Creation versus evolution debate

May 14, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 270

On Saturday May 12, the Museum of Creation and Earth History in Santee, Calif. held a debate featuring Creation vs.

Full Story

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#246 Jan 3, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>I understandall of the above.Does not science tell you by tracing all animals and humans through the genetic code,that number one is that all humans came from two living human beings,one man and one woman.Also,same goes for animals.Take a dna sample from one dog and you can trace using the dna,back to one male dog and one female dog,thus creation prevails in your argument.Can you agree with science?
Are you referring to 'Mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-Chromosome Adam'?

If you ARE, it will not help your argument.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#247 Jan 3, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>I understandall of the above.Does not science tell you by tracing all animals and humans through the genetic code,that number one is that all humans came from two living human beings,one man and one woman.Also,same goes for animals.Take a dna sample from one dog and you can trace using the dna,back to one male dog and one female dog,thus creation prevails in your argument.Can you agree with science?
Actually, you are conflating a number of different things that aren't related the way you think they are.

You are talking about "Y-Chromosome Adam" and "mDNA Eve". These two individuals represent a "genetic clock" origin point for two different features of our genetic code.

All mDNA passes from mother to child.
All Y-Chromosomes pass from father to son.

However, there are two problems/oversights with your argument.

#1)
Neither of these two individuals was the only man or woman alive at the time. They are merely just the specific ancestor to a specific lineage.

For example, if you had only daughters, your Y Chromosome would not be passed on. That doesn't mean you didn't exist. It just means you had daughters.

#2)
These two individual lived 60,000 years apart. mDNA Eve existed LONG before Y-Chro Adam. In fact, there's a solid argument to be made that mDNA Eve wasn't homo sapien.

Now, back to my point.

If you accept that genes exist, that mutations exists and the number accumulate, then it follows that you accept that if you have a mutation (A) and your child inherits it, but also has a mutation (B), that that child's child could have both (A) and (B). Agreed?

If that child has a new mutation (C), then it would have A, B and C.

If there was hypothetically one mutation per generation, you would get to a child with A,B,C,D,...Z after 26 generations.

That child would have 25 mutations that you, it's ancestor did not have.

Agreed?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#249 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
The very fact that you ted are here and doubting a creator proves that there is a creator.
The very fact that you are doubting evolution proves evolution.
THE BAPTIST

Belmont, NC

#250 Jan 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you are conflating a number of different things that aren't related the way you think they are.
You are talking about "Y-Chromosome Adam" and "mDNA Eve". These two individuals represent a "genetic clock" origin point for two different features of our genetic code.
All mDNA passes from mother to child.
All Y-Chromosomes pass from father to son.
However, there are two problems/oversights with your argument.
#1)
Neither of these two individuals was the only man or woman alive at the time. They are merely just the specific ancestor to a specific lineage.
For example, if you had only daughters, your Y Chromosome would not be passed on. That doesn't mean you didn't exist. It just means you had daughters.
#2)
These two individual lived 60,000 years apart. mDNA Eve existed LONG before Y-Chro Adam. In fact, there's a solid argument to be made that mDNA Eve wasn't homo sapien.
Now, back to my point.
If you accept that genes exist, that mutations exists and the number accumulate, then it follows that you accept that if you have a mutation (A) and your child inherits it, but also has a mutation (B), that that child's child could have both (A) and (B). Agreed?
If that child has a new mutation (C), then it would have A, B and C.
If there was hypothetically one mutation per generation, you would get to a child with A,B,C,D,...Z after 26 generations.
That child would have 25 mutations that you, it's ancestor did not have.
Agreed?
LMAO!AT YOUR IGNORANCE!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#251 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!AT YOUR IGNORANCE!
So...you WERE thinking of 'Mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-Chromosome Adam', eh?

Thought so.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#252 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!AT YOUR IGNORANCE!
So you prefer to rely on ad hom rather than demonstrating your baseless claims?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#253 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>I the baptist,will not get my rear end busted on this subject.Just because some one disagrees with you is not crying.I am willing to take on all of you unbeleivers.We shall see if you doubters have anything to add,to convince any other creationist that evolution is a fact.We should have a good time at it.
You are lying, you are not willing to do anything but attempt to convince anyone you are correct without ever presenting any evidence that suggests or supports your mythology. You pretend to be "open" to a debate so you can lure people in, hoping to convert just one to your idiotic notions. The irony being that these forums online do just the opposite, and have been known to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt the dishonesty of the snake oil salesmen like you.

Try answering one question: Where is the evidence that the supernatural assertions you call the bible are all indeed supernatural and all fact?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#254 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Fred.
No, it was Ted from Accounting.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#255 Jan 4, 2013
Close.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#256 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!AT YOUR IGNORANCE!
That isn't an adult response, nor does it address the specifics I brought up.

You sited a scientific study pointing to "one man" and "one woman". I am VERY familiar with the topic at hand and just gave you a brief overview.

You claim that I am ignorant.

Okay, be specific. In what way is my description of Y Chrom Adam and mDNA Eve "ignorant". What scientific information do you have that better addresses this?

Where did you get your degree in biology? Chemistry? Anthropology?

Go on, be specific.

I am treating you like an adult despite your behavior. If you were a moral person, you should be able to attempt to do the same.
THE BAPTIST

Belmont, NC

#257 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lying, you are not willing to do anything but attempt to convince anyone you are correct without ever presenting any evidence that suggests or supports your mythology. You pretend to be "open" to a debate so you can lure people in, hoping to convert just one to your idiotic notions. The irony being that these forums online do just the opposite, and have been known to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt the dishonesty of the snake oil salesmen like you.
Try answering one question: Where is the evidence that the supernatural assertions you call the bible are all indeed supernatural and all fact?
Glad that you asked that kitten.First law of all science is that for one negative cause there is a positive cause.So nature itself would have a supernatural as a positive.Can you under stand that?I am not here to convert anyone.I am only here to argue the point of evolution versus creation.I could care less,if you accept my reasoning on these two subjects.You can believe what you want to.I really do not care.Do you really want me to stop arguing for creation?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#258 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>Glad that you asked that kitten.First law of all science is that for one negative cause there is a positive cause.So nature itself would have a supernatural as a positive.Can you under stand that?I am not here to convert anyone.I am only here to argue the point of evolution versus creation.I could care less,if you accept my reasoning on these two subjects.You can believe what you want to.I really do not care.Do you really want me to stop arguing for creation?
Twisting the law of cause and effect doesn't bode well for your evidence. Creationism is just a religious doctrine that depends on there being a god, unless you provide evidence that one exists, then your creationism is just a failed assertion and nothing more.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#259 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>Glad that you asked that kitten.First law of all science is that for one negative cause there is a positive cause.So nature itself would have a supernatural as a positive.Can you under stand that?I am not here to convert anyone.I am only here to argue the point of evolution versus creation.I could care less,if you accept my reasoning on these two subjects.You can believe what you want to.I really do not care.Do you really want me to stop arguing for creation?
*SUPER*natural -- by definition -- is outside of nature.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#260 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>Glad that you asked that kitten.First law of all science is that for one negative cause there is a positive cause.So nature itself would have a supernatural as a positive.Can you under stand that?I am not here to convert anyone.I am only here to argue the point of evolution versus creation.I could care less,if you accept my reasoning on these two subjects.You can believe what you want to.I really do not care.Do you really want me to stop arguing for creation?
At any rate, I think you know understand, just from their rebuttal of your silly comment that "science says there were two first human beings," that you are in WAY, WAY OVER YOUR HEAD in trying to discuss and refute science.

Agreed?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#261 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>Glad that you asked that kitten.First law of all science is that for one negative cause there is a positive cause.
No. That's not only not the "first law of all science", that's not even a correct quote of what it actually is, which is one of Newton's _third_ law. Paraphrased to be: "For each action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction."

Meaning, if I shoot a gun. The bullet goes one way, the gun goes the other (kick back).

The first principle of science is this: "That which we see around us is real, has been real and will continue to be real."
So nature itself would have a supernatural as a positive.Can you under stand that?
You don't even understand that.

You're basing that conclusion on an incorrect set of rules you fabricated _AND_ the conclusion you've drawn is incorrect on top of that.

If, by your own claims, there is a "positive" and a "negative", and nature requires a supernatural "positive", then your assumption is that nature is "negative".

Based on what?
I am only here to argue the point of evolution versus creation.I could care less,if you accept my reasoning on these two subjects.You can believe what you want to.I really do not care.Do you really want me to stop arguing for creation?
If that's what you are here to do, then do so.

I gave you a very detailed response to an incorrect claim on your part. You replied with a childish insult.

If you are here to debate the subject, then lets do so as educated adults.

If you are here to demonstrate that Creationists lack the maturity to discuss things rationally, then mission accomplished.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#262 Jan 4, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>Glad that you asked that kitten.First law of all science is that for one negative cause there is a positive cause.So nature itself would have a supernatural as a positive.Can you under stand that?I am not here to convert anyone.I am only here to argue the point of evolution versus creation.I could care less,if you accept my reasoning on these two subjects.You can believe what you want to.I really do not care.Do you really want me to stop arguing for creation?
I'd actually like you to start.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#263 Jan 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
You don't even understand that.
You're basing that conclusion on an incorrect set of rules you fabricated _AND_ the conclusion you've drawn is incorrect on top of that.
If, by your own claims, there is a "positive" and a "negative", and nature requires a supernatural "positive", then your assumption is that nature is "negative".
Based on what?
WARNING! PROBABLE SLoT IMMINENT!!!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#264 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
WARNING! PROBABLE SLoT IMMINENT!!!
Yeah, either SLoT or "How do you know, were you there?"

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#265 Jan 5, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>Glad that you asked that kitten.First law of all science is that for one negative cause there is a positive cause.So nature itself would have a supernatural as a positive.Can you under stand that?I am not here to convert anyone.I am only here to argue the point of evolution versus creation.I could care less,if you accept my reasoning on these two subjects.You can believe what you want to.I really do not care.Do you really want me to stop arguing for creation?
Really, I haven't heard that law...could you direct me to a science site that says that or has a list of science laws?

I would sure appreciate it.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#266 Jan 5, 2013
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!AT YOUR IGNORANCE!
The DNA also proves that the Biblical Adam and Eve never existed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 41 min Dogen 131,777
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 3 hr Brian_G 13,614
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr The Dude 427
How would creationists explain... 5 hr The Dude 284
Science News (Sep '13) 5 hr positronium 2,939
sea-dwelling dinosaur found alive (Apr '10) 7 hr The Dude 87
Genetic entropy Mon Chimney1 157