Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism

[proudpagan]

You didn't really answer the question. Do you believe that the fundamentalist Christian organization "Answers in Genesis" is "logical"?

Christianity can never be logical . What we know is that there are 3 eternal things - Universe God and Soul . When I said God I dont mean Abrahamic God who is fake and illogical .

 

[proudpagan]

Then there is no ultimate purpose behind our survival or existence. Which is what I explained to begin with.

How do you know that ?

 

[proudpagan]

There is no such thing as "partially evolved". That's not how evolution works. It's not like halfway between a wolf and a dog there was some kind of "half-wolf, half-dog". What happens is that wolves produce variations of wolves, and those variations of wolves produce further variations and so on until you get a version of wolves that is so distinct, biologically and physically, from the starting point that they can be labelled as a variation of wolves known as "dogs". At no point is anything "half" anything, nor "incomplete species". Every generation is a fully formed organism with slight variations on the previous one.

Dude Genetic variation, which is often called micro-evolution and macro-evoution is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code

Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool as required for “macro-evolution” their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible vartiation within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Would you care to present these diametrically different interpretations?

Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45

Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, p 460

Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co p 39

E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19

We do.

You not getting it uwu evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of evolutionary theory.

The Piltdown Man was an actual fraud that fooled the world for over forty years! It was eventually discovered that the Piltdown Man was a forgery of ape and human bones ingeniously placed together to convince the scientific community that the "missing" link was found.

A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins...part feet. This would show that the fins actually turned into feet. There's nothing like this in the fossil record

See above

Seen

t's a theory proposed to explain why some evolutionary change happens relatively suddenly after long periods of stasis, after which a single species branches into two distinct species. It does not say that species "evolved suddenly from one kind to another".

Evolution

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dude Genetic variation, which is often called micro-evolution and macro-evoution is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code

They are literally the exact same thing, merely over different periods of time. What's more, the exact definition of "macro-evolution" tends to change between creationists (and often change within a single creationist from time to time). Note that your definition is rather murky, as it fails to make the distinction as to exactly what would constitute a "new feature" as a-posed to a new function of an existing feature. The actual definition of macro-evolution is evolution at or above the level of species:

Macroevolution - Wikipedia
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48
the definition of macroevolution

Evolution above the level of species has actually been directly observed multiple times.

Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool as required for “macro-evolution” their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible vartiation within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Please indicate exactly how genetic change is limited, what limits it, and how you can demonstrate this.

 

[ArtieE]

Let me explain. I am only pushing the question of no purpose up one level.

Now, although you might say man has no purpose you would agree that a hammer has a purpose. I am saying although Brahman has no purpose, man and a hammer have their designed purpose.

That's the point. Then the hammer has no ultimate purpose beyond Brahman. Brahman created man and man created hammer but since Brahman had no purpose there's no ultimate purpose to anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

Dude Genetic variation, which is often called micro-evolution and macro-evoution is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code

Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool as required for “macro-evolution” their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible vartiation within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45

FYI everyone......we have a troll. This poster is merely copying verbatim from various creationist websites and passing their material off as his own, even though he lists himself as a Satanist.

Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

The True.Origin Archive: Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution (Part 1) – Jack Scanlan

Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology | The Institute for Creation Research

Remember, the first rule of trolls is, don't feed them.

 

[proudpagan]

Remember, the first rule of trolls is, don't feed them.

Lmao why are you so butthurt ? Do I look like a keyboard warrior to you who would type in such huge articles everytime? I have a life dude . And I already stated in my previous post that I have pdfs with articles on this subject from like hundreds of websites . But seems like you are getting pwned due to the fact that I have a counter for each of your retarded claims uwu

 

[proudpagan]

They are literally the exact same thing, merely over different periods of time. What's more, the exact definition of "macro-evolution" tends to change between creationists (and often change within a single creationist from time to time). Note that your definition is rather murky, as it fails to make the distinction as to exactly what would constitute a "new feature" as a-posed to a new function of an existing feature. The actual definition of macro-evolution is evolution at or above the level of species:

Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation intoclaim that macro evolution = microevolution + 3.8 billion years. Evolutionists want us believing that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content.

Please indicate exactly how genetic change is limited, what limits it, and how you can demonstrate this.

Biochemical Limits to Evolution: The Untold Story

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation intoclaim that macro evolution = microevolution + 3.8 billion years. Evolutionists want us believing that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content.



Biochemical Limits to Evolution: The Untold Story

If all you're going to do is repeatedly copy and paste the same nonsense, there's no point trying to debate you.

 

[proudpagan]

If all you're going to do is repeatedly copy and paste the same nonsense, there's no point trying to debate you.

I will apologize you the day it becomes fact of evolution .

 

[Truly Enlightened]

How do you know that ?

Is there any life form on this planet that is aware of its purpose? So why should we? Can we still survive without knowledge of purpose? Don

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation intoclaim that macro evolution = microevolution + 3.8 billion years. Evolutionists want us believing that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content.



Biochemical Limits to Evolution: The Untold Story

I always thought that macro-evolution, was merely the sum total of micro-evolution changes within an organism. Don

 

[gnostic]

FYI everyone......we have a troll. This poster is merely copying verbatim from various creationist websites and passing their material off as his own, even though he lists himself as a Satanist.

Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

The True.Origin Archive: Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution (Part 1) – Jack Scanlan

Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology | The Institute for Creation Research

Remember, the first rule of trolls is, don't feed them.

But I like trolls.

They entertain me with their lack of wits...sort of like The Three Stooges. I like poking trolls in the eyes and slapping them down.

...well, figuratively.

 

[gnostic]

What do you mean "what" it is still a theory. It hasnt been proven to be 100% fact, but I think it is the most plausible.

Say a person who doesn’t know what a theory is, and who don’t understand the differences between evidence and proof.

Science and scientific theory is based on evidences, not proof. A scientific theory explain observable facts.

What make a theory factual, is the evidence, and the evidence that can be independently verified with more evidences. The evidences are the result of observation, eg through experiments and testings, hence evidences required to be detectable, measurable, quantifiable and testable.

A theory that have empirical and verifiable evidences to back it up, don’t require proving.

Proof is a logical or mathematical statement (like equations), which required proving and disproving. Proof is more abstract than evidence.

Proof are only essential for mathematics and theoretical physics.

 

[Jose Fly]

But I like trolls.

They entertain me with their lack of wits...sort of like The Three Stooges. I like poking trolls in the eyes and slapping them down.

...well, figuratively.

Then this latest incarnation should provide you with hours of entertainment.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If anyone expects to find a fossil of a complete dinosaur with feathers in the act of trying to fly, they shouldn't hold their breath. If anyone expects to find fossils of a hairy fish with feet and toes on top of the Grand Canyon, they would only be tripping. Finally, if anyone expects to find a fossil of Balangoda Man, with a face larger than its cranium, a tiny pelvis, and an AK-47 next to his body, then they have just falsified the Theory. Not only is the genetic, geological, anatomical(oxygen markers, etc.), archeological, paleontological, chemical, climatic, physiological, and radiometric dating methods(27), consistent with the Theory, but the evolutionary process(small changes over time) simply doesn't work like that. To expect to find fossils with such obvious changes, only demonstrate a very poor understanding of the Origin of Species, or the true meaning of Natural Selection. At worst, it represents a determined effort to manipulate, distort, or ignore the facts, and maintain the faith at all cost.

Science attempts to provide the best explanation of all natural phenomena, that is consistent with the totality of the data(evidence). Science deals with degrees of certainties, not absolute certainties. Nothing is absolute or eternal in nature. So what we expect to see in the fossil record(and other external findings), is a gradual shift from simple organisms to more complex organism. We would expect to see simple functions evolve into more complex functions. This in fact is what we actually do see.

Of course this is all meaningless in advancing the idea that the ToE is false, and that a God did it. This alternative explanation requires its own direct creation-specific evidence. You can't depend on proof by disproof. That would still only be an argument from ignorance. The creation account MUST stand on its own, if it is to compete with science. Words, and fallacy-riddle logic, just don't cut it. Don

 

[proudpagan]

The creation account MUST stand on its own, if it is to compete with science.

Universe was never created . Its eternal . God Soul and Universe are eternal , they existed together .

 

[Truly Enlightened]

This is a belief, not a fact or truth claim. If this were true, the Universe would be static. It ain't! It is dynamic. Nothing is eternal, and nothing can be eternal. At least not in our 4-dimensional closed system. It would require perpetual and infinite energy to become eternal or everlasting. The only thing that is eternal is our imagination and our ability to give it substance. Don

 

[proudpagan]

If this were true, the Universe would be static. It ain't! It is dynamic. Nothing is eternal, and nothing can be eternal.

There are cycles of creation and destruction. beginning and end are only seen from within time, space, and causation.If creation had a beginning, then must the creator also have had a beginning, since until there is a creation there can be no creator; but to admit that the creator had a beginning would be to admit that God had a beginning, since God is not God until he creates—and to think of God as having had a beginning would be absurdity.

The process of creation and dissolution goes on for ever and ever, for it is as endless as it is beginningless. Eternity is witness, not of one universe only—that, for example, of which we are now a part—but of an infinite succession of universes. The birth, life, and destruction of a universe constitutes a cycle. To say that there was never a first cycle, and will never be a last, is only a way of affirming that the creative function of Ishwara (Dont confuse with Abrahamic God) is, like himself, eternal.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It is YOU that stated that the Universe and God's Soul were eternal, not me. Now you're saying that the Universe is cyclic? The cycle in nature is birth, SURVIVAL, reproduction, and extinction. A beginning, a middle, a passing on, and then passing if you will. Unfortunately, the evidence suggest that extinction is the true cycle of life, considering nature's 99.9% extinction rate. Eventually, all species on this planet will become the victims of this cycle. Eventually the earth, the stars, and even the entire Universe will become the victim of this cycle. Another word for this cycle is "Entropy"(disorder), and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Everything in our reality will eventually succumb to the power of Entropy. We are all bound by this second law. Let me try to explain. Since the low ordered state of the BB(low Entropy state), we have been for billions of years, increasing more and more the level of disorder(high Entropy state) within our Universe. There is no evidence of this on a macroscopic level, ever happening in reverse. Eventually, the universe will reach near-infinite entropy(disorder). Although, one theory of the origin of our Universe, is that it was caused by a quantum fluctuation(reversal) at near-infinite entropy, on the macroscopic scale. It is possible for you to be in two places at the same time, or that a glass once broken, can repair itself. But this would take a near infinite amount of time. At the quantum level, these possibilities are all possible. But on the macro-level, they are statistically improbable, but not impossible--GIVEN A NEAR INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME. This line of thinking is consistent with our understanding of the 4 fundamental forces of nature, quantum mechanics, and the Origin of Life.

I'm afraid I can't argue against your self-serving subjective logic, except to accept it as only your belief. Simply asserting what God is or is not, or what God can or cannot do, is absurd. Although you may believe this to be true, you would need to be a God to KNOW this to be true. Don