Creationism and Evolution Debate

posted on September 26th, 2010, 6:56 pm

He did have some evidence(Boggs), but for for micro-evolution, not the one being debated about.  And he concluded his evidence with "Evolution is not something you can say does not exist."

BOOM! I am saying it both does, and doesn't.  What now?   the one you describe does and its called microevolution, but Macro, the one we were discussing, I say, does not.

posted on September 26th, 2010, 6:57 pm

there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Have fun

posted on September 26th, 2010, 7:00 pm

come on guys, this discussion won't lead to anything because: "Der Glaube ist nur rein wenn er nicht hinterfragt wird."

science asks questions, religion gives answers, but they will never match each other

posted on September 26th, 2010, 7:01 pm

this will be at least the third time I agree.  These debates go nowhere...

posted on September 26th, 2010, 7:03 pm

this will be at least the third time I agree.  These debates go nowhere...

yet you still feed the troll

posted on September 26th, 2010, 7:19 pm

Then it's time to lock this thread.

posted on September 26th, 2010, 7:20 pm

this thread should have been locked long ago.

posted on September 26th, 2010, 7:22 pm

Relax, in six days I'm sure it'll be dead, and then on the seventh we can rest 

I think what we've seen a lot in these threads is the "dopeler effect". Look it up if you don't understand. And yes, it's spelled that way

posted on September 26th, 2010, 7:22 pm

yet you still feed the troll

Well would you rather I let it starve?  What do you take me for Myles, some kind of Evil ensign-space-cowboy?

posted on September 26th, 2010, 8:16 pm

Don't worry... let it rest in peace. (Won't close it)

posted on September 26th, 2010, 8:27 pm

TCR - Wow, i asked for your beliefs and I got them!

I don't even know where to begin, you are a true creationist fundamentalist!  Either that or you are the best Poe i've ever come across (See: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law if you haven't heard of the term.  The origin of the word will amuse you if nothing else).

The Earth was 10% smaller than today?  In 6000 years the earth has gained 5.9742 × 10[sup]23[/sup] Kilograms?  Hellfire, the Earth really needs to join weightwatchers!

I'm guessing then you also believe there either was a landbridge between australia and asia less than 4300 years ago (AiG gives 2304 as the date for the flood) so the Kangaroos and Koala's could get home after the flood OR that you believe continental drift happened much faster for some time after the flood so australia was joined to asia.

And T-Rex was a herbivore?  You are killing me.  Have you seen the teeth on those monsters?

I must say, I really can't continue.  I've been down this road too many times on forums more suitable for these types of discussions.  If you actually believe this stuff you are completely too far through the looking glass.  I'm going to hate myself for this but I'm going to let you win this debate by defaulting.  Enjoy your victory.

@Adm. Zaxxon - yeah, the whole macro vs micro evolution.  Yeah, i know of that one.  What the creationists call microevolution is a bit hard for the creationists to deny... its a bit too much in-your-face to deny.  So they like to separate it out and deny the bigger picture.  Believe what you will about this.

As for the age of the Earth.  As i recall it hasn't changed much over recent years.  Roughly 4500 billion years, give or take a day or two.

[Boggz]

posted on September 26th, 2010, 8:39 pm

Last edited by Boggz on September 26th, 2010, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Evolution is evolution.  There is no micro or macro as Dom pointed out.

  TCR:  you need to separate the observable phenomenon of evolution from the question of "did we get here?".  Those two are not the same thing.


   Evolution provides the clues to "how".

   Religion provides the answers to "why".



  You said yourself they should not be mixed, yet you continually mix them up yourself when it seems useful. 

Evolution is not just something mutating over time and changing it's DNA in order to survive.  That's the 1st-grade understanding of it.  Evolution is a process by which, over time, only the organisms that possess an instinct or trait (blue eyes vs. brown eyes maybe) that helps them reproduce.


   Since you are so dead set on "evidence" and such, I suggest you read the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.  If you need a link to Amazon.com it's right  HERE.

  It's a remarkable book that takes a very objective view of how human societies develop over time based on evolutionary and cultural as well as geographical locations.  It might help you understand the basics of evolution as a process a bit better .


   That is, of course ... unless you're not really interested in learning more ...



EDIT:  Oh, Loki.  The observable edge of the Universe (which yes, they have seen through the use of various forms of light detection) is 14 billion light years away.  Since a light year is how far light travels over the course of one Earth Year, that suggests that the observable Universe had matter in it only around 14 billion years ago.  Anything beyond that has no observable record right now.

As for the age of the Earth.  As i recall it hasn't changed much over recent years.  Roughly 4500 billion years, give or take a day or two.

  Earth itself is generally regarded to have an estimated age of about 4.5 billion years.  Of course there's no way to be SURE SURE, but it's not a hard guess given our sun has an estimated 10 billion year life span.

posted on September 26th, 2010, 9:41 pm

I said the Earth grew in size, not mass.  Actually, the mass stayed the same.  And I thought I made that clear.  Keeping the mass the same, the reduced size would have increased the density of the planet.  The increased density would have led to increased gravity.  But there would have been no change in the mass of the Earth.

I'd have to see a map of the depth of the waters before I say yes or no, but I'm pretty sure it's no.  A hundred or so after the flood, Earth undergoes a huge geologic change and the plates rushed apart from each other at much faster rate.  Also, this geologic change is responsible for volcanoes.

It's not that far fetched to have a carnivore eat plants.  In fact, it's quite common.  Besides, if it did eat meat, then it was most likely just scavenging around.

And like all of this Design is not too much to deny!  The difference is that one is real, the other is not.  You can get variations within a species, but you cannot get a whole nother species by random chance.  The Design of everything in this universe is just too obvious to just set aside.  Everything from a single-celled organism to the location of the stars and galaxies in the universe has a very obvious design to it.

---

You still don't get it.  There is nothing in the fossil record to support one species turning into another.  In fact, not one of these "missing-links" have been found.  The fossils in the record are far out-of-place from what it would take to support it.  Darwin admitted that the fossil record to debunk his theory.  And it not only debunked it, it debunked it so bad it's like a rubber boat vs an atomic bomb.

DNA is a very specific set of instructions.  And whenever you have a mutation, you always have a loss of information.  Never a gain of information.  That has been scientifically proven.  DNA never has a gain of information.  The "brown eyes vs blue eyes" argument does not prove evolution.  Instead, it just shows variations within the species, but the species is preserved.  Not changed into a different species.

Actually, you don't want me to get that book.  But I will when I get the funds.  If I find ANYTHING that supports Creation (which I will), I'll catch it like a trap!  Actually, my favorite part is when I can debunk evolution using their own research.

I wouldn't be so sure about the sun being so old.  The sun is shrinking at a measurable rate.  Reverse that rate, and in that 4.6 billion years, Earth would have been deep beneath the sun's surface.

I've seen how they assign dates.  They point to a layer and say "this layer is 60,000 years old!" or "this layer is 20,000,000 years old!"  They didn't even take the time to bring any dating equipment.  If they did, they would have let us get clear readings of what the equipment said.  They just expect us to believe that it's that old because they say so.

posted on September 26th, 2010, 10:03 pm

See but all this that you're saying is just speculation ... there are no even remotely sensible rationales behind anything you're saying, "evidence" or not.  You can tell me that a piece of cat poop is actually pumpkin pie, but when I taste it, it's still going to taste like cat poo. 

 
  I mean ... it's actually hard for me to even conceive such a dismissal of such common and validated understandings about our world.  It's like you're drawing lines on a Connect-the-Dot picture into whatever you'd like the picture to be.

  It's like you're taking this picture and use the dots to draw a Pterodactyl ....

[align=center][/align]

posted on September 26th, 2010, 10:11 pm

I wouldn't be so sure about the sun being so old.  The sun is shrinking at a measurable rate.  Reverse that rate, and in that 4.6 billion years, Earth would have been deep beneath the sun's surface.

Let's extend this 'static rate' idea.

At age 12, I grew 1 foot to 5'2".  At age 13, I grew one foot to 6'2".  Therefore, obviously, those who only knew me for those two years must be certain that I am now...24' tall.  After all, nothing in nature changes rates or acts in any manner other than laboratory control conditions.