scitsofreaky Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 What follows is a reposting (with permission) of an opening post with the topic name as I have given it. I immediately wondered what response it would get here. In order for a useful comparison of the two perspectives to be made, the intent of each should be established. It is obvious to most familiar with theory of evolution that the intent of the theory is to explain more or less the mechanisms observed in nature and the reasons for one species “success” beyond that of another species. Further attempts to address the cause of natural selection or the intangible "why" exit the realm of science by just the simple nature of the question. Neither of which are repeatable events that one is able to duplicate and observe again. Many evolutionists point to the fossil record as evidence for the theory but all fossils that display apparent favor to evolution wouldn’t even fill a compact truck bed. Many well intentioned scientists rely indeed too heavily on referencing others’ postulates as proven as they build on them and attempt to write new ones. Geologists and paleontologists both point at each other when trying to date strata of rocks. Rocks are too often dated by what is found in them and fossils are often dated by proposed age of the rock it was found in. Modern geological theories in some areas fail to explain polystrate fossils such as a tree buried within several thousands of years of layers. It would of course have decomposed well before the layers were laid down. The conditions necessary for a fossil to even be produced should be considered. Rapid burial of an organism while still alive or very shortly after death in a preserving medium is necessary. These conditions are rare apart from areas of mudslides, volcanic eruptions, or flooding. An expired organism decomposes very rapidly and the argument for a chronological record of biological history is incongruous. The fossil record resembles more of a “snapshot” that it does a story. The complete absence of animal life consisting of only 2-5 cells is notable. Transitional organisms in this category should prevalent and persisting even today. Mutations of any great significance observed today are fatal to the organism or they are sterile. Similarities amongst organisms’ physiology do not prove a relative relationship. Genetics has shown us similar structures between two animals once believed to be indicative of relationship are many times traits controlled by entirely different genes. Even the proteins involved differ in composition and regulation. The energy required for the assembly of proteins from amino acids is reported to have been the earth’s heat, electrical discharges, and the sun’s radiation. The presence of these energies breaks down proteins as does the presence of oxygen (earth’s early atmosphere theoretically was rich in this). The need for chemical buffers and barriers for the regulation of pH within a life form requires the presence of such before the capability of such. The list of improbabilities continues and many believers of both evolution and the Bible reconcile these stating: “with God all things are possible”. If the evolutionary theory is accurate and it occurred without the guidance of a Creator, then one’s thoughts are the result and consequence of a long series of accidents and even the thoughts themselves would have no validity (including this thought here). The intent of the author of Genesis is debatable amongst many groups of people. If it indeed endeavors to explain the sequence and actual timeline of the beginnings of our world then it is in obvious disagreement with modern evolution theory. For example, the Bible states the sun was made after plant life and the atmosphere was made before plant life. This contradicts evolution. Plants are said to have evolved in the presence of sunlight and plants are sited to have helped create our atmosphere. The Bible states sea life came after land life. Again, a contradiction. Evolutions claim females came before males. The list goes on but I will state perhaps the biggest incompatibility. If evolution is true, then death was prevalent before man was to have evolved. But if death preceded man and was not the results of mankind’s sin, then sin is not true. If sin is not true then we have no need for a Savior and that is not at all the main message of the Bible. Some argue the Bible shouldn’t be read literally, but it seems clear here that unless Genesis is taken literally then the rest of the Bible is unnecessary. Proponents of the Biblical accounts are no more able to prove their side than the evolutionist. Many of these proponents won’t credit any part of evolution theory and that unfortunately creates a rift between the ideas and those uncertain are all too often are caught in between. Scientific evidences for both are easy to obtain and easy to document. In the case of evolution it is unfortunate that forgery of fossils became an issue the learning community had to contend with. Brilliant and gifted people are in both camps and the ridiculing of either does absolutely no good at all. Someone once defending the Big Bang theory said “God said “Let there be Light!” sounds like a pretty big bang to me!”. Where do we go from here? God gave us all a mind capable of reason (some use it more than others) and I think He wants us to use them! Examination and the questioning of everything should the rule in life, not the exception. There are many well educated people that frequent this website who believe the "evidence" submitted to them via our universities in regards to evolution. I found that after exercising my God given powers of reason and examining the "evidence" the best I could, I reject the notion of "from the goo, to the zoo, to you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Many evolutionists point to the fossil record as evidence for the theory but all fossils that display apparent favor to evolution wouldn’t even fill a compact truck bed. This isn't right, this isn't even wrong. Where the hell does he get his numbers from? Many well intentioned scientists rely indeed too heavily on referencing others’ postulates as proven as they build on them and attempt to write new ones. Geologists and paleontologists both point at each other when trying to date strata of rocks. Rocks are too often dated by what is found in them and fossils are often dated by proposed age of the rock it was found in. Fucking lie, based off of shitty ICR misinformation. Modern geological theories in some areas fail to explain polystrate fossils such as a tree buried within several thousands of years of layers. It would of course have decomposed well before the layers were laid down. The conditions necessary for a fossil to even be produced should be considered. Rapid burial of an organism while still alive or very shortly after death in a preserving medium is necessary. These conditions are rare apart from areas of mudslides, volcanic eruptions, or flooding. An expired organism decomposes very rapidly and the argument for a chronological record of biological history is incongruous. The fossil record resembles more of a “snapshot” that it does a story. Misconception regarding polystrate fossils. The complete absence of animal life consisting of only 2-5 cells is notable. Huh? Mutations of any great significance observed today are fatal to the organism or they are sterile. Selective evidence. Similarities amongst organisms’ physiology do not prove a relative relationship. No, it corroborates it. Why the hell do you think people who look alike are related? Derp!! Genetics has shown us similar structures between two animals once believed to be indicative of relationship are many times traits controlled by entirely different genes. Even the proteins involved differ in composition and regulation. Nonsensical bullshit. The energy required for the assembly of proteins from amino acids is reported to have been the earth’s heat, electrical discharges, and the sun’s radiation. The presence of these energies breaks down proteins as does the presence of oxygen (earth’s early atmosphere theoretically was rich in this). The need for chemical buffers and barriers for the regulation of pH within a life form requires the presence of such before the capability of such. Doesn't have anything to do with Evolution. The list of improbabilities continues and many believers of both evolution and the Bible reconcile these stating: “with God all things are possible”. If the evolutionary theory is accurate and it occurred without the guidance of a Creator, then one’s thoughts are the result and consequence of a long series of accidents and even the thoughts themselves would have no validity (including this thought here). Suck my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Scitsofreaky, thanks for posting this! Asimov, I love your style. Shockingly persuasive. What follows is a reposting (with permission) of an opening post with the topic name as I have given it. I immediately wondered what response it would get here. -------------------------------------------------------------- The intent of the author of Genesis is debatable amongst many groups of people. If it indeed endeavors to explain the sequence and actual timeline of the beginnings of our world then it is in obvious disagreement with modern evolution theory. For example, the Bible states the sun was made after plant life and the atmosphere was made before plant life. This contradicts evolution. Plants are said to have evolved in the presence of sunlight and plants are sited to have helped create our atmosphere. The Bible states sea life came after land life. Again, a contradiction. Evolutions claim females came before males. The list goes on but I will state perhaps the biggest incompatibility. If evolution is true, then death was prevalent before man was to have evolved. But if death preceded man and was not the results of mankind’s sin, then sin is not true. If sin is not true then we have no need for a Savior and that is not at all the main message of the Bible. Some argue the Bible shouldn’t be read literally, but it seems clear here that unless Genesis is taken literally then the rest of the Bible is unnecessary. Ya' know, IMO, there are some rather remarkable insights in the fable of the book of Genesis, considering the time period it was supposedly written. It is at a time that mankind just started living stable lives instead of nomadic. I understand that structured language only started 10,000 years ago, is that true? Maybe males and females were pretty much equal till this point, when they took on different roles according to gender? Perhaps with this evolving structure of language, they did decide to name the animals? Concerning their ideas of the creation of the earth... maybe they weren't that far off in their guesses, considering the circumstances and limitations of their times. Maybe out of the Big Bang, their actually was light.. thousands/millions/billions of years of it? There might have come the separation of solid and space. It may have been awhile before the ability to see the sun, or have such a significant presence from the sun. Also, from the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, it does say that everything evolved initially out of the ocean, the insects, reptiles, birds, mammals, everything... even assertions to dinosaurs too. Of course this isn't perfect... it was perhaps just a start. I think their reference to death is more in regards to 'life', which is most often referenced as the vital force that gives us the will to survive... an internal state of mind. It seems their reasoning is that 'condemnation' (sin) 'kills' this life force in many different ways. IMO, it seems that 'sin' is just activities and behaviors they are trying to discern that hampers this 'life force'... which their effots seem to have gotten way over zealous... probably to the point of being rediculous. We now seem to have more insights to understand that going "from the goo, to the zoo, to you!" is probably true. I think that some people have problems with this because they want to think of themselves as better, more divine, than the rest of creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Transitional organisms in this category should prevalent and persisting even today. Not at all. Unless mutations all of a sudden stopped magically after the transitional species came to be, or that the specimen could live a couple of billions of years so we can examine it today. But it would in both cases require that evolution halted. There are many bones found of horses and humanoids and other animals that don't exist today. If it was true that transitional species must survive to prove evolution, then why did all these animals die out as species? All these different kinds of humanoids that they've found, are they fake or are they alive today? Mutations of any great significance observed today are fatal to the organism or they are sterile. No. There are mutations that are non fatal and can be inherited. I can't find the link right now, but I read about this woman that had 3 X-Chroms, and had children, and they had a certain percent chance of getting it too. In most cases that doesn't cause death or sterility. Similarities amongst organisms’ physiology do not prove a relative relationship. Genetics has shown us similar structures between two animals once believed to be indicative of relationship are many times traits controlled by entirely different genes. Even the proteins involved differ in composition and regulation. What about all the experiments done on rats? They claim they do it because of the strong similarities between the rat DNA and human DNA, how can that be and yet not be? I had a link once that showed the genes that we shared with the rats, but I can't find it right now. I might add it later. And regarding comparing to the Genesis and Creation story, my question is which one? There's two. The compatibility between those two are extremely low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Mother Atheist Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 First of all, this is just the type of information that gets out there and changes individuals' minds that is NOT BASED ON FACT. People should quote sources and provide further readings on the topics they present. This is the kind of bullshit that also causes Christians to think evolution is only a fly-by-night theory. It's not. Asimov: I agree with all the quotes you pointed out. I was getting a little upset reading all the misrepresented information being put together in a nonsensical fashion to try and make a point. Here are my few comments on the post: The complete absence of animal life consisting of only 2-5 cells is notable. Transitional organisms in this category should prevalent and persisting even today. Mutations of any great significance observed today are fatal to the organism or they are sterile. Similarities amongst organisms’ physiology do not prove a relative relationship. Genetics has shown us similar structures between two animals once believed to be indicative of relationship are many times traits controlled by entirely different genes. This is crap, first of all. Basically a flat out lie or an uneducated assumption. Transitional organisms don't neccessarily survive because NO organisms necessarily survive. It's called extinction- happens all the time. And the mutations in the existing organisms could have been necessary for further survival; obviously the transitional organisms don't have these and didn't survive. There are also many mutations that don't kill the organism or make an animal sterile. I don't know where this person is getting their information. Also, let's not forget that our DNA is extremely similar to that of other organisms. We share most of our DNA, maybe something like 98% with most animals and look how different we all are! Proponents of the Biblical accounts are no more able to prove their side than the evolutionist. I think there are a lot more facts and a closer chance of proving evolution than and truth in the Biblical Story. One obvious thing to point out is that the Biblical account is a story. There are two versions of it in Genesis and almost all other religions also have creation stories. So if we were going to believe one of these farfetched stories to be truth, how the hell would anyone choose one since none are based on fact! Evolution is soley based on the scientific evidence- therefore, verifiable truth. They would come much more able to prove their side if more people were only educated! For example, the Bible states the sun was made after plant life and the atmosphere was made before plant life. This contradicts evolution. Plants are said to have evolved in the presence of sunlight and plants are sited to have helped create our atmosphere. The Bible states sea life came after land life. Again, a contradiction. The Bible does not state that light was made after plant life. Light and Darkness are the first things created, though I can see the confusion because God then talks about making more other lights...so who knows. Therefore, not a contradiction to evolution or even something to be used since it is contradictory. The Bible does not state sea life came after land life, it actually states the opposite, at least in the first creation story. The second story, in chapter 2, is much harder to follow. Of course, the mere fact that there are two that are different makes one wonder. In any case, the Bible contradicts evolution or vice-versa by the mere fact that it all happened in 6 days. Some "progressive Christians" might say that God did it via evolution, but then they are not Christians but rather Deists. The Christian account of creation will never be reconcilable with evolution, and we really should try to make the two compatible because one is a story and one is in the realm of verifiable evidence and testing. It's like Santa and Photosynthesis. Concerning their ideas of the creation of the earth... maybe they weren't that far off in their guesses, considering the circumstances and limitations of their times. Yes, yes. Just that- a guess. My point exactly. Two good books on this topic: Science and Religion edited by Paul Kurtz Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom by Sean B. Carroll Oh and anything by Richard Dawkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 FYI- he isn't a christian, he is a deist, so he isn't a Creationist in the Biblical sense. At first I really wasn't even sure what he believed, I thought he believed God made some life forms and then the rest evolved since he seemed to concede that some evolution occurs. But it turns out that he is a bit more interesting than the typical micro but not macro Creationist. He believes that all "evolutionary" changes are actually already in the genes just waiting to be activated. He says that most (if not all) of the "junk DNA" is actually just other genes that can be activated by the enviroment. He said that geneticits had found that some junk DNA does have a use, but he never gave a specific example, so I'm not really sure what he is talking about. What is his evidence? Well, he doesn't really have any (unless he does come up with an example, but even then he doesn't have anything). He relies on an appeal to complexity and a supposed lack of evidence for evolution. So in that respect it is the same ol' crap: evolution hasn't been proven therefore I am correct. Ok, that is overstating his position, but you get the point. YAM- thanks for giving a couple of titles, they sound interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Well, I wonder if Gaunilon (our world flood debator) would take on the argument pro evolution, since no one can prove that evolution did not happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgnosticBob AtheistPants Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Modern geological theories in some areas fail to explain polystrate fossils such as a tree buried within several thousands of years of layers. It would of course have decomposed well before the layers were laid down. The conditions necessary for a fossil to even be produced should be considered. Rapid burial of an organism while still alive or very shortly after death in a preserving medium is necessary. These conditions are rare apart from areas of mudslides, volcanic eruptions, or flooding. An expired organism decomposes very rapidly and the argument for a chronological record of biological history is incongruous. The fossil record resembles more of a “snapshot” that it does a story. Misconception regarding polystrate fossils. I argued with "evolutionists" about this when I believed in creation, but no one ever gave me a satisfactory answer. You seem to know your shit when it comes to this type of thing Asimov. Can you set me straight on what the hell these polystrate fossils are if they aren't what creationists believe? Scitso: At first I really wasn't even sure what he believed I knew he was a creationist with the use of the word "evolutionist" in his post. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" other than in the creationist camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wertbag Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 all fossils that display apparent favor to evolution wouldn’t even fill a compact truck Another way to look at it is that evolution has a truck load of evidence while religion has squat! Always good to look these quotes from both sides, its fine for the Christians to attack the evidence being supplied in support of evolution, but wheres the evidence in return? Most seem to go with the idea that a lack of counter evidence automatically means their theory wins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 You said it Wertbag. Evolution have at least a certain amount of evidence, support, and mathematical proof and even some experiements to back up the claims, while creationism have ... nothing. So a bunch load of facts vs a bunch load of crap. Oh dear! What can be right, I'm sooo confused!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts