• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Serious question to the creationists

Dittohead not! said:
So, dd that modern car evolve over time, or was it created by intelligent beings?

Did modern farm animals evolve on their own, or was their evolution guided by intelligence?

There really is no conflict between the concept of a creator and the theory of evolution. Both are likely correct.
Click to expand...

True, but there is a clear conflict between the concept of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the theory of evolution. :wink:
 
countryboy said:
True, but there is a clear conflict between the concept of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the theory of evolution. :wink:
Click to expand...

Yes, there is, if you take the story of Genesis literally.
 
Unrepresented said:
Either of the conflicting Genesis accounts of human creation conflict with evolution.
Click to expand...

Hell, evolution conflicts with evolution. It is a theory full of holes and based on wild speculation and assumption.
 
Well, the alternative to creationism is itself a miracle.

Regarding abiogenesis, for instance:

Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and former leader of the monumental Human Genome Project, wrote that “no current hypothesis comes close to explaining how in the space of a mere 150 million years, the prebiotic environment that existed on earth gave rise to life.”

Sir Fred Hoyle, the celebrated English physicist and cosmologist, thought that the appearance of life on earth was all but impossible, from a statistical standpoint. In his 1981 book Evolution from Space (with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 to the 40,000th power (one followed by 40,000 zeroes). He came up with the fanciful image that the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

Atheists Still Dreaming that Science Will Do Away with God - Breitbart

I commend the atheists and agnostics for their GREAT FAITH in believing it happened anyway!
 
Goshin said:
I believe that whatever the details of how life came to be on Earth, God was in charge from the beginning and all unfolded according to His will.
Click to expand...

That's cool, but then I wasn't addressing you inn the OP, but thanks for the input!
 
lizzie said:
Not all "believers" think this way. I'm not a creationist in the typically envisioned manner. My concept is that God itself is a sort of creative spark and/or energy, and that it set things in motion, but that evolution happened (happens) as a result of that.
Click to expand...

I don't think I intended to insinuate that, I was mearly asking the question of the creationists that do. if there is a subset of creationists that I could call by name, perhaps YEC? Would that have been more appropriate?
 
countryboy said:
Hell, evolution conflicts with evolution. It is a theory full of holes and based on wild speculation and assumption.
Click to expand...

Evolution has been proven over and over again to be true. Only people who want to cling to old creation stories or who don't understand evolution have any questions as to its validity.

and it still doesn't conflict with the idea of an intelligent creator, just with the idea of taking literally ancient creation stories.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Evolution has been proven over and over again to be true. Only people who want to cling to old creation stories or who don't understand evolution have any questions as to its validity.

and it still doesn't conflict with the idea of an intelligent creator, just with the idea of taking literally ancient creation stories.
Click to expand...

Actually, evolution has never been proven, let alone "over and over again". Maybe you could explain how the theory accounts for increasing complexity.
 
KevinKohler said:
I'm no creationist...but here's a serious question back at you concerning evolution.


It doesn't work. Not logically. No, really....hear me out.

Monarch butterfly...started as a worm, but then at some point,over a period of time, one family, over generations, mutated to metamorphosis into a flying insect. I can buy that, sorta. But then they went and developed poisonous wings. I am told this poison prevents other animals, namely birds, from eating them. And that the process for this happening is that, say, one was born that tasted bad, which was a favorable trait that was then passed on to it's progeny. But wait...how does anything know it tasted bad? Until, of course...they eat it...which is not so good for the butterfly, and it's would have been progeny, yes? So just how DID the monarch butterfly become poisonous, and how exactly DOES/DID that help it to survive? In the end, the only sign that it is are it's bright colors, which, in nature, often means danger. But that completely invalidates the use of the actual poisonous nature, as all it would REALLY need to be is brightly colored, and not poisonous to eat.

No, the idea that these traits came about over time just doesn't jive with logic, as none of these traits would prevent the death of their hosts from another species that isn't already aware of those traits. Nothing eats poison dart frogs because they know they are poisonous...millions of years of passed on internal info sees to that. What started that information? And what good at all is the poison, then? Yes, I eat a poison dart frog, and as a result, I die. But uh...so does the frog. Which now does not live to pass on it's traits.
Click to expand...

Ok, so there are a few possible answers to the conundrum you've posed.

To be clear on the question, I'm going to use butterflies as an example and birds as the predator in question, but you can extrapolate to the frog. You're asking how the trait not to eat the butterfly could have ever been passed on, if every bird that ate a specific butterfly died.

I think you may also be asking how the first poisonous butterfly would have passed on the poisonous trait if it was eaten and both butterfly and bird died.

As always feel free to correct me as it's not my intention to misrepresent you're argument.

You are making several assumptions and haven't considered several possibilities.

First, and probably the simplest explanation is, that it's poison didn't always kill the predator in question. Perhaps it just tasted bad, maybe even made the birds sick. Over time the bird learns not to eat the "red ones" and passes that trait on to it's offspring when teaching it what to eat and what not to eat. hundreds or thousands or even millions of years later that bad taste has evolved to a stronger and deadly poison. Thus any bird that eats the butterfly now, definitely won't pass on that trait.

Let's expand this just a bit. Let's say the environment changed (let's say were in a closed system like an island) and butterflies were all there were to eat, forced to eat or die perhaps given enough time a few birds might have a trait that makes them immune to the butterflies poison and presto, all the birds without that trait die, those with it eat otherwise poisonous butterflies. On that island the butterflies might get wiped out.

And we see this in nature, specific adaptations in closed environments. Iguana's that swim in the ocean, finches with thicker stronger beaks ect....

Another possibility is that some birds simply didn't eat butterflies and others did. Those that did eat them died out and those that did not survived.

As far as the first butterfly born with poison, how did it live long enough to pass on it's trait? Well, perhaps the environment it was originally in didn't have any predators at all, which would make the poison a non-specific trait. That is, it is nether helpful, nor harmful. Humans have tons of these traits, things like different hair color, un/connected ear lobes, being able to roll your tongue, hair on your chest ect (i'm sure there are a lot more that would have more to do with potential survival, I just don't know of any)....These are traits and they don't help and don't hurt, but (hypothetically), what if the trait for blonde hair required a specific protein in the body, Now a virulent illness with a 100% mortality rate comes along, but does not effect those with the blonde hair protein. Suddenly, the non-specific trait (blonde hair), becomes specific in that it is necessary to survival. 100 years from now virtually everyone would have blonde hair and if not for the digital and film age, looking back people might have been tempted to believe that blonde hair was all their ever was.
 
Last edited:
countryboy said:
Actually, evolution has never been proven, let alone "over and over again". Maybe you could explain how the theory accounts for increasing complexity.
Click to expand...

Why is increasing complexity a problem?
 
countryboy said:
How does the theory of evolution account for it? Please be specific and detailed.
Click to expand...

The same way it accounts for anything: It is a survival benefit. If multicellular organisms were less likely to have survived, all we'd have would be single celled organisms.
 
Logicman said:
Well, the alternative to creationism is itself a miracle.

Regarding abiogenesis, for instance:

Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and former leader of the monumental Human Genome Project, wrote that “no current hypothesis comes close to explaining how in the space of a mere 150 million years, the prebiotic environment that existed on earth gave rise to life.”

Sir Fred Hoyle, the celebrated English physicist and cosmologist, thought that the appearance of life on earth was all but impossible, from a statistical standpoint. In his 1981 book Evolution from Space (with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 to the 40,000th power (one followed by 40,000 zeroes). He came up with the fanciful image that the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

Atheists Still Dreaming that Science Will Do Away with God - Breitbart

I commend the atheists and agnostics for their GREAT FAITH in believing it happened anyway!
Click to expand...

All of the claims of specific times aside (I don't feel like fact checking).....

While I'm familiar with Mr. Collins and some of his work mapping the human genome, he doesn't know everything nor has he done any specific work to disprove evolution that I'm aware of. He should do some serious work in this area as he has enormous respect in the scientific community and could easily attract funding for the research that could set the theory of evolution on its ear, that is, if its so easy to debunk..... As far as Sir Fred Hoyle, I'm sure he's an expert in physics and cosmology, but just like I wouldn't take a plummer advice on how to do complex electrical work, and I won't ask a physicist or cosmologist about complex theories of biology.

You just love arguments from authority don't you. I don't care if it's an unknown graduate student at MIT, or Richard Dawkins, what they say means little unless they can back up their statements with evidence.
 
countryboy said:
How does the theory of evolution account for it? Please be specific and detailed.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not sure I understand why I'd have to account for anything. I'm not being obtuse, I just don't understand what it is I'm supposed to account for. Perhaps you could give me an example.
 
CanadaJohn said:
When you're a pure creationist, you don't have to explain what you believe because it's a matter of faith. Faith is believing in what can't be explained or rationalized in human terms.

For me, I'd have to say I'm a creationist who believes in evolution. Some way, some how, our universe and those beyond had to have been created by some power we don't and likely never will understand. As humans, we don't have any concept to explain something starting by simply appearing. I do, however, strongly believe in the evolution of all living things on earth. All living things evolve and adapt to their environment in a Darwinist survival of the fittest. And for this reason I don't believe that God "created us in his image".
Click to expand...

Keep your faith out of our public schools. Creationism is NOT science, nor should it ever be taught in a public school as such.
 
CanadaJohn said:
When you're a pure creationist, you don't have to explain what you believe because it's a matter of faith. Faith is believing in what can't be explained or rationalized in human terms.
Click to expand...

In other words, wishful magical beliefs and thinking.
 
DDD said:
In other words, wishful magical beliefs and thinking.
Click to expand...

I respect people of faith - but it's not for me. There are lots of things in this world and our lives that aren't explainable at this point in time and may never be. Who's to say those of faith aren't right? Not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom