Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CodeMason · 01-24-2002, 10:08 PM

Reuse huh? So God was not creative enough to produce a completely new type of organism other than the chimps, thus providing compelling evidence to lead people away from Him? Sounds like a pretty incompetant/malevolent God to me.

CodeMason · 01-24-2002, 10:12 PM

Well, they couldn't go on with that nonsense of "no beneficial mutations" any longer, so they took another word for evolution (adaptation), and said all the examples were merely adaptation and not evolution!

That is equivalent to saying: They were examples of evolution, not of evolution.

Apparently, creationists can violate the laws of logic at whim.

donotworry · 01-24-2002, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CodeMason:
Reuse huh? So God was not creative enough to produce a completely new type of organism other than the chimps, thus providing compelling evidence to lead people away from Him? Sounds like a pretty incompetant/malevolent God to me.

That is as dumb as saying, "I think the sky should have been red. God is stupid"

donotworry · 01-24-2002, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CodeMason:
Well, they couldn't go on with that nonsense of "no beneficial mutations" any longer, so they took another word for evolution (adaptation), and said all the examples were merely adaptation and not evolution!

That is equivalent to saying: They were examples of evolution, not of evolution.

Apparently, creationists can violate the laws of logic at whim.

Actually, I never got into "no beneficial mutations" yet, but I could if you wish. And no....evolution, as I am concerned with it, involves the change from reptiles to birds or chimps to humans. The other is just a subsection that is under evolution that really shouldn't be because it has been observed to happen.

Remember, evolution (nothing to something to something very complex) is a theory. It can't be proved or observed (which is the nature of science). Adaptation has been observed, hence, a valid scientfic fact...not to be labeled under a heading of "theory" which evolution clearly falls.

If you even read any of the counter arguments to evolution from creationists, you would see that creationists believe and support adaptation. Have you even taken the time to do that?

OrderedChaos · 01-24-2002, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Well, actually, it works in both instances. Ever hear of the fall of man? Do you have anything more compelling that disease?

There was a period of time when it was believed that people became diseased because of some sinful act they did. This mindset was very prevalent during the time of the black death (which could be seen in art work depicting black arrows falling from heaven and giving people pluage). Now a days people believe in a little thing called germ theory, where disease is caused by microscopic pathogens (excluding things like cancer, sickle cell, ect. of course) and not sin. Maybe you are trying to suggest that before the fall bacteria, infectious protozoa, fungi, parasitic platyhelminthes and viruses did not exist. Do you believe that the act of eating a fruit caused all of these things to be poofed into existence magically?

Quote:

I assert that I have the intelligence (and knowledge for those you foaming at the mouth right now) needed to argue these points to an intelligent degree.

There is a saying that goes "If you were that great you wouldn't have to brag about it." Don't tell us that you are intelligent, show us proof. Until then I hope you can forgive me for being a little bit skeptical.

Quote:

EVOLUTION (In my words):
The broad term attributed to the way all forms of life originated on this planet (earth) as the theory that life aroze from elements present on the earth millions of years ago to form primitive organisms which, over time, formed more complex organisms which, over much more time, formed much more complex organisms, finally giving our planet as is today.

How life started has very little to do with evolution actually. That is the realm of abiogenesis and although the field is still very young, promising results are already imerging. I suggest you do some research into the RNA world hyposthesis. The rest isn't quite right either. In my text book Evolutionary Analysis by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron under evolution it says: "Orginally defined as descent with modification, or change in the characteristics of populations over time. Currently defined as changes in allele frequencies over time."

donotworry · 01-24-2002, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Christ:
Adaptation is what evolution is about--specifically, adaptation through mutation. Sickle cell anemia is a mutation in one part of a chromosome.
Diabites is a mutation as well.
Now--
Tell me exactly WHY they are not evolution?

See above.

CodeMason · 01-24-2002, 10:21 PM

Quote:

That is as dumb as saying, "I think the sky should have been red. God is stupid"

My, my, aren't we the little master of self-deceit? Your pathetic analogy fails, because the sky being blue does not provide compelling evidence against creationism. Whereas the physiological, morphological and behavioural similarities between us and chimps does.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 01-24-2002, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by donotworry:


Actually, I never got into "no beneficial mutations" yet, but I could if you wish. And no....evolution, as I am concerned with it, involves the change from reptiles to birds or chimps to humans. The other is just a subsection that is under evolution that really shouldn't be because it has been observed to happen.

Remember, evolution (nothing to something to something very complex) is a theory. It can't be proved or observed (which is the nature of science). Adaptation has been observed, hence, a valid scientfic fact...not to be labeled under a heading of "theory" which evolution clearly falls.

If you even read any of the counter arguments to evolution from creationists, you would see that creationists believe and support adaptation. Have you even taken the time to do that?

"Microevolution", in other words.

Looks like they've dropped that from their vocabulary--sounds exactly like evolution, might have confused some poor soul.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 01-24-2002, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by donotworry:


See above.

Read the definition above, posted by Ordered Chaos.

I win.

donotworry · 01-24-2002, 10:26 PM

Quote:

There was a period of time when it was believed that people became diseased because of some sinful act they did. This mindset was very prevalent during the time of the black death (which could be seen in art work depicting black arrows falling from heaven and giving people pluage). Now a days people believe in a little thing called germ theory, where disease is caused by microscopic pathogens (excluding things like cancer, sickle cell, ect. of course) and not sin. Maybe you are trying to suggest that before the fall bacteria, infectious protozoa, fungi, parasitic platyhelminthes and viruses did not exist. Do you believe that the act of eating a fruit caused all of these things to be poofed into existence magically?

Did I ever say that people get sick because they sin? READ PEOPLE.

The germs could have been there, just not deadly or infectious. It's quite simple actually.

Or...

Ever see a person with AIDS? Their immune system is so weak small things make them sick. Things that would not make us (read: normal, healthy people) sick. Point being...before the fall, we could have had much stronger immune systems. Immune systems that could have easily beaten ALL disease and bacteria.

I don't know how it was...I'm just saying there are other possibilities.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-24-2002, 10:08 PM	#21
CodeMason Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 226	Reuse huh? So God was not creative enough to produce a completely new type of organism other than the chimps, thus providing compelling evidence to lead people away from Him? Sounds like a pretty incompetant/malevolent God to me.

01-24-2002, 10:12 PM	#22
CodeMason Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 226	Well, they couldn't go on with that nonsense of "no beneficial mutations" any longer, so they took another word for evolution (adaptation), and said all the examples were merely adaptation and not evolution! That is equivalent to saying: They were examples of evolution, not of evolution. Apparently, creationists can violate the laws of logic at whim.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.