1 2 13 14 15 17 19 20 21 49 50
Topic: Creation vs. Evolution.
no photo
Sat 05/05/12 03:39 PM

WHAT IF: we were created with the ability to evolve...?

that would make the debate totally unnecessary and pointless ,, yes?


The debate is already pointless. Both sides are on the wrong track.

no photo
Sat 05/05/12 03:45 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 05/05/12 03:47 PM
It is my belief that there is no "creator God" and also that we did not "evolve" from the elements by pure trial and error or chance.

Both sides of the argument are forgetting about consciousness.

Side one thinks that a conscious God "created" man in his image.

Side two thinks that an intelligent race of beings (humans or humanoids) (and all other life,) evolved from unconscious elements that were probably spat out by some "big bang."

Both sides require a "miracle" at some point.

That miracle is consciousness. When was it born? That miracle was life.
At what point did life emerge from nothing?








howzityoume's photo
Sun 05/06/12 02:40 AM

WHAT IF: we were created with the ability to evolve...?

that would make the debate totally unnecessary and pointless ,, yes?


Not really msharmony. I believe in some evolution, we were created with that ability to evolve yet retain the same basic gene shape and size, the way evolutionists describe evolution contradicts the bible. Which is ok if they have evidence for their extreme DNA lengthening theories, but they do not.

1andOnlyN0rd's photo
Sun 05/06/12 02:48 AM


WHAT IF: we were created with the ability to evolve...?

that would make the debate totally unnecessary and pointless ,, yes?


Not really msharmony. I believe in some evolution, we were created with that ability to evolve yet retain the same basic gene shape and size, the way evolutionists describe evolution contradicts the bible. Which is ok if they have evidence for their extreme DNA lengthening theories, but they do not.


It contradicts certain religious beliefs, but it also goes hand in hand with what Buddhists teach...
Hell, even the different universes/dimensions/etc theories go with Buddhist beliefs.
But who knows...

howzityoume's photo
Sun 05/06/12 03:03 AM

It contradicts certain religious beliefs, but it also goes hand in hand with what Buddhists teach...
Hell, even the different universes/dimensions/etc theories go with Buddhist beliefs.
But who knows...


I guess that's what the current theory of evolution is, an unproven belief held by many based on faith alone. It could easily be equated with a religion in the manner in which it was so easily embraced and even on TV its referred to as fact.

1andOnlyN0rd's photo
Sun 05/06/12 03:19 AM
Edited by 1andOnlyN0rd on Sun 05/06/12 03:20 AM


It contradicts certain religious beliefs, but it also goes hand in hand with what Buddhists teach...
Hell, even the different universes/dimensions/etc theories go with Buddhist beliefs.
But who knows...


I guess that's what the current theory of evolution is, an unproven belief held by many based on faith alone. It could easily be equated with a religion in the manner in which it was so easily embraced and even on TV its referred to as fact.


Well, it's not EXACTLY a theory, there is evolution happening all around us.
Just look at nature for examples:
They are seeing new behaviours in animals that they have never exhibited before (Monkeys learning to swim so they can eat seeds that have fallen to the bottom of a body of water, and using hot springs for warmth)
There's also physical changes still happening - just use google if you want proof. here, I even did it for you https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+happening+around+us

howzityoume's photo
Sun 05/06/12 05:38 AM


Well, it's not EXACTLY a theory, there is evolution happening all around us.
Just look at nature for examples:
They are seeing new behaviours in animals that they have never exhibited before (Monkeys learning to swim so they can eat seeds that have fallen to the bottom of a body of water, and using hot springs for warmth)
There's also physical changes still happening - just use google if you want proof. here, I even did it for you https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+happening+around+us


I do completely agree with you on this. The only problem I have with current evolutionary theory is they try to use it to explain increased complexity in the DNA.
That is merely an interesting idea, a hypothesis, not even a theory.

1andOnlyN0rd's photo
Sun 05/06/12 07:52 AM



Well, it's not EXACTLY a theory, there is evolution happening all around us.
Just look at nature for examples:
They are seeing new behaviours in animals that they have never exhibited before (Monkeys learning to swim so they can eat seeds that have fallen to the bottom of a body of water, and using hot springs for warmth)
There's also physical changes still happening - just use google if you want proof. here, I even did it for you https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+happening+around+us


I do completely agree with you on this. The only problem I have with current evolutionary theory is they try to use it to explain increased complexity in the DNA.
That is merely an interesting idea, a hypothesis, not even a theory.


Yeah, I can see your point there...
But there are explanations for these things, like that viruses can alter dna...

howzityoume's photo
Sun 05/06/12 08:49 AM
Yeah, I can see your point there...
But there are explanations for these things, like that viruses can alter dna...


This is true. DNA can be altered. Also through mutations, insertions of DNA, duplications of entire sections of DNA. DNA can increase in size, however there has never been one natural significant beneficial increase to the DNA size ever recorded.

If they ever do find one, this will immediately upgrade evolution as an explanation for modern life-forms, from an hypothesis to a theory.

ie it will become a possibility with some minor evidence, instead of its current status as a possibility with no evidence.

no photo
Sun 05/06/12 11:54 AM


In the rare cases when mutation has been favourable, it has not involved any significant increases to the length of the DNA.


You know everything there is to know about all mutations that have ever occurred?

Or did you mean to qualify that statement in some way?

Are you talking about specific mutations that we have studied and documented?


He's talking about observed mutations. The scientific method does require "observation", correct? Or are scientists allowed to just make up cool stuff and pretend it happened?


Juxtaposing those two questions, linked with 'or', implies to me a false dilemna.

Scientists can extrapolate, and they can make reasoned inferences. This does require some observations, but it does not require that every single facet of a process is directly observed. But you don't need to see a bullet in flight to 'observe' someone shooting a can off a wall. (Though admittedly a radical skeptic might say: Are you sure the bullet didn't miss, and something else knocked the can off the wall? This possibility doesn't make it unreasonable to conclude the person who fired a gun directed at the can almost certainly did shoot the can off the wall.)

So how do we know a mutation has happened? It's been over a decade since I've formally studied this, so my knowledge is both rusty and outdated. In the old days, people would have some evidence that a mutation might have happened (such as new physical qualities not previous observed), and go hunting for it. They might breed the organism, and look for linking of that quality to other known genes, and help them narrow down which chromosome its on. I don't know the details beyond that.

My understanding is that we can also draw inferences regarding when mutations may happen by comparing sequenced genomes of closely related species.

It seems like we are about to enter a new age of cheap sequencing, in which sequencing a genome may be as easy as tagging a migratory bird or growing bacteria in a petri dish. This will eventually give us a massive database of genetic information. We may develop new ways of analyzing this data which can tell us a great deal about the pace and timing of mutation. This may or may not be 'observation' depending on your definition. To take the strictest view of 'observation', we would actually have to catch the exact moment of the mutation and image the dna at the atomic level. This has never happened, and quit possibly never will.


no photo
Sun 05/06/12 11:59 AM

Yes I'm referring to observed and documented mutations. I have never heard of a beneficial mutation that involves significant increases to the size of DNA. If you can find a documented case, then evolution could be classed as a theory rather than just an hypothesis (guessing without evidence).



Depending on your standard of evidence, you can say that we've observed millions of beneficial mutations (in the same way that one can observe hundreds of picasso paintings...having never seen picasso paint), or that we have observed a handful, or that we may never observe a mutation.

LOL I enjoyed the nastiness :)


Fair enough, and I've enjoyed the quality of your subsequent posts.

You are correct here, I was making assumptions based on the fact that organisms showed an increase from single cell organisms to arthropods.


See, I'm not sure that they did "show an increase from a single cell to arthropod". It's quite possible that complex precursors to arthropods had been quietly evolving for a long time, and simply not leaving much evidence behind of their existence. It's not surprising to me that there would be a rapid uptake of hard shells among whatever illusive, soft bodied species existed.

I believe that all life on this planet is co-operating, in a sense, in the evolutionary process, thanks to the action of viruses: picking up genes from one species and moving them to another. Before the first species 'finished' the series of mutations that lead to a hard shell, the earlier mutations that set the stage for a hard shell may have already been moved to other species by viruses.

Or, more conventionally, maybe whichever species first innovated the hard shell was so successful that its progeny simply - and offshoot species - simply dominated all the niches previous occupied by the complex, long-dna-bearing soft bodied competitors.

The sudden emergence of many hard shelled creatures does not imply the sudden evolution from single cells to arthropods.




The evidence that is lacking relates to beneficial increases to the DNA size. This puts into doubt evolution as the source for higher life-forms with increased DNA sizes, which is the essence of the whole creation/evolution debate.



I can see why one might see this as the essence of the creation/evolution debate, but I disagree that it is. It seems to me that the creation/evolution debate is multifaceted. No single facet strikes me as the 'essence' of it. For too many people, the real essence of the debate (for them) is whether or not to accept the bible as an absolute authority.

no photo
Sun 05/06/12 12:01 PM
ATHEISTS also believe in miraculous processes.

1) The spontaeous creation of matter from nothing.
2) The spontaneous creation of DNA, the smallest observed is over 500000 base pairs long, how did it get there?
3) Favourable increases in the DNA length from less than 1 million base pairs to organisms of over 150 billion base pairs.


I would have gone with some atheists. There is no single worldview defined by atheism - atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. There are atheists who believe in witchcraft, for example.


no photo
Sun 05/06/12 12:06 PM

what I do have a problem with is when evolutionists appear arrogant yet without facts to back themselves up.



You might become arrogant, too, of most of the people you argued against were young earth creationists.

no photo
Sun 05/06/12 12:10 PM

The only problem I have with current evolutionary theory is they try to use it to explain increased complexity in the DNA.


Is that truly the only problem you have? If someone showed you a plausible mechanism for this to occur, would you accept evolution as plausible?

If, in our lifetime, we actually obtain very clear and definitive evidence for this, would you then accept evolution as the most likely theory for how this planet went from 'no hominids at all' to 'having tons of humans' ? (Intentionally leaving out the question of the origin of life).

no photo
Sun 05/06/12 12:16 PM

WHAT IF: we were created with the ability to evolve...?


With the ability to evolve without forming new species? Or evolve into new species?

I like it when religious people accept that we may have been created with the ability to evolve, including, possibly, the ability to evolve into new species. This is much better than insisting that evolution is impossible, or that evolution into new species is impossible.

It does presuppose an answer to a question which evolution does not address: How did life come to be, to being with?



that would make the debate totally unnecessary and pointless ,, yes?


I think there would be many debates still to have. Many creationists accept that life may have been created with the ability to evolve into new species, but are still confused (as are many pro evolution people!) about many aspects of the currently accepted theory of evolution, including: whether the theory of evolution rest on notions of 'purpose' and what it really means for a mutation to be 'beneficial'.

howzityoume's photo
Sun 05/06/12 12:50 PM
Edited by howzityoume on Sun 05/06/12 01:43 PM


Is that truly the only problem you have? If someone showed you a plausible mechanism for this to occur, would you accept evolution as plausible?

If, in our lifetime, we actually obtain very clear and definitive evidence for this, would you then accept evolution as the most likely theory for how this planet went from 'no hominids at all' to 'having tons of humans' ? (Intentionally leaving out the question of the origin of life).


Good question. Let's assume scientists insert or duplicate a large section of DNA and produce an organism that is more functional in certain environments.
They then prove that the manner of the dna mutation can occur in nature. To me this just moves evolution over from hypothesis to theory, nothing more. So to clarify my position, my only problem with evolution being called a "theory" is the current lack of evidence. Once evolution one day progresses to becoming a theory, it still has to compete with other opposing thoeries on an empirical basis over time to see which is more accurate. And this involves looking at the fossil record with open eyes and without evolutionary assumptions.

So to answer your question,if they can prove the existence of beneficial increases to the genome, this would not make evolution the most likely theory, it would merely make evolution a theory.
To put my tgoughts into practical terms, a beneficial mutation, if possible, would show that's its possible for new species to form through mutation, but it does not prove that is how species came about. Ie maybe one species among millions was created through mutational selective breeding.

howzityoume's photo
Sun 05/06/12 01:02 PM


what I do have a problem with is when evolutionists appear arrogant yet without facts to back themselves up.



You might become arrogant, too, of most of the people you argued against were young earth creationists.


Haha funny!

howzityoume's photo
Sun 05/06/12 01:09 PM

ATHEISTS also believe in miraculous processes.

1) The spontaeous creation of matter from nothing.
2) The spontaneous creation of DNA, the smallest observed is over 500000 base pairs long, how did it get there?
3) Favourable increases in the DNA length from less than 1 million base pairs to organisms of over 150 billion base pairs.


I would have gone with some atheists. There is no single worldview defined by atheism - atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. There are atheists who believe in witchcraft, for example.



Point taken, I was assuming atheism involved discarding all forms of supernatural intervention and relying 100 percent on natural processes to explain the universe and nature. But if u are scanning through all my posts to other people looking for semantic errors this seems a distraction from a true exchange of ideas and you will always find imperfections in my wording. I don't like semantics, preferring to try to understand the heart of what the person is trying to communicate.

howzityoume's photo
Sun 05/06/12 02:10 PM
I can't adit my one posts that contains spelling and wording errors, I meant natural selection of the mutated organism, not "selective breeding" in case anyone picks on my incorrect wording.

no photo
Sun 05/06/12 03:17 PM
Edited by massagetrade on Sun 05/06/12 03:20 PM


ATHEISTS also believe in miraculous processes.

1) The spontaeous creation of matter from nothing.
2) The spontaneous creation of DNA, the smallest observed is over 500000 base pairs long, how did it get there?
3) Favourable increases in the DNA length from less than 1 million base pairs to organisms of over 150 billion base pairs.


I would have gone with some atheists. There is no single worldview defined by atheism - atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. There are atheists who believe in witchcraft, for example.



Point taken, I was assuming atheism involved discarding all forms of supernatural intervention and relying 100 percent on natural processes to explain the universe and nature. But if u are scanning through all my posts to other people looking for semantic errors this seems a distraction from a true exchange of ideas and you will always find imperfections in my wording. I don't like semantics, preferring to try to understand the heart of what the person is trying to communicate.



Christians are incompetent at fixing cars.

Oh, I meant Christians who have no training, experience, translatable skill, or interest in fixing cars.

It's not nit-picking on semantics when someone says something that's completely false.

Many terms are commonly mis-used, especially (but not only) in many theistic discourse communities, so much so that many people completely mistake atheism with rationalism with skepticism with materialism. All four are separate, though these days there is often a strong correlation between them.

Edit: I'm not trying to attack you for simply misspeaking. I find the fact that so many Christians incorrectly attribute qualities to atheists to be offensive. Sometimes it even betrays a kind of bigotry. Of course this happens in all directions, and some Christians get offended when some non-Christians (or even ignorant Christians) wrongly represent the beliefs of Christians-as-a-whole.


1 2 13 14 15 17 19 20 21 49 50