Evolution vs Creationism?

[hfd]

Again as I have said many times. Your appear to assume that Darwinian thought predominates scientifci thought today. YOu are very much wrong if you think so.

The definition of Natural evolution is= The ability of an organism to successfully adapt to its environment. Nothing of natural selection or survival of the fitest is mentioned or implied. It is a matter of the environmental conditions at the time and the genetics involved. SImple

Most mutations are not observable by a single of small sampling of fossil record they are observed over long period of time and then only if you are lucky enough to find them.

Those that cling to the Darwinian version of evolution will never understand the current view and why it is no longer considered a theory.

BTW I am a believer. I believe that a Creator made the universe and set in motion all things that came afterward.. These things are incorrectly referred to as the laws of nature.

We are in total agreement about current thoughts on evolution. However, the evidence for punctualism is no more sound than that for gradualism. The fossil record is missing 'missing links' because they evidently don't exist. Variations are not examples of evolution. 'New' attributes of an organism are simply that, new attributes, the organism remains what it is. The likes of Eldredge, Gould (now deceased) et al have wrestled with the problem of stasis in the fossil record for decades. Darwin was also aware of it.

"...stasis-nonchange-is the dominant evolutionary theme in the fossil record."

Eldredge, Niles - TIME FRAMES (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1985) p. 128

Stasis is the very antithesis of evolution. Evolution means to change, not vary.

BTW: I'm an agnostic. Unlike believers, I don't pretend to know of the existence or non existence of a Creator.

 

[wolfman24]

I agree with this completely. Humans filled in the gaps of their knowledge with superstition and fables. But it helped them make sense of the world back then and who knows how much actual interaction between the divine occurred?



The big bang begs the question, what caused it? Not an infinite regression of causes but what is life if not perception? I believe it's all energy in different forms being controlled by a ________ << fill in the blank.

I have already answered that question in another post

 

[wolfman24]

Honestly, Literal Creationism, aside from mandating that the abrahamic God is a huge liar, frankly is bat**** crazy.

Nothing about it makes any sense in the context of actual science.

And let's remember that a flood would cover the land with a brine. That salt would leech into the soil. Meaning that most plants shouldn't have been able to survive the salt content of the land. Only a relatively small number of species are salt tolerant and certainty not the grain crops that most of humanity survives on. There are thousands of reason why Literal Creation and the Flood make absolutely no sense.

And some creationists realize this and argue what amounts to magic. That's fine, but I can't see how they can reasonable expect anyone to take them seriously, especially when large numbers of their own religion think they're crazy.

I was pointint out a flaw in the argument as you have. If you were still in school and had the time you could probably write a dissertation on the flaws.

 

[wolfman24]

We are in total agreement about current thoughts on evolution. However, the evidence for punctualism is no more sound than that for gradualism. The fossil record is missing 'missing links' because they evidently don't exist. Variations are not examples of evolution. 'New' attributes of an organism are simply that, new attributes, the organism remains what it is. The likes of Eldredge, Gould (now deceased) et al have wrestled with the problem of stasis in the fossil record for decades. Darwin was also aware of it.

"...stasis-nonchange-is the dominant evolutionary theme in the fossil record."

Eldredge, Niles - TIME FRAMES (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1985) p. 128

Stasis is the very antithesis of evolution. Evolution means to change, not vary.

BTW: I'm an agnostic. Unlike believers, I don't pretend to know of the existence or non existence of a Creator.

Once again you proceed from a false premise. You assume the "missng link" will magically appear as a distinct type. This is false. That is not the way evolution works. It works for the most part in small steps which cannot be seen in the fossil record over short periods of time (geologically). Instead by observing the species over many variations you BEGIN to see changes in this and that. The anit evolution idea of a missing link is a myth.

Your statement regarding variations and attributes shows a fundamental inability to understand basic biology, evolution and genetics. All you now have to do is reverse what you said about them and you will have it right.

Your convenient definition of evolution is also wrong. A variant is a change from the previous form

 

[wolfman24]

I'm writing my dissertation for a phd in Interdisciplinary Ecology. I've had more grad classes on this than you've had college total.

I really don't care. I know PhD's who can't tie their shoes without instructions. My point is this and you and I if memory serves have had this conversation before. You are looking at the words and failing to see the process that the words describe. I am concerned with the process. "the ability of an organism to successfully adapt to its environment". there is an inherent process described herein. If you cannot see or understand how that works then it is no use trying to explain it.

You also APPEAR to be looking at this definition in a linear fashion. Science is not linear. There are variables that must be considered and looking at the definition as a process would reveal those variables. I may be wrong in this conclusion of your analysis but it sure seems that way.

Your last sentence is also an Illogical and emotional assumption which is not supported by fact. This begs another entirely different question.,

BTW the definition I have given is the definition of evolution and not my own creation.

I have over 21 years of field experience in wildlife and environmental study and am a published author on wildlife issues. I will take field experience any day over book learning.

 

[wolfman24]

I agree with this completely. Humans filled in the gaps of their knowledge with superstition and fables. But it helped them make sense of the world back then and who knows how much actual interaction between the divine occurred?



The big bang begs the question, what caused it? Not an infinite regression of causes but what is life if not perception? I believe it's all energy in different forms being controlled by a ________ << fill in the blank.

I would suggest then that when you talk about Creation as a modern concept or idea you keep the assertions in this historical perspective. It is totally illogical to try and view these historical stories into a modern context. Same with the applying of Darwinian theory to modern evolutionary study. Apples and moon rocks.

 

[ecofarm]

I really don't care. I know PhD's who can't tie their shoes without instructions.

Well, I think it was a fine answer to your condescending blue-collar crap.

 

[Ikari]

I really don't care. I know PhD's who can't tie their shoes without instructions.

I've heard this excuse before. Usually made by people who don't know any better and are scraping together any reason to ignore an authority.

 

[wolfman24]

Well, I think it was a fine answer to your condescending blue-collar crap.

Again you failed to read my post. I am not blue collar never was. I have been an accredited scientist for over 40 years. And what I said was not condesending any more than yours was to my level of competence in the field. My statement however is accurate. Book Learning is fine and dandy but without practical knowledge and application is useless.

So if you are going to be condescending you should as a scientist expect a response in kind. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[grip]

I would suggest then that when you talk about Creation as a modern concept or idea you keep the assertions in this historical perspective. It is totally illogical to try and view these historical stories into a modern context. Same with the applying of Darwinian theory to modern evolutionary study. Apples and moon rocks.

You act as if creation is a past event when in fact it's always in the process of becoming. I can view historical stories in the context of what they might have meant to people of the past. I'm not interested in your suggestions because they make absolutely no sense.

 

[ecofarm]

Again you failed to read my post.

I gave up after you started that crap about how an organism has an "ability" to successfully adapt. So?

 

[wolfman24]

You act as if creation is a past event when in fact it's always in the process of becoming. I can view historical stories in the context of what they might have meant to people of the past. I'm not interested in your suggestions because they make absolutely no sense.

Then why did you agree with my suggestions? Post 181 in quotes.

Creationism is not constant, evolution is. Creation is a singular event From nothing to form and substance. It cannot be ongoing but the effects can and the effects are called evolving.

 

[wolfman24]

I gave up after you started that crap about how an organism has an "ability" to successfully adapt. So?

Then why did you continue to post?

 

[grip]

Then why did you agree with my suggestions? Post 181 in quotes.

Creationism is not constant, evolution is. Creation is a singular event From nothing to form and substance. It cannot be ongoing but the effects can and the effects are called evolving.

I agreed to the part where you stated, someone transported to the past would understand more about the world through modern science, than they did through superstition and religion. Saying we can't possibly understand the stories of the past as they did in their circumstances and limited knowledge is probably true to some degree, but it's not that difficult because I didn't always have knowledge. I think you're wrong that you can't compare what we now know to what they once believed. I think the reverse would be a bigger leap for ancient people to grasp a lifetime of information, modern technology and experience that we now have.

Evolution is merely a descriptive term meaning the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form. Creation is not necessarily a finished event, regardless of semantics. Creationism is also continuing and something I don't agree with as true.

Your thoughts on the subject are haphazard and ill explained.

 

[Paschendale]

Other than really poor attempts to disprove evolutionary theory (like the flagellum argument, "macro" vs "micro" evolution - of which there is no difference, or declarations against abiogenesis - which is a different theory than evolution), what evidence do creationists offer that affirmatively supports their theory? Please, if anyone has some, share it.

 

[wolfman24]

I agreed to the part where you stated, someone transported to the past would understand more about the world through modern science, than they did through superstition and religion. Saying we can't possibly understand the stories of the past as they did in their circumstances and limited knowledge is probably true to some degree, but it's not that difficult because I didn't always have knowledge. I think you're wrong that you can't compare what we now know to what they once believed. I think the reverse would be a bigger leap for ancient people to grasp a lifetime of information, modern technology and experience that we now have.

Evolution is merely a descriptive term meaning the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form. Creation is not necessarily a finished event, regardless of semantics. Creationism is also continuing and something I don't agree with as true.

Your thoughts on the subject are haphazard and ill explained.

I said no such thing. I said veiwed from a perspective as seen from the time it occurred this is how it would have been explained. Nothing more.

The fact that they were ignorant nomdic tribesman and knew nothing of science or how the world worked. Genesis is a very practical explanation. Trying to look at Genesis from a modern perspective is ridiculous. Then was then and now is now.

It would be like saying that the earth is the center of the universe because thats how people saw it 1400 years ago. Not valid comparason.

Your last sentences simply show a total lack of understand of how the process works and is clouded in your own prejudice.

 

[ecofarm]

Then why did you continue to post?

To see how you would spin that mistake.

 

[wolfman24]

To see how you would spin that mistake.

What mistake I made none. end of message.

 

[mbig]

With all due respect, this is a weak response. ...

With all due respect, you have many excuses why you won't/don't respond and now criticize/characterize OC's response.

Of course his so-called (but not really) 'weak response' was a whole heck of alot Better than you being Unable to respond At All to my #152:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...olution-vs-creationism-16.html#post1061163865

So what is the excuse now?
You Don't respond substantially because they are ostensibly "too weak" -- or "ignore altogether" because they are in fact, too Strong/devastating.
"Heads I win, tails you lose".
Denialism is, after all, what it takes to hold your views.

 

[ecofarm]

What mistake I made none. end of message.

You framed, perhaps merely through poor choice of words, evolution as a pro-action of a species. An "ablity" that the species had to "adapt successfully". Let's look at the quoted words. Ability: no; it's not something that is done on purpose. This brings us to Successfully: this implies a goal, presumably known to the species, and reached; incorrect. Finally, Adapt: The species is not so much adapting to an environment, as it is being molded by the environment. It's not like, "hey, I need spots", it's like "well, aren't I lucky, these spots are useful!"

I object to your semantics and even tone that clearly implies evolution is an action/ability of a species in attempt to adapt. This is counter to a proper conceptualization describing the random mutation and adoption (not adaption) of traits. Simply, evolution is top-down not bottom-up; in this way, there are allusions to spirituality.

 

[grip]

I said no such thing. I said veiwed from a perspective as seen from the time it occurred this is how it would have been explained. Nothing more.

The fact that they were ignorant nomdic tribesman and knew nothing of science or how the world worked. Genesis is a very practical explanation. Trying to look at Genesis from a modern perspective is ridiculous. Then was then and now is now.

It would be like saying that the earth is the center of the universe because thats how people saw it 1400 years ago. Not valid comparason.

Your last sentences simply show a total lack of understand of how the process works and is clouded in your own prejudice.

It IS what you implied and have repeated in your response. Part of that I agree with that Genesis was as reasonable an explanation to the unknown as any back then. The Creation stories origin is presumed Sumerian and probably had been told in one form or another for thousands of years.

To underestimate the thinking capacity of even prehistoric humans would be a misconception. Their brain development and thought processes were not that far behind us they simply didn't have the accumulated scientific knowledge we currently have. We still haven't figured out how they built the Pyramids or why? Humans are famous for taking the available information on a subject and using our imagination to try and fill in the rest.

You take your opinion too seriously and as a matter of fact. Sorry but it's still just your opinion.

 

[ecofarm]

Genesis is a pretty good ancient conceptualization of geology and biology.

1:3 Light
1:4 Earth rotation
1:6 Water
1:8 Atmosphere
1:12 Plants before animals
1:20 Animals in water (and air, presumably mistaking birds for quasi fish) before on land
1:26 Humans after animals


I'd put that up against most creation stories when comparing such to modern science.

 

[ObamaIsAMarxist]

to all the evolutionists out there, can someone plz explain how nothing made an eye???? the eye is so beauitful and so obviously designed by god but secular evolutionists try to say well nothing made it and thats why we can see!!! i dont understand how some people can be so ignorant

 

[Ikari]

to all the evolutionists out there, can someone plz explain how nothing made an eye???? the eye is so beauitful and so obviously designed by god but secular evolutionists try to say well nothing made it and thats why we can see!!! i dont understand how some people can be so ignorant

The eye came about through photoreceptive cells. Duh. I don't understand how some people can be so ignorant.

 

[ObamaIsAMarxist]

who made the cells???

The eye came about through photoreceptive cells. Duh. I don't understand how some people can be so ignorant.