Creation vs. Evolution

[H2Andy]

The genesis of life might be a seperate study from evolution but it is part of a case for creation without a creator.

my point is that you can't fault evolution for not doing something it's not meant to do

it does not concern itself with the origin of life. that's a separate issue (and one far from resolved).

evolution is really simple: over time, living beings will change. over a huge period of time, living beings will change huge amounts. most will not change fast enough and go extinct.

if the evolutionary forces acting on them stop acting on them, they'll probably stop changing, until new evolutionary forces come along.

 

[Soggy]

No they don't. I don't know who picked that analogy but it isn't one that I would have picked. LOL

A creationist picked it. The Blind Watchmaker was named aptly as a defense against the foolish analogy.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Of course you can't combine parts that won't fit together. Certain chemical compounds can occur, and others can't. I'm not trying to get you to allow for a square peg to fit into a round hole. It's acknowledging that the round peg might end up in the round hole by chance after they are thrown up in the air together a bazillion times.

Well, I can put a square peg into a round hole but time and chance can't.

I'm glad I have gotten you to accept evolution. Maybe we can move on now.
DNA is the only thing that matters. A little chance, a lot of change, it's all the same. The only difference is time and cumulative selection.

Don't take this too hard but you didn't get me to accept anything. LOL

We aren't arguing the existence of a deity. We're arguing the requirement for said deity to be involved in the evolution of species and the simple fact, it is not.

Well, if there is a deity, then I think, him/her/it is required. If there is a creator, wouldn't that make all this "created"? We can seperate our quest for knowledge of the sciences from our quest for knowledge of a creator but can we seperate creation from the creator?...if there is one.

 

[Warthaug]

We still can't cure the common cold

This is nit-picking, but rhinoviridae (viruses which cause colds) can be "cured" via vaccination. Its just not practical, so we don't do it.

As for the more severe diseases, we can cure a lot of them. Who's the last person you remember (if you remember any at all) dying of smallpox, polio, mumps, measles, etc. Those diseases used to kill thousands every year - some continue to do so in some parts of the world. There is a reason why we don't see them around here anymore.

Bryan

Edit: I just noticed that the "if you remember any at all" comment could be taken the wrong way. I'm not trying to suggest anyone is dumb; I'm just suggesting that some people here may actually be too young to have known anyone who had these diseases.

 

[Soggy]

Don't take this too hard but you didn't get me to accept anything. LOL

I figured, but for the record since you accept that a wolf can become a dog over time (really it's that wolves and dogs share a common ancestor), you either
1) don't understand evolution
2) are completely irrational

I'd like to think it's number 1, and based on our correspondence here, that seems to be the case.

 

[H2Andy]

can we seperate creation from the creator?...if there is one.

by definition, we can never know the creator fully while alive. thus, any search is futile
and at best, based only on faith

we do have a lot we can know while alive, so i prefer to concentrate my time on that

btw, we dont' need a God for the universe to exist. all you do with God is push back the limit of knowledge one unncessary step:


How did the universe come to be?

I don't know

vs.

How did the universe come to be?

God created it.

How did God come to be?

I don't know.

we're at the exact same spot. God adds nothing of value to the search.

 

[AXL72]

Besides the,"where did all come from?" BS works on both sides, who's god's daddy anyway?

dangit Thal!!!


How can I stay mad at ya for your views on bikes when you come up with such great thought as above?

Meanie!!

 

[MikeFerrara]

I figured, but for the record since you accept that a wolf can become a dog over time (really it's that wolves and dogs share a common ancestor), you either
1) don't understand evolution
2) are completely irrational

I'd like to think it's number 1, and based on our correspondence here, that seems to be the case.

But, for the record, I never said that at all. What I said was

I certainly believe that species change. We can see that much with animal breeding, hybred plants, ect. How far can that process go in how much time? I don't know,

 

[MikeFerrara]

A creationist picked it. The Blind Watchmaker was named aptly as a defense against the foolish analogy.

ok, it's a foolish analogy, but you used it...

For example, in the watch analogy, the reality is that if you threw watch parts up into the air for billions of years, you'd likely get a few parts to form together to make larger parts. Then, those larger parts would get thrown up in the air and form even larger parts....over billions of years...until we end up with a fully formed watch.

Personally, I wouldn't use watch assembly to argue evolution one way or the other but I have no problem arguing that time, chance, natural selection ect aren't going to assemble a watch.

 

[MikeFerrara]

We can, and do, make the initial 4 steps occur. The problem with the remainder of the process is scale and time - scale in that life formed within the volume of the earths ocean; something we as humans lack access to, and time - the process took hundreds of millions of years, which is unobservable to us.

The irony is that the very thing you ask for - to produce life via abiotic methods in the time/volume of a lab, would effectively disprove our existing tholes of abiogenesis. The existing models of abiogenesis pretty much dictate that the later stages of life's development occurred slowly.

Or in other words, you're asking us to disprove our own theories in order to "prove" those theories.

Well, it would prove that life is nothing more than the right combination of chemicals.