Except if you want creationism, you have to pick a belief system/religion to talk about it, don't you?
Do we teach that the universe winked into being instantly, and the earth was shaped over 7 days approximately 10,000 years ago,
or
Do we teach that midgard was formed from the blood and bones of a dead giant?
or
Do we teach that the great bird brought forth the world whole and complete about 20,000 years ago?
If you believe the earth is only about 10-20 thousand years old, the great bird version of creationism fits just as well.
So if we don't agree with your ignorant ass, we must live in China.
Creationism is not a science. I would tell you to look it up, but I know you won't.
I would also post a clear cut definition from an unbiased source for you, but I know that wouldn't read it or understand that either.
I would also post the court case that saw creationism get turned down as a science, but you would probably dig into your 9/11 backpack and find a conspiracy there.
But just keep on, mouse. It's fun.
creationism is RELIGION. nothing more. not ONE shred of testable scientific evidence. it's all just 'because I believe it'
religious nonsense belongs in personal homes and church, not in science class.
evolution being a 'theory' doesn't mean it's on the same level as creationism. that's a disgusting lack of understand of what the scientific method IS.
for anything to reach scientific theory status, you have to have actual scientific evidence, and enough of it to verify your hypothesis. if the facts are pointing to something else and clearly do not verify your hypothesis, your hypothesis is WRONG and must be modified and sometimes changed completely. creationism cannot do this. creationism cannot even reach 'theory' status because it has -zero- data, scientific evidence.
creationism should be compared to the homeless guy on the corner who believes he was kidnapped by aliens. that's creationism's level, creationism's equal. just people 'believing' with no proof.
anyone comparing evolution to creationism shows their lack of even a proper high school education.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 03-02-2009 at 01:01 PM.
While the possibilities for such a scenario are not impossible for GOD why would He wish to create something only to end up having to wait billions of years for it? Did he speed up time??? Sat around waiting for the perfect storm to produce life? Did He then preside over the process while waiting another billion years to see the arrival of Humans...??? It would be pretty surprising to consider that GOD would choose such a tortuous path considering He is endowed with the limitless power to create from scratch...
I believe humans were the pinnacle of GOD's Creation... because He created them in His image. To say He was not directly involved in man's creation would counter that notion.
On a side note, would you then classify yourself as a strict Deist... Like Einstein classified himself, a couple of years before passing away???
blah, blah, blah.....
I don't think phenomanul is arguing against evolution although I could be wrong. I think he actually believes in evolution. He's just saying evolution doesn't explain the actual genesis of life. Now if he's saying that that fact debunks evolution I would have to say he's crazy.
Everything you are asking is philosophical and pretty much all based on Biblical assumptions. If you want to get into such a debate, start a new thread and I'll jump in.
I'd reply back with something like "if God is omnipotent, then why did it take Him 7 days and why did he have to rest on the 7th day?"
If god truly is infinite, why would he care about billions of years?
You also seem to be assuming that life, and the development of sapience are unique to the Earth.
If self-replicating organic chemistry is really as possible as evolutionary theory would predict, then it is very likely that we are not the only life in the universe. Astronomy has begun to find large, earth-like planets, and it isn't as if water and carbon are particularly rare elements.
If creating beings "in his image" simply means that God created bits of matter that are capable of sentience, then yes, God created us in his image.
But to assign God some rather primitive, ape-like form such as how we are shaped, seems... odd to me. I would imagine God to be waaaay beyond that, if even bothering to be corporeal at all.
Indeed.
Our understanding of the universe has moved a *bit* beyond that of bronze-age man, or for that matter, midieval man.
Why should our concept of God not do so as well?
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of ageless wisdom in the Bible, such as that of outlining ethical behavior and how to be a good person, but I really don't think a literal interpretation of the Bible is really all that useful, not the least of which are the rather disowned passages about how/when to stone people for various things.
If one really wants to be literal about the thing, then it is rather hypocritical to say that stoning people to death for transgressions is not what God wants but rather this other stuff. Either you take the whole thing pretty literally, or you are picking and choosing what to believe out of it anyways.
Since I must leave for work, I cannot sit around and debate all day....
First off, the assumptions people are drawing from this experiment, are not all supported by the data. Man has to interfere at critical junctions of such experiments to drive them to their apparent success. Due to our interference, those experiments don't really substatiate the claims that the processes in question occur naturally. That is not how the scientific method works. Especially if you're in the business of trying to prove Darwinian Molecular Evolution.
When prions were discovered years ago, people thought they had found the key to life's early precursors... it was later determined that prions, like viruses could embed themselves in genetic code, lay dormant for years and manifest themselves at any given moment. Only difference was that they were protein based 'viruses'. Prions hence (much like the enzymes in your example which were hacked out of pre-existing code), are merely the result of deleterious breakdowns to some original code, not precursors to the code itself.
Anyways I have to take off...
Peace.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 03-02-2009 at 01:56 PM.
so what it is exactly that you are trying to debate?
Key-word.
Remember, I used to design and produce polymers at my previous employment. Just because a polymer-root is common (monomers such as methanol, formaldehyde, or propylene) does not mean that the polymer could ever be produced by some natural process.
As simple as the polymer may be, the process to manufacture their production was designed, is controlled and ultimately belongs to man - not nature.
Even if evolution was wrong, that does not mean the answer is God by default.
Creationism has to be proven true, not just win by default because we were wrong about x.
That's not how science works. You would do well going back to high school
... and for when you come back:
Indeed, the article does rightly point out that it doesn't say anything about how RNA came about in the first place.
BUT
RNA are not whole cells are they?
Where would your argument go if we were to show how RNA could come about under certain conditions likely found on earth billions of years ago?
RNA/DNA are essentially complex hydrocarbons, with some oxygen and nitrogen thrown in for good measure.
Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine, and Urasil (codons) consist of 10 to 13-atom molecules of very common elements, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Carbon.
Both DNA and RNA are held together by phosphates.
It takes as few as three segments of RNA to code for some amino acids, and no more than 18.
Further, 5 of the 20 known proteins common in life on Earth can be built using just two of the four codons. Most can be coded for with sections that consist primarily of two codons with just ONE other thrown in.
This stuff isn't billions, or millions of codons long, just 18 at the longest.
You can't just wave your hands and say it is so impossible that only direct divine intervention, i.e. "God did it" simply because haven't figured out just how it happened yet.
What happens to your argument when we figure out exactly how it happened?
i would advise any other religious loony to read up on allopatric speciation. it will help give you the foundation for further reading into the subject.
there seems to be large amounts of people in this thread who weren't paying attention in science class.
anyway, as i said, even if evolution was wrong, it doesn't prove creationism by default.
trying to DISPROVE evolution as a way to gain favor for creationism is laughable. that's not how science works.
Looking at the thread le again, I would also like to add that Darwin is not the final authority on evolution. He was wrong but was correct in certain areas. The theory has received contribution and work from many different people over time.
Over time, the theory has gained everyone's support because the data pointed to this direction. Evolution theory in it's current form is supported by much evidence.
So basically if my quick run-thru read is correct Phenamanul doesn't have any problem with evolution so far as it makes no claims on the origins of life.
I really don't have any problem with that.
No one has explained to me to my satisfaction how life began.
And no one ever will.
Never say never...
My point was that for some there is NO explanation that will suit them. Take MiamiHeat for example. He is convinced there is no God even though he cannot prove it and thus he questions those who do believe and calls them stupid and ridiculous when he has no proof himself. You all are spinning your wheels and getting nowhere.
I don't know if you know or not, but science has pretty much shown that even the oldest of humans don't live much beyond the age of 100...
since logic then would dictate that nobody here was around to see life begin, scientists have been doing lots and lots of research, trying to figure out the building blocks of life and how we came to be....
honestly, don't feel bad that no one has explained to your satisfaction how life began because really, no one really knows. really.
and then there are some who think we must be in China if we feel that creation has no place in the science classroom..
go figure.
Excuse me, but I have tons of proof that religion is man made and therefore, by default, that god is man made. therefore, creationism is bull as well.
If there is a god somewhere, he has nothing to do with our religions.
Again with the name calling.
Any point we try to make is useless? thanks for ruining a great debate.he's just arguing mumbo jumbo with you. creationism
Umm... yeah... that was kinda my point. We are going to eventually figure it out though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
