Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Most evolutionists believe the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Some speculate that the earliest bacterium might have been able to survive with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA (unlike current bacterium cells which have about 128 million base pairs). Likewise, in the very first bacterium, there was a minimum limit to the number of amino acids for protein production. The accepted number is 10,000 amino acids with at least 100 functional protein chains - each holding a few hundred amino acids. These numbers matter because of chirality.

---

Seriously, Red, you know why this is fallicious. I know you know why this is fallicious because I have told you at least twice now. Anyway, that's a complete misrepresentation of current thinking about abiogenesis hypotheses. Via wiki:

Quote:

---

In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes. [emphasis added]

---

That was seventy years ago. Modern thinking is more sophisticated. You're attacking an abiogenetic hypothesis that has not been accepted since the 1860's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I await your response.

---

Easy, you're wrong.

As Cuppajoe pointed out, you're so wrong that it's quite laughable.

Will you please make some attempt to actually look at some real evidence, please.

Noted the complete lack of evidence to back creationism and another failed attempt to discredit evolution using false data.

Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Seriously, Red, you know why this is fallicious. I know you know why this is fallicious because I have told you at least twice now. Anyway, that's a complete misrepresentation of current thinking about abiogenesis hypotheses.

---

I prefer you not tell me what I know, sir.

Help me understand this, please: for Oparin to be right, we must assume an oxygen-less atmosphere. Is that current scientific belief? From what I read, such a supposition is incorrect. Second, from what I've read, oxygen creates problems present or not: 1) if not present, Mr. Oparin gets to make his hypothesis - but that also creates a problem in that oxygen (in the form of ozone) provides a critical protective barrier against ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Molecular biologist Michael Denton: "What we have is a sort of Catch-22 situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don't, we have none either."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

That was seventy years ago. Modern thinking is more sophisticated. You're attacking an abiogenetic hypothesis that has not been accepted since the 1860's.

---

Maybe so. But your understanding and conceptions of God and Christianity (by my reckoning) are equally general, outdated and full of misconceptions. We're both on pretty equal footing when talking about the side of the fence we're not on. So I'm okay with your criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Noted the complete lack of evidence to back creationism and another failed attempt to discredit evolution using false data.
Next.

---

Anybody who's spent even a little time looking at my posts should note that I'm not trying to prove or provide evidence for creation in the least - surely you've noticed that, sir?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3kixintehead

True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. And the evidence says that evolution is how we got to be where we are now. No one really knows how life began. So becuase of this you can decide that evolution is a creation of God "theistic evolution" or you can assume that evolution did it all and their is no God "naturalism".

---

I haven't dropped by in a long time, for a very good reason, as I have said before, beating the dead horse won't make it get up and walk. But I find this statement here very credible, I hope Kix doesn't mind my adding italics to one line. This is what I have always said, however we began, we obviously evolved since, or the human race would all have one skin color, one type of features, and forensic anthropology would never solve a single crime.

“What did the suspect look like? Any identifying features?”

“Gee, guv, ‘ave you looked in th’ bloody mirror lately? We all got the same mug, loike!”

Some animals have made little change because they haven’t yet had the need to change. Others are still changing, adapting to new environments. At the North Carolina Zoological Park they have bio-domes constructed to represent conditions of jungle and desert. But guess what? Last time I was down there, a full grown banana plant was growing fine—outside the bio-dome on American sandy soil. Even had bananas. Adapted rather well, and rather quickly…

“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools…” Romans 1:22

The Bible can tell you more than you think…

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1.../Angelstar.gif

Ok, I am getting increasingly bored with the same argument over and over again. This thread is going nowhere, I have noticed a trend in this thread where every 4months or so someone new joins the discussion and we are subjected to the same questions and the same answers.

I think there is plenty of evidence & reasoning pointing to the theory of evolution throughout this thread, questions anyone has regarding the theory can be found somewhere in its dark recesses. What is missing however is any argument for the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, with the exception of the statistics say that wont work (something which in NO way suggests the alternative is any more likely).

So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Ok, I am getting increasingly bored with the same argument over and over again. This thread is going nowhere, I have noticed a trend in this thread where every 4months or so someone new joins the discussion and we are subjected to the same questions and the same answers.

I think there is plenty of evidence & reasoning pointing to the theory of evolution throughout this thread, questions anyone has regarding the theory can be found somewhere in its dark recesses. What is missing however is any argument for the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, with the exception of the statistics say that wont work (something which in NO way suggests the alternative is any more likely).

So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.

---

Did you really expect that a conversation on this topic could be endlessly renewed? I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I'm trying to be practical. Your suggestion, though it sounds new, really isn't; there have been attempts to bring out intelligent design arguments here - which each time have been dismissed by the evolutionists as "irrelevant" or "outdated" or "already been disproven" or called "lies" and "distortions." The problem is that this discussion boils down to two different philosophic views - each is (essentially) contradictory and irreconcilable. I get that. That's why I don't spend a lot of time posting ID theories and "evidence" - to one with a presupposition of Naturalism, there is no ID argument that will be accepted as tenable because the foundational belief of the Naturalist already rules out ID because of its very suggestion of something beyond humanity (and by implication, beyond empirical testing and verification) guiding the creation of life. Any argument put forth by ID proponents here will more than likely be dismissed with the same dogmatic stubbornness that the creationist will dismiss evolutionary "evidence." The evidence doesn't matter - the presuppositonal base does, because it decides how the evidence will be interpreted.

That's why I have not been arguing for the believability of creationism; I have simply tried to point out the presuppositons beneath the evolutionists' question-begging assertions that evolution-as-fact is a done deal. It isn't. I imagine that I'll get bored and post elsewhere for a while eventually - because the reality is that the arguments won't change: only the posters will. Nobody will be argued into "switching sides" because of "evidence" or "argument." That would require a radical shift in world-view - something that often occurs despite the evidence, despite the logic, despite the reasoned arguments we come across.

Sorry - I wan't helpful in providing you with what you asked for. I'm not the least surprised by the circularity of this thread - why should it be any different if the two philosophical foundations don't change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

its not just you. the deck is being stacked.

no need for further scientific inquiry in the creationist's eyes. anything science can come up with is irrelevant because its founded by man and not directly revealed by god him/her self.

---

Bingo. This is the reason why this topic goes around in circles.

Well. I think the Creation Theory is the only logical one out there. It just doesn't seem possible for there to be a big bang in the universe out of nothing, and then to have planets just some how appear, and then for there to just happen to be the right stuff come together, no matter how great the odds against it happening were, and form life. Not only that, but how we came from the simple single cell life forms that are suggested to the people we are today. it's just not adding up to me. And if evolution is the way to go, and we did come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys today? wouldn't they all grow up to be people, or just not exist anymore because they have evolved into humans so they are no longer the dominate species. I have full faith and believe that each and everyone of us was created but God.

I'm not expecting renewal, I'm not expecting anyone to change their minds.

I am however interested in learning, exposing myself to new ideas, and gaining a better understanding of why people hold the beliefs that they do. This thread is going nowhere though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Ok, I am getting increasingly bored with the same argument over and over again. This thread is going nowhere, I have noticed a trend in this thread where every 4months or so someone new joins the discussion and we are subjected to the same questions and the same answers.

I think there is plenty of evidence & reasoning pointing to the theory of evolution throughout this thread, questions anyone has regarding the theory can be found somewhere in its dark recesses. What is missing however is any argument for the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, with the exception of the statistics say that wont work (something which in NO way suggests the alternative is any more likely).

So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.

---

Hi Kilted:

You may be old enough to remember this, I confess, that in spite of all the birthday sonnets I write, I can't keep up with how old who is on this forum! Gerardo had a seemingly brilliant idea one time: Racial trouble being sadly fact, as much as either side would like to say no, he decided to have a live show and bring together White Supremacists and Black Panthers on the same stage. That caused one of the worst knock-down drag-out fights in the history of live television, and Gerardo received a broken nose so badly broken he had to wear a mask that made him resemble Bozo the Clown for quite some time. People here are never going to agree on this issue. I take the middle road and get kicked from both sides, the Creationists because I believe evolution has taken place, and the Evolutionist because I won't accept chance as the starting point. There is no win/win solution. God bless.

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

People here are never going to agree on this issue. I take the middle road and get kicked from both sides, the Creationists because I believe evolution has taken place, and the Evolutionist because I won't accept chance as the starting point. There is no win/win solution. God bless.

Pen

---

Hi Pen - I hope you don't think I've ever "kicked" you. I have less a problem with evolution (in terms of adaptation) than with the idea that this happened without the controlling/initiating guidance of God. I disagree (obviously) about evolution's role in our history, but I have great respect for your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Help me understand this, please: for Oparin to be right, we must assume an oxygen-less atmosphere. Is that current scientific belief? From what I read, such a supposition is incorrect. Second, from what I've read, oxygen creates problems present or not: 1) if not present, Mr. Oparin gets to make his hypothesis - but that also creates a problem in that oxygen (in the form of ozone) provides a critical protective barrier against ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Molecular biologist Michael Denton: "What we have is a sort of Catch-22 situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don't, we have none either."

---

He's not a very good molecular biologist. Organic compounds contain carbon and hydrogen.

I am, in any case, uninterested in defending a hopelessly out-of-date hypothesis. Your assertion that most evolutionists believe that the first form of life was a bacterium is a century and a half out of date, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in any case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Maybe so. But your understanding and conceptions of God and Christianity (by my reckoning) are equally general, outdated and full of misconceptions. We're both on pretty equal footing when talking about the side of the fence we're not on.

---

Entirely irrelivant, even if it is true.

Organic compounds, however, rely on oxygen in the form of O2 or CO2. A few bacteria may rely on other chemicals, but they could never advance beyond their being bacteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

Organic compounds, however, rely on oxygen in the form of O2 or CO2.

---

No. Via wiki:

Quote:

---

An organic compound is any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon and hydrogen; therefore, carbides, carbonates, carbon oxides and elementary carbon are not organic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

A few bacteria may rely on other chemicals, but they could never advance beyond their being bacteria.

---

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

He's not a very good molecular biologist. Organic compounds contain carbon and hydrogen.

---

Michael Denton is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

I'm sure he'd be devastated by your deft dismissal of his ability.

I think his statement has nothing to do with what organic compounds contain but with how the presence or abscence of oxygen negatively effects the development of said DNA/RNA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I am, in any case, uninterested in defending a hopelessly out-of-date hypothesis. Your assertion that most evolutionists believe that the first form of life was a bacterium is a century and a half out of date, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in any case.

---

And what exactly, is the new hypothesis (good ol' stable science and its certainty in action again I see) as to the first "life form" and how does this revision change what I've presented?

How can you say this has nothing to do with evolution (or are you still hair-splitting about abiogenesis and such? Sorry - when I refer to evolution, I am referring primarily to abiogenesis and all that follows it)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Entirely irrelivant, even if it is true.

---

Relevant to me in terms of emphasizing the evenness of the playing field; though you don't really indulge in the "you are ignorant of science" stuff thrown at Christians on this thread, I feel it important to remind the so-called experts here that the entity they argue against (God) is one that they only barely understand - just as I'm told my arguments are "out of date" "irrelevant" "illogical" or whatever, I merely point out that many statements made about the nature and character of God reveal a similar lack of knowledge. I just like to keep things in perspective and fair, that's all.