Religion Creation vs. Darwin's MacroEvolution Myth

[RupieDupie]

What happened to Procrastinator? He seemed like an alright chap...

 

[cannot]

What happened to Procrastinator? He seemed like an alright chap...

 

[Roylion]

Roylion , I don't think the creationist supporters read you postings at all or they just have a cursory look, even for me as a laymen with zero formal educational qualifications your posts are easy to understand and quite concise considering their length.

I can only conclude that either:

1) they do simply do not understand the nature of evolutionary theory. In not having a clear idea about what evolution is, they mistakenly include ideas which do not belong. This failure to understand the topic sheds some interesting light on their attempts to critique it. Not that they critique it well anyway.

OR

2) is that they do understand evolution and are being consciously and deliberately dishonest. Perhaps they imagine that by confusing people as to the true nature of evolution, they'll be able to gain more support for their position / agenda which is more in accordance with the will of God / Christian doctrines or whatever other belief system they hold.

AND/OR

3) they're just trolling for the sake of it. Very possible.

 

[kwikfix]

What happened to Procrastinator? He seemed like an alright chap...

I rarely agree with him but I haven't seen anything that he posts that warrants a red card, the mods are out of control.

 

[Lethality]

Creationists could well be right. And if God did contribute to the universe, then he can defy science, so 'proof' means nothing.

 

[M Malice]

I rarely agree with him but I haven't seen anything that he posts that warrants a red card, the mods are out of control.

Yep, I enjoy reading most of P35s posts and can't recall him posting anything that would be considered suspension worthy, after all this is a forum for lively discussion and alternate views. He'll be back hopefully.

 

[Roylion]

Creationists could well be right.

And upon what basis should we suppose that 'Creationists' are 'right'? What evidence do we have to support that supposition? Is it strong, robust evidence? Is that evidence stronger and more robust that the evidence for the proposed alternatives?

If believe is by 'faith' alone then anything goes. Why in that case shouldn't the 'creator' of the Universe be as follows?

 

[Lethality]

And upon what basis should we suppose that 'Creationists' are 'right'? What evidence do we have to support that supposition? Is it strong, robust evidence? Is that evidence stronger and more robust that the evidence for the proposed alternatives?

If believe is by 'faith' alone then anything goes. Why in that case shouldn't the 'creator' of the Universe be as follows?

Well the fsm is created as a joke. People genuinely believe in yahweh or Allah

 

[Roylion]

Well the fsm is created as a joke. People genuinely believe in yahweh or Allah

How is belief in the FSM as opposed to Allah/Yahweh (who are the same god) different? If someone genuinely believed in the FSM, are they possibly right?

 

[Bennett.]

I rarely agree with him but I haven't seen anything that he posts that warrants a red card, the mods are out of control.

You don't seriously believe people get carded because of objective reasons do you?

 

[Crankyhawk]

That might be so, but they are separate issues.

The very title of this thread is "Creation vs. Darwin's MacroEvolution Myth". As I have explained ad nauseum, there is no issue between the two. In whatever way life appeared on earth, evolution still exists. To try and pit one against the other shows a lack of understanding of what evolution actually is. And that is the point I'm making.



Evolution has never attempted to explain the "bigger question of creation ex nihilo". "Creation vs. Macro-evolution" is a non-issue.

Maybe thread starter should rename to creation vs spontaneous life?
There are infinite universes of which we can only observe one. If the concept of an infinite number of universes over an infinite amount of time = an uncaring and uninvolved creator type well there is no real difference to me.
Concept of an involved and caring deity as postulated in so called holy books? ROFL

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yep, I enjoy reading most of P35s posts and can't recall him posting anything that would be considered suspension worthy, after all this is a forum for lively discussion and alternate views. He'll be back hopefully.

May not be related to this thread perhaps.

 

[RupieDupie]

Creationists could well be right. And if God did contribute to the universe, then he can defy science, so 'proof' means nothing.

But the Creationists have made some statements on "Science" that are in contradiction to what the Creator God created (Science). But, what is more interesting is looking at the nature of the God proposed in the Old Testament and how well this aligns with the world created for us. Hatred, jealousy, spite, punishment. At the highest echelons of society there is only the ID represented, bodily needs, wants, desires, and impulses. It is extremely difficult to argue against the existence of an omnipresent tyrant when all of humanity can be represented in simple behavioural studies of monkeys flinging shit at each other, and the only time people can see society reflected in themselves is when they catch a reflection of their self drooling in self-ecstasy.

 

[Snake_Baker]

How is belief in the FSM as opposed to Allah/Yahweh (who are the same god) different? If someone genuinely believed in the FSM, are they possibly right?

 

[Seeds]

Well the fsm is created as a joke. People genuinely believe in yahweh or Allah

And little kids believe in Santa Claus. If belief is the only argument you have for it's existence then you have no argument.

 

[NeutralZone]

With all due respect, your tone and the questions you have brought forward telegraph that you are prothelysising rather than seeking. If you truly wished to find the answers you are seeking, you could do so in a single afternoon. They have been asked and answered a million times before.

Fire:

I am "prothelysising," you assert. And what do you suppose you are doing with your "faith based," atheist religious claim, quoted below from Post 2 on Page 1 of this thread?

1. 'We don't yet know' is a credible answer. Anyone can make up an answer up to fill this gap, but scientists are exploring possibilities and theories using naturalistic methods to try and find the real one. As they always have.

2. There are several things wrong with this question. Humans are still apes. We didn't come from modern apes, rather we all share the same ancestor. But still the question is asinine. Australia came from England then how can England still exist?

3. Why would you expect the fossil record would prove abiogenisis? What would you expect to find? The fossil record and DNA prove that evolution exists, and it suggests that we all originated from a single source. But evolution itself does not even attempt to answer abiogenisis, as it does not rely on it. They may be linked, as everything in physics is, But abiogenisis is a different theory to evolution. You may as well demand someone find proof for molecular theory using Newton's second law.

By your own admission, as it concerns how evolution's supposed common ancestor came to life by itself: "We don't yet know."

By the way, adding in the word "yet" is your desperate attempt at asserting that eventually, scientists will figure out how the supposed common ancestor came to life from non-life without Jehovah.

Let me assure you that the word "yet" (as in "we don't know yet how evolution's common ancestor came to life by itself") amounts to wishful thinking on your part. Guess why? In 1859, scientist Louis Pasteur proved by experiments that organic life can only result from PRE-EXISTING life.

As for your fallacious claims that, to quote you: "humans are still apes" and "the fossil record and DNA prove that evolution exists." You are merely telling the rest of us your atheists religious beliefs. In reality, neither the fossil record nor DNA have been able to prove macroevolution. In fact, both the fossil record and DNA contradict evolution theory.

What the fossil record reveals is variations of the exact same creatures or else creatures that are not related to one another at all.

NeutralZone

 

[Snake_Baker]

You are merely telling the rest of us your atheists religious beliefs. In reality, neither the fossil record nor DNA have been able to prove macroevolution. In fact, both the fossil record and DNA contradict evolution theory.

 

[NeutralZone]

Q1 amino acids combining to reproduce themselves, leading to microscopic life. Potentially space borne.

Crankyhawk:

Where did the amino acids come from? Who created them?

There are 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. What are the chances that even one of those required 20 amino acids would come into existence without the intervention of an intelligent being--whether human or God?

Q2 apes live in areas where humans don't want to expend the effort to live (hostile jungle)

That hardly answers the question from my OP. Why are the apes still here at all, if they are the ancestors of humans? According to evolution theory, the appearance of a more sophisticated version of a creature spelled out the disappearance of its less "fit" version.

Q3 fossils incomplete due to tectonic activity, also need bones to form fossils (hence little record of invertebrates)

A convenient, but not convincing explanation for why the fossil record does not show how a single creature evolved from something entirely different.

If everything alive today resulted from evolution, the fossil evidence would be inundated with every single transitional form. Charles Darwin claimed that future scientists would find colossal amounts of evidence in the fossil record showing organisms transitioning. In fact, Darwin claimed that evidence would be found in the fossil showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. Needless to say the only thing that's been found by paleontologists is large gaps in the fossil record--indicating no relationship between various types of creatures.

 

[Roylion]

That hardly answers the question from my OP. Why are the apes still here at all, if they are the ancestors of humans?

Modern ape species are NOT the ancestors of humans. How many times does this have to be spelt out? That you keep repeating this just shows your lack of basic knowledge about evolution.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Crankyhawk:

Where did the amino acids come from? Who created them?

There are 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. What are the chances that even one of those required 20 amino acids would come into existence without the intervention of an intelligent being--whether human or God?

Pre-biotic chemistry

 

[RupieDupie]

In fact, both the fossil record and DNA contradict evolution theory.

How?

 

[NeutralZone]

i get that you're probably just a lame troll account, but the fact you think humans evolved from apes just shows how pig-ignorant you are.

Long Live HFC:

Insulting me is hardly going to change the fact that according to evolution theory, "modern" humans and apes supposedly evolved from the same ape-like ancestor.

"Modern humans, along with other great apes, evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. Early humans evolved around 7 million years ago."
http://www.planet-science.com/categories/over-11s/natural-world/2012/03/how-did-we-become-human.aspx


One nutcase, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), insisted that humans are a Great Ape.

"When humans split from the apes
Still, Huxley's work made it starkly clear that humans were a Great Ape, closer to our African kin than our East Asian ape cousins, the orangutan."
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-humans-apes.html

Again I ask, why is the ape still around, considering the fact that humans are the more sophisticated of the Great Ape?

Inquiring minds want to know.


NeutralZone

 

[Roylion]

hardly going to change the fact that according to evolution theory, "modern" humans and apes supposedly evolved from the same ape-like ancestor.

Very good. Finally. Modern species of hominids (chimpanzees, orangutans, chimpanzees, gibbons and including modern humans) had a "common ancestor". That is correct.

Again I ask, why is the ape still around, considering the fact that humans are the more sophisticated of the Great Ape?

Modern apes (e.g. chimpanzees, orangutans, chimpanzees, gibbons, humans) are all modern descendants of a common, distant "ape-like" ancestor. That "ape-like" ancestor was a member of the modern species of chimpanzees, orangutans, chimpanzees, gibbons or humans.

All modern species of hominids (including humans) are different species. Distant cousins. A good example of speciation / macroevolution in action.

 

[NeutralZone]

In fact, both the fossil record and DNA contradict evolution theory.

How?

RupieDupie:

The fossil record contradicts macroevolution theory because it shows nothing but gaps.

Let me give you an example. The fossils of Creature D would be claimed by an evolutionist to have evolved from Creature A (an earlier version of Creature D) simply because the two fossils show a few similarities. But there are no transitional fossils showing how the change from Creature A to Creature D occurred. That is, there are no fossils of Creature B and Creature C (which are the transitions from A to D).

Below are samples of admissions by paleontologists who searched in vain for connections between fossils of one creature and its supposedly evolved version.

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

"Despite the bright promise - that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

Notice that George Neville, in 1960, made it clear that the fossil record had become "almost unmanageably rich." In other words, the problem was not a lack of fossils. Instead, there was a lack of connection between the fossils. Neville said the record "continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Twenty years later, in 1980, Stephen Gould confirmed Neville's findings. He admitted there were no transitions between major groups of creatures. And guess what, nothing has changed, and we are now in 2017.


NeutralZone

 

[cannot]

I rarely agree with him but I haven't seen anything that he posts that warrants a red card, the mods are out of control.

p35 goes around dropping truth bombs and then it gets a bit too much and bang