Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism

Eh heh.. sorry about that. I was responding to 2 people that time (please no one make it three). You can break it down like this:

The first half is a response to Mage, and the second half is a response to Mike. You'll be able to see me say "In response to Mike414". Some things are repeated in the second reply. You can further break it down by looking at my quotes. When I quote someone that's what the next couple of paragraphs are going to be about.. most of the time.

Ignore the imposter TSL.

Ahh.. I thought he was acting a little.. strange.

First off excuse me if I cut this a bit short. Rather then argue point for point in depth I will just make a few points here. It's been a long day and it's almost midnight and the day still isn't over for me.

If I did try to get in depth here I feel I will just end up arguing around i circles and waste my time anyway.

"Change among kinds of animals to help them survive, adaptation and natural selection"

"the speculation that all life descended from single-celled organisms

Both sides have the same evidence but they both interpret it differently through their assumptions.

Evidence cannot point to anything, support anything, or say anything.

[quote]Oh well if it's contrary to the Bible it must be wrong.

In nature do not the stronger animals take advantage of the weaker ones and do what they please? Why should we care for weaker, deformed humans? Doesn't that just make us weaker? I'll leave that to you and Mike to discuss.

My argument is that evolution does indirectly have to account for things like the origin of life and the universe, as long as it's tied to Big Bang astronomy and ages. The theory of evolution obviously has little or nothing to do with the origin of life, only how it evolved from there, but indirectly the evolutionist must still give explanation for life and the universe. They're also indirectly linked by the assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism.

For one, evolutionist study genetic change of a population of organisms and species from one generation to the next.
You're mixing the study of the origins of the universe (Physical Cosmology) with Evolutionary Biology. There are actually a few Evolutionary Biologist who don't believe in the "Big Bang Theory"
In addition, your sediment that the same doesn't apply to "God" because, as you believe, he exists outside of time and space, is the same introduction that Physical Cosmologist use for The Big Bang Theory.

Unfortunately, sometimes Christians and the Church do reevaluate the Bible and reinterpret it according to the latest secular 'discoveries' and theories.

I'm sorry seems my last two face palms didn't seem to want to work.

That's okay, one was enough to point out the bad logic :-)

The only reason why tBB is so controversial is because people who came up with it literally grasped at straws thinking one up. It does not mean that Evolutionism is not real, it's far from that, as MageWolf just said. The only evidence backing that up is that the universe does in fact stretch farther and farther away by the years, however insignificantly small it was. We move like, a couple hundred miles a year, big whoop, not that big a deal. But, the guy concluded, with math, that the universe used to be really, REALLY small. Not the small, like the area of the universe was small, I mean, the matter in the universe was really compact, and that the areas outside the matter was infinitesimally far away into nothingness. Over time, the matter has just filled in those gaps.

Now then, enough of this small rambling, for another post, I will ramble on more, about the origin of life, and how living things did in fact come from non-living things, with proof.

lol @ 'Evolutionism'


Sorry but it's 'Evolution or Creationism' Evolution is not a religion, therefore doesn't have an 'ism' at the end.

/nitpick

Any type of ideology has -ism.

Any type of ideology has -ism.

Course it is. We believe in Evolution. Case closed :-)

[get ready to learn and be offended]



Well, for most people, we as humans are like paintings, where they are created by a painter, a designer. The only difference is that the painting has chemicals which can't replicate themselves. However, the human body does, AKA DNA. Even if God DID create DNA, he doesn't need to intervene every time an animal mates with another, the DNA does the job of creating the offspring on its own. So what's the question of the...er, night? How did DNA appear is the correct choice. How did living matter get created from non-living matter?

Here, Creationists need to drop the common argument that many seem to use all the time in order to bash the opposite side of the table with the statement which was based totally off ignorance of other Creationists, which was this:

All you monkey believers think that life popped out of nowhere and out of nothingness!

Of course, that's NOT the correct way in which we think. Life popping out of nowhere is no better than popping out of the hand of a deity. So what DO top Evolutionists believe? Why don't I take this step by step for you:

1. Best way to start is looking at ancient earth 4.7 billion years ago. Many different compounds were around back then, such as hydrogen cyanide and methane gas. DNA is made from only 4 different types of Nucleotides, so where did that come from? How in the world did they come to be in this universe?

Here's this: In 1964 a brilliant researcher called Wan Oro put methane and the cyanide to boil in a solution under the perfect conditions that were in ancient earth back then. Afterwards, the solution produced adenine, one of the four types of nucleotide bases. To make a full nucleotide, it needs to gain a sugar called Ribose and a group of phosphates. How in the world did the ribose and phosphate group get formed and get attached to that nucleotide?

2. From the nucleotide to the polynucleotide

Well, once the nucleotide was formed, they needed to form together in chains called polynucleotides. In the 1980s, researchers found that a clay, called "montmorillonite", a very abundant resource in ancient earth, was a perfect catalyst for this process of "chaining".

3. Now we are going to make RNA!

Some of these copies of the polynucleotides with ribose inside, or RNA (ribonucleic acid) are able to make copies of themselves...huh. Of course the copies aren't as perfect, but again, some copies are more adapted than the other copies to survive in the hot, dense planet earth used to be. So these molecules that did survive would replicate and pass on their traits, while those that aren't so great at surviving would just break apart into regular compounds of methane and cyanide.

4. Making protocells! WHOO!

As RNA replicated, they shared their surroundings with other chemicals around them. Some chemicals, called "lipids" like to clump together to form circular bodies called micelles. RNA molecules that attracted the micelles found themselves protected inside them. Because they were protected, they better survived than those that weren't. From there, they replicated successfully, but with the entire protocell with them. There, you have the first primitive cellular structure.

5. Then from the span of hundreds of millions of years later, RNA grew more complex from replicating and passing on better traits. The single strand formed to create a double-strand molecule, and the more successful DNA molecule evolved. One thing however: DNA needs proteins to replicate. Proteins are made from amino acids or the building blocks of life, so how/where in the world did the amino acids get into the picture?

GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD

No...there was no need for God....

6. formation of amino acids

a number of experiments with the montmorillonite not only produced amino acids, but long chains of them that are called &quotolypeptides". It turns out that this long-difficult name clay stuff is a natural breeding ground for all these complex chemicals. So there you have it. RNA, DNA, what made it, and what made amino acids, non-living chemicals that in turn made living organisms and the process in which these chemicals came to be.

So as I build this up, I ask you this: if God did create life, when did he come in, using the same kinds of steps that I have provided for you? And if the chemical process needed to create life can happen on its own, why does he need to come in?

Before I end class tonight, I want you guys to look at some old arguments that end nowhere and show complete ignorance of people's views:

"It can't be done! simple chemicals can't form into complex chemicals without intervention!"

Are you sure? Just because a lot of people pass around this argument doesn't mean it's true. It's not true. Given time and left alone, smaller, simpler chemicals can and will polymerize into complex chemicals.

"2nd law of thermodynamics, genius. FAIL"

This sad argument? Simple chemicals polymerizing into complex chemicals conflicts with NO laws of thermodynamics. I suggest if you use this argument to freely read up on this law, because I believe you haven't and are just ignorantly repeating a myth that's already been shot down many times.


[learning time finally over]


Even though that all this can happen, there are still going to be Creationists that say "you still can't prove that this actually happened". We probably can't, but at least we don't need to use gods goddesses and realms of alternate dimensions to do so, because we already have a ton of evidence showing that it COULD'VE happened. And we don't need a book to show you.

Course it is. We believe in Evolution. Case closed :-)

In response to Mage:

The wording you use changes the context of what is being said, and kinds doesn't even make any sense.

There's no evidence supporting creationism.

Pointing to things is all evidence does. Faith and belief on the other hand can not.

Sure seemed like you were.

Not in every case no let's take for example an intestinal parasite pretty much any one will due as an example. This is a pretty weak creature but can over time take down even the biggest and strongest of animals.

I will just quote what wistress said in another thread here.

For one, evolutionist study genetic change of a population of organisms and species from one generation to the next.
You're mixing the study of the origins of the universe (Physical Cosmology) with Evolutionary Biology. There are actually a few Evolutionary Biologist who don't believe in the "Big Bang Theory"
In addition, your sediment that the same doesn't apply to "God" because, as you believe, he exists outside of time and space, is the same introduction that Physical Cosmologist use for The Big Bang Theory.

There's another good example of the differences between science and religion. Science thrives on reevaluation while religion withers.

I did indeed change theory to speculation to bring down the positive connotation a notch, however, that shouldn't invalidate the entire definition. As for using the word 'kinds', I used that word to avoid future misconceptions or poor arguments. By using the word 'kinds' I was referring to the word used in Hebrew scriptures that is much broader than species.

I don't think you grasped what I was saying. Creationism and evolutionism have the same evidence, the evidence is just interpreted differently. It's also false to say that evidence can't be interpreted successfully in a creationist worldview.

No, that is false. Evidence is an inanimate, impersonal concept. It can't do anything. We have to interpret it.

Except it isn't. The point I was making was that both are beliefs. One should not be considered religious and unscientific and the other irreligious and scientific.

Dear God! look at that wall of text! that is up there with shin's.

I won't pretend to know much about this and debate your point in ignorance. I am not very well educated in chemistry as of now. However, I would point you to an article that seems to contradict your claims. I'd just like to know what you think of it. Maybe you could point me towards Wan Oro's research, as well?

I'm sorry Mike I just realized I never got back to replying to you.

Nope. We make things that help us adapt, we don't adapt. Evolution functions through those with favorable mutations surviving longer, and passing on their genes to the next generation who also have the beneficial mutation. Basically, because that mutation allows them to live longer somehow (Obtain food easier, fight off predators) they have a higher chance of passing on their genes, and eventually it spreads throughout the rest of the species over a long period of time. Humans, on the other hand, don't live like we used too. Now, technology can keep people who are incredibly sick or somehow disabled alive, while when we were a species in the wild that wouldn't happen. These people can pass on their genes, and the problem is spread through the species. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, since everyone should have right to have kids and raise family's and have kids, but I'm saying it destroys the fundamentals of evolution for our species. We aren't evolving. Humans are not evolving. We create things to simulate evolution for us, and becoming more advanced, but on a genetic level we aren't evolving. I don't know how to put this more clearly