Creationism vs. Evolution

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: stardust First, how would that be an increase in information? Resistance is built as a result of "losing" genetic data because of mutation.

You seem to be assuming that any change is inherently a loss. It's not. Most changes are neutral, some are harmful and some are beneficial. In fact, whether it's harmful or beneficial often depends on the context. For example, the same change that makes you resistant to a disease could also somewhat impair your metabolism. Whether this is a net gain depends entirely on how likely it is that you run into the disease and on how harmful it is.

The original state of a genome is far from perfect, so there's much room for improvement when things change. More to the point, as the resistance example shows, perfection is a moving target. The goal isn't so much to be perfect as to track changes in the environment. And it is the environment that ultimately the source of the new information that gets encoded in the genome through natural selection.

Quote by: stardust Mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. The genetic changes that can illustrate the theory of evolution, should add new information to the genome. The horizontal transfer of genes, however, only spreads around genes already extant in some species.

See, that's just false. Not that the micro/macro distinction is all that interesting, but all it takes is a single speciation event to demonstrate macroevolution, and we've got dozens of those. Ultimately, macroevolution is just microevolution repeated, not anything special.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: gallo Further, Dawkins has disuaded me from acceptance of Gould's concept of NOMA. At one time I thought that NOMA was a valid concept. I hadn't thought about it for some years, and after debating the illogical and unreasonable ideas of creationists over those years, I find that I am now more in agreement with Dawkins than Gould. In fact, I now realize that I have argued Dawkins position on many occasions without even realizing it.

If you want to read some high-quality Gould bashing, try "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", by Dennett, who happens to be friendly with Dawkins. Then again, if you had trouble with TSG, I'm not sure you'll be able to handle DDI.

TC

[Brian]

Love is the foundation for life. Love came before sex. And love came before the world. The disillusionment is the denial of Love, something that Creationism takes into effect over Evolution.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian Love is the foundation for life. Love came before sex. And love came before the world. The disillusionment is the denial of Love, something that Creationism takes into effect over Evolution.

With all due respect, this is nonsense. It's not even meaningful enough to be wrong.

You have shown no ability to put forth a coherent argument, much less support it. What are you doing here?

TC

[Brian]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal With all due respect, this is nonsense. It's not even meaningful enough to be wrong. You have shown no ability to put forth a coherent argument, much less support it. What are you doing here? TC

It is a coherent argument.. Creationism starts from the beginning before the Big Bang.. God is Love, Love came before everything, and it makes sense because love comes before sex, so love starts life. I am here because I have a freedom of speech and we are talking about Creationism vs Evolution and Creationism starts from the beginning and Evolution starts from the middle.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian It is a coherent argument.. Creationism starts from the beginning before the Big Bang.. God is Love, Love came before everything, and it makes sense because love comes before sex, so love starts life. I am here because I have a freedom of speech and we are talking about Creationism vs Evolution and Creationism starts from the beginning and Evolution starts from the middle.

Nonsense.

TC

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Brian It is a coherent argument.. Creationism starts from the beginning before the Big Bang.. God is Love, Love came before everything, and it makes sense because love comes before sex, so love starts life. I am here because I have a freedom of speech and we are talking about Creationism vs Evolution and Creationism starts from the beginning and Evolution starts from the middle.

Until proof of god is given, or at least evidence supporting creationism (saying "the bible says so" isn't evidence, BTW) there is very little argument in favor of it.

[Jack]

Quote by: Brian It is a coherent argument (see the bold replies for why it's not).. Creationism starts from the beginning before the Big Bang (if the BB theory is correct, both matter and time didn't exist prior to that moment. So "before the Big Bang" makes no sense).. God is Love (presumption without substantiation), Love came before everything (presumption without substantiation), and it makes sense because love comes before sex, so love starts life (so who had sex to produce the universe? Not to mention the vast number of people who have sex that couldn't care less about each other as long as one of them gets paid). I am here because I have a freedom of speech and we are talking about Creationism vs Evolution and Creationism starts from the beginning and Evolution starts from the middle (almost correct. Creationism concerns the beginning of the universe and also life while evolution concerns living entities).

This argument is full of unsupported presumptions and unsubstantiated statements. It's coherent only in that you posted in English and I could read it.

[Brian]

Quote by: Jack This argument is full of unsupported presumptions and unsubstantiated statements. It's coherent only in that you posted in English and I could read it.

It is also coherent in that evolution is missing the first phase, the reason behind it all.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian It is also coherent in that evolution is missing the first phase, the reason behind it all.

The conclusion that Jack and I have both arrived at is that you are not putting forth actual arguments of the sort expected in a debate. You're making empty assertions and expecting us to care.

TC

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Brian It is also coherent in that evolution is missing the first phase, the reason behind it all.

1- Why does the universe needs a reason behind it while God doesn't?
2- Why the Christian mythology?

[Jack]

Quote by: Brian It is also coherent in that evolution is missing the first phase, the reason behind it all.

The obvious fact that evolution has nothing to do with creation does not make that statement coherent beyond being understandable. A better understanding of evolutionary theory would illuminate why evolution doesn't address abstract notions like "the reason behind it".

[Brian]

Quote by: nerdvincent 1- Why does the universe needs a reason behind it while God doesn't? 2- Why the Christian mythology?

1. The universe needs a reason behind it because we all want to know the point of why it is we are here and what our purpose is on this earth. The reason behind God is that He gives us our purpose in the Bible, the Word of God, so we trust the book and follow it because without God we wouldn't be here and we trust that what He did was good and He has a plan for all of us.

2. Christianity is the simplest but yet the most profound explanation of life, it is the world's largest religion and it includes the most influential person in the world, the Pope. And it is a culture that continually grows and never ceases.

[Brian]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal The conclusion that Jack and I have both arrived at is that you are not putting forth actual arguments of the sort expected in a debate. You're making empty assertions and expecting us to care. TC

The argument is real.. you have never asked the question Why are we here? Evolution goes through a library to explain it, but I think it answers the question How are we here? Christianity covers Why we are here?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian 1. The universe needs a reason behind it because we all want to know the point of why it is we are here and what our purpose is on this earth. The reason behind God is that He gives us our purpose in the Bible, the Word of God, so we trust the book and follow it because without God we wouldn't be here and we trust that what He did was good and He has a plan for all of us. 2. Christianity is the simplest but yet the most profound explanation of life, it is the world's largest religion and it includes the most influential person in the world, the Pope. And it is a culture that continually grows and never ceases.

1) Who said it had a reason? Perhaps reasons are something that came later, after minds came to be.

2) Nonsense.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian The argument is real.. you have never asked the question Why are we here? Evolution goes through a library to explain it, but I think it answers the question How are we here? Christianity covers Why we are here?

This falsely assumes that there is any such thing.

TC

[Brian]

Quote by: Halofan48 Until proof of god is given, or at least evidence supporting creationism (saying "the bible says so" isn't evidence, BTW) there is very little argument in favor of it.

I don't need proof.. just having the Bible amuse me in the why we are here is good enough for me.. at least that book cares about my security.. it makes my natural questions important and it doesn't leave me empty. That is satisfaction enough for me.. I am sorry that you are high-maintenance and you continue to demand but never seek and are filled.

[Jinei]

1) “The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.” - Carl Sagan

2) Theocentricism

Quote by: Brian I don't need proof....

That explains so much. Coulda said that to start with...

[Brian]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal This falsely assumes that there is any such thing. TC

Explain

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Brian I don't need proof.. just having the Bible amuse me in the why we are here is good enough for me.. at least that book cares about my security.. it makes my natural questions important and it doesn't leave me empty. That is satisfaction enough for me.. I am sorry that you are high-maintenance and you continue to demand but never seek and are filled.

So if i said "A book that i believe in tells me so, so i don't need proof" You would accept it?

Look, if you are going to debate, you are going to need proof, otherwise, you have no argument, you are just stating your beliefs and are contributing nothing to the debate at hand.

Also, i just think that instead of placing my beliefs in a book that has not been proven and has no evidence supporting it, I actually try to find the answers. I don't think the beliefs that have been handed down generation to generation should just be blindly accepted. Question things, don't just accept an answer that has little, if any, evidence.