Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Perry5]

was provided in the article but it should make thinking people think.

Iff you realy are interested,see iff you can find an Associated press link.

[perth]

Originally posted by Perry5
was provided in the article but it should make thinking people think.

Not really. Watch this:

May 21, 2004

By:Mike Hawksred.Associated Press,science writer.

Igniting a scientific furor, scientists say that they have found irrefutable proof of God's existence.

See how I've provided no credible proof of the above statement, making it absoutely worthless in this or any other context? You can't make a statement or provide a quote like this without backing it up and expect to be taken seriously.

[Perry5]

Means nothing more than change,if you do not look the same today as you did the day that you were born then you have evolved to what ever it is that you see when you look into your miror.

[MrKite]

Evolution is just the change in alleles over time, and that is quite factual work. Why must everyone decide to altercate about such impossible subjects. Too many people will believe what they state no matter how much irrefutable evidence the other side uses. So everyone is a winner.

[Perry5]

A mind altering substance for mindles people.

[MrKite]

Originally posted by Perry5
A mind altering substance for mindles people.

It is good that you stick a Pot thread in the middle of an evolutionary science vs. Creationism thread, because that makes perfect sense. But hey-maybe you are high. I guess that alochol and tobacco would be mind altering substances for mindless people because there is not much of a difference-by your logic.

[perth]

Does tobacco count as mind-altering? I have never really thought of it as such. And Kite, don't try using logic with him, it won't work. Call him names instead.

[MrKite]

I should have said nicotine because that is what I meant. Since it is addictive it is mind altering. Also it changes your blood pressure and heart rate. It does move through your bloodstream to your brain, so I would considier it psychoactive and therefore mind-altering.

[Troubleshooter]

Central and south american natives use nicotine as a mind altering drug because their tobacco has almost twenty times the nicotine.

Imagine one whole cigarette in each drag...

[DanaC]

Central and south american natives use nicotine as a mind altering drug because their tobacco has almost twenty times the nicotine.
Imagine one whole cigarette in each drag...

*sobs quietly and rolls a joint with no tobacco in it*

[wolf]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Imagine one whole cigarette in each drag...

Cool.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Yelof

Ok the creationists TRY a come back and we get the first signs that this discussion is inevitably going nowhere.

Macro evolution vs Micro evolution.

Micro evolution is normally defined as the shift due to selective pressure of a gene or group of genes in a population of living organisms.

Macro evolution is normally defined as the formation of new species or taxinomic groups due to selective pressure.

As I explained earlier and as a few of us have been at pains to point out evolutionary theory doesn't gives us much clue on how the whole thing got started, however creationists keep banging on the point claiming it a weak point to the theory it is not a part of.

This is of what I speak:

Evolution
Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today. Chapter 9 on ‘Design’ shows how encyclopedic this information is.

So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always completely accurate—errors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This ‘differential reproduction’ is called natural selection. In summary, evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection—the neo-Darwinian theory.

Would this, in and of itself, be a correct assertion?

[OnyxCougar]

The idea that God used evolution as an engine of creation (progressive creationsim) doesn't work, for the following reasons:

Evolution teaches that the sun came before the earth.
The bible teaches the earth came before the sun.

Evolution teaches that death, disease, and natural selection preceded mankind.
The bible teaches that the reason there is sin and death is because of Adam's rebellion against God. Also, if there was death and disease, God wouldn't think "it was good."

Progressive Creationism teaches that when the bible says "day" it could mean "millions of years".
In the bible, the Hebrew word for day, yôm, as it is used, can only mean a single, 24 hour period. In addition, when God says to keep the Sabbath Day, does he mean the Sabbath "millions of years"? It's the same contextual word in the Hebrew.

Before we had people telling us what the book meant (and we just read the book for ourselves), a day meant a day. Then Darwin showed up and suddenly, "day" meant millions of years. That is compromising your position.

And for those who say, "Yeah, but what about Second Peter, where it says a day is as a thousand years?" Please see this reply.

Evolution teaches that information is ADDED to the genes as generations progressed.
The bible says it was created whole, through God's word. In addition, the mutation, or speciations we OBSERVE have a LOSS of information, the opposite of what the Evolutionists say is required to go from amoebas to man.


So "Progressive Creationism" doesn't, IMO, make sense. I can see being an evolutionist, I can see being a creationist, but it's a one side or the other deal.

[OnyxCougar]

Also, submitted to those who advance the story of Jesus is copycatted from other religions:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

For your perusal

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The idea that God used evolution as an engine of creation (progressive creationsim) doesn't work, for the following reasons:
(various literalist issues)

That's only true for literalists, who do not comprise all Christians. There are any number of complicated natural processes that are not fully described in the Bible, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Evolution teaches that information is ADDED to the genes as generations progressed.
The bible says it was created whole, through God's word. In addition, the mutation, or speciations we OBSERVE have a LOSS of information, the opposite of what the Evolutionists say is required to go from amoebas to man.

What we see in mutations is a change in information. Things one could term "losses" are more likely because things one could term "gains" are less likely to be advantageous. But loss and gain of information is an imprecise terminology anyway.