Creationism vs. Evolution

[ihaQ]

Quote by: 7 Swildo 7 This type of response seems to be typical with those who don't really know what they are talkin about but think they do. I brought up evolutionism in another thread. Every time i tried to make a point or ask a question an evolutionist could not answer then they started insulting my intelligence and never gave a good answer.

As far as I know, the proponents of evolution in the threads where you have contributed have been able to address your points to a suitable degree and that you have been the one to instigate the purely speculative and inflammatory ad hominem posts. Perhaps you could provide links to the questions you asked that weren't answered and we can get them out of the way?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: 7 Swildo 7 This type of response seems to be typical with those who don't really know what they are talkin about but think they do. I brought up evolutionism in another thread. Every time i tried to make a point or ask a question an evolutionist could not answer then they started insulting my intelligence and never gave a good answer.

First of all, there is no such thing as Evolutionism, in the same way that there is no gravitism. Second of all, if you have a legit question then please ask it or stop trolling around because I'm quite frankly sick and tired of this charade.

[Prometheus]

Thank you pooey. I would say the same thing for the thread where merlin is spewing crap.

[rcne]

This came up at another site; and quite honestly. I'd like an evolutionist to explain a duck billed platypus.

I don't have a problem with evolution, even with the holes and problems, but this platypus stands alone - and thats a big problem.

It has traits form mammals, but doesn't have teats to feed its young, but pores to deliver the milk. It is the world’s only venomous animal with fur.

This example just doesn't fit into an evolutionary chain - there are no earlier simpler modes of it. When it appears in the fossil record it is the same. Just odd, and all you need is one white crow to prove all crows aren't black,

[belverron]

http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/platypus.htm

Good enough for me. All I had to do was Google "platypus".

[MerlinsByte]

First of all, there is no such thing as Evolutionism, in the same way that there is no gravitism. Second of all, if you have a legit question then please ask it or stop trolling around because I'm quite frankly sick and tired of this charade.

Pooey! Prometheus! really, put downs only show your fear of the truth. Neither of you are in a position to call down anyone and, if a question is asked in good faith and not of malicious intent, it should be answered.

Bad Boys! (or men) as for prom asking everyone to take their toys and go home I say go frekin' home, and quit whining, why is this so difficult? This too shows fear rather than courage. I expected more from ya all' !

mb

[ihaQ]

put downs only show your fear of the truth.

Actually, I believe that their use of put-downs show their frustration and growing resentment for the unrelenting inability to grasp simple secular concepts and generally obtuse nature of Swildo.

P.S. your posts are pompous and pretentious. You are neither funny nor are you warranted in writing in a condescending manner to people who are more inteligent than you.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Pooey! Prometheus! really, put downs only show your fear of the truth. Neither of you are in a position to call down anyone and, if a question is asked in good faith and not of malicious intent, it should be answered. Bad Boys! (or men) as for prom asking everyone to take their toys and go home I say go frekin' home, and quit whining, why is this so difficult? This too shows fear rather than courage. I expected more from ya all' ! mb

Trolling, Trolling, Trolling. I am sick and tired of you and your circular arguments, grow up.

[gallo]

Quote by: 7 Swildo 7 This type of response seems to be typical with those who don't really know what they are talkin about but think they do. I brought up evolutionism in another thread. Every time i tried to make a point or ask a question an evolutionist could not answer then they started insulting my intelligence and never gave a good answer.

Sorry about that. You have to understand that MerlinBites makes assertions and never supports them with any sort of evidence. The frustration level is high.

However, I am a graduate evolutionary biologist with additional degrees in other fields. I would be happy to answer your questions.

First of all, there is no such thing as "evolutionism." That sort of bias presumes an unsupported faith in some tenet. Science is based on observed facts that are tested before being accepted. Evolution is a theory of biological science. Biology isn't a form of philosophy, and neither is science. But there are philosophies of science and of biology.

However, creationism isn't science, just as "evolutionism" isn't religion. If you remove the "-ism" you get "creation" - a religious belief - and "evolution" - a scientific theory.

I'm sorry that you think that your were insulted. But have you actually had the integrity to learn the basics of evolutionary biology? I suspect that you were answered but that you took offense to the answer because it did not conform to you religious views.

Even your use of the word "evolutionism" is a sign that you have been duped by some scientifically illiterate evangelist. Rather than learn the truth, you believed it at truth because he attached Jesus' name. Wouldn't it be better to learn science from a scientist?

[rcne]

I've read both articles (and others for that matter) and still consider our friend the platypus a paradox.

Some evolution has occurred (teeth to pads) but if evolution favors utility, how would the peculiarities in platypus physiology arise in the first place.

Is it a beaver, a bear, a duck, an otter and why the venom spur? A real hodgepodge of parts.

Interesting indeed.

[Pooeypants]

What peculiarities? The Platypus is a relic of the past; perhaps to them, we are the weird ones!

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: rcne This came up at another site; and quite honestly. I'd like an evolutionist to explain a duck billed platypus. I don't have a problem with evolution, even with the holes and problems, but this platypus stands alone - and thats a big problem. It has traits form mammals, but doesn't have teats to feed its young, but pores to deliver the milk. It is the world’s only venomous animal with fur. This example just doesn't fit into an evolutionary chain - there are no earlier simpler modes of it. When it appears in the fossil record it is the same. Just odd, and all you need is one white crow to prove all crows aren't black,

Well all we need is some real scientific evidence to prove our depictions of religions wrong also. I'll go for what I see over having faith in something I can't see.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: rcne This came up at another site; and quite honestly. I'd like an evolutionist to explain a duck billed platypus. I don't have a problem with evolution, even with the holes and problems, but this platypus stands alone - and thats a big problem. It has traits form mammals, but doesn't have teats to feed its young, but pores to deliver the milk. It is the world’s only venomous animal with fur. This example just doesn't fit into an evolutionary chain - there are no earlier simpler modes of it. When it appears in the fossil record it is the same. Just odd, and all you need is one white crow to prove all crows aren't black,

Oh how easily the uneducated are fooled! The only thing that is really remarkable (other than it's comical appearance) is the venom. The duck bill is mearly convergant evolution, and bears no relation to anything avian. The milk, fur and the like are common among *all marsupials*. They are hardly remarkable. The venom is unique, but hardly beyond the scope of evolution.

As far as the fossil record goes - there a tons of animals with no intermediate forms found in fossils. The fossil record is like a random assortment of 10 frames from a movie. It is entirely possible that several charictars are totally left out. it is very spotty.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo The answer is quite simple. Evolutionists don't "bolster" their evidence by using a theory. Theories are explanations of the evidence. I think the problem may be that you have little understanding of what science is or how it works. Most especially, you seem to have no idea of what the theories of evolution are or on what evidence they are based. Did it ever occur to you that you should actually learn the basics of something that you claim to oppose? Otherwise, how do you know that you oppose it if you don't know what it is? And it seems that you are also ignorant of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as a "law of entropy." Some creationist hack made that up. If you had bothered to learn at least the basics of what you are talking about, you would know that you are talking nonsense. Since in this sentence you call it the "first law of entropy" and in the next you call it the "First Law of Thermodynamics" it logically follows that you think that entropy is Thermodynamics. Ignorant in the extreme.

That is where you go off the truth. Rudolph Clausius was not a creationist, but an atheist. he believed in evolution as much as you do. he was the creator of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. this is a quote from scienceworld.wolfram.com giving the beginning of his short biography:

German physicist who reconciled the results of Joule with the theories of Sadi Carnot by abandoning the idea that heat was conserved. He stated formally the equivalence of heat and work (First Law of Thermodynamics ) and developed the concept of entropy (which he named in 1865) to explain the directionality of physical processes. He discovered the fact that entropy can never decrease in a physical process and can only remain constant in a reversible process, a result which became known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics .

Quote by: gallo The first law of thermodynamics actually states that the energy content of closed system is constant. That presumes that you actually know the meaning of words like "system" and what a "closed system" is, and that you actually can define energy and the meaning of the word "constant." I suspect that you don't and can't.

The Big Bang theory and Evolution itself assumes that there was a point in time, millions of years ago in which there was no matter, nothing that had any mass, that happens to include atoms, quarks, and, if they exist, the strings proposed to exist by the creators and supporters of the String Theory. if there was no matter, then there is no energy, meaning that according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, that you seem to believe in, no energy could have been created by any NATURAL process. also since there was no energy in this "closed system", then we can rule out any chemical processes, since they require energy to begin in the first place.
also here are your definitions:
closed system: A physical system on which no outside influences act; closed so that nothing gets in or out of the system and nothing from outside can influence the system's observable behavior or properties.
constant: In mathematics and the mathematical sciences, a constant is a fixed, but possibly unspecified, value. This is in contrast to a variable, which is not fixed.
System: In thermodynamics, the system is the object under consideration. Together with the surroundings (everything not part of the system, separated from it by a real or imaginary boundary), it forms the universe. A system can be anything, for example a solution in a test tube, a living organism, or a planet.

Quote by: Gallo Let me state it for you in another way, not limiting the definition to a closed system. The first law states that the amount of energy added to a system is equal to the sum of its increase in heat energy and the work done on the system. Who destroyed the first law of thermodynamics? What does that have to do with the existence of God? What does any of that have to do with evolution? How is theology a subject of study of either thermodynamics or of evolution? What if, for the sake of argument, I concede that your superstitious beliefs are correct and that your god exists. How does that change physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geology, and biology? Please be specific. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Or even cellular respiration. Of course, you don't understand why your question is nonsense. If this does have something to do with the existence of your god, then you name a process that can create energy.

assuming that no NATURAL process can create energy, then the only thing you can assume is that only a supernatural process can create energy. here is my Big Bang theory, God said it, bang! it was there

[Jack]

The Big Bang theory and Evolution itself assumes that there was a point in time, millions of years ago in which there was no matter

Charles Darwin was not a cosmologist. His theory of evolution concerns living species in our natural system. Evolution is not about creation, it's about adaptation.
The Big Bang theory is based on the knowledge we have of the system we can observe. I'm not aware of any legitimate scientist who supposes what came before that. We just don't know. Time is a function of our present system. At the moment of the Big Bang, there was no time. So we can't speculate on what came before that event, because there was no "before", no "after". There was only that moment, perhaps by our current understanding, forever.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Isherwood Charles Darwin was not a cosmologist. His theory of evolution concerns living species in our natural system. Evolution is not about creation, it's about adaptation. The Big Bang theory is based on the knowledge we have of the system we can observe. I'm not aware of any legitimate scientist who supposes what came before that. We just don't know. Time is a function of our present system. At the moment of the Big Bang, there was no time. So we can't speculate on what came before that event, because there was no "before", no "after". There was only that moment, perhaps by our current understanding, forever.

The Big Bang is taking evidence we have and making a theory of what we think probably happened. Well there could be hundreds of theories. So the Big Band is just the beginning, not the final draft.

[dejadee]

I think we're getting off track talking about the Big Bang theory...

I just want to mention that the Theory of Evolution is really this:
1. Living things have a genetic blueprint (ie. DNA) that they pass on to their offspring. This determines how they're made.
2. When the blueprint is being copied so it can be passed on, errors in the copy can occur. These errors are random and some errors can translate into the offspring being different from the parent.
3. Differences between things living in an environment can cause some to be more successful at living and reproducing than others. Therefore in subsequent generations, the genes of the successful ones are more prevalent than the genes of the not-so-successful ones.
4. These genes accumulate over time (a very very long time) to either change these critters into different species.

There's more footnotes and details but that's basically it. The theory of evolution is so simple and obvious, so I'm not sure where the debate arises. Which one of these 4 points is incorrect?

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 That is where you go off the truth. Rudolph Clausius was not a creationist, but an atheist. he believed in evolution as much as you do. he was the creator of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. this is a quote from scienceworld.wolfram.com giving the beginning of his short biography: German physicist who reconciled the results of Joule with the theories of Sadi Carnot by abandoning the idea that heat was conserved. He stated formally the equivalence of heat and work (First Law of Thermodynamics ) and developed the concept of entropy (which he named in 1865) to explain the directionality of physical processes. He discovered the fact that entropy can never decrease in a physical process and can only remain constant in a reversible process, a result which became known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics .

Let me point out that I did not say that there was no such thing as the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics. I was correcting a remark that you made, either through ignorance or with the intent to deceive, about the "law of entropy." What I said was that there is no such thing as the law of entropy. Entropy is a property of a closed thermodynamic system. Not only that, you called the First Law of Thermodynamics the "1st law of entropy," a mistake only made by the ignorant. And now you try to impress with a discussion of thermodynamics in which you fail to show that there is a law of entropy.

You were wrong, probably because you are ignorant of thermodynamics. Please be adult enough to retract and admit your error.

However, if you wish to discuss thermodynamics, then please demonstrate your qualifications to do so by answering a few questions from THIS PAGE. Thanks.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

If creationism is believed by you, then when were humans set on Earth? Supposedly right after the Earth was created correct? Even though oxygen was not in our atmosphere for another billion years. The only known lifeforms at the time were bacteria after that billion years. The dinosaurs would have ripped human life to shreds. We have no "human" bones before a million years ago (which is the point at which "modern" humans were evolved and moved from Africa). All we have are ape bones that resemble very human aspects.

Maybe God put the humans on Earth 10,000 years ago? But no, because we have so many bones of things that predate the humans...

Even 2 billion years ago and there was hardly enough oxygen to support human life and definitely not enough food on land (just boiling rocks) to support a human appetite. Surely, what killed off the dinosaurs would have killed off the humans 275 million years ago anyways? But the creationists think that humans were first on the planet, right? Can someone debate all of my points and not just 1 or 2 please? Thanks.

[Hostile55]

If creationism is believed by you, then when were humans set on Earth? Supposedly right after the Earth was created correct? Even though oxygen was not in our atmosphere for another billion years. The only known lifeforms at the time were bacteria after that billion years. The dinosaurs would have ripped human life to shreds. We have no "human" bones before a million years ago (which is the point at which "modern" humans were evolved and moved from Africa). All we have are ape bones that resemble very human aspects. Maybe God put the humans on Earth 10,000 years ago? But no, because we have so many bones of things that predate the humans... Even 2 billion years ago and there was hardly enough oxygen to support human life and definitely not enough food on land (just boiling rocks) to support a human appetite. Surely, what killed off the dinosaurs would have killed off the humans 275 million years ago anyways? But the creationists think that humans were first on the planet, right? Can someone debate all of my points and not just 1 or 2 please? Thanks.

You are missing the point. The creationists refute that whole timeline. They are essencially refuting the laws of physics by suggesting that carbon dating is absolutely wrong.