Evolution vs Bible

**benbaaa** · 22-10-2006, 07:02 AM

^ You don't expect me to wade through all his drivel, do you?

**kerux** · 22-10-2006, 07:10 AM

Either you are simply parading your total ignorance of the theory of evolution, or you are deliberately misrepresenting evolution as a theory of chance so as to mislead others.

I'm anything but ignorant of the theory of evolution, but my guess is you are completely ignorant of the theory of creation. And I think any misrepresentation of either theory is being done by the evolutionists, eg. trying to pass off evolution as fact, and that all REAL scientists adhere to the dogma of evolution.

“professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person, understand the factual basis of evolution and don't dispute it”
— S.J. Gould

“A few so called “creation scientists” are much touted as possessing PhDs, but it does not do to look too carefully where they got their PhDs from nor the subjects they got them in. They are, I think, never in relevant subjects.”

— Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is a down right bold faced liar as is Gould.

Here is a partial list of dozens of crationist, the schools they earned their degrees from and their accomplisments.

Scientists in the Physical Sciences - Institute for Creation Research

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
(Adjunct Faculty for ICR)

He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas Tech University, a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLA. Dr. Baumgardner has served as staff scientist in the Fluid Dynamics Group of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico since 1984. He is famous for his development of the TERRA program, a 3-D spherical finite element model for the earth's mantle. Beginning in 1995 Dr. Baumgardner assisted the German Weather Service in adapting methods from the TERRA code as the basis for a new operational global weather forecast model known as GME that is now used in Germany and ten other countries.

Scientists in the Biological Sciences - Institute for Creation Research

Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (ICR)

He has a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry with honors from Tufts University, a Masters in Biology from Harvard, and the Ph.D. in Biology with a major in Ecology and a minor in Biochemistry from Harvard University.

Evolutionist like to skip over the origins issue [which evolution doesn't explain] and go straight to the evolutionary development of life theory.

Creation starts with origins.

**kingwilly** · 22-10-2006, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by benbaaa

^ You don't expect me to wade through all his drivel, do you?

hell no - i meant it as a comment for him to read not you!

actually I've got him on ignore now - occasionally i click on the view this post just to see if hes got anything useful or intelligent to say.....

still looking really.

**kingwilly** · 22-10-2006, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by kerux

Evolutionist like to skip over the origins issue [which evolution doesn't explain] and go straight to the evolutionary development of life theory.

Creation starts with origins.

straw man again.

origions as in the Big Bang theory ? thats physics not biology.

origions as in the initial seeding of life? well accepted by biologists that we DO NOT know that answer yet... theres a few interesting theories but obviously extraordinarily difficult to figure out since it was something like 600 million years ago on this particular planet in the universe.

**kerux** · 22-10-2006, 07:22 AM

600 million years ago

Now it's 600 million? How do you know it was 600 million?

theres a few interesting theories but obviously extraordinarily difficult to figure out

So, the creation theory might just be a valid explanation?

thats physics not biology.

Like I said, evolutionists like to skip over the origins issue. And pass the buck to physics.

**kingwilly** · 22-10-2006, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by kerux

600 million years ago

Now it's 600 million? How do you know it was 600 million?

my bad - that was a rough guess as i dont remember the scientifically accpeted approx date, but we do know that PreCambrian lifeforms existed over 360 million years ago.

theres a few interesting theories but obviously extraordinarily difficult to figure out

So, the creation theory might just be a valid explanation?

does it have a scientific basis ?

thats physics not biology.

Like I said, evolutionists like to skip over the origins issue. And pass the buck to physics.[/quote]

come on now.... even you couldnt possibly seriously tell me that the study of the origions of the universe are a biological study as opposed to a physical study?

**Sir Burr** · 22-10-2006, 08:30 AM

Actually, scientists have created in a test-tube what they think were the conditions of the atmosphere on early Earth. They then created sparks through it to simulate lightning. They ended up with amino acids. Not life per se, but, the building blocks of proteins which are necessary for life.

**kingwilly** · 22-10-2006, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Actually, scientists have created in a test-tube what they think were the conditions of the atmosphere on early Earth. They then created sparks through it to simulate lightning. They ended up with amino acids. Not life per se, but, the builfding blocks of proteins.

agreed. certainly a reasonable start. Pansperngia (spelling) also holds a (slightly less plausible) solution.

that is the seeding of the planet by extra planetary material eg comets.

which begs the question - where did they come form?

but that is the beauty of science, as we uncover more ideas we find even more questions!

**stroller** · 22-10-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by kerux

...but my guess is you are completely ignorant of the theory of creation. And I think any misrepresentation of either theory is being done by the evolutionists, eg. trying to pass off evolution as fact, and that all REAL scientists adhere to the dogma of evolution.

A bit of guessing and 'thinking' without substance.

Now evolution is a "dogma", eh? Please explain.

Kerux: "trying to pass off evolution as fact"
S.J.Gould (Kerux's proof): "the factual basis of evolution"

You need to grow out of the sandbox, kerux.

Reading Benbaa's posts again would be a good start, the difference between facts and theories based on them has been well explained.

**benbaaa** · 22-10-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by kerux

I'm anything but ignorant of the theory of evolution...

Yes you are. You said evolutionists think the eye came about by chance. This is exactly the opposite of what the theory of evolution says: it says survival is not random. Survival depends on the ability of the organism to make it to sexual maturity and to breed young successfully. If having better camouflage or being able to run faster or see better at night than others in your species population helps you to survive better than them, those qualities will be passed on to future generations. If you're slower, or dumber, or less able to catch food or evade predators, you're less likely to be able to mate successfully, and so those characteristics won't be passed on to future generations. This is not a theory of chance, and you said it was.

Originally Posted by kerux

...but my guess is you are completely ignorant of the theory of creation.

Creationism isn't a theory you dimwit. OK, so you've tried hard to dress it up to look like science, but we all know that really it's a steaming pile of horse shit. Theories explain what we see and predict future events, and they can be tested and/or falsified by experimentation and the observation of data.

As an explanation of how and why the planet is populated by such a diverse and changing population of living things, a bloke with a white beard sitting on a cloud waving a magic wand is something most of us grow out of by the time we are five.

**kerux** · 22-10-2006, 05:24 PM

You said evolutionists think the eye came about by chance. This is exactly the opposite of what the theory of evolution says: it says survival is not random

So, the blind led around the blind for how many millions of years? Is it 600 million or 350 million?

And then we got the ear. How many millions of years was it before we evolved to the point we couldn't stick our fingers in our ear and poke out our ear drum? 600 or 350 million? Or was it a mere 100 million? 50 million, 10 million?

**benbaaa** · 22-10-2006, 05:56 PM

Eyes have evolved independently in a wide variety of very different species, and there are, as far as we know, about nine different types of 'eye'.

At the most primitive end of the spectrum, some jellyfish and starfish have light sensitive patches which enable them to detect bright light.

Clams and flatworms have a kind of shallow cup backed with photosensitive cells which enables them to detect (just about) which way light is coming from, and presumably any looming darker shadows that might be dangerous.

Nautilus has a simple kind of pinhole camera eye.

The marine snail has a cup kind of eye, but filled with a clear jelly-like substance which functions as a very rudimentary lens.

Fish eyes are similar but with a better lens arrangement.

Our eyes are able to focus images because we've evolved muscle structures to enable us to do this, and of course we can change the aperture size too, and move them around in our sockets.

Then there are camera eyes, compound eyes, curved mirror eyes and squid eyes, which are all 'designed' differently to ours.

Why did your god invent all these different types, some of which can only just about detect bright light, and some of which can detect the smallest little mouse in a cornfield from hundreds of metres away in the middle of the night?

**kerux** · 22-10-2006, 06:08 PM

Why did your god invent all these different types, some of which can only just about detect bright light, and some of which can detect the smallest little mouse in a cornfield from hundreds of metres away in the middle of the night?

Because and earthworm doesn't need to be able to spot a fish underwater like an osprey, a fish doesn't need to see prey from 1/2 mile up like an eagle, a bat doesn't need eyes at night, and radar works better, (have evolution explain the evolving of the bat's radar] the pig doesn't need to see the mouse at night like the barn owl, etc.

For the same reason man creates different kinds of cameras/glasses for different types of applications.

We have near sighted lenses and far sighted lenses. We have bi-focals and telescopes, progressive lenses and contqct lenses, underwater cameras and microscopes, we have sunglasses and nightvision goggles, and so on.

It is theorized that "Eyes have evolved independently in a wide variety of very different species

This is not a fact and should not be stated as if it is.

**Kidneystone** · 22-10-2006, 06:27 PM

Neither is the bible a proven fact

**benbaaa** · 22-10-2006, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by kerux

This is not a fact and should not be stated as if it is.

Yes it is. Once you've evolved one type of eye, you can't then "unevolve" it and evolve a new type and design. There wasn't one prototype eye that all eyed creatures have ended up with, there are lots of different kinds and they have evolved independently.

Why did god conjure up a hundred billion stars when we only need the one? So that it looks pretty at night?

**Eliminator** · 22-10-2006, 07:35 PM

Oh dag nammit I wanted to give you green on the pic BB but I've been giving you too much lately but I thought the pic fit perfectly.

**kerux** · 22-10-2006, 07:51 PM

Once you've evolved one type of eye, you can't then "unevolve" it and evolve a new type and design.

Don't need to un-evolve anything if they were each created for the specific kind of creature that particular eye is found in, do you?

That is why creation is the better EXPLANATION for the evidence that evolution and creation both use - the eye.

Why did god conjure up a hundred billion stars when we only need the one? So that it looks pretty at night?

"The heaveans declare the glory of God."

**stroller** · 22-10-2006, 08:09 PM

Don't need to un-evolve anything if they were each created for the specific kind of creature that particular eye is found in, do you?

You are missing the point. BB's argument is not about need, but stating a fact which supports his earlier argument.

That is why creation is the better EXPLANATION for the evidence that evolution and creation both use - the eye.

In which sense is this explanation "better", is this a competition for simplicity and popularity?

**stroller** · 22-10-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by kerux

Evolution is a theory used to explain the evidence we see in the world around us.

Creation is a theory used to explain the evidence we see in the world around us.

Neither are scientific. They are merely methods by which we attempt to EXPLAIN the world around us.

I suggest you grab a dictionary and look up "science".

**keda** · 22-10-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Eyes have evolved independently in a wide variety of very different species, and there are, as far as we know, about nine different types of 'eye'.

At the most primitive end of the spectrum, some jellyfish and starfish have light sensitive patches which enable them to detect bright light.

Clams and flatworms have a kind of shallow cup backed with photosensitive cells which enables them to detect (just about) which way light is coming from, and presumably any looming darker shadows that might be dangerous.

Nautilus has a simple kind of pinhole camera eye.

The marine snail has a cup kind of eye, but filled with a clear jelly-like substance which functions as a very rudimentary lens.

Fish eyes are similar but with a better lens arrangement.

Our eyes are able to focus images because we've evolved muscle structures to enable us to do this, and of course we can change the aperture size too, and move them around in our sockets.

Then there are camera eyes, compound eyes, curved mirror eyes and squid eyes, which are all 'designed' differently to ours.

Why did your god invent all these different types, some of which can only just about detect bright light, and some of which can detect the smallest little mouse in a cornfield from hundreds of metres away in the middle of the night?

And some creatures have no eyes at all.

I didn't know about the 9 formal types of eye, very interesting, the diversification especially, whether created or developed by god or evolution.

**stroller** · 23-10-2006, 01:05 AM

test post
I can't access the last few pages

**kerux** · 23-10-2006, 02:19 AM

I suggest you grab a dictionary and look up "science".

I suggest you do the same. Evolution is not science. It's a theory that attempts to EXPLAIN scientific phenonmenon.

**kingwilly** · 23-10-2006, 06:59 AM

^ sigh. we'll tell you again, evolution is an observable fact.

the theory is the mechanism of evolution - how it happened. The concept of natural selection or survival of the fittest.

also other aspects that remain theory are the exact evolutionary trees of various organisms.

eg2 Is the red panda more closely related to the Giant panda or the bear family?

eg2 did modern humans evolve from Neanderthal man or were they separate species i.e. 'cousins'.

**kerux** · 23-10-2006, 07:05 AM

evolution is an observable fact.

So is adaptation

**kingwilly** · 23-10-2006, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by kerux

evolution is an observable fact.

So is adaptation

Wow you finally agree.

I'm just waiting for the but...

Thread: Evolution vs Bible

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions