Creation versus Evolution
Offline Some friend of mine, who is a Christian, posted a blog on myspace with the same subject. She gave the link to a creation website that tries to prove that evolution is wrong. Here is the link and tell me what you guys think. And go easy on the link ;)
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
Oh, and there's a part the tries to prove that Noah's flood did happen. Here's a quote:
"...Before we go on, we would like to answer some questions that always seem to come up. One involves how pairs of all the animals could have been collected by one family. Remember, if God is really God, he could have caused the flood, a supernatural event, to occur. Does it not also make sense that God could cause pairs of animals to migrate to the location of the ark? Notice the phrase in Genesis chapter 6, verse 20: "two of every kind will come to you." Also, Genesis chapter 7, verse 9 states the animals "went into the ark to Noah." The answer is simple, Noah did not go and get the animals, God did..."
the difference between micro and macroevolution is not about the time it takes .... it's about the extent of change in the organism .... gene flow majorly accounts for most of microevolution ... such as a change in the dominant genes of a certain population which may cause for the creation of a new species ...
oh and this may seem just a tad off topic from the current discussion but where do you all think the first cell came from (how was it formed)? plz don't post a link or something and tell me to read it ... just answer
Okay, Like I said it would not really bother me too much if it was...
[quote]between micro and macroevolution is not about the time it takes .... it's about the extent of change in the organism [/quote]
I understand this, but macroevolution takes time. We can prove to a much higher degree microevolution (the example of the moths comes to mind... i believe that that was microevolution)
[quote]such as a change in the dominant genes of a certain population which may cause for the creation of a new species ...[/quote]
I don't know how this could be... a species that has more dominent alleals is not a new species....
A new species (from my understanding) cannot mate with another species and produce a fertile offspring... (This gets blurred in plants.... i think... ) - so a dominant recessive, while changing the phenotype of a species, would not create a new species
[quote=tey]oh and this may seem just a tad off topic from the current discussion but where do you all think the first cell came from (how was it formed)? plz don't post a link or something and tell me to read it ... just answer[/quote]
Why can't we post where we get our sources from?
Did you mean primitive cells? Read this link, otherwise if you try to debate someone about evolution, you will look like an idiot if you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
Those are just a couple.
And don't get mad about me posting links. You wanted an answer, there it is.
I have a question for you, Tey. Are you a creationist or ID'er?
If you're an Intelligent Designer, I have a question I would like for you to answer. ;)
the only reason i don't want links is i want to know that you understand what you're posting ... anyone can google this stuff and find a link ... i want to find out what u know ...
oh and btw i'm pretty sure the first cell would be considered primitive ... lol ...
You asked, where did the first cell come from? That is pretty much a question mark in science, but that does not mean you can jump to "goddidit".
(In case you're interested, [url=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html]we have created primitive forms of life in labs.[/url])
[quote=tey]oh and btw i'm pretty sure the first cell would be considered primitive ... lol ...[/quote]
You idiot, there's many kinds of "first" cells, be specific.
Anyway...
Here's my question.
Why did God design the gp120 protein of the HIV virus to match perfectly with the CD4 protein of a child's T-cells?
[quote=tey]the only reason i don't want links is i want to know that you understand what you're posting ... anyone can google this stuff and find a link ... i want to find out what u know ...[/quote]
You're not going to debate? Then get out of this thread.
[quote=tey]oh and this may seem just a tad off topic from the current discussion but where do you all think the first cell came from (how was it formed)? plz don't post a link or something and tell me to read it ... just answer[/quote]
Frankly, I think that's an unfair question. We are not Biology professors, and thus cannot be expected to be able to defend EVERY evolutionary claim. It is enough to say that a large number of scientists, and a large amount of evidence converges on the point that abiogenesis and evolution happened.
However, I'll play your little game, and offer an answer(although to be fair, I learned this in AP Bio, I hardly see how that's different from reposting links, I'm simply doing it from my memory, rather than a website. First of all, all the 'probability crap' is lies, molecules don't randomly bond. For example, when you mix oil, concentrated NaCl solutions and One other chemical(I'm sorry, I don't remember what it is, but I don't have my lab notebook with me), but you always get soap. It's not like when you put chemicals together, they randomly mix, they mix according to certain given patterns, one of the most common being Carbon chains. Some of these make organic molecules(and while Some will scoff that it only makes Cyanide and Formaldehyde, Hydrogen Cyanide quite easily combines with Carbon chains to make Guanine, one of the four Nucleotide bases). They can make more than those two, just giving an example.
The first basic step would be a lipid container(which is quite easy to make, lipids are simply hydrocarbon chains which are hydrophobic, meaning that they're non-polar). From there, hypercycles of self-catalyzing molecules(and those are quite easy to find, from crystal formatiosn to peptides ribozymes).
But again, I'm just a high-school OChem student who's taken AP Bio and studied a bit of evolution on the side for his thesis. If you actually wanted answers(rather than simply to attempt to 'prove' that you were right), you'd go to the source for your information.
Darwin was a Anglican until his 10 year old daughter died, than he doubted God because he couldn't see how an all loving God could let his 10 year old daughter die. Just to clear up an misconceptions.
so in other words he turned agnostic. Claims have been made that infer that he converted back to Christianity on his death bed but none have been proven.
Actually, he was studying theology to be a priest or something for quite some time. The fact that he referred to admitting speciation as committing a crime leads me to believe he was still somewhat religious at the time. The question is, who gives a shit? If you're going to be affected in your beliefs by what others believe, regardless of their intelligence... now if he had a compelling argument for or against the existence, sure, but his opinion is unimportant.
[quote=tey]the only reason i don't want links is i want to know that you understand what you're posting ... anyone can google this stuff and find a link ... i want to find out what u know ...[/quote]
Yes, but are you expecting anyone outside of really great biologists to fully understand it?
Why did God design the gp120 protein of the HIV virus to match perfectly with the CD4 protein of a child's T-cells?
cuz he felt like it? what's the point in asking questions that you probably have no idea what they mean.
i never said anything about fully. just wanted to find out what he thought.
[quote=tey]
cuz he felt like it? what's the point in asking questions that you probably have no idea what they mean.[/quote]
He meant it to say that if there was a God, he was very malicious.
[quote=tey]i never said anything about fully. just wanted to find out what he thought.[/quote]
And now that you have an answer... you plan on admitting that it's possible?(well, fine, it wasn't what he thought)
[quote=tey]Why did God design the gp120 protein of the HIV virus to match perfectly with the CD4 protein of a child's T-cells?
cuz he felt like it? what's the point in asking questions that you probably have no idea what they mean.[/quote]
Moron.
I do know what they mean, stupid.
But why would God design the gp120 protein of the HIV virus to match perfectly with the CD4 protein of a child's T-cells?
I'm leaving the question there, just to see if there is any ID'er or creationist that would like to answer that.
[quote]But why would God design the gp120 protein of the HIV virus to match perfectly with the CD4 protein of a child's T-cells?
I'm leaving the question there, just to see if there is any ID'er or creationist that would like to answer that.[/quote]
God loves us so he gave us full-blown AIDS as a gift.
Thanks. :)
[quote=tey]the only reason i don't want links is i want to know that you understand what you're posting ... anyone can google this stuff and find a link ... i want to find out what u know ...[/quote]
In retrospect, I have posted my opinion on how it happened. Now, I want to find out what you know :). How is my account not possible/how can you prove either it didn't happen and all the species were created as they are, or guided by god
(btw, according to Of Pandas And People(the Intelligent Design textbook, it's not that speciation was guided by God, it's that the species were created as they are, and I quote "Intelligent Design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc"
This is not God guiding evolution. This is just another "I'm not smart enough to understand evolution, therefore it's not true". But of course, that's no surprise, as from all 43(which sounds like a lot, but is minimally small) writers of the textbook, 4 are biologists, 3 are chemists, 1 is an astronomer, and most of the rest are assorted majors, the majority of which are religion and phliosophy. Glad they really picked the qualified indidivuals to discuss evolution.
[quote]Why did God design the gp120 protein of the HIV virus to match perfectly with the CD4 protein of a child's T-cells?[/quote]
"The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. [b]And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children."[/b] (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
Yahweh loves the little children... in caskets.
You believe that in the early earth's atmosphere there was no free oxygen, is that correct? If so, I can tell you since without free oxygen there can be no ozone layer to protect any form of life from the sun's intense radiation. Especially if it were to start out as weak as a few bonded molecules.
BTW I don't believe that all species were created in the beginning exactly as they are today.
[quote=tey]You believe that in the early earth's atmosphere there was no free oxygen, is that correct? If so, I can tell you since without free oxygen there can be no ozone layer to protect any form of life from the sun's intense radiation. Especially if it were to start out as weak as a few bonded molecules. [/quote]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html
1. When simple organic molecules are held together in a fairly concentrated area, such as stuck to a dust or ice grain, the UV light actually enhances the formation of more complex molecules by breaking some bonds and allowing the molecules to recombine (Bernstein et al. 1999; Cooper et al. 2001). DNA and RNA are relatively resistant to UV light, because some parts of the molecules shelter others and damage to the bases can provide the materials to repair the backbone. UV light gives nucleic acids a selective advantage and may in fact have been an essential ingredient for abiogenesis (Mulkidjanian et al. 2003; Mullen 2003).
2. The molecules need not all have stayed exposed to UV for long. Some would have dissolved in oceans and lakes. In one proposed scenario, the complex organic molecules form in the deep ocean around geothermal vents, well away from ultraviolet light.
References:
1. Bernstein, M. P., S. A. Sandford, L. J. Allamandola, J. S. Gillette, S. J. Clemett and R. N. Zare. 1999. UV irradiation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ices: Production of alcohols, quinones, and ethers. Science 283: 1135-1138. See also: Ehrenfreund, P., 1999. Molecules on a space odyssey. Science 283: 1123-1124.
2. Cooper, G. et al. 2001. Carbonaceous meteorites as a source of sugar-related organic compounds for the early Earth. Nature 414: 879-883. See also: Sephton, M. A., 2001. Life's sweet beginnings? Nature 414: 857-858.
3. Mulkidjanian, A. Y., D. A. Cherepanov and M. Y. Galperin. 2003. Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light. BMC Evolutionary Biology 3:12. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/3/12/abstract
4. Mullen, Leslie. 2003. Shining light on life's origin. Astrobiology Magazine, http://www.astrobio.net/news/article492.html
So that doesn't solev the problem then? If God created those first life forms, the radiation would Sll kill them. Your problem is you're assuming them to be in the open, when most likely they would start in WATER(that's why the lipid chains would be hydrophobic, to keep out the water). Deep enough and the radiation does nothing
Secondly, O3(ozone) is not free oxygen. Free Oxygen is O2(diatomic state)
I know that. Without free oxygen there can be no O3 (ozone). Ozone is made when singular oxygen combines with oxygen in it's diatomic form.
[quote]BTW I don't believe that all species were created in the beginning exactly as they are today.[/quote]
Then you believe that there was some evolution? If you believe that evolution is somewhat possible then you must believe that it is possible that we came from a single organism (long time ago).
Microevolution, which as I have already said is more adaptation. I don't believe in macroevolution which is a step further than micro in stating that all life evolved from a common ancestor.
Whether or not you believe that that is what happened, do you believe that it is possible that it happened?
I mean, if you do believe in microevolution, why would it be impossible for it to change the total species of the organism instead of the subspecies? I mean, with enough time and change then it is probable that macro evolution took place right?
Of course you can find evidence that the Bible isn't true.
...the fact that you can find a geometric proof that 1+1=1 or the mathematical proof that Winston Churchill equals a carrot.
You can proove whatever you want with science. It matters far more who the "scientist" is than what the relevent issue is.
Science supports nothing. The scientist is the one supporting things. The only difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is that the creationist is far more open with their bias, able to admit it to others as well as themselves, but evolutionists have their presuppositions shoved so far up their rears that they can't even admit that they are biased in the first place.
While we are on a somewhat related topic (creation/evolution) what caused the big bang in the first place? The traditional answer is a quantum flux created a naked singularity because there was infinite time for such to happen, so it was bound to happen eventually.
...Except that time, space, and mass are all inter-defined, so to have "nothing" before the big bang does not imply empty space, it implies no space, no time, no nothing. We really can't imagine what "nothing" is because when we think of nothing, we are really thinking of empty space, which we know from general relativity is something.
Haha, Winston churchill was a carrot, but we have not proved it mathmatically and 1+1 does not equal 1,
[quote]
Science supports nothing[/quote]
Haha
[quote]You can proove whatever you want with science. It matters far more who the "scientist" is than what the relevent issue is.[/quote]
No, you cannot prove whatever you want with science, if theis was true then we could prove god
and the 'scientist' has no bearing on the issue (or at least should not have a bearing on the issue)
[quote]
what caused the big bang in the first place?[/quote]
Science has a theory, religion has a bunch of guesses
It is no more plausible that a God created the universe then a team of Leprechaun Engineers
[quote]Science has a theory, religion has a bunch of guesses
It is no more plausible that a God created the universe then a team of Leprechaun Engineers[/quote]
Except for the fact that our God transcends the universe. Leprechauns wouldn't.
That's a non sequitor. What has transcendence got to do with creating the universe?
Edited because my computer is acting up...again.
Trancendence has everything to do with the universe because, without some knowledge of God, admitted or not, you cannot think rationally.
If God does not exist, where do the laws of logic come from? If they are just "conventions of thought" based on empirical observation, then lets have a barbacue and cook up ribs and some new laws of logic.
An empirical law of logic can prove nothing, just suggest something.
Evidence for god says what the theist wants it to say, not the theist saying what the evidence suggests.
[quote=Egann]Edited because my computer is acting up...again.
Trancendence has everything to do with the universe because, without some knowledge of God, admitted or not, you cannot think rationally.
If God does not exist, where do the laws of logic come from? If they are just "conventions of thought" based on empirical observation, then lets have a barbacue and cook up ribs and some new laws of logic.
An empirical law of logic can prove nothing, just suggest something.[/quote]
Well, if god created logic, then he would be "outside" logic. Wouldn't that mean he is irrational then since logic does not apply to him?
No.
Our reason is an imperfect reflection of His, which is why some things are difficult to understand with our partial reason (not impossible, difficult)
So can God make a round square or a rock so big He can't lift it? I would say a difinitive No.
God is bound by His nature, and His complete reason is part of that nature. He cannot (to be more correct, "will not" because to do so would make Him cease to be God.)
So where do you think the laws of logic/reason come from and why do you think that they are universally applicable? Are the laws of reason in some ways axioms of the universe, or just human ways of thought?
Ok, Ill redo that last statement, a race of leprechauns that transcend the universe (they are Uber-leps)
If there are any administrators here please look over in the announcement forums & check ut a question for you.
Praise GOd,
GWG
[quote]I mean, science supports evolution - any christian will accept this (i hope). [/quote]
I disagree. There are several things that make much more sense in the creationist model (which includes devolution) than with the evolutionistic model. Here are a couple:
27 distinct forests at Yellowstone, but why do the petrified trees all have cut off roots rather than tapering roots? Does't that suggest a "cataclysmic repotting?"
How can we have 3 billion year old fossils when the continental recycling process is only supposed to take 200 million years per cycle? It should have been melted down 10 times by now.
[quote=Egann]No.
Our reason is an imperfect reflection of His, which is why some things are difficult to understand with our partial reason (not impossible, difficult)
So can God make a round square or a rock so big He can't lift it? I would say a difinitive No.
God is bound by His nature, and His complete reason is part of that nature. He cannot (to be more correct, "will not" because to do so would make Him cease to be God.)
So where do you think the laws of logic/reason come from and why do you think that they are universally applicable? Are the laws of reason in some ways axioms of the universe, or just human ways of thought? [/quote]
Well, no, logic is true by definition.
For example, A=A is true by definition of the meaning of the symbol '='
A=/=not-A is true by definition of the word 'not' and the symbol '=/='
Our explanations are social, but they are simply descriptions of inherently true things.
[quote]Our explanations are social, but they are simply descriptions of inherently true things.[/quote]
All explanations are social and yet still descriptions of inherently true things? What about the differing views of societies? Can all be contradicting and correct at the same time?
[quote=tey][quote]Our explanations are social, but they are simply descriptions of inherently true things.[/quote]
All explanations are social and yet still descriptions of inherently true things? What about the differing views of societies? Can all be contradicting and correct at the same time? [/quote]
Think of it this way. if I look at an elephant and say 'this elephant is grey'. But you grew up in a culture that you call that color 'blargh' neither of us are wrong, we are describing something that is inherently true with our concepts. Our combination of symbols are not inherently true, but the meaning behind them is.
[quote=tey]I know that. Without free oxygen there can be no O3 (ozone). Ozone is made when singular oxygen combines with oxygen in it's diatomic form.[/quote]
I love how you never addressed the other point connected to that, or the explanation of the first self-replicating life you so desired.
[quote=tey][quote]Science has a theory, religion has a bunch of guesses
It is no more plausible that a God created the universe then a team of Leprechaun Engineers[/quote]
Except for the fact that our God transcends the universe. Leprechauns wouldn't. [/quote]
Oh now come on! don't diss the leprechauns! They will strike you dead!
What's that? You don't want to give a sign of your power? You just want them to have faith, and if not, burn in hell? It's ok, he's just stuck in his beliefs, he doesn't understand the greatness of you great leprechauns.
Evoution states that we came from apes.... our bodys slowly adapted over time... well i dont see no half man half ape walking around... do you? (No George Bush dont count)
[quote=Toby3871]Evoution states that we came from apes.... our bodys slowly adapted over time... well i dont see no half man half ape walking around... do you? (No George Bush dont count)[/quote]
Not this again.
We did NOT come from apes, we had a common ancestor with them.
Read Fallacy #7 [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5274]at Deludedgod's essay[/url].
[quote=Toby3871]Evoution states that we came from apes.... our bodys slowly adapted over time... well i dont see no half man half ape walking around... do you? (No George Bush dont count)[/quote]
I think you should get your free DVD about evolution.
[url=http://www.freethinkingteens.com/forum/freethinking_teens_community/the_world_of_science/2715]Click here[/url].
[quote=Toby3871]Evoution states that we came from apes.... our bodys slowly adapted over time... well i dont see no half man half ape walking around... do you? (No George Bush dont count)[/quote]
You're serious? Gosh, I at least thought we'd get past these stupid arguments and stick to biochemistry and so on. Well, no, technically, we didn't come from apes, we share an ancestor with them. But our ancestors, we would basically call apes. So yes, we did evolve from very ape-like creatures. The reason they don't exist anymore? We evolved from them, we were more efficient an better suited to survival, and they died out. It's the same reason that nobody still uses DOS, they use Windows XP. The metaphor doesn't quite hold, because nature cares only about efficiency, whereas some people might keep DOS because it's almost a collector's item, but the point holds.
EDIT: Also, back to tey, I love how every time certain arguments hold valid, they get ignored and the other points get pressed. I've provided a viable self-replicating, simple 'cell'(it's not a cell actually). The ball is in your court