attempted to quote, “ The Major Transitions in Evolution”, a simple google search gives the exact opposite of what one would expect from the book regarding its thesis. The info of the book from Amazon:


    Over the history of life there have been several major changes in the way genetic information is organized and transmitted from one generation to the next. These transitions include the origin of life itself, the first eukaryotic cells, reproduction by sexual means, the appearance of multicellular plants and animals, the emergence of cooperation and of animal societies, and the unique language ability of humans. This ambitious book provides the first unified discussion of the full range of these transitions. The authors highlight the similarities between different transitions--between the union of replicating molecules to form chromosomes and of cells to form multicellular organisms, for example--and show how understanding one transition sheds light on others. They trace a common theme throughout the history of evolution: after a major transition some entities lose the ability to replicate independently, becoming able to reproduce only as part of a larger whole. The authors investigate this pattern and why selection between entities at a lower level does not disrupt selection at more complex levels. Their explanation encompasses a compelling theory of the evolution of cooperation at all levels of complexity. Engagingly written and filled with numerous illustrations, this book can be read with enjoyment by anyone with an undergraduate training in biology. It is ideal for advanced discussion groups on evolution and includes accessible discussions of a wide range of topics, from molecular biology and linguistics to insect societies.


    The quote itself it clearly a cut and paste of two separate sentences, and yet another hack way to try and misrepresent what the author is actually thinking and writing in his book. The next quote:


    Quote Originally Posted by twc01
    “the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex over time.”
    Dr.Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics 2012

    This is an actual quote from a PhD in genetics, but it should be noted, quite ironically, that the person is a female, and I cannot help recalling Timothy 2:12:


    I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. [New International Version, Copyright 2011-2017 Biblica]



    So far out of the various quotes you’ve produced, only two are from actual books that do not support evolutionary theory. The rest have for the most part been gross misinterpretations in order to deceive. Creationist websites and speakers tend to do this quite heavily. I will refrain from commenting or fact checking the multitude of other quotes unless you cite them again, though I suggest if you find quotes from creationist websites that you at least do a simple background search on the actual quote/book/author to see if its faithfully quoted and not mined out of context.


    I’m going to save myself a lot of time discussing mutations and information by linking you this video:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg


    I want you to watch this with an open mind, and explain to me how the facts and lines of evidence in this video do not add up. It can not be simply coincidence in that the transition fossils show a transformation that’s supported by various lines of evidence.


    Another video by the same channel here:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfNEHl44hc


    will explain to you what scientists have been studying for decades as to how life may have originated. Of course, science doesn’t have every answer, but this shouldn’t be a detriment. In the past couple hundred years we’ve expanded our knowledge of how the world works on multiple levels on an exponential scale, and it continues to do so. More and more throughout the years, the explanations of religion for different phenomena have been superseded by factual evidence. Note also that evolution on the scale of DNA isn’t necessarily addition of information, it’s the mutation of information.


    I will leave it up to you to watch these two great videos, and revise your other sections with quotes that are not dishonestly mined out of context. I’m not going to fact check every single one, and regardless these two videos will provide a great stepping stone for the next area of our debate.
    Last edited by Sudden Death; August 16, 2018 at 10:22 PM. Reason: Formatting error

  7. #7

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8

    This is another good one from the same channel. Really great, simple and informative videos.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

    If on purpose or not I do not know but you have severely misunderstood my op. It has nothing to do with opinions of scientist against evolution [ I could provide those in scores] it has to do with facts from observable science that contradict evolution. I often quote evolutionist [this is done intentionally] who are honest enough to admit this to show the issues are real. You did not at all respond to my actual objections to evolution. I will take another post that ignores them as admitting evolution has no good response to these objections. But as the evolutionist in this debate, I suggest you attempt a response.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    If one full page of argumentation is what you wish, then so be it. Perhaps this discussion will rekindle your interests in this area, but limiting it is probably a very good idea. Usually, these types of discussions are only worthwhile for the first three or so responses until they devolve into semantics and fundamental disagreements about definitions and meanings etc. There’s no need to rush however, my responses will be slow as well, as I’m studying and working. Add on top that this sort of discussion requires a lot of research and evidence to support arguments or form arguments from. I take it from this last sentence here:

    Thank you for agreeing to the one page limit. I agree it seems 1v1 debates go down hill fast after the first few posts with both sides often repeating themselves. Good luck with your studies what is your major?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    that you accept micro evolution, as even the staunchest of young earth creationists like Kent Hovind do, and that your objection is to macro evolution, that is, significant changes over a significant period of time. I would also like to ask here, despite the fact that I will be talking about him regardless, as to whether you’re a fan/supporter of the infamous Kent Hovind?

    I dont like the term but yes what is referred to as "micro" evolution of course happens. But to avoid any confusion significant changes do happen. It is the direction of change that is important. To help understand with a train analogy see here

    https://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin


    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    I find this sort of reasoning pointless in that people from both sides will claim the same thing. Atheists or non-believers who were brought up Christians will say exactly the same thing. What we can agree on, I believe, is that evolutionary theory isn’t really taught and advertised well to both kids and the population at large. The movie Borat comes to mind, where we see a churchgoer addressing all in attendance, saying “I didn’t evolve out of a monkey, I didn’t used to be a tadpole, I is what I is.” It’s very clear, despite the fact that I’m referencing a movie, that many people don’t actually know what evolutionary theory actually is, and instead have this concept that one species gives birth to another, or something along those lines. Therefore, in this light I sympathise with you in that I don’t believe evolutionary theory is taught well enough. Though, on balance, a lot of these “science creationist” websites, like answersingenesis.org peddle a lot of misinformation about evolutionary theory, and when I saw that the dog “kind” picture was sourced from that particular website, I was immediately disappointed. I also noticed that you talk about tax payer money being funded. I would like to point out that one of the more popular and successful young earth ‘scientists’, Mr. Kent Hovind (he doesn’t have an actual doctorate) used to argue that he didn’t want his tax money funding evolutionary theory. He was later put in prison for ten years for intentionally dodging his taxes, despite making millions a year.

    I dont disagree here. I was just letting you know where i was coming from to help the discussion. AIG is [generally] mainstream creation thinking and if they peddle misinformation and I use to, please call me out on it. You are disappointed in my "kind" picture. But why are you? why do you think the picture is misinformation?

    As for kent I am not sure why you bring him up here and his tax issues. He like me is libertarian, we are not found of taxes especially when used to preach evolution to kids with our tax money. Government education is unconstitutional anyhow. But if you want his side of the issue you can easily find it online but i think we should agree that is not the subject of this debate, Kents tax returns.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    Quoting Darwin and other scientists out of context


    Now, I’m going to be honest, I didn’t like the way you’ve just dumped a bunch of quotes out of context to support your positions. I understand you may not have heaps of time/interest, but young earth creationists tend to quote mine. That is, they misrepresent a sentence or phrase someone makes out of context in order to make it seem like the author supports their position when it doesn’t. One of the most popular authors to quote mine is none other than Charles Darwin himself. To be sure, when I used the search function, I found a quote from Darwin. Let’s explore this a little more in-depth.


    Here is what you’ve quoted:

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01
    ".. intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."—*
    --Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quotedin *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,"in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979



    Unfortunately, this quote is a straight up dishonest quote mine that takes Darwin completely out of context. In fact, if you read the paragraph beginning, and the sentence after the aforementioned quote, we find that Darwin is exploring all the different arguments against his theory in order to disprove them: (I place the text quoted out of context underlined)


    In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed… Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


    You can find the text here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html


    As you can see, Darwin’s sentence was taken dishonestly out of context. This is a common practice among young earth creationists to look like they have support from scientists, because the reality is that the vast majority of scientists endorse evolutionary theory (and by the way, there isn’t a conspiracy to shut out creationists from the scientific community).

    What I have found often is that evolutionist when they run into a quote they dont like, claim it is out of context, and than run to talk origins. Talk origins is really made for evolutionist who want to believe in evolution not so much seekers of truth is what I find. However of course if you can show any quote I used to be out of context I will remove it for good. But even more often, I think the reader is unawares of why the quote was used. So lets see what Darwin said. I will bold the important sections.


    hich might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed… Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


    So hopefully we can see know why i quoted him and why it is not taken out of context. He admits geology [or for my op the fossil record] does not fit evolution's predictions. HE ADMITS THIS IS THE BIGGEST OBJECTION TO HIS THEORY AND THAN GIVES HIS excuse THE FOSSIL RECORD IS NOT COMPLETE. This supports my op as i used it. To show even evolutionist admit the fossil record does not match evolutionist predictions. Further darwin tried to hide behind to few fossils in his day, you cannot make that claim anymore. There is no shortage of fossils today the picture is clear.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    What makes this even worse is that the journal article you’re referring to doesn’t even disagree with Darwin, and actually supports evolutionary theory. Since I’m used to looking at articles for information, I went to the second last page and started on a random paragraph, since naturally the last section will be summarising the main points. Let’s have a look at what I found:


    Let me return now to the fossil record of evolution. The dinosaurs died out at the end of the Cretaceous period (about 65 million years ago).


    To my un-surprise, the author is actually factually referring to the dinosaurs existing 65 million years ago. Though I think his conclusion sums up what the real argument of the article is:


    The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance!


    This is extremely embarrassing, as the article is about a new way looking at evolutionary theory. This is what scientists do, they attempt to expand the horizons, and if their research and ideas are good enough, they get endorsed by their peers. Hence why science and scientific advancement moves so quickly.


    You can find the aforementioned journal article here from archive.org:
    https://ia800704.us.archive.org/23/i...dpaleo1930.pdf


    I know, that is why i quoted it. I thought it was clear and i apologize if i was not. I quoted leading paleontologist and evolutionist admitting to the fact that the fossil record does not match evolution. But I cannot help but think what we have here [i apologize if i am wrong] is you putting in a quote looking on talk origins and giving their response. What I find they do most of all is twist slightly what creationist say and create a straw man to knock down. If you read my op closely i am not sure why you would say i had taken the quote out of context.

    So your response to me is "extremely embarrassing" given you missed this. Further I agree that "This is what scientists do, they attempt to expand the horizons, and if their research and ideas are good enough, they get endorsed by their peers. Hence why science and scientific advancement moves so quickly." this exspalins the rapid growth in creation and ID.

    But I think you have missed the point of the article you quoted. The point is they have to adapt evolution to fit the fossil record as slow gradual does not fit the fossils. So they come up with fancy imagination stuff like Punctuated equilibrium to try and exsaplin away why the fossil record does not match evolution's predictions. Not based on the actual fossil record, but on the held firm assumption and belief in naturalism that trumps science such as the observed fossil record.

    “Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. “
    -Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature. 401 (6752): 423.


    "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
    -Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist


    “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally,hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
    -Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30

    ‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledgedalternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gishis but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right.Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,and it is true of evolution still today... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
    -Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph,Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    I feel like it’s now my obligation to examine the other quotes you’ve provided mentioning Darwin so that we can get the record straight for you and the observers here in terms of what Darwin actually believed and wrote. Which is somewhat ridiculous because you could just go read Darwin’s book for free online instead of mindlessly trusting out of context quotes, *cough*Kent Hovind*cough*. No seriously, the guy actually cited a quote from a scientific paper that was never in the paper. Anyway, I’ll address the quotes (a lot of which presumably are mined out of context) when I get to them.


    Let’s have a look at the next one:





    I wonder why during the time I’ve spent extensively looking into this stuff that I’ve never heard of this book. Probably because it wasn’t as shattering as the author thought it was. Anyway, posting a random sentence from a book that doesn’t represent the scientific consensus is exactly that, a quote that does not represent the scientific consensus.

    I hope you examine all my quotes. I look forward to clarifying any misunderstanding *cough talk origins cough* presents. You are obsessed with Hovind, maybe you should debate him? So with this quote we see it once more is not taken out of context. I agree this is not mainstream thinking. Mainstream thinking is any mutation leads to evolution. However what this quote does do so show a fact. Facts are more important than majority opinion. Unless you want to have a illogical fallacy as your argument? I would chose a scientific fact over illogical thinking every time.




    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    Mutations/Information





    Before we get into the actual argument, I checked the first quote that you provided, found a digital copy of the book and, oddly enough, the quote you provided, or even parts of it, are not in the actual book. Here’s the quote:





    Now, it seems like the quote didn’t actually come from this book, or that each couple of words have are parts of different sentences. Take for example ‘cannot come into existence spontaneously’. The only match I found was this:


    Nobody wrote the message; nobody invented the code. They came into existence spontaneously. Their designer was Mother Nature herself…


    Later on, in the chapter, the author concludes:


    Darwinism is the central principle around which our understanding of biology is constructed. It offers an economical explanation of how a relatively simple genetic message elaborates itself over the eons to create molecules of DNA complex enough to produce a human being.


    Hardly the stance you would expect considering how the quote pulled from this book was done, which is to say, it appears that every couple of words have been pulled out of different paragraphs to create an artificial sentence, nor does it gel well with the general gist of the book itself, which scanning through seems to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, and appears to be more a book exploring ideas instead of promoting creationism.


    A quick google search of Davies give us a physicist who “During his time in Australia he helped establish the Australian Centre for Astrobiology.” I can’t find anything related to his opposition of evolutionary theory at all.

    My apologies fully please have mercy. Thanks for pointing that out. The correct source is Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, September 1999. Once more i am not quoting these people as against evolution. I am quoting them [generally] because they are evolutionist who admit the various truths of science. Those truths refute evolution.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    For the second book that you’ve attempted to quote, “ The Major Transitions in Evolution”, a simple google search gives the exact opposite of what one would expect from the book regarding its thesis. The info of the book from Amazon:


    Over the history of life there have been several major changes in the way genetic information is organized and transmitted from one generation to the next. These transitions include the origin of life itself, the first eukaryotic cells, reproduction by sexual means, the appearance of multicellular plants and animals, the emergence of cooperation and of animal societies, and the unique language ability of humans. This ambitious book provides the first unified discussion of the full range of these transitions. The authors highlight the similarities between different transitions--between the union of replicating molecules to form chromosomes and of cells to form multicellular organisms, for example--and show how understanding one transition sheds light on others. They trace a common theme throughout the history of evolution: after a major transition some entities lose the ability to replicate independently, becoming able to reproduce only as part of a larger whole. The authors investigate this pattern and why selection between entities at a lower level does not disrupt selection at more complex levels. Their explanation encompasses a compelling theory of the evolution of cooperation at all levels of complexity. Engagingly written and filled with numerous illustrations, this book can be read with enjoyment by anyone with an undergraduate training in biology. It is ideal for advanced discussion groups on evolution and includes accessible discussions of a wide range of topics, from molecular biology and linguistics to insect societies.


    The quote itself it clearly a cut and paste of two separate sentences, and yet another hack way to try and misrepresent what the author is actually thinking and writing in his book. The next quote:

    In no way is that true. Once again i do not quote because they are against evolution, but for the facts they admit to as evolutionist. As he admits "he most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology." just because he keeps the faith in spite of clear issues, or that he writes a book on evolution, does not in any way do away with the fact I presented in my op, the problem of information to evolutionary biology. Neither does it have anything to say on the specific context of the quote.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    This is an actual quote from a PhD in genetics, but it should be noted, quite ironically, that the person is a female, and I cannot help recalling Timothy 2:12:
    I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. [New International Version, Copyright 2011-2017 Biblica]


    An interesting topic for sure not really the subject here. But if you are interested i suggest this link



    http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

    Also
    "In Galatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold a position of equal value and importance to men: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
    TheBible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ.Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God moreaccurately (Acts 18:26).
    It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.

    It does not say that women cannot evangelize.Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).
    This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church.Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16.

    So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other.
    And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
    gen 1.27




    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    So far out of the various quotes you’ve produced, only two are from actual books that do not support evolutionary theory. The rest have for the most part been gross misinterpretations in order to deceive. Creationist websites and speakers tend to do this quite heavily. I will refrain from commenting or fact checking the multitude of other quotes unless you cite them again, though I suggest if you find quotes from creationist websites that you at least do a simple background search on the actual quote/book/author to see if its faithfully quoted and not mined out of context.
    I would say so far you have not understood the purpose of my quotes. I would point out to you i quoted evolutionist on purpose admitting to the problem. I could quote hundreds of creationist and ID's that say the same thing. Is that really needed? usually they are dismissed out of hand. Further had you read my op you would see they are not taken out of context for the reason I used them in my op. What matters is the facts. These quote all support the facts i brought up. You did nothing to answer or respond to any of the arguments presented in my op.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    I’m going to save myself a lot of time discussing mutations and information by linking you this video:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg


    I want you to watch this with an open mind, and explain to me how the facts and lines of evidence in this video do not add up. It can not be simply coincidence in that the transition fossils show a transformation that’s supported by various lines of evidence.


    Another video by the same channel here:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfNEHl44hc

    I am going to save me some time and politely ask that in a 1v1 debate we agree not to post youtube videos in replace of our arguments. I think a 1v1 deserves more than that kind of effort. You wish to say their is evidence for evolution. Here is a bold claim i will make, their is not one piece of observable scientific evidence for evolution. I challenge you to present your best few evidences of evolution written out and exspalined.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    will explain to you what scientists have been studying for decades as to how life may have originated. Of course, science doesn’t have every answer, but this shouldn’t be a detriment. In the past couple hundred years we’ve expanded our knowledge of how the world works on multiple levels on an exponential scale, and it continues to do so. More and more throughout the years, the explanations of religion for different phenomena have been superseded by factual evidence. Note also that evolution on the scale of DNA isn’t necessarily addition of information, it’s the mutation of information.

    I cant agree more. This is why i love science and am against the faith people have in evolution as it is contrary to what we know of science.

    "It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries."
    -Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp.39-40.

    "In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?. . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
    —*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980)[emphasis his].


    "It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
    —*L.L.Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

    “Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable.Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
    -Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011


    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    I will leave it up to you to watch these two great videos, and revise your other sections with quotes that are not dishonestly mined out of context. I’m not going to fact check every single one, and regardless these two videos will provide a great stepping stone for the next area of our debate.

    Well than i am an evolutionist if that is evolution. However that is not even what your video said, remember all life shares a common ancestor. I look forward to you presenting your proofs of evolution in a non youtube video format.

    Last edited by twc01; August 18, 2018 at 06:06 PM.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
    Malcolm maggeridge

  9. #9

    Default Re: Biblical Creation vs Evolution [twc01 vs sudden death]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudden Death View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8

    This is another good one from the same channel. Really great, simple and informative videos.

    And i look forward to you arguing in written form from those great videos to show me the fact of evolution.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
    Malcolm maggeridge

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •