Why all this evolution vs creation thing has turned to a bad direction

[Papay]

First of all i must explain that God has nothing to do with this.How Life started on Earth has to do with the quest for the truth and not who created us.Unfortunatelly every time that such a topic emerges people go off topic and the talk degenerates.

As a pro-creationist i must admit that the idea has suffered because religious biggots dont want to accept some scientific facts.Instead of admiting that evolution is a proven fact they start claiming that Earth is 6000 years old and that the Dinosaurs got extinct by Human hunting.Surely their arguments are laughable.What annoys me is the fact that anti-creationists use these arguments to promote their irrational theories.If you enter an "atheist" forum the usual arguments against creationism is what these biggots say.Is this the proper scientific approach though?Is it logical to claim that Life is a natural phenomenon because God hasnt visited us?

Current scientific theories support creationism.There are two things that science doesnt want to admit.The first is that Abiogenesis is impossible and the second is that Life has specific design abilities and that it is programmed to develop certain traits.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life could appear from inanimate matter.It is supposed that a procaryotic Cell or more appeared on Ancient Earth somehow through random chemical reactions.Its impossible. Even this simple form of Life is too complicated to emerge naturally.To understand that you must think that a cell as a screw.A screw is a type of fastener built on a specific way for a specific purpose.Perhaps a screw could be created somewhere in the universe through random chemical reactions but claiming that this screw could survive and start to replicate is odd.In other words Abiogenesis is not supported by the facts and it is more a type of religious belief that Life could emerge somehow naturally.Another thing that it is clear is the fact that DNA cannot be produced naturally. DNA=information.Information cannot occur naturally.A creator must exist to produce information

The second thing that science doesnt do is to give answers about the design abilities Life has.Claiming for example that Eyes, Ears and nose emerged through random genetic mutations is a way to evade the answer how these traits appeared.They were not "random".They emerged once and since then no random eye mutation has occured.Life was programmed to develop eyes.We dont know how this happened(but it wasnt random).Science doesnt know how to give convenient answers about the issue and claims it was random.These design skills that Life has are everywhere despite some flaws and some "constructive failures" that occur some times

In other words facts favor Creationism but science for "political" reasons rejects the idea of creation.I dont mind this, however i think people should know that the rejection of creation has more to do with the "war" between science and religion

[MathiasOfAthens]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...3_deepest.html

At the ocean's deepest point, the water pressure is the equivalent of having about 50 jumbo jets piled on top of you. Yet even here life thrives, according to scientists who have pulled a plug of dirt from the seafloor.

The sample was taken from the Challenger Deep, which is nearly 7 miles (11 kilometers) deep. The soil was packed with a unique community of mostly soft-walled, singled-celled organisms that are thought to resemble some of the world's earliest life forms.

They're called foraminifera, single-celled protists that construct shells. Protists are a kingdom of celled organisms distinct from animals, plants, and fungi. Other types of protists include algae and slime molds.

There are an estimated 4,000 species of living foraminifera. They inhabit a wide range of marine environments, mostly on the ocean bottom, though some live in the upper 300 feet (100 meters) or so of the ocean. A few species are found in fresh water and on land.

However, the discovery of 432 foraminifera living in dirt from the Challenger Deep surprised Hiroshi Kitazato, a program director at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) in Yokosuka.

"We are surprised that so many [bottom dwelling] foraminifera—in particular so [many] soft-shelled forms—live in the Challenger Deep, because former reports gave us the impression the world's deepest point is scarce in any [celled organisms]," he said.

At 36,201 feet (11,034 meters) below sea level, Challenger Deep is the lowest part of the Pacific Ocean's Mariana Trench, located just east of the Philippines.

The sediment core was collected with KAIKO, JAMSTEC's remotely operated vehicle. Kitazato and colleagues report the discovery in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

Brian Huber is the curator of foraminifera at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. He said the discovery of abundant soft-walled foraminifera in Challenger Deep is "one more example of how you can find life in the most extreme environments."

In recent years scientists have found bacteria living miles beneath the Earth's surface and snuggled up to scalding hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. There is even evidence that bacteria live in Antarctic lakes that have been covered by ice for thousands of years.

Jere Lipps, a foraminifera expert in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, is not surprised by the find. He believes foraminifera have lived at such great depths for millions of years and thus are adapted to life there.

However, he said, the discovery raises more questions than it answers—questions "about the distribution, evolution, adaptation to high pressures," and past distribution of foraminifera.

Its not impossible, it just takes a long time and it (cambrian explosion) wont happen on our planet again because current life - bacteria, small animals, insects, etc would eat up any new life that managed to crawl out of some slimy goo.

[Plant]

It had taken a bad turn when you started saying that your personal experiences proves that your god is true, and when you started talking about eyebrows.

Also startling ignorance on "random mutations". Light receptive chemicals are inside most cells, it is not hard to extrapolate that throughout millions of years of evolution they could develop into the many myriad forms of eyes that we know today. We can look back at paleontolical sources, and to say that eyes developed because a divine creator was behind the driving force of evolution is not helpful towards understanding of our natural world. To say anything occured because a divine creator said so, is to prevent understanding, and promotes ignorance, a position in which you stand.

Example;

Current scientific theories support creationism.There are two things that science doesnt want to admit.The first is that Abiogenesis is impossible and the second is that Life has specific design abilities and that it is programmed to develop certain traits.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life could appear from inanimate matter.It is supposed that a procaryotic Cell or more appeared on Ancient Earth somehow through random chemical reactions.Its impossible. Even this simple form of Life is too complicated to emerge naturally.To understand that you must think that a cell as a screw.A screw is a type of fastener built on a specific way for a specific purpose.Perhaps a screw could be created somewhere in the universe through random chemical reactions but claiming that this screw could survive and start to replicate is odd.In other words Abiogenesis is not supported by the facts and it is more a type of religious belief that Life could emerge somehow naturally.Another thing that it is clear is the fact that DNA cannot be produced naturally. DNA=information.Information cannot occur naturally.A creator must exist to produce information

Life structures has occured under simulated condition has it not? To claim otherwise is a lie. Who are you to say what is possible and impossible, you who defaults to a position that your god is the source of life, as a position to promote your religion, which is what you always betray by changing the arguments to. You cannot compare a living organism to a screw, it is as if you are copying something you have read or heard or been told, so poor is the anology. Imagine, we compare a screw to a hot air ballon. They are totally different ergo, my god must have been the source of the screw. RNA has been shown to produce naturally, and from RNA, DNA. Just because your level of education so far in life is basic, it doesn't mean that everybody else's are.

[Tankbuster]

Hi Papay,

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but your entire post is quite frankly a cluster of the most shallow criticisms of evolutionairy theory that there are. Everyone thinks they 'know' an argument that completely destroys evolution.

But let me ask you this: I'm going to guess that you have little background knowledge of biology, chemistry or physics. Yet here you are telling us about these supposedly devestating criticisms which have somehow gone completely unnoticed by generations of the brightest scientists on the planet (a great deal of them Christian), but are somehow readily apparent to you. And the only reason all these Christian scientists aren't coming out to share the truth are... political reasons. And at the same time, the actual creationist leaders (Hovind, Stein, Comfort,...) are invariably kooks or outright frauds.
Does this honestly make sense to you? Or do you think these might be indications that there's something you're missing?

I recommend reading some books on evolutionairy theory. Read Jerry Coyne's book, read some of Richard Dawkins' books on evolution, read Kenneth Miller. Those should clear up some of the misconceptions you have about evolution, and they'll make you realise why these criticisms aren't credible among scientists: because they're false.

[MathiasOfAthens]

How about lets not compare a screw to the first Protozoa.

Does this look like a screw to you?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Of course not... so dont make ridiculous comparisons like an Elephant to a rock when describing evolutionary theory. Dont make odd comparisons and then state some equally odd answer to it as if that shuts the book on the topic. A Screw is inanimate, a Protozoa is not.

[Papay]

All i say is that despite the fact that creation has been rejected, if you see the facts it remains a logical scenario.And sometimes life is full of surprises...

[Boer]

All i say is that despite the fact that creation has been rejected, if you see the facts it remains a logical scenario.And sometimes life is full of surprises...

You keep saying that, yet show no facts. Last time I asked for some you said that they did not even exist yet, but would in the future. People have been amazingly patient with you, especially considering how many pages of the same old creationist junk they had wadded through just to reach your ignorant claims. You were presented with actual facts--papers, articles, sources, videos--all of which you proved unwilling to consider. You have absorbed nothing. You insist on spouting the same errors you started with.

Instead, you keep claiming support from secret "facts" you will not share with us. The best you give is "look at your eyebrows. Too logical to have evolved." At least show why they could not be the result of evolution. What barrier prevents them from forming, except by creationism? Then you have the gall to claim that science supports your claim, while not presenting any science that does. Then there is your claim that creationism has nothing to do with god. You have been consistently ignorant and deceitful, both of which creationism has a strong history of. Now people have finally given up on you. They see that you have no willingness or ability to learn, so they have begun ridiculing. Maybe, just maybe, their spoof on your arguments (never have I used that term so loosely) will reveal to you the weakness of your claims (since facts have had no impact) and will cause you to learn enough about these topics to actually present--or failing that, at least learn--some facts, real facts, not the gnostic ones you keep using to anchor your drivel.

[Lysimachus]

Current scientific theories support creationism.There are two things that science doesnt want to admit.The first is that Abiogenesis is impossible and the second is that Life has specific design abilities and that it is programmed to develop certain traits.

1. How is abiogenesis impossible?
2. How is life programmed to develop certain traits? It's a case of adaptation rather than the linear approach you're using.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life could appear from inanimate matter.It is supposed that a procaryotic Cell or more appeared on Ancient Earth somehow through random chemical reactions.Its impossible. Even this simple form of Life is too complicated to emerge naturally.

Your argument here is that you're incapable of comprehending what seems to you unlikely. This is entirely subjective and therefore invalid; you bring forth no evidence substantiating your claim.

To understand that you must think that a cell as a screw.A screw is a type of fastener built on a specific way for a specific purpose.Perhaps a screw could be created somewhere in the universe through random chemical reactions but claiming that this screw could survive and start to replicate is odd

The analogy fails because a screw isn't a living organism.

In other words Abiogenesis is not supported by the facts and it is more a type of religious belief that Life could emerge somehow naturally.Another thing that it is clear is the fact that DNA cannot be produced naturally. DNA=information.Information cannot occur naturally.A creator must exist to produce information

Subjective again. To sum up your paragraph, you've basically said "i'm incapable of comprehending the idea of nature being able to create complex life forms and therefore it must have been a creator". We're asking for evidence to prove your claims but you don't ever give any. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim; you claim that a creator is responsible for existence.

The second thing that science doesnt do is to give answers about the design abilities Life has.Claiming for example that Eyes, Ears and nose emerged through random genetic mutations is a way to evade the answer how these traits appeared.They were not "random".They emerged once and since then no random eye mutation has occured.Life was programmed to develop eyes.We dont know how this happened(but it wasnt random).Science doesnt know how to give convenient answers about the issue and claims it was random.These design skills that Life has are everywhere despite some flaws and some "constructive failures" that occur some times

All you've done here is make unsubstantiated claims. I'd rather if you provided some evidence rather than telling us what you think.

In other words facts favor Creationism but science for "political" reasons rejects the idea of creation.I dont mind this, however i think people should know that the rejection of creation has more to do with the "war" between science and religion

What facts? You haven't provided a single shred of evidence in your posts at all, it's just your opinion.

[Gordon Freynman]

All i say is that despite the fact that creation has been rejected, if you see the facts it remains a logical scenario.

Sorry, creationism is not logical, no matter which way you spin it.

[Nyxos]

All i say is that despite the fact that creation has been rejected, if you see the facts it remains a logical scenario.

I look at the sky, the Sun travels through the sky, therefore the Sun goes around the Earth while the earth stays still, because i don't feel the Earth moving. Logical, but wrong, like your post.

[Col. Tartleton]

I look at the sky, the Sun travels through the sky, therefore the Sun goes around the Earth while the earth stays still, because i don't feel the Earth moving. Logical, but wrong, like your post.

Yes and eventually someone would figure out that the sun is just like all of the other stars in the sky but closer. Then someone else would wonder if there were other earths. Then someone would figure each star rotated around an earth. Then someone who say "No you idiot the planets move around the stars." Then they'd think about it and say "yeah..."

I'm sure Philosophy would have concluded the truth after some time. I mean its not as though the Greek and other schools of thought hadn't been derailed prematurely by a new Christian philosophy that didn't care very much for physics because it was too concerned with metaphysics. The proto science varied from disturbingly correct to facepalm. Given enough time we'd have weeded out the face palming and moved even closer to fact. Then some wise ass would invent a telescope and they'd all be like "that wasn't obvious or anything."

[basics]

" I look at the sky, the Sun travels through the sky, therefore the Sun goes around the Earth while the earth stays still, because i don't feel the Earth moving. Logical, but wrong, like your post. "

Nyxos,

Quite correct, you can be deceived by what you see and that is exactly the same problem when one assumes, not because of any peer witnessing, that the maths makes things look much older than they actually are. Now why do you think that would be? Accepting that God made all things as up and running then no matter what day that was most if not all would be older than the hours they were made.

The opposite is that somehow nothing came to be something which culminated in a great explosion enough to establish so many improbables that defy common sense but might become rational given billions of years to explain itself. If everything that makes for evolution is no more than chemical actions or reactions then the same must be concluded that something didn't indeed come out of nothing.

Time and space must have been in existence along with chemicals to induce any bang if indeed a bang did happen. This is no object given that God, wherever and whatever heaven is existed then as it still exists now, is as active as ever. So in that respect the Bible cannot be faulted. What can be faulted however is that an explosion produces ever so many attributes that all of the chemistry we know of came from it.

We have used explosions of various types and violence over the years yet no new life has ever stemmed from them and we have to admit we know that these explosions could be well helped in that matter because they are surrounded by chemicals wherever they have occurred. Not one scientist since explosives were first used has ever assumed to say that another life has become started by any of them given the chemical help they have had.

Indeed what we have found is that certain explosions cause death by deformity and not much else. Our experience tells us that rather than bring in new life it takes life, brings in disease which weakens rather than strengthen what is already there. But no, this bang was exceptional in that it produced all that was required to make life with water, oxygen and anything else that was needed for life to begin.

The people who take it upon themselves to say that God and evolution somehow worked together to get to where we are want both ends at the same time but logic says as well as God that this was not the case. He lays down how we are and what we are by Himself and through the Prophets speaking for Him which has not died the death that many might have predicted and still predict. Oh yes, in time they die but the word that is God carries on with the same challenge, believe or don't believe.

[Gordon Freynman]

Now why do you think that would be? Accepting that God made all things as up and running then no matter what day that was most if not all would be older than the hours they were made.

I really hope one day you will realize that this is nothing more than a desperate excuse to save the irrational faith in the fundie's world view.

The opposite is that somehow nothing came to be something which culminated in a great explosion enough to establish so many improbables that defy common sense but might become rational given billions of years to explain itself. If everything that makes for evolution is no more than chemical actions or reactions then the same must be concluded that something didn't indeed come out of nothing.

That pretty much made no sense to me. Can anyone translate this?

Time and space must have been in existence along with chemicals to induce any bang if indeed a bang did happen.

There was no chemicals involved in this "explosion", it can't even really be called an explosion.

We have used explosions of various types and violence over the years yet no new life has ever stemmed from them and we have to admit we know that these explosions could be well helped in that matter because they are surrounded by chemicals wherever they have occurred. Not one scientist since explosives were first used has ever assumed to say that another life has become started by any of them given the chemical help they have had.

Indeed what we have found is that certain explosions cause death by deformity and not much else. Our experience tells us that rather than bring in new life it takes life, brings in disease which weakens rather than strengthen what is already there. But no, this bang was exceptional in that it produced all that was required to make life with water, oxygen and anything else that was needed for life to begin.

This...this is quite possibly the most impressive and horrifying display of ignorance I have ever seen. I don't whether to laugh or throw myself out a window...

The people who take it upon themselves to say that God and evolution somehow worked together to get to where we are want both ends at the same time but logic says as well as God that this was not the case. He lays down how we are and what we are by Himself and through the Prophets speaking for Him which has not died the death that many might have predicted and still predict. Oh yes, in time they die but the word that is God carries on with the same challenge, believe or don't believe.

Because your subjective interpretation is the only right one.

You continue to embarrass Christians all over the world.

[Vanoi]

" I look at the sky, the Sun travels through the sky, therefore the Sun goes around the Earth while the earth stays still, because i don't feel the Earth moving. Logical, but wrong, like your post. "

Nyxos,

Quite correct, you can be deceived by what you see and that is exactly the same problem when one assumes, not because of any peer witnessing, that the maths makes things look much older than they actually are. Now why do you think that would be? Accepting that God made all things as up and running then no matter what day that was most if not all would be older than the hours they were made.

The opposite is that somehow nothing came to be something which culminated in a great explosion enough to establish so many improbables that defy common sense but might become rational given billions of years to explain itself. If everything that makes for evolution is no more than chemical actions or reactions then the same must be concluded that something didn't indeed come out of nothing.

Time and space must have been in existence along with chemicals to induce any bang if indeed a bang did happen. This is no object given that God, wherever and whatever heaven is existed then as it still exists now, is as active as ever. So in that respect the Bible cannot be faulted. What can be faulted however is that an explosion produces ever so many attributes that all of the chemistry we know of came from it.

We have used explosions of various types and violence over the years yet no new life has ever stemmed from them and we have to admit we know that these explosions could be well helped in that matter because they are surrounded by chemicals wherever they have occurred. Not one scientist since explosives were first used has ever assumed to say that another life has become started by any of them given the chemical help they have had.

Indeed what we have found is that certain explosions cause death by deformity and not much else. Our experience tells us that rather than bring in new life it takes life, brings in disease which weakens rather than strengthen what is already there. But no, this bang was exceptional in that it produced all that was required to make life with water, oxygen and anything else that was needed for life to begin.

The people who take it upon themselves to say that God and evolution somehow worked together to get to where we are want both ends at the same time but logic says as well as God that this was not the case. He lays down how we are and what we are by Himself and through the Prophets speaking for Him which has not died the death that many might have predicted and still predict. Oh yes, in time they die but the word that is God carries on with the same challenge, believe or don't believe.

The big Bang doesn't make sense to you, but a man beyond time and space who magically creates the universe out of think air makes perfect sense to you. Also what was before God, who created God? Was it another God,? but then who created him? Or has He always existed?

[justicar5]

Time and space must have been in existence along with chemicals to induce any bang if indeed a bang did happen. This is no object given that God, wherever and whatever heaven is existed then as it still exists now, is as active as ever. So in that respect the Bible cannot be faulted. What can be faulted however is that an explosion produces ever so many attributes that all of the chemistry we know of came from it.

The 'Big Bang' was not a chemical explosion, in fact it was given that name as in insult. Basically it states (and this is really basic I am no astrophysicist [nor probably can I even spell it]) that all the matter, all the space/time in the universe, at one time occupied the singularity, an infinetly small, infinetly dense point in wheich everything that now excists was compressed into a soup of subatomic particles, (we can see a similar substance for brief nano-seconds in the LHC) this point expanded, and still continues to do so, every thing that came after all the elements and chemicals that make up matter, the dark matter (thats stuff is a mind screw btw) everythnig, expanded from that point, with the elements up to iron being forged in the fusion of stars, anything above iron was made in the explosion of supernova, scattered thru space as the corpse of a dying star, this then was absorbed eons later into a nubulae, a where the matter fell into the acreation disk of a young star, one that maybe hadn't begun fusion yet, then when this proto-star became dense enough at the centre, it's gravity strong enough, the fusion ignites, a new star is born, this one has gold, uranum etc in it's accretion disk, as this disk solidifies into planets, we get a second generation solar system, (and I can't recall if ours is second or third generation) but as the universe ages, more planets are formed of the matter of old nova, this matter, iron, gold, uranium etc, gives us planets with a composition like our own, the iron sinks to the centre of the proto-planet and is joinjed by other heavy metals, remaining molten as the exterior cools, forming the 'dynamo' of the planets magnetic field, and if this planet is in the right point in its solar system a point neither to hot or cold to sustain liquid water, we get the possiblity of organic chemicals forming, once that begins, life has a chance to begin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_formation

[Holger Danske]

All i say is that despite the fact that creation has been rejected, if you see the facts it remains a logical scenario.And sometimes life is full of surprises...

So that's your best argument for a fictional Creator?...

[Col. Tartleton]

I think at this point the only reasonable conclusion a theist can make is that God worked through some form of evolution. Which makes sense. Then the counterclaim would be that no God worked through evolution and that it happened on its own. However its kind of hard to say it didn't happen.

People have this stupid idea that God can only exist if it exists as described in the Bible. When in reality the Biblical account of God for better or worse is just mythology and has very little to do with whether or not there is a consciousness in or beyond the universe which guides existence which man can call fate or God or destiny.

We should not continue hammering each other over something as stupid as creationism. There was no singular creation. There was evolution. Whether or not divinely guided or willed or inspired or whatever is not factual but philosophical. What purpose did it serve? Who knows. We are here now. We weren't here in the past. We won't be here in the future.

[Copperknickers II]

People have this stupid idea that God can only exist if it exists as described in the Bible.

Um, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in a God unless you take some form of religious text or traditional belief literally. Unless you actually believe, say, that the Quran is word of God, then why should you believe in a God at all? The logical positions are Atheism and Fundamentalist Religion, the illogical position is taking something that was meant to be taken more or less literally, such as Genesis and the great flood or the Classical Underworld, and turning it into a sort of halfway house devoid of any sort of rational thought process and yet still ignoring what is supposedly the actual written divine message.

[Col. Tartleton]

Um, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in a God unless you take some form of religious text or traditional belief literally. Unless you actually believe, say, that the Quran is word of God, then why should you believe in a God at all? The logical positions are Atheism and Fundamentalist Religion, the illogical position is taking something that was meant to be taken more or less literally, such as Genesis and the great flood or the Classical Underworld, and turning it into a sort of halfway house devoid of any sort of rational thought process and yet still ignoring what is supposedly the actual written divine message.

But my point is we might be misunderstanding what they were saying. The flood that "covered all the world" may have been a real flood or a tsunami which they describe as such because its poetic. The Bible was written by poets. Poets elaborate on the truth. There may be a reason to believe in fate. There may even be a reason to believe in "literal Gods" getting out of spaceships and raping women and raining down beams of light and fire on cities.

I don't, but its there.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Um, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in a God unless you take some form of religious text or traditional belief literally.

I don't particularly agree with this. I, for instance believe in some sort of diety like being though I don't really see him as all knowing and demanding worship. I warrant my belief because there are just some phenomena that are set in stone and cannot be explained through careful observation and fact gathering. These questions are usually metaphysical in that I ask: why was matter created? why do electrons move around a proton? Why does gravity exist? Why are their natural laws that govern the way matter interacts and behaves? These are the sort of questions that I personally attribute only answerable by some sort of entity deciding that that was how the universe would work. But that's just me.