Evolution vs Creationism (be nice)

[Takama]

This Thread is a $#!+ show waiting to happen if it has not alredy.

DR Admin, is this thread appropriate for the forum?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I appreciate the thorough and direct response Keaton. I would offer that anytime the qualifier to a discussion is suggested as logical fallacy for following this pattern..."anytime new evidence is found that contradicts the hypothesis , the hypothesis is changed..." it has fallen into a sorrowful state. Intelligence requires that once new evidence presents, a revised hypothesis is offered. In the examples you have given , you seem to be suggesting evolution =MUST/HAS/ALWAYS/ consists of one species becoming another and the previous for some reason dropping instantly and utterly dead that second. This is not the case, and has never been suggested as such....think of the blossom of evolution as a bush rather than a tree...hundreds of branches rising upward from the larger lower ones...some do not reach as high as others, while often the main trunk that supports them all is threaded upwards as high as any of them. Evolution is not replacement and less evolved species can coexist with their more derived forms...we know this because to this modern day we have living fossils like ceolocanth living right beside much more highly derived animals.
The most pressing problem I see with your ideal that all fossils derive from the great flood is that it fails simple logic. By that I mean...simply, where are the dead people? If your theory is correct and all these remains result from a massive flood  , where are all the sin laden multitudes of mankind the flood was intended to destroy? Selective fossilization? This aside from and nevermind that many fossils are not found in depositional environments that indicate the presence of any water...by example tar pits, quicksand, desert burials and many others that clearly indicate there was no water present prior to the the burial event itself. The examples you gave of birthing aninals and fish consuming one another....and giving proof of a massive immediate flood are suggested as such because they had to be rapidly covered in water to avoid scavengers and decay but yet...wouldn't birthing sea animals and fish eating fish already BE underwater with no flood required?
Another fallacy is the basing of the entire sequence of burial in the manner needed to justify the belief you are attempting to support. In other words, you suggest that things could not have happened as science says because in addition to raining for forty days and nights the deep waters erupted and also flooded all that was the face of the earth. Okay fine...but if we don't get to say it was just rain and scientifically debunk the flood, you also do not get to say that things had to flood a certain way based on how the underground floodwaters would have behaved solely. yet your basis for disputing the entire fossil record is based on the determination it had to occur this certain way ...but lets suppose for a moment it did. Even if conceded that all is correct, where did all this water go? For a flood of water to be deep enough to swallow Mount Arat or Mount Everest do you have some concept of how many  billions of cubic feet of water beyond what is here now would be required to seriously have a flood that covered the entire face of the world?So did the water just fall into outer space or ....even if you allowed the water went to subterraen passages there would be far more than would fit inside the planet. And suppose you put the planet underwater for 40 days and kill everyone...you also by implication just made plants, trees and everything that produces oxygen extinct.....so what exactly are you going to breathe when the ark lands? If we know from the fossil record salt water and fresh water fish, plants and reefs were the basal condition, and today we still have both fresh and salt water plants and reefs ....do you somewhat see the issues with science you create here?
     It isn't just evolution that suggests the errors, but all forms of science. Ratther than prove the bible, they provide serious and difficult issues to reconcile with any of the larger biblical stories of the early bible.

[suspsy]

This thread is so depressing.

Yes, I certainly didn't anticipate this. But having been an active participant in the fight against creationism for many years now, I can't sit idly by while people are spreading false information. Although it's pleasing to see that many other people here are up on their science.

[Keaton64]

I was writing up a response to stargatedalek, but I noticed suspsy pointing out that no one has claimed that grass or larger-than-shrew mammals existed until after the dinosaur extinction.

I did a google search and found this Nature article which says that grasses were not thought to have evolved until afterward:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051117/full/news051114-13.html

And this one about the mammal with the dinosaur in its stomach:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050110/full/news050110-11.html

Granted, it doesn't use the word shrew-like, but the word tiny instead.  I have seen shrew used to describe them in books before though.  Compared to something the size of a shrew, a dog is considered large.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

It seems to have remained a more calm and civil discussion at least. Nevertheless I will refrain from further comment myself

[suspsy]

I was writing up a response to stargatedalek, but I noticed suspsy pointing out that no one has claimed that grass or larger-than-shrew mammals existed until after the dinosaur extinction.

I did a google search and found this Nature article which says that grasses were not thought to have evolved until afterward:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051117/full/news051114-13.html

Just because it was once thought that grass did not appear until after the Cretaceous does not mean that anyone in the paleontological community declared that it was impossible for grass to have evolved sooner. Science is supposed to change in light of new discoveries and ideas; indeed, that is the very essence of science. It was also once thought that dromaeosaurs were scaly and that sauropods only lived in swamps. The fact that this has been shown to be incorrect, and that grass may have existed during the Mesozoic, in no way diminishes evolutionary theory.

And this one about the mammal with the dinosaur in its stomach:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050110/full/news050110-11.html

Granted, it doesn't use the word shrew-like, but the word tiny instead.  I have seen shrew used to describe them in books before though.  Compared to something the size of a shrew, a dog is considered large.

See what I wrote above. No one ever stood up at a SVP meeting and stated emphatically that all Mesozoic mammals were only the size of shrews or mice. Nor did anyone ever state that it was impossible for them to grow larger. Moreover, larger species such as Repenomamus still display primitive characteristics compared to mammals that evolved after the Mesozoic. In no way does this diminish or debunk evolution either.

Keaton64, I'm going to ask you a direct question that I got from a learned friend of mine who's been investigating creationist claims for more than twenty years. He's also a devout Christian who knows the Bible in Hebrew as well as English.

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that you're wrong about evolution?

[Keaton64]

I appreciate those who have responded in a civil manner, but I must admit I did not expect so many questions to be asked of me at one time, although in retrospect I should have.  I am defending my position by myself here, and I've been typing up posts all day for this, so I'm going to finish up with some of the other response I was working on for stargatedalek and leave these websites here for you to find the rest of the answers to your questions should you feel like pursuing it further.  They are the very same ones suspsy mentioned, AiG & CMI:

https://creation.com
https://answersingenesis.org

To stargatedalek:  I was just pointing out that the example does not contain evidence for evolution since both color morphs already existed, and the only thing the study showed was that one color was being removed from the population.  This is the opposite of what evolution requires; a removal of genes will never cause a fish to grow legs.

I should have clarified this one better:  I didn't mean to imply that all marine fossils should be found on the bottom layers, only that it makes sense from a biblical stance for the bottom layers to contain mostly marine fossils (specifically invertebrates & smaller fish).

I fully agree with your last statement about Antarctica.

I will say this in closing:  i firmly believe in these types of debates, as it allows each side to recognize the flaws in their arguments and further refine them.  Thanks guys.

[Keaton64]

Give me time suspsy, and I'll edit this post for your question.

To Faelrin:  antibiotic resistance articles can be found on both sites, check them out if you're interested.

Edit:  I rather like the answer Ken Ham gave during his debate with Bill Nye, an answer that I'm sure most will not care for:  nothing.  It is the same answer that I believe many here secretly have regarding their beliefs as well.  I trust what the Bible says about the past (& future).  The majority of those here trust what secular scientists tell them about the unobservable, unrepeatable past.  They can't both be right.  Either one is, or they're both wrong.

Through what I have read from Christian scientists who believe what the Bible says, I do believe that observable, testable, repeatable science supports the creation account described in Genesis.  Without faith it is impossible to please God, although it is not a blind faith.  Again, thanks everyone, this will be the last time I post in this topic.

[Simon]

This thread is so depressing.

Well, it certainly is cluttering up the "recent posts" feed.  Glad its remained civil, but I really don't have any interest in reading the posts ... personally I think the debate should probably have gone to PM mode awhile back...

[Faelrin]

Not just the moths either, but don't the bacteria that are becoming antibiotic resistant count as well towards supporting evolution, happening right now? I always thought it did.

[suspsy]

Not just the moths either, but don't the bacteria that are becoming antibiotic resistant count as well towards supporting evolution, happening right now? I always thought it did.

It does indeed. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.

[CityRaptor]

Not just the moths either, but don't the bacteria that are becoming antibiotic resistant count as well towards supporting evolution, happening right now? I always thought it did.

Apparently not. I've seen one Creationist argue that the fact that E.coli is still a single cellular organism would disprove evolution.

Oh, and there is this Michael Behe guy:
Nonetheless, the E. coli work has pointed in the same general direction. The lab bacteria performed much like the wild pathogens: A host of incoherent changes have slightly altered pre-existing systems. Nothing fundamentally new has been produced. No new protein-protein interactions, no new molecular machines...One of the most beneficial mutations, seen repeatedly in separate cultures, was the bacterium's loss of the ability to make a sugar called ribose, which is a component of RNA. Another was a change in a regulatory gene called spoT, which affected en masse how fifty-nine other genes work, either increasing or decreasing their activity. [See Dawkins][1] Breaking some genes and turning others off, however, won't make much of anything. After a while, beneficial changes from the experiment petered out. The fact that malaria, with a billion fold more chances, gave a pattern very similar to the more modest studies on E. coli strongly suggests that that's all Darwinism can do. (Behe 142)

Yep, still in denial.

[suspsy]

Not just the moths either, but don't the bacteria that are becoming antibiotic resistant count as well towards supporting evolution, happening right now? I always thought it did.

Apparently not. I've seen one Creationist argue that the fact that E.coli is still a single cellular organism would disprove evolution.

That creationist would be incorrect, I'm afraid. Bacteria constitute an entire kingdom; to argue that the  bacteria are still bacteria is like arguing that human evolution is false because the mammals are still mammals.

[CityRaptor]

Well, given that the "If Man Evolved From Ape, Then Why Are There Still Apes?" is still around, does that really surprise you? Same creationist refused to even listen.

Also added something to the above post.

[Loon]

I say we take this conversation and move it to a new thread, seems to me that this entire conversation has gotten waaayyyyy off topic, but the discussion is rather good, so it should continue.

[DinoToyForum]

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that you're wrong about evolution?

Why make it about who's right or wrong? You could rephrase the question:

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that evolution occurs?

The question can also be spun in the other direction.

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that life was created?

---

Obviously, I'm keeping an eye on this topic I will let the conversation flow for now but please be respectful. Let's show that it is possible to disagree whilst remaining civil and polite.

[stargatedalek]

This thread is so depressing.

Well, it certainly is cluttering up the "recent posts" feed.  Glad its remained civil, but I really don't have any interest in reading the posts ... personally I think the debate should probably have gone to PM mode awhile back...

If I may, I recommend using the "Recent Unread Topics" instead. It lets one choose to ignore discussions they don't want to be bothered with (IE I for one will often skim or ignore topics on brands I'm not normally interested in). And simply scrolling down from the main page below the option there's a selection of the most recently updated topics, so one can easily see a topic they've already read the most recent information from and save considerable time not re-checking topics.

[Loon]

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that you're wrong about evolution?

Why make it about who's right or wrong? You could rephrase the question:

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that evolution occurs?

The question can also be spun in the other direction.

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that life was created?

---

Obviously, I'm keeping an eye on this topic I will let the conversation flow for now but please be respectful. Let's show that it is possible to disagree whilst remaining civil and polite.

Would a unique thread be allowed?

[Lanthanotus]

I learned a lot of abbrevations today

[DinoToyForum]

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that you're wrong about evolution?

Why make it about who's right or wrong? You could rephrase the question:

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that evolution occurs?

The question can also be spun in the other direction.

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that life was created?

---

Obviously, I'm keeping an eye on this topic I will let the conversation flow for now but please be respectful. Let's show that it is possible to disagree whilst remaining civil and polite.

Would a unique thread be allowed?

I'll split this thread and see how it goes...