Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73496 Feb 1, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>and again...if life is just the result of chemical processes, why can you not show proof, by making the very simplest of simple life forms...such as a single cell organism? It would be apparent that the chemicals are readily available...but yet you can't why not?
According to them we should get new life forms every rain storm. LOL

"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event, the amount of time available is long enough to overcome this problem. This fallacy is because they (and most of us, really) just haven’t gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems.
The difficult thing is to conceive the size of some of the figures obtained. James F. Coppedge in the bookEvolution: Possible or Impossible? has given some fascinating examples, one of which is here presented. Consider first this statement from the evolutionist George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in the Scientific American (1954):

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.
Now using Coppedge’s figures, let’s take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let’s look at Coppedge’s example; assume we have an amoeba—and let’s assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let’s further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 10^21 complete universes!

This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.

Coppedge’s book makes fascinating reading in other respects and is one of the few works that really comes to grips with this matter of molecular biology and probability mathematics.

Evolutionists would have us believe that modern molecular biology lends its support to their world view, but the more information comes to hand, the more preposterous the whole idea of a naturalistic origin of life becomes."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73497 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go visit a maternity ward. Life created purely by natural chemical processes.
<quoted text>
We're talking about an event with an unknown amount of variables that took place 4 billion years ago that may have even taken place over possibly hundreds of thousands of years. There are numerous potential environmental specifics and countless potential different chemical combinations. Ergo it is not reasonable to expect us to recreate an event that took place so long ago over a period of time potentially longer than recorded human history and do it in just 30 years.
What we do know at least is that we can get to RNA via naturally occurring chemistry, the trick is getting from RNA to DNA. In the meantime while actual biochemists are hard at work doing the research and making discoveries, we have creationists sitting on their fat lazy azzes on their couch at home criticizing it from the sidelines and complaining the scientific community don't listen to them.
Well, I would say that creationists are sitting at home laughing their azzes off...because they know it takes the 'will of God' to make life. And not just putting chemicals together. Maybe in like a thousand years, you'll understand.But please keep trying, I think God's getting a good kick out of it too.lol

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73498 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Who cares?(shrug)

Langoliers wrote, ""The simplest method to explain why there is life is that it's the result of chemical processes"
This is a lie. You expect spontaneous life coming from rain falling on rocks creating a speck of life and that very first self creating speck of life mutated (against all we know about mutations) "

You know nothing about mutations. If you knew something about mutations you wouldn't be using anti-scientific creationist arguments.

We know chemistry creates life. We know the first organisms in the fossil record are microbial/bacterial in nature. We hypothesize that chemical processes eventually led to an imperfectly self-replicating organism. Life developed from there. It is acknowledged that this is not a theory and currently only in the hypothesis stage, but a number of scientific institutions are researching the subject as we speak.

However since you object to the concept then I suggest you actually go to Harvard and tell them how they failed to take invisible Jew magic into account.

Langoliers wrote, "for the better billions of times (not once but billions of times) to be the mother of all life on the planet. And then put of the other side of your face you claim bottle neck with Adam and Eve. "

Yes, such a bottleneck would be a problem with sexual reproduction, not so much for organisms that don't reproduce that way. Sorry, not our problem.
"Yes, such a bottleneck would be a problem with sexual reproduction, not so much for organisms that don't reproduce that way. Sorry, not our problem."

If all life started from one speck of life, some where along the line you'll wind up with your first human. Why then would there not be a bottleneck.

Oh and God has no issues with your sexual reproduction bottlenecks.
You can't seem to grasp that God controls the laws they don't control him.

Go figure.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73499 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually my posts are in line with the scientific community. You also still can't tell the difference between the terms scientific hypothesis and scientific theory. Also, multiple hypotheses doesn't automatically make all of them, or even one of them right. It could easily be quite possible that they are all wrong. Which is why I already pointed out that scientific hypotheses regarding the very beginnings of the universe are tentative, and it is very dishonest of you to caricature my claims otherwise.
Again, your ignorance of science has no bearing at all on the validity of science. Don't complain to me just because you're unable to maintain a coherent debate.
Is that a hypothesis on your part, or a theory?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73500 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#1 The warm pond theory

The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73501 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#2 The supposed simplicity of the cell.

......So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73502 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#3 His ideas about information inside the cell.

Because he believed in the simplicity of the information of the cell, he came up with a theory called "pangenesis," where huge variations simply popped out of cells at random—something that was later proven to be entirely false.
Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73503 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, evidence makes faith superfluous. When evidence is tentative then they do research. If science relied only on "faith" as you say, they'd just take a leaf outta the creationist handbook and sit on their azzes all day making baseless pronouncements and put off any and all research work until Jesus came back.
You have no evidence, but you believe that it will happen...that would imply faith on your part would it not?lol

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73504 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#4 His expectation of intermediate fossils

During his life, Charles Darwin was puzzled over the fossil record. For it to back his theory, the evidence should show a fine gradation between the different animal species and have millions of intermediate links.

He stated it this way: "The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory [of evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth" (The Origin of Species,1958, Mentor edition, p. 289).

Yet faced with the evidence, he admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory" (p. 287).

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73505 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#5 His failure to see the limits of variation of species

Darwin got the idea about natural selection in part from observing artificial selection. For instance, he noted the way pigeon breeders came up with a great variety of pigeons. Yet we should remember, they are still all classified as pigeons!

He thought that from this variety, given enough time, pigeons could eventually evolve into some other type of birds, such as eagles or vultures, and gradually, even to other creatures such as mammalian bats.

No one seriously disputes the notion of "change over time" in biology—heredity sees to that. We vary from our parents and grandparents—but that is not what the theory of evolution is all about. It is really an attempt to explain how microorganisms, insects, fish, birds, tigers, bears and even human beings actually became what they presently are through the passage of time.

Darwinian evolution—what is taught in the schools—is about macroevolution, or changes beyond the limits of the species kind to create another distinct species. It consists of three suppositions: 1) all living things descend from a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanisms for the changes are natural selection and mutation; and 3) these are unguided, natural processes with no intelligence at work behind them.

But have we seen either in present life forms or in the fossil record that creatures are slowly changing and mutating from one kind to another? Never.
Drink the hivE

New York, NY

#73506 Feb 1, 2013
There Was A House Featured In The Book Where One Person Had All Udo Related Experiences...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73507 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#6 His discounting of the Cambrian Explosion.

Darwin was aware of what is called the "Cambrian explosion"—fossils of a bewildering variety of complex life-forms appearing suddenly, without predecessors, in the same low level of the fossil record. This obviously did not fit his evolutionary model of simple-to-complex life.

Instead of a few related organisms appearing early in the fossil record as he hoped, there was an explosion of life—where the various main body types (called phyla) of living creatures seem to arise around the same time—in fact, 32 of the 33 phyla that we see today. Comparing this development to the progress of man's inventions, it would be as if a toaster, a washing machine, a refrigerator, an air conditioner and a car all of a sudden came on the scene with no mechanical devices preceding them.

Regarding the Cambrian explosion, Time magazine notes: "Creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang" (Madeline Nash, "When Life Exploded," Dec. 4, 1995, p. 68).

This "Big Bang" of completely different creatures deep in the fossil record posed an enormous problem that Darwin had to admit undermined his theory.

He wrote: "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer... The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian is very great ... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (The Origin of Species, pp. 309-310).

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73508 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#7 His theory of homology

In his studies, Darwin noticed that different types of creatures shared some common features, such as the five fingers of a human hand and the five digits of a bat's wing or of a dolphin's fin. He postulated that this similarity in different species, which he called "homology," was evidence for a common ancestry.

Yet this argument is based on an analogy that's quite weak since the fossil record shows no gradual evolution of these limbs from one species to another. There is, however, another and simpler way to explain these common features. Instead of having a common ancestor, these similar features could simply be the result of a common design.

We see this common design in how man builds things. We construct a car, a cart and a vacuum cleaner with four wheels, but this doesn't mean they have a common ancestor —merely a common design. Four wheels happen to give more stability and strength than three wheels and can better distribute the weight on top. We can deduce that a wise designer would have used this type of model of four legs to give stability and strength to many of the creatures that were made, instead of using three legs.

Really, does it make more sense that a designer used these same patterns because they worked so well, or that blind chance in natural selection and mutations just happened to come up with the optimal design after so many trial-and-error attempts? If the latter was the case, where is the evidence of the many failed models that should have ended up in the scrap heap of the fossil record, as Darwin predicted? No such evidence has been found.

Indeed, when creatures that are supposedly far removed from one another on the evolutionary tree share common advanced characteristics, evolutionists maintain that these characteristics evolved separately. But what are the odds of the same complex characteristic evolving by chance multiple times? Again, common design is clearly a far more logical explanation.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73509 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#8 His theory of human beings evolving from apes.

The similarity (between man and chimps) is now down to about 93 percent, according to more recent studies—results that curiously have not made many headlines. Stephan Anitei, science editor for Softpedia, writes: "Well, the new study concludes that the total DNA variation between humans and chimpanzees is rather 6-7%. There are obvious similarities between chimpanzees and humans, but also high differences in body structure, brain, intellect, and behavior, etc." ("How Much DNA Do We Share With Chimps?" Softpedia, Nov. 20, 2006, p. 1).

Again, the question has to be asked: Is the similarity between chimpanzees and men due to a common ancestor or to a common Designer? If a common ancestor, why are human beings so drastically different now from this ancestor while chimpanzees have remained much the same? The fact is, we are not seeing any evolution presently going on in either chimpanzees or human beings.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73510 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#9 His theory of the tree of life.

The only drawing Darwin had in his book The Origin of Species is that of the supposed "tree of life." It pictures the imaginary transformation of a common ancestor (at the root level) into the different species we see today (at the twig level). Yet the drawing is actually based on slight variations within a species after many generations, and then he adds some suppositions.

Again Darwin went well beyond the evidence. He took limited evidence about adaptations and extrapolated it to the idea that a species or genus (group of interbreeding species) can transform into a completely different one—all based on speculation. He cleverly said, "I see no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained, to the formulation of genera [plural of genus] alone" (p. 121). He had to say this since no more direct evidence was forthcoming.

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73511 Feb 1, 2013
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#9 His theory of the tree of life.
Part 2

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection.

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection. What Darwin claimed is true for all species has not been demonstrated for even one species" (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, 2006, p. 64).

So instead of a "tree of life" that begins with one or a few common ancestors and then branches out, there is actually an inverted and quite divided "tree of life," where the branches of life were very diverse and numerous at the beginning. Through extinction and sudden appearances, we have fewer kinds of life-forms today than in the past.

"Of all the icons of evolution," adds Dr. Wells, "the tree of life is the most pervasive because descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin's theory...Yet Darwin knew—and scientists have recently confirmed—that the early fossil record turns the evolutionary tree of life upside down. Ten years ago it was hoped that molecular evidence might save the tree, but recent discoveries have dashed that hope. Although you would not learn it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin's tree of life has been uprooted" (ibid., p. 51).

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73512 Feb 1, 2013
10 Ways Darwin got it Wrong

#10 His rejection of biblical creation by God

Charles Darwin was a man of his times. The 19th century saw many major social upheavals—political, philosophical, economic and religious—and Darwin was deeply shaped by them.

Some 11 years after writing The Origin of Species, he candidly admitted his two main purposes for writing it: "I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change...

"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations" (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 92).

Notice that the first reason for writing his book was religious—for he sought "to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." In other words, he had no room for a religious version of origins involving the Creator God of the Bible. He promoted the idea that the world of matter and energy, mainly through natural selection and variation, might well account for all life we see around us—a philosophy of science known as scientific materialism.

Instead he pigeonholed creationists as having to believe in a recent creation and in "fixed" species confined to specific geographical regions. This was a straw man he set up so he could then bash it time after time in his writings. For him, evolution was "scientific" and was to be viewed with an open mind—but within a closed materialistic system—minimizing or eliminating any role for intelligent design or God.

Yet instead of the data accumulated during the next 150 years pointing toward blind and random causes of nature doing the creating, we now see it, based on molecular, chemical, biological and astronomical evidence, pointing to a supremely intelligent Designer of all.

Darwin's bicentennial has arrived but, as Phillip Johnson predicts, Darwin's ideas will eventually end up in the trash heap of history. Johnson concludes: "Every history of the twentieth century has three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx, and Freud... Yet Marx and Freud have fallen... I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be the mightiest of the three" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 113).

www.gnmagazine.org ...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73513 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That is one possibility.
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So if nothing was created as you claim, you imply that it(Universe) has always been here...is that your claim?

That is one possibility.

So your saying there's a possibility that the big bang theory is wrong?
Drink the hivE

New York, NY

#73514 Feb 1, 2013
Are U Saying That - Since Walmart Pay' People 2 Prevent Theft?...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73517 Feb 1, 2013
"The major reason why people doubt that the days of creation are 24-hour literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but comes from outside influences. For example, many believe that because scientists have supposedly proved the earth to be billions of years old then the days of creation cannot be ordinary days.
If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8,“... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years ...“. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says,“... and a thousand years as one day“. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation.
What does “day” mean?

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis chapter 1 is the word yom. It is important to understand that almost any word can have two or more meanings, depending on context. We need to understand the context of the usage of this word in Genesis chapter 1.1
One of the passages they give for yom‘s meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase “evening and morning’, anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase,“evening and morning’. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.
What if the days were millions of years?
The whole of the creation restored ... to what?

The Bible says there will be a future restoration (Acts 3:21), with no death or suffering. How could all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if you allow millions of years (with death and suffering) for the world’s creation.
The idea of millions of years came from the belief that the fossil record was built up over a long time. As soon as people allow for millions of years, they allow for the fossil record to be millions of years old. This creates an insurmountable problem regarding the gospel. The fossil record consists of the death of billions of creatures. In fact, it is a record of death, disease, suffering, cruelty, and brutality. It is a very ugly record.
The Bible is adamant though, that death, disease, and suffering came into the world as a result of sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed. As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. The doctrine of original sin, then, is totally undermined.
If there were death, disease, and suffering before Adam rebelled—then what did sin do to the world? What does Paul mean in Romans 8 when he says the whole of creation groans in pain because of the Curse? How can all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering, unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world."

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr I Am No One_ 159,914
Favorite Oldies Songs (Jun '10) 1 hr I Am No One_ 18,760
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 3 hr Tonk 101 5,677
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Wolftracks 39,995
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 3 hr wichita-rick 611
Word Association (Jun '10) 3 hr wichita-rick 26,982
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 3 hr andet1987 408
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 5 hr Beautiful Black M... 200
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 6 hr honeymylove 139,790
More from around the web