Thank you for the post Reliah

What i got out of it though is thst it was telling me that all fish are the same thing from a sardine to a whale, All primapes are the same from a gorilla to humans.

Or we could group it way bigger and say all animals are the same we do have varations though.

Nothing is ever certain and everything should be question.

In this discussion is nice to see arguements from both sides

Oh and i do not mean to offend if i have at all i am sorry

Reliah wrote:
I was not referring to you in particular as ignorant, I was referring to how popular the mock debate on evolution is, even though it was concluded a century ago.

What you need to understand Reliah is that there are four levels of animal groupings. Orders, families, subfamilies and cousin species. what the experiment was to move the beetle into a new subfamily. Let me demonstrate using the classical tree of life for the coleopatricus bettle family.


Alaro Coleopatricus (10 000 years ago) (evolved)
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
(3)Milias Coleopatricus Malis (still living)(not fully evolved) I Glias Coleopatricus (extinct)
/
/
Elbe Coleopatricus (living)(4)


Reliah, the goal of the exercise was to have the not fully evolved Milias (3) into a species other than Elbe (4), since this one evolved in another climate than Milias. Milias is extended across Northern Europe. When Elbe migrated to Central Europe (named after the famous river), it evolved due to the climate.

So what I did is I took about 50 milias and applied cold temperatures. After a year we say vertical evolution. The evolution you talk about is if I take a currently fully evolved species (since Elbe came from Milias in a vertical manner. If I used Elbe, it would be adaptation. If I used Milias it would be vertical evolution)

So what happened was, their shell strengthened and changed to a darker black color. Analyzing one of their cells, I saw their DNA had changed.

I'll simplify the DNA analysis to top groups 1 = Normal chromosome 2 = Floating chromosomee

Milias: Milias Muta 1 (aka the mutation I made):

1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2-1-1-1-1 () 1-1-1-1-2-1-2-1-1-1-1-1

As noticeable, the 2nd floating gene from the left on Milias changed to be normal due to the evolution. If it were adaptation it wouldn't have changed.

Also, I didn't mean to offend or patronize. I also couldn't make an actual tree, but if you want Reliah I can make you one. Also, if possible, call a moderator to make diagrams on the forum replies if possible.

IF you want anymore info, just inbox me!

Jacen solo wrote:
But, you do have a point! From an evolutionary standpoint, there are multitudes of discrepancies even from organism to organism. From a spiritual standpoint, there are more similarities than differences. I guess, in a creationist worldview, seeing animals' consistencies would be more beneficial than discrepancies.

But, that's the whole point. In order to shell this argument out to the unbiased truth, you have to shed your perspective. You cannot just look at the facts because you will subconsciously look only at the facts YOU want to see. Try looking at the facts from many different perspectives, and you will see that both the similarities and disparities are equally important in fleshing out the inconsistency that Creationism has with "scientific history".

Scientificus wrote:
I found your post to be very interesting

The easiest way would be to produce an image file of it and then to upload that image file (using one of the buttons at the top when you create a new post) to the website

I might respond after I have read the link Reliah provided

There's lot's of fine examples and references here so far proving evolution. What's lacking is anyone destroying the arguments proposed for creationism.

Please use www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/ and www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html since those are the two presented previously in this thread.

From the first creationism argument link we have "The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created [in the form we see today]."

The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

Does anyone care to have a go at that?

I'll have a go at debunking it

"The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states(1). Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.(2) This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer.(3)" "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.(4)"

Here are my arguments here:

(1) Except in void states or in closed systems. Evolution on Earth does not apply to this due to the fact the sun gives light and in void states there is not conturning matter to work with. Most of the universe is in a void state.

(2) Explain how all galaxies tend to diverge from the same point? Or that the fact the blast does not lose energy due to the travelling in void, which apposes no friction?

(3) Why, by default, is it that every time you punch a hole in our thinking, the answer is always God? The God hypothesis cannot be tested therefore cannot be cross-examined.

(4) Wernher van Braun was an enthusiastically anti-religious atheist who said in context that "any theory THAT IS TESTABLE (unlike the God hypothesis) could be brought forward"

A little late entering the discussion here, but I think it's great that this is addressed. As a Christian (as well as a conservative, but I don't consider this a political issue myself!) I often have to deal with this from within and without. Personally, I've never seen any disagreement between the Bible and evolution. It's interesting to note that, at the time that Darwin published his theory, the fact that it didn't line up with the creation narrative was not the cause of the controversy,as most people, even without knowledge of evolution,had LONG understood Genesis to be allegorical! The bulk of the controversy was whether or not it lined up with the *character* of God! In fact, the theory found a lot of support among Anglican clergy! It wasn't until the early 20th Century that YEC as we know it began, as a reactionary measure among the most fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist evangelicals here in the USA.

As an American, I want to make a few other things clear regarding creationism in the USA. Not all the folks who reject or are skeptical of evolution are necessarily Kent Hovind-esque YECs who believe that everything started roughly 6000 years ago with two people in a garden. All it means is they simply don't accept evolution, and there are many forms of creationism that nonetheless understand Genesis to be allegorical. ADDITIONALLY, I believe it has nothing to do with the levels of religiosity in the modern USA, but rather out of the adversarial relationship between religion and science here. Here, unfortunately, there is an atheistic scientific elite, and many people on both sides fail to realize that 1) everyone can accept science regardless of faith or lack thereof and 2) religion in itself is not an impediment to scientific progress. Take Russia for example. Since the fall of the USSR, Russians have been flocking back to the Russian Orthodox Church, and religiosity is still rising there, yet you don't have a major creationism problem, as the Orthodox church understands how to interpret the Bible correctly. In short, as a Christian, I believe the creationism issue is a result of bad theology.

Reliah wrote:
Totally right! I don't necessarily accept everything a scientist says because they say it, because they've been wrong many times- often at the expense of the people, especially in regards to medicine!

As for evolution, I accept the general idea that stuff evolved in some way or another, but then again, these are the same scientists who can't 100% tell us what species dachshunds developed from, and they didn't appear until the 1700s!

First, great discussion going on here

As to the subject of the original post "What's the matter with Creationism?"

Nothing!

If you want to believe in creationism...go ahead...

If you want to believe in evolution...that’s cool too...

Want to split the difference and go with theistic evolution...no problem...

Creationism is based on faith

Evolution is based on science

Neither can be proven or disproven satisfactorily to the other side so pick a side be happy

In my opinion most of the evidence points to evolution but that doesn't mean creationism is wrong to me, to me it’s just a different belief or point of view

My only problem is the teaching of creationism in public school. IMO science (evolution) should be taught in school and religion (creationism) should be taught in church (or a private school of your choosing).

I grew up in the seventies in central Florida and was taught evolution. I don't remember ever being taught creationism in school. That doesn't mean I don't look the views of creationism every once and a while and think....hmmmm...maybe..who knows for sure?

Jrake wrote:
Just for clarification, theistic evolution is not necessarily splitting it both ways, but I get what you mean. Honestly I think the argument between the two never needs to occur outside of religion.

My main beef with creationism mainly comes from the ultra-fundamentalist young earth conservatives. I mean, according to their own beliefs, anyone who doesn't accept the Christian faith is damned forever, yet people like Ken Ham spend millions on stuff like the Creation Museum, rather than to spread their message which they believe is essential for salvation? Just kind of shows that they are more interested in being right (which I don't believe they are) than they are in the well-being of others. As a Christian, the creation-evolution debate has never been an issue for me (except when someone else makes it an issue), and honestly, unless someone LITERALLY believes that the world started 6000 years ago in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, I'm willing to say their guess as to the origins of everything is as good as mine. Personally I like the Buddhist stance on the issue, which can basically be summed up as "who cares how and when everything came into existence, we're all here regardless, and we've got bigger and more important things to ponder, think, and debate about, so this discussion is pointless."