Creationism Challenge

[Mr Black]

i read this article http://www.icr.org/protection-of-God/ and i found it quite amusing. earths atmosphere, blah blah blah, supports life, blah blah blah, more basic facts that any lame documentary will tell you, and oh yeah, it was all created by god!!

[lordofthelefthand]

Ok you tricked me into wasting time on that site. Almost every sentence I read was wrong, but the following are some gems:

Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe.

These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.

But not enough visible matter exists to gravitationally pull those stars and their galaxies apart that fast. Hence, an invisible form of matter was proposed to provide the gravity that was necessary to prop up the theory: cold, dark matter, or CDM.

However, there are several empirical observations that seem to contradict the assumed Copernican Principle.

The universe is only several thousand years old.

In short, inflation is no help to the Big Bang theory. It assumes the flatness of the universe rather than predicting it, relegating the idea to an untestable speculation that says nothing more than "strange things happen."

[Etelerix]

HAIL SATAN!!!

[tarantulas]

Lolz Hitchikers Guide.

[raddy1313]

As for evidence, I encourage you to check out the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

The problem with the ICR site is the same problem with all religious debates and arguments. It takes the position that if something cannot be explained, then the explanation must be supernatural. There is a reason that no legitimate science journal or governing body takes any intelligent design or creationist theory seriously. Science has the burden of proof, if you make a claim, the results must be reproducible. Evolution, while a theory, makes rational, reasonably deduced claims that, given enough time, are reproducible (see the link above). To reiterate what many of the posters have said, there is nothing wrong with religion itself, but religion posing as science is a very different matter.

What I found odd was that the Catholic Church, one of the most reticent groups with regards to scientific advances, appears to be the only major Christian sect to have ("implicitly") embraced evolution and focused on the Old Testament as more of a set of parables than literal accounts.

[faazshift]

In regards to evidence, evolution is just as much a theory as creation. You say evolution is more logical, but I find creation far more believable. One of my biggest problems with evolution is that living matter doesn't just form out of non-living matter. Living material is quite complex. How did it all begin in the first place? The best answer I have gotten is that people don't know how it started. If you don't even know how it all started, how can the theory be given much merit. I find it much more believable that a being far more intelligent than ourselves created us. Besides, if evolution is so true, why aren't animals still magically turning into random creatures? Why isn't life still magically spontaneously forming out of non-life? How were both male and female humans formed at the same time and how did they survive the brutalities of life from mere infantry? Can you see why I find evolution to be less believable than creation?

[raddy1313]

In regards to evidence, evolution is just as much a theory as creation. You say evolution is more logical, but I find creation far more believable. One of my biggest problems with evolution is that living matter doesn't just form out of non-living matter. Living material is quite complex. How did it all begin in the first place? The best answer I have gotten is that people don't know how it started. If you don't even know how it all started, how can the theory be given much merit. I find it much more believable that a being far more intelligent than ourselves created us. Besides, if evolution is so true, why aren't animals still magically turning into random creatures? Why isn't life still magically spontaneously forming out of non-life? How were both male and female humans formed at the same time and how did they survive the brutalities of life from mere infantry? Can you see why I find evolution to be less believable than creation?

Your argument is flawed in so many areas. Firstly, you find it less credible that animals evolved than a supernatural being with no proof of existence magicked it all into reality?

Secondly, non-living matter IS the basis of living matter. I can assure you that none of the elements on the periodic table are independently alive, yet when you bring hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen together in different combinations, you form organic compounds, which form the basis of life. You may think that the odds on these elements coming together spontaneously at the beginning of the Earth are pretty long, but when you consider that hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen are the first, third, fourth, and sixth most abundant elements in the universe respectively, it suddenly doesn't seem so unreasonable, especially when you consider all the planets that formed without life on them.

Thirdly, animals ARE still evolving. Evolution is continually happening, there is no "steady-state" point for life. Because you don't see it happening (and you won't in your lifetime) doesn't mean that it isn't happening at all. The more complex an organism is, the longer it takes for it to evolve. However, if you read the article from my previous post, it discusses that evolution HAS been observed in simpler organisms, specifically E. coli bacteria, but even that experiment has been going on since 1988.

Your final statement with regards to how male and female humans evolved at the same time shows you have a very poor understanding of even the fundamental aspects of evolution. That is like asking how brunettes and blondes evolved at the same time. To greatly oversimplify this, think of it this way: A group of animals, half male, half female, go out into the world and gather various evolutionary mutations and characteristics. The ones who gather poor characteristics typically don't survive and thus do not pass on their genetic material and these poor characteristics do not make into the next generation. The animals that gather beneficial characteristics typically thrive better and are therefore more likely to have offspring. So the animals who survive come back a few years later to mate. This next generation of offspring will likely contain some of the genetic benefits their parents have gathered. Thus, all the offspring are started from relatively equal evolutionary footing and the cycle repeats again. Human males and females did not evolve independently and asexually from one another until suddenly one day they decided to have sex.

[sanddbox]

In regards to evidence, evolution is just as much a theory as creation. You say evolution is more logical, but I find creation far more believable. One of my biggest problems with evolution is that living matter doesn't just form out of non-living matter. Living material is quite complex. How did it all begin in the first place? The best answer I have gotten is that people don't know how it started. If you don't even know how it all started, how can the theory be given much merit. I find it much more believable that a being far more intelligent than ourselves created us. Besides, if evolution is so true, why aren't animals still magically turning into random creatures? Why isn't life still magically spontaneously forming out of non-life? How were both male and female humans formed at the same time and how did they survive the brutalities of life from mere infantry? Can you see why I find evolution to be less believable than creation?

The post above mine sums it up very well, but I'd like to add one more thing:

Before making any judgments on the merits of evolution, ensure you actually understand evolution.

Evolution isn't caused by animals magically transforming. It's caused by genetic mutations that take place over a period of time far longer than we will live.

Organisms are evolving. It's just that we can't see ourselves evolving because mutations are so rare. However, mutations DO take place.

We have witnessed bacteria evolving. We can witness this because bacteria reproduce far faster than we do - and thus, have far more mutations.

Remember: Evolution is not a willingly performed process. It simply happens.

[eljonto]

Evolution is not a willingly performed process. It simply happens.

Evolution doesn't simply "happen", it won't unless it has to. It's the Darwin theory of evolution, and natural selection, where species can adapt to their environment to ensure survival. The members of the population with the genetic mutations more favourable to their new environment will have a higher chance of survival, therefore a higher chance to get laid and pass on their favourable DNA, eventually creating a species population adapted to their environment. This is why the use of antibiotics is being controlled, the bugs are getting resistant through this evolution to the antibiotics, creating 'super-bugs'. Humans won't really be evolving that much, due to modern medicine. All the people that SHOULD die off (people with hereditary diseases / syndromes, religious fanatics etc) live on to pass on their DNA. Since the people not suited to our environment can survive in todays world and reproduce, our evolution isn't necessary. The unsuitable traits pass on, so natural selection isn't taking place.

[runninggee57]

I would also like to add that the theory of evolution takes no stab at how life came around in the first place. It assumes the earth had simple life and from there it evolved to the point it is at today. Evolution is a proven theory. Period. The problem for how life came about in the first place is not yet proven by science and only good guesses have been made at it.