Who was your daddy? Evolution or Creationism.

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close.

-- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 30

Sagan was wrong in that respect. If you care to take the time to google search and read a Bible, you will see that the Old Testament (written before Jesus Christ) contains dozens of prophecies concerning the coming Christ. Jesus Christ fulfilled every one of those prophecies. There are plenty of Biblical Scholars that have taken the time to make the lists, cross check them, and list the validation. You can probably find a few using google.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Crono
Actually, I was just listening yesterday to Hank Hanegraaf and there was a scientist on air who was giving evidence on why the "icons" of evolution are flawed and don't hold up. I suggest you give it a listen (it's free streaming) here.

No freakin' way... Hank Hanegraaf of the Christian Research Institute had a scientist on that had views in line with those of his audience?
On Jonathan Wells...

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Crono
Actually, I was just listening yesterday to Hank Hanegraaf and there was a scientist on air who was giving evidence on why the "icons" of evolution are flawed and don't hold up. I suggest you give it a listen (it's free streaming) here.

No freakin' way... Hank Hanegraaf of the Christian Research Institute had a scientist on that had views in line with those of his audience?
On Jonathan Wells...

Johnathan Wells responds to Alan Gishlick
And where would you expect to hear criticism of the evolution theory? From evolutionists? 😛

 

[nmcglennon]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Crono
Actually, I was just listening yesterday to Hank Hanegraaf and there was a scientist on air who was giving evidence on why the "icons" of evolution are flawed and don't hold up. I suggest you give it a listen (it's free streaming) here.

No freakin' way... Hank Hanegraaf of the Christian Research Institute had a scientist on that had views in line with those of his audience?
On Jonathan Wells...

Yeah we had to read that a couple of weeks ago for our evolution class.

I think it is funny how people who don't agree or understand evolution like to try and debunk evolution just based on discrediting one icon, or even several icons used to present the theory of evolution. They aren't falsifying it like real scientists do, they whine about it and provide conjecture. Often critics just go after the credentials of scientists and not present any true falsification of evolution. Look at all the examples and data for evolution; it is everywhere especially in genetics areas. Taking a few icons out of the picture won't do anything to the evolutionary theory since evolution still holds true for 99% of all life on Earth.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
No freakin' way... Hank Hanegraaf of the Christian Research Institute had a scientist on that had views in line with those of his audience?
On Jonathan Wells...

Actually, Hank moderates symposiums that invite apologists from each camp to debate their viewpoint. But the post quoted is in regards to the content of that speaker linked. I wouldn't descredit the material simply because it may be in line with the general thinking of that particular audience. The argument should be toward the content.

 

[TBone48]

Creationism for me. I understand and respect those who don't agree with this position as it can't be proven (especially by the wackos i nthis forum😉). It would be nice to recieve the same consideration.

 

[MustangSVT]

Originally posted by: SurgicalShark

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
i am a very large and very complicated chemical reaction.

Come on people keep it coming...it's a hot potato

yeah it was NEVER done before :roll:

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
No freakin' way... Hank Hanegraaf of the Christian Research Institute had a scientist on that had views in line with those of his audience?
On Jonathan Wells...

Actually, Hank moderates symposiums that invite apologists from each camp to debate their viewpoint. But the post quoted is in regards to the content of that speaker linked. I wouldn't descredit the material simply because it may be in line with the general thinking of that particular audience. The argument should be toward the content.

Hence my reasoning for putting up a link to someone arguing Wells' content.

 

[nmcglennon]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Crono
Actually, I was just listening yesterday to Hank Hanegraaf and there was a scientist on air who was giving evidence on why the "icons" of evolution are flawed and don't hold up. I suggest you give it a listen (it's free streaming) here.

No freakin' way... Hank Hanegraaf of the Christian Research Institute had a scientist on that had views in line with those of his audience?
On Jonathan Wells...

Johnathan Wells responds to Alan Gishlick
And where would you expect to hear criticism of the evolution theory? From evolutionists? 😛

Actually yes. A solid theory, like Darwin proposed, had critcisms and weaknesses to his own theory. Read Darwin's Orgin of Species... in chapters 6-10, they are dedicated to weaknesses in his evolution theory. Darwin took 20 years to write about evolution since he knew it would be controversial when it was released. He wanted to make sure of its implications and get things right.

You can read it online for free here

 

[meltdown75]

"Religion In An Age of Science", by Ian Barbour (HarperCollins, 1990)... a fascinating read. i've dug it up and am flipping through some of it now. that's what is nice about OT threads sometimes... they inspire you to re-educate yourself on the topics at hand. i'm pretty far removed from this stuff, but I got this and a number of other texts on the topic when I took a couple religion electives in school. one course was entitled "The Existence of God", and the other actually had the same title as Barbour's book. another I have here is called "The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science and the Bible" by Charles E. Hummel (1986, IVCF).

i'd like to see what else is out there nowadays. there must have been some good literature published on the topic in the last decade and a half or so.

 

[thehstrybean]

I probably won't reply to this thread, but I'm a creationist & a Christian. After reviewing the evidence for evolution and creationism over many years and many classes, I've come to accept the fact that evolution, if thought of as a pyramid, has no base. Sure, little "evolutions" APPEAR to have been found, but then they create a whole new species. Nothing seems to be linked. I'm not bashing evolutionist, but as for me, I don't see it as possible.

 

[shilala]

I believe in both.
When the two become contradictory, I have enough humility to realize that I don't know everything about everything, thus resolving the conflict.

 

[MrToilet]

reputable scientists do not debate whether or not evolution happens. Obviously, Evolution occurs throughout the natural world- the debate comes from whether or not it can lead to the development of new species. (bacteria developing an immunity to a particular antibiotic is an example of evolution.)

My problem with the divine "creation" is that obviously new species have arisen throughout history- I find it hard to believe that a "God" created this new species, when natural selection (and other factors - geographic isolation, restrictive breeding) seems more likely.

One of my particular favorite authors is Stephen Jay Gould. He has some of the most entertaining, lucid essays I've read about topics such as these.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
I probably won't reply to this thread, but I'm a creationist & a Christian. After reviewing the evidence for evolution and creationism over many years and many classes, I've come to accept the fact that evolution, if thought of as a pyramid, has no base. Sure, little "evolutions" APPEAR to have been found, but then they create a whole new species. Nothing seems to be linked. I'm not bashing evolutionist, but as for me, I don't see it as possible.

Agreed. Micro 'evolution' is without a doubt real, and can be seen, but evolution of one species into another has not, and the basis for such are lines with missing links or dead ends. One claim of evolution is that beneficial mutations get transferred to the offspring of a species, and thus that mutation gets passed further down the line. But there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
I probably won't reply to this thread, but I'm a creationist & a Christian. After reviewing the evidence for evolution and creationism over many years and many classes, I've come to accept the fact that evolution, if thought of as a pyramid, has no base. Sure, little "evolutions" APPEAR to have been found, but then they create a whole new species. Nothing seems to be linked. I'm not bashing evolutionist, but as for me, I don't see it as possible.

Agreed. Micro 'evolution' is without a doubt real, and can be seen, but evolution of one species into another has not, and the basis for such are lines with missing links or dead ends. One claim of evolution is that beneficial mutations get transferred to the offspring of a species, and thus that mutation gets passed further down the line. But there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.

Clearly incorrect.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
I probably won't reply to this thread, but I'm a creationist & a Christian. After reviewing the evidence for evolution and creationism over many years and many classes, I've come to accept the fact that evolution, if thought of as a pyramid, has no base. Sure, little "evolutions" APPEAR to have been found, but then they create a whole new species. Nothing seems to be linked. I'm not bashing evolutionist, but as for me, I don't see it as possible.

Agreed. Micro 'evolution' is without a doubt real, and can be seen, but evolution of one species into another has not, and the basis for such are lines with missing links or dead ends. One claim of evolution is that beneficial mutations get transferred to the offspring of a species, and thus that mutation gets passed further down the line. But there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.

Clearly incorrect.

Care to provide an example?

 

[MrToilet]

I can think of many - a couple off the top of my head, very well documented:

Spontaneous mutations in bacterial DNA that lead to antibiotic resistance. Very common.

Spontaneous mutations in human DNA that give the person a better immunity to particular diseases. Also somewhat common.

Mutation does NOT EQUAL BAD!

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: SurgicalShark
I expect to see more votes to Evolution since most population on ATOT is in Stupidity

fixed

yes, your religion (1 of over 1,000 recognized religions in the world) is the correct one and the others are wrong


and of course they're saying the exact same thing about you


moron

 

[TheShiz]

the design was not intelligent! 99.9% of species that have ever existed are extinct, intelligent design is a wonderfully crappy idea.

 

[MrToilet]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
the design was not intelligent! 99.9% of species that have ever existed are extinct, intelligent design is a wonderfully crappy idea.

Yeah, that kind of cracks me up- a perfect deity who intentionally places many, many imperfections in his/her creation? Does that even make sense?

I know people will say that humans are not meant to understand God's motives or His will- but why would He make imperfect creations?

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: MrToilet
I can think of many - a couple off the top of my head, very well documented:

Spontaneous mutations in bacterial DNA that lead to antibiotic resistance. Very common.

Spontaneous mutations in human DNA that give the person a better immunity to particular diseases. Also somewhat common.

Mutation does NOT EQUAL BAD!

Those two examples are of micro evolution, which I already stated I don't reject the existance of. I mean large scale mutations that evolution is dependant on, like growth of extra limbs. The two examples you gave are of resistance, which I consider adaptation for survival, and are not radical changes in species.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
I probably won't reply to this thread, but I'm a creationist & a Christian. After reviewing the evidence for evolution and creationism over many years and many classes, I've come to accept the fact that evolution, if thought of as a pyramid, has no base. Sure, little "evolutions" APPEAR to have been found, but then they create a whole new species. Nothing seems to be linked. I'm not bashing evolutionist, but as for me, I don't see it as possible.

Agreed. Micro 'evolution' is without a doubt real, and can be seen, but evolution of one species into another has not, and the basis for such are lines with missing links or dead ends. One claim of evolution is that beneficial mutations get transferred to the offspring of a species, and thus that mutation gets passed further down the line. But there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.

Clearly incorrect.

Care to provide an example?

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/260/30/16321.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...=Abstract&list_uids=9555861&query_hl=2

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: MrToilet
I can think of many - a couple off the top of my head, very well documented:

Spontaneous mutations in bacterial DNA that lead to antibiotic resistance. Very common.

Spontaneous mutations in human DNA that give the person a better immunity to particular diseases. Also somewhat common.

Mutation does NOT EQUAL BAD!

Those two examples are of micro evolution, which I already stated I don't reject the existance of. I mean large scale mutations that evolution is dependant on, like growth of extra limbs. The two examples you gave are of resistance, which I consider adaptation for survival, and are not radical changes in species.

Duplication of the IgH locus providing us with an increased repertoire of effector domains?

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
the design was not intelligent! 99.9% of species that have ever existed are extinct, intelligent design is a wonderfully crappy idea.

God designed everything perfectly. ?Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned? (Romans 5,12) In the same way, when man sinned, the world itself became unbalanced. Death was introduced into the equation. Just take a look at all the examples of species that man has killed off (whether directly or indirectly) over thousands of years.

 

[MrToilet]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: MrToilet
I can think of many - a couple off the top of my head, very well documented:

Spontaneous mutations in bacterial DNA that lead to antibiotic resistance. Very common.

Spontaneous mutations in human DNA that give the person a better immunity to particular diseases. Also somewhat common.

Mutation does NOT EQUAL BAD!

Those two examples are of micro evolution, which I already stated I don't reject the existance of. I mean large scale mutations that evolution is dependant on, like growth of extra limbs. The two examples you gave are of resistance, which I consider adaptation for survival, and are not radical changes in species.

Small mutations can often confer an incredible advantage (increased fitness) to a particular organism. There is no debate in the scientific community over whether natural selection produces significant change- the debate is over how much and how rapid that change is.