EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM

Norsefire said:
Why is there existence, then, in the middle of nothingness, universes, what are universes? How do we measure existence?
Click to expand...
Existence exists, undeniably.
If you exist, and the world exists, that's all there is to it. Why does it need explaining?
Measuring existence (experience), is straightforward, if you have senses to experience it with.

Of course, as Rene Descartes figured, it could all be some illusion created by demons projecting visual, auditory, etc information at you.

But so what, if that's the case? What can you do about the fact that you experience the world that way? Why does the world require a beginning? Because you or someone else says so?

The universe isn't in "the middle of nothing". The universe, by definition, is everything. There's no "nothing" that it's in the middle of...?
 
Saquist,

Why could life not have arisen spontaneously ?

Are you saying that all mutations are harmful ?

Why must there have been a creator? What evidence supports this view ?

Language "related with man and inherently complex ". What point are you making ?

Same question for civilization

Man appears 6, 000 years ago. This is contradicted by the fossil record. What alternative explanation can you offer ?

Civilization and man. What is your point here ?

Oldest writings are 5, 000 years old ? Check out cave paintings which precede writing but which show images of man and animals. Are you saying these are only 6,000 years old ?

Mutations rarely do anything at all. In a recent post you claimed they did nothing. It is true that some mutations have no survival value but others do. What do you mean by saying that they hardly do anything at all ? What is it they hardly do ?

The idea of creation fits easily with those who do not understand evolutionary theory. Creation is a simplistic notion.

Let us have something better than speculation
 
Last edited:
No, you are completely wrong. Although I recognize that some evolutionary processes were relatively fast, and some slow, it did occur, for the following reasons.

Transitional fossils have been found in abundance.

No new features occur that cannot have been formed through adaptation of previous features. Even the transition from land creature to sea creature (whales) is accompanied by adaptation of the same bones. The whale has vestigal hip bones, something that no creator would include if designing from scratch.

Helpful mutations are rare, but evolution has been found to protect certain areas of the genome, thereby promoting mutation in others. This is the evolution of evolvability.

Mankind is at least 2 million years old, with older bipedal forms revealing a transition from tree-dwellers to ground-walkers coinciding with climate change in Africa that turned forests into plains.

The fossil of possibly the first land creature has been found in the Burgess Shale. It has most of the features of a fish, but it has the same number of bones in it's "hand" that all later quadrupeds share.
 
I don't agree spidergoat.
My reascher shows a complete reversal in the 1980's of what was considered a transistional fossil. I have a number of quotes from the time and when compared today logic it reveals that very little actuall new discoveries have added to that "abundance" of transitional fossils. Instead they change what they termed a transitional fossil.

Like the fellow who posted that every fossil is a transitional fossil. I found that hilarious.
these kids are being fed the religious equal of doctrine. Why doesn't science tell it like it is...let the past dictate...why are they changing and adapting the evidence to fit the theory?


Who knows....
 
Seeing and reading what you want to see and read. That's called solecism.

Those with more open-minded viewpoints see compelling evidence of common ancestry in the fossil record, and in the genetic record.
Transitional fossils are a bit of a red-herring, but there are examples of shared anatomical details, and the range of fossil teeth or dentition has a lot of shared "evolution"; it's a bit narrow to conclude there isn't any evidence of transition.

What's the problem with concluding that dinosaurs were transitional between fish and birds? Or Pakicetus was, or whales are transitional? Everything's still evolving, so it's still transitional, isn't it?

I mean, can you accurately define what a "transitional fossil" actually is?
 
Is it not possible that a God DID create our universe, but with the universe having its own set of laws and therefore, even if it was created 13.7 billion years ago, it was nonetheless created by a Creator.

For instance, it doesn't have to be a God in Abrahamic terms, but how do you know we are not simply in some massive spherical petri dish? And God is not just a scientist studying an experiment?

Therefore, our laws of nature, as well as things like evolution, would be plausible and the reason we exist would be explained. Likely? Perhaps not. Possible? I think so.

The reason I do think, however, that we were created is simply because we exist. Again, it is necessary to figure out HOW we exist ( as in, define existence and our place in it, our realm), WHY we exist (why is everything as it is, why is there a universe, why anything?), and WHEN did we begin to exist? Not we as in Mankind, but we as in Existence. What is a universe?


The problem with scientists is that they'll tell you all about the universe: stars, galaxies, light, clusters, movements, gravity, electomagnetism.......but they won't (can't) tell you why it is there........they cannot tell you how it exists.


Again, what is existence? Why is there existence? Is it possible to imagine nonexistence?

The mere point of that, in my opinion, proves that SOMETHING was responsible for the creation of our universe.


But then that brings up another problem. Assuming there is a Creator (whether Abrahamic God or a man in a lab coat), why does he exist? On what plain of existence does he exist on? And what created him?

It creates a loop that renders existence itself to be IMPOSSIBLE. Existence does not exist.
 
According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.[wikipedia]

I find your lack of scientific literacy troubling, but your final statement reveals your true bias. The evidence did not change. The theory hasn't changed too much, except we now know that species do alot of branching, so being able to say definitively if a particular fossil is an actual ancestor of a later species is impossible without DNA testing.
 
spidergoat said:
According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.[wikipedia]

I find your lack of scientific literacy troubling, but your final statement reveals your true bias. The evidence did not change. The theory hasn't changed too much, except we now know that species do alot of branching, so being able to say definitively if a particular fossil is an actual ancestor of a later species is impossible without DNA testing.
Click to expand...

Me?
 
Enmos said:
No, Saquist.. but I think he could include you as well :p
Click to expand...

I think not considering I have not yet touched on the topic of evolution.

My question is not whether or not Humanity was created via evolution or creationism, but rather, where did the universe, existence, and all that we know come from? How does it exist? And importantly as well, how can we measure existence and does existence cease to exist if we are dead?
 
Norsefire said:
I think not considering I have not yet touched on the topic of evolution.

My question is not whether or not Humanity was created via evolution or creationism, but rather, where did the universe, existence, and all that we know come from? How does it exist? And importantly as well, how can we measure existence and does existence cease to exist if we are dead?
Click to expand...

where did the universe, existence, and all that we know come from?
> No one knows. But I think it didn't come from anywhere, that it simply always was in some form or another.

How does it exist?
> You mean like what is the supporting mechanism for the universe ? lol
The universe is ALL there is.

how can we measure existence
>We can't.. I don't know how you imagined doing that..

does existence cease to exist if we are dead?
>No. This is really your arrogance showing. Don't worry, it's seems almost inherent in humans..
 
Myles said:
To say we don't know the cause of lightening shows you have no understanding of science whatever.
Click to expand...

a cause can't be known because then you have to explain what caused the cause ("what created the creator?"). infinite regression. science uses observation to find "causes", but everything that can be observed is an effect...

You posit the existence of a creator on no better grounds than your inabilityto imagine a universe existing without one.
Click to expand...

it might be hard for you to imagine, but i can imagine it better than you can imagine.

Having commited yourself to the view that everything must have been created, you claim the creator is an exception . Why ?
Click to expand...

it's true that EVERYTHING must have been created, but that doesn't include nothing (the creator). effects (like the universe) need a cause in order to exist, but nothing is not an effect.

Norsefire said:
Why is there existence, then, in the middle of nothingness, universes, what are universes? How do we measure existence? If it was always there, WHY?
Click to expand...

non-existence is something that needs no cause to exist, that's why it has always existed. and because nothing is all that exists (everything, duality, mind) in the "beginning", it ALWAYS has to create everything.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78422

when nothing exists, no laws exist either, so there are infinite possibilities. there is no law that says that nothing has to be nothing forever. it can be everything and something too.

Why is there existence?
Click to expand...

because non-existence does not exist.

The mere point of that, in my opinion, proves that SOMETHING was responsible for the creation of our universe.
Click to expand...

something can't be responsible for the creation of the universe, only nothing can.

does existence cease to exist if we are dead?
Click to expand...

you are this being that you call existence (life). everything is. and it can never cease to be, because it's made of indestructible emptiness.
 
Last edited:
Norsefire said:
Evolution is bullshit, Creationism is obviously correct and what should be taught.
Click to expand...

How do you expect to convince people with such piffle?

Creationism is quite clearly not "obviously correct". If it was, then nobody would dispute it. But the fact is that the entire biological scientific community says Creationism is bunk.

Turn on your brain for a moment.

Norsefire said:
Evolution is a theory not a fact. Besides, Creationism is far more logical and reasonable.
Click to expand...

Yes. Evolution is a theory just like Newton's law of gravitation is a theory.

When things fall up instead of down, then maybe we'll have a reason to accept Creationism. Who knows?


Kadark said:
It's pointless to engage in this debate because the evolution crowd has embedded in their heads that no alter theory is plausible or worth investigating.
Click to expand...

Which alternate theory do you believe is worth investigating? Noah and his ark?
 
Yorda said:
non-existence is something that needs no cause to exist, that's why it has always existed...
because non-existence does not exist.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I can see a bit of a logic gap in there.
I thought nothing, by definition, doesn't exist? If it exists, then by definition it's something, not nothing...?
 
spidergoat said:
According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.[wikipedia]

I find your lack of scientific literacy troubling, but your final statement reveals your true bias. The evidence did not change. The theory hasn't changed too much, except we now know that species do alot of branching, so being able to say definitively if a particular fossil is an actual ancestor of a later species is impossible without DNA testing.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.
Intresting. I'm biased but you didn't ask for that evidence.
So be it..I'm biased. We'll just rename what you're doing, huh. Like those transitional forms.
 
Evidence that the evidence changed? Did they alter the fossils, reconstruct them in a different way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top