creationism is the truth

last SG · 2006-09-25T20:40:30+00:00

I didn't know Jehovah witnesses were banned in Singapore. There're plenty serving their NS in the DB...

Icemoon SG

Luckily you are not the mod 'cos you are really a disgrace to the real mods who advocate and faciliate meaningful discussions. It is 'cos people like you that's why many Christians, save for their theology, are still stuck in a medieval understanding of science.

In your mind, you already form your conclusion. So regardless of what others say or present, you just dismiss it with some sloppy arguments.

May I say an argument or debate is to engage your opponent intellectually and in the process learn some new things or further/refine your own understanding.

The operative word is process.

Icemoon SG

Does God give you the wisdom to understand science?

I think He did .. but you threw it away.

vince69 SG

disprove evolution? you think too highly of me, no, I am not about disproving evolution, more about stating what evolution is not.
1) its not about mutation (example:different strains of the flu virus, is mutation, not evolution)
2) its not genetic manupilation of genes in the lab
3) its not natural adaption of behaviour for survival, its call survival of the fitest.

evolution is beyond all these, its one specie evolving into another new specie, this normally occur over time.
example:
H5N1 flus virus mutating into H5N1X (whatever you call it), don't count.
a "monkey" (not sure the exact term) evolving into human, counts.
a tadpole changing into a frog don't count
a fish evolving into a frog counts

while evolution theory is based on the observation of fossil records, creation theory is rooted in human beliefs. neither can be observed by the naked eye (in short no one really observe them as they happen).

evolution theory appeal more to the logical mind, as human logic were involved, while creation theory appeal more to the religious community as faith is involved.

while there are volumns of writtings on evolution theory (some may even conflicts with each others), the creation theory (based on christians belief) summarised into one sentance "God spoke and its done" (not much for a theory huh?)

kaister SG

Vince69, I highly advise that you read up more on evolution before you post on them. Obviously you didn't read my previous posts on how small changes can lead to species change and how we don't only observe evolution from fossils.

In response to your comments,

Mutation is the source of evolution. Why are we all different? Cos' of minor mutations and genetic recombinations. When some bad event happens (eg, a plague), it may wipe out many people without resistance to the disease. However, few will survive because they were lucky enough to possess a gene, from mutations, inherited from their parents. These people will reproduce and the next generation of humans will be immune to the plague. Over time and given enough events, the human species as a whole will evolve into another species, different from what they started with.

A very similar example can be seen in finches on Galopagos islands. Please read my previous posts.

You didn't read my previous post about rudimentary hind limbs in whales right? Again, evidence of evolution CAN BE OBSERVED in animals. If you find my examples too difficult for you to understand, please feel your own bum. There's a tailbone present (Coccyx), a vivid reminder that we were descented from apes. The tailbone serves no function in us, why is it there then? It is a product of evolution.

Please kindly give examples of how some evolution theory contradicts each other. Let's have an intellectual debate for once.

But you're right. Creation theory isn't much. At least some of creationist provide better entertainment with their attempts to justify themselves

vince69 SG

why we are different? the Bible says, we are all uniquely created, that's why (from a creationist POV).

human to human is not evolved, its adaption.

by your arguement, every changes can be proof of evolution, but how does this deduction comes about? pls read the underliing assumption that forms these deduction.
Human specie as a whole will evolved into another species? still an unproven theory, right? and the basic assumption for this deduction? evolution theory.
oh, till this really happens, its should be MAY evolve, not WILL evolved

my frustration with all these evolution evidence is that its a circular argument.
based on evolution theory, we deduce from observation, A evolve into B, hence a proof for evolution.

conflicting views? ok, life begins on earth or from space? from simple single cell or complex multi-cell (where do these cells come from?)
what is the trigger, random or specific? ...etc
while having conflicting views does not in anyway disprove the theory, its does shows that there are still alot more to debate and understand about.

pls understand, I said "Creation theory isn't much to debate about" not that its isn't much.

something to ponder about (a personal view)
evolution theory starts from the question "How do we get here?"
creation theory starts from the question "why are we here?"

anyway, there will be no end to this, I will be stopping here for now.

Icemoon SG

It need not be.

Remember Ironside quoted Josh's apologetic for Christianity that said the argument for Christ need not be circular?

We can likewise apply the same standard for evolution.

How? By assuming that change is reasonable, then we examine the observations, and try to form a synthesis.

kaister SG

Don't run away! Laughing

First of all, pick up any textbook and you can read for yourself that theory for evolution is based on adaptation. I shall not go too deeply in that. However, you're right to say that humans to humans is not evolution.

From your arguements, you seem to be not convinced of evolution unless you witness the change personally. May I ask if you witnessed creation? So in that case how can it be true when you've not seen it yourself? At least for evolution, we provide snapshots of the process through careful scrutiny and specific scientific process vetted by thousands of peers.

Would you believe a tall story of Jack and the bean stalk if someone tells you with no prove or if he provides pictures of the giant and the bean stalk?

On the contrary, creationism is a circular arguement. A circular arguement is one that based its explanations on a single assumption and keeps returning to it for an answer. Why do humans exist? Cos' God created them. Why do that animal exist? Cos' God created that. Can you see why your arguement is circular now? At the very least, evolution provides an explanation of the process and has an understanding of the mechanism. It is much better to know something about the dark and unknown, than to walk blindly and hope for some invisible hand to guide you.

Human species can evolve to other species. No one is saying we will, but the possibility is there. Nevertheless, the stone cold fact is that we evolved from ape-like pre-humans! Explain away your tailbone. Oh I forgot, maybe the creator forgot to remove it cos' he created humans based on monkeys? Wait... wouldn't that make the creator... imperfect?! Laughing

We are different from chimpanzees by only lesser than 5% of our DNA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee. If such a small change in DNA can bring about such big changes, why can't adaptations bring about changes and eventually evolution of a species?

Evolution does not attempt to explain how life comes about. It is merely trying to work out the mechanism of how we came to be. The reason why it annoys most creationists is because it undermines the credibility of the almighty creator. If the creator is so perfect, why would he design flaws that needs to be corrected by mutations over time?

Still despite your valor attempt, you made no remarkable points about conflicting views of evolution. You merely pointed out evolution does not explain how life comes about. I would have to agree that evolution does not explain the source of life. It merely explains how all organisms came from a single cell being. Unless the snapshots of evidence proved by scientists of evolution can be disputed, you'll have to do better than to that, to disprove the facts.

Icemoon SG

vince mati liao .. kaister is an intellectual and more sophisticated than people like NUS and Skyfoo. Laughing

Icemoon SG

oh ya davidche, if you want to know what is good manners and good discussion, read kaister's replies. Wink

vince69 SG

go back to my previous post, already say, creation cannot be observed also, you will need a time machine to do this, a task that is not possible (at least at this moment).

if like you say, adaption is the basis of evolution, then can adaptation be used to prove evolution? btw what is the unerlining assumption of this basis?

circular argument is when one use the same theory to come out with a deduction to prove that very theory.

ok, since you agree that evolution does not explain the source of life, let me tell you this also, without faith in the existence of a creater, neither can creation theory explain this.

And about the conflicting view, I am not even talking about explaination on the source of life, I am merely pointing that there are still alot of questions unanswered and researches still going on in this search for the ultimate answer of how and why.
Do have an open mind on this subject, be it evolution or creation, question everything, check every underlining assumptions, for its only in questioning we can gain knowledge.

recently there are also some who propose progressive evolution, which attempts to combine both creation and evolution theory.

Icemoon SG

Are you doing that?

Kaister is inviting you to do that, but all you could do was to give some vague replies. Rolling Eyes

ben1xy SG

Vince,

what do u think abou theistic evolution?

vince69 SG

its like, taking the head from creation theory and put in the tail from evolution theory.

ben1xy SG

what about a hybrid of theistic evolution with chaos theory?

aiyah, why not u explain your view to me. it's why easier than me having to ask every single option

AugoeideS SG

Alright, to add on to the vestigial organs, it includes our appendix as well. There's nothing beneficial about appendix, contrary it might developed into appendicitis which may be fatal to our body.

Yet it is there? Shocked

Evolution is a known fact, but how does the all perfect Creator fit into the picture then? If evolution is based on Natural Selection in which species adapt to changing environment, then God wouldn't be as perfect as we all thought he would be, right?

The thing is, maybe Humans have got the idea of God in all the wrong sense, and this tragedy carried on even up till today, even when all of us are fully aware of what is happening around us, there will still be some that clinch onto biblical ancient beliefs.

Say, Bible is the word of God, but it is written by men of the past, miracles to them may be just some advanced technology to us, they may overly glorified God because of their primitive thinking, who knows? And when the impression is such that God is omnipotent and capable of doing anything, this belief passes on to us till today.

What i meant was that in the past, these men might perceived God as perfect being, omnipotent and all, because they are incapable of such feat that God can do. How about now? Aren't we playing God when it comes to the way we treat the animals and the lesser beings on Earth?

To them we're God, because they can do nothing about their fate. Yet we ourselves know that we are as vulnerable as well, and have limitations, just that in relative to them, we're significantly more advanced.

Say, if one day, we successfully genetically engineered a species of monkey that is capable of human-level cognitive function, speech and consciousness, as the creator, will you tell them we're as vulnerable as them, or will you tell them we are their creator, perfect and mighty, and then display a firework of advanced technologies like doing a biometric fingerprinting scan that activate the lighting, fan, tv, hi fi set and all? To them, it could be something inconceivable, miracle?

And once they have acknowledged you and your powers, you proceed to tell them that you've created the universe, everything, and anything (even though you didn't). Will they believe? They will, because they have witnessed the amazing feats you've done that they felt was impossible to accomplish.

And at the end of the day, they're still as vulnerable because you have the capability to kill them, why not? Just shoot them with your gun, and they'll die, just like any other animals. And then, they'll know that they are vulnerable when it comes to you, creator of the universe.

Oh, that sounds very familiar to me.

vince69 SG

you will need to read our exchange again
kaister's stand is that evolution is right, creation is wrong
mine is, both are just as questionable and need to be questioned.
(from the start, I already said I am not going to disprove evolution, cause I can't)

ok
adaption is the basis for evolution
we says, if A's behaviour modified to adapts to B, we can only A evolved if the theory of evolution is assumed to be true, else it would just be instincts to survive. then can this observation be used to prove evolution?

in my opinion, when it comes to evolution, only the deductions/observations from the fossil records are really admissible for discussion.
and sad to say, creation (from christian view) only have the first 2 chapter of Genesis, if you take them literally.

vince69 SG

the thing is, I don;t have the answer, that's why I am questioning all.

ben1xy SG

fair enough

hmm, i keep hearing this young world theory. stating that our earth is 6,000 yrs old?? where did they get that figure from? they traced back generation by generation??

people might question evolution, but i think the claim that our earth is only 6,000 yrs old is even more dubious

vince69 SG

this is a bible based theory,
its derived by going through the genelogy starting from Adam, by adding up those numbers (example adam is xxx years when he begats

example:

Genesis 5:3-8
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father [b] of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.

so from Adam to Enosh is 130 + 105 years

the other possible reasoning is that its based on the Jewish calender, but then this will means the earth is only 5000++ years

kaister SG

First of all, you hold a good arguement Smile And you're a late sleeper... Laughing

Okie, at least we agree that there's no observable evidence for creation at all. Where's the other evidence that you can provide for creationism other than observation?

Nope, it cannot. Very Happy However, it is very useful in explaining why evolution happen. I hate to explain everything from the start but here goes:

It was first noticed that all populations of animals grow exponentially, even with slow reproducing elephants. A single pair of elephants can give rise to a few thousand elephants in ten generations.

However, we don't see that in everyday life. Why? Cos' due to competition, the less able elephants die off, leaving the fitter ones to carry on reproducing, thus more representation of their "better genes" in the gene pool. This survival of the fittest allows for evolution, so that each generation of elephants will be able to survive better in their harsh environment.

We also see this type of breeding in pure breed dogs or cattle (although man-induced, in contrast to environment-induced). Understand so far?

Here comes the role of adaptation. Evolution can only adapt to existing structures and modify them, instead of creating everything from scratch. Take for example giraffes, fossils of giraffes were recovered and found to have shorter necks (but still quite long) than the comtemporary ones. Why? In the natural evolution history of giraffes, those with longer necks get more food from higher branches and thus more capable of producing more offspring. Over time, their necks grew longer but the number of bones in their neck remained the same (7, same as any mammals). This is adaptation.

The same adaptation rules can be applied to explain why humans have tailbones (when they evolved from ape-like prehumans), whales have rudimentary hind limbs (when they evolved from land-walking mammals) and bats have finger bones and membranes for wings.

If creationism exist, why would adaptations be so evident everywhere? Imagine you're an engineer, wouldn't it make more sense to build a bird like an F-16 so that they can fly faster? Wouldn't it make more sense to have wheels instead of feet so that animals can run faster? Wouldn't it be more sensible to build fishes with turbines, so that they can swim faster?

Hmm... okie... so creationism is circular right? You use a creator to prove that all things are created.

Evolution uses different evidence to prove how it works. Adaptation is only one mechanism. Bottle-neck selection, macro-evolution and micro-evolution are all different theories, all contributing to the grand theory of evolution.

As you can see, evolution is not circular.

Yup, precisely why creationism is circular Laughing

I agree on this. Maybe it's just me, but half-answered questions are so much better than not answering them at all.

Evolution is a very young theory (relatively), there are tons of things not explained. And yes, we do need to keep an open mind - that's why we encourage active criticisms on all existing evidence on evolution.

However, I'm sadden to say that no way as a scientifically trained person, can I accept progressive evolution unless creationism can be proven or supported by evidence. It is at most a crude theory, no more advanced from its weakest link - creationism.

« Previous Page Next Page »