Evolution or Creation?? (page 5)

hooberus

abaddon said:

For all your attacks on detail of evolutionary theory, you have yet to demonstrate an alternative.

I at least direct my attacks on evolutionary theory while you usually direct your attacks on your debate opponets personally.

hooberus

Abaddon said:

I will enjoy reading you explanation of how the fossil record is explained by Scripture.

So why don't you believe the fossil record to be compatible with Scripture?

hooberus

Abaddon said:
Please try to support your beliefs in an even-handed fashion. As has been demonstrated quite adequately on this thread, the problem with many creationist websites is that they don't even know what peer-review is, which is why charlatans like Dr. Jerry are regarded as credible. Because of this I will regard any link to a site that uses non-peer reviewed material or quotes from non-peer reviewed material as you view the Book of Mormon.

The following is from AIG:

In addition to our carefully checked family magazine Creation, our refereed journal TJ (right) has become, along with the Creation Research Society Quarterly, a major forum for creationists to be able to formally present/debate various positions. Creationists are encouraged to present articles/papers for peer review and possible publication so that theories, evidence etc., can be tested by mainstream creationist experts in their field.

We also wholeheartedly endorse the regular Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism, a forum at which creationist scientists can present and publish their concepts following peer-review, submitting them to the ‘iron-sharpening-iron’ process which is so vital in any scientific endeavour.

Gerard

Human genome has 3x 10[exp 11] base pairs total DNA,

Newts have 10[exp12] ( that's 1,000 times more than you do!),

Even some vegetables have a larger genome than humans:

Beans: 10[exp 12] and a

Lilly has 10[exp 13].

This is for those who think humans are sooooo special.... We are likely a design but by no means are superior by content. Just my 2 cents on the mystery of life.

rem

Hooberus,

My pointing out the error in rem's statement to the effect that "there is no need for micro-evolution in the creation theory" is not a double standard.
Creationists very frequently discuss micro-evolution as part of their model.

Micro-evolution is a basic principal in creationist literature.

I have discussed the issue of micro-evolution as related to the creation model with rem at length in another thread.

rem has claimed in the past to be familiar with both sides of the debate as well as the literature from both sides.

You misunderstood my point. My point was that Creation theory cannot be falsified by the existence or non-existence of micro-evolution. If micro-evolution did not exist, creation would not be falsified. That is what I meant by "there is no need for micro-evolution in the creation theory".

rem

hooberus

Very well rem, I'll take it that you do understand that micro-evolution is included in most creation models, and that your comments relate to falsification issues. I hope if time allows to post some information on the falsifaction issue.

kat_newmas

Kat Newmas believes that if "God" has been here since infinity... then perhaps so has the universe. Perhaps there is no beginning. Perhaps there is no end.

Often wonders why man is so.... engulfed in his origin. Perhaps it isnt where we came from that matters... but where we are going. In some way, every war in history is related to one man's Idea of God, or man's origin, or morality Vs. another's Idea. Perhaps man will out-grow the need to explain these things. It will be then, that we will be ready to move on to the next level of growth.

I would like to think that the earth and this life, is sort of an "incubator" for the next stage. There are hundreds of trillions of stars in the universe.... perhaps they are themselves, our ancestors. Perhaps they are themselves what we will become. Pure Energy and light.

Abaddon

Speciation has been observed at least five times this century, most recent case being in a train station car park in

Abaddon, speciation is not macro-evolution !

Don't get too keen hoob... it's pretty obvious I lost part of the sentence there, unless you think that that's a proper sentence? I could have meant 'a station car park inn', I suppose, but the sentence actually continues...

... England. As you well know, macro-evolution is not subject to observation because of the time scales involved. This is understandable and explained by the theory. The theory of god fails to explain why god is not subject to observation, so you can't really make to much of that point, especially as the lack of proof is something you have (yawn) consistantly failed to answer. However, there is evidence supporting the theory of macro-evolution. What evidence do you have to support the theory of god? Yet another thing you've failed to answer. What's your excuse going to be this time?

For all your attacks on detail of evolutionary theory, you have yet to demonstrate an alternative.
I at least direct my attacks on evolutionary theory while you usually direct your attacks on your debate opponets personally.

Nice evasion. Weak excuse. Where was I attacking you? Nowhere... I attacked your arguement and the fact you were displaying a double standard. That's different to saying you have a big nose, or fancy goats (you don't, this is an example) (well, you might, but I have no proof, and quite frankly the size of your nose and your attitude towards goats is irrelevent to me). Can't respond to a point? Make a strawman attack! Nice hoob, very nice.

Now are you going to provide a theory of god that fits in with the evidence around us and is backed by your holy book?

I will enjoy reading you explanation of how the fossil record is explained by Scripture.
So why don't you believe the fossil record to be compatible with Scripture?

Time scale. Extinctions. Slow development of complexity. No evidence of global flood. Order of appearance of life forms is wrong.

More avoidance. Are you ever going to provide a clear explaination of your theory of god? Or is your failure to do this due to the fact you know you can't provide a theory without me and others having great fun flying rings round it?

I'm pretty sure, based on past evidence, that you'll come up with some excuse not to provide a concise explaination of what you believe is a good theory relating to our existence. How about a URL? That's easier for you, and at least we'll have some form of positive response from you.

As for the assurances of peer review you give, well, I needed a laugh. First of all, you don't actually provide any links to evidence (all I said was I wouldn't pay attention to non-peer reviewed material), instead seeking to show how peer reviewed (some) creationist material is. Then, amusingly, all the publications or conferences you refer to are organised and run by creationists. Can't creationist scientific articles withstand peer reveiw by people other than creationists? Are the arguements too complex to understand?

Such review is not worth a tinkers damn; you are effectively saying, 'Well, the society have provided us with all the information we need'.

If the work was good enough to withstand stringent peer review, like say publication in Nature, it would no doubt be published in Nature. As far as I am aware, this doesn't happen very often. So, if you can refer me to supporting information that is published in internationally accepted scientific journals, I'll be more impressed. But you still haven't supplied any theory, or any evidence to support the theory. Dull.

Come on hooberus. Your consistant failure to either address questions you can't answer (if you could you would, I'm sure of it), or provide a concise and supported explanation of how creation is supported by the evidence in the world around is becoming disingenuous.

Abaddon

Kat Newmas believes that if "God" has been here since infinity... then perhaps so has the universe. Perhaps there is no beginning. Perhaps there is no end.
Often wonders why man is so.... engulfed in his origin. Perhaps it isnt where we came from that matters... but where we are going. In some way, every war in history is related to one man's Idea of God, or man's origin, or morality Vs. another's Idea. Perhaps man will out-grow the need to explain these things. It will be then, that we will be ready to move on to the next level of growth.
I would like to think that the earth and this life, is sort of an "incubator" for the next stage. There are hundreds of trillions of stars in the universe.... perhaps they are themselves, our ancestors. Perhaps they are themselves what we will become. Pure Energy and light.

Well, you're certainly free to believe that. But there is pretty firm evidence the Universe HASN'T been here forever. As for your incubator theory, well, yes, you can believe that, but stars are balls of gas.

However, you are right at least in one respect, except you got it turned around and missed out half.

We are stardust. The heavy elements in our bodies were manufactured in stars, AND the elements in our bodies may one day return to stars.

But essentially, I spent such a long time believing in unprovable speculation, I don't want to start again, although you're free to.

hooberus

earlier I said:

"while creation itself was not observed by man, the site I listed appeals to observations from the present world to show evidence (from science) for creation. Also, macro-evolution was itself not subject to direct observation (no one observed fish turning into people over millions of years)."

to which abaddon replied:

Speciation has been observed at least five times in this century, most recent being a train station car park in

then abaddon added the rest of the paragraph:

... England. As you well know, macro-evolution is not subject to observation because of the time scales involved. This is understandable and explained by the theory. The theory of god fails to explain why god is not subject to observation, so you can't really make to much of that point, especially as the lack of proof is something you have (yawn) consistantly failed to answer. However, there is evidence supporting the theory of macro-evolution. What evidence do you have to support the theory of god? Yet another thing you've failed to answer. What's your excuse going to be this time?

My response still stands abaddon, speciation is not macro-evolution. And as even your own paragraph states "macro-evolution is not subject to observation . . . " Thus we are in agreement about the unobservable nature of macro-evolution. Therfore your argument about the observable nature of speciation (which everyone accepts) does not change the fact that macro-evolution is unobservable.

Evolution or Creation??

Share this