Theory of Evolution vs the Hypothesis of Creation

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Nikk

What the crud? Not Darwin, Dawkins...Richard Dawkins who wrote "The God Delussion.

See:
YouTube - Richard Dawkins -- The God Delusion

Dawkins an advocate for evolution said that the earth was probably seeded by aliens.

Here is Dawkins actual statement on this...As you can see he didn't say probably seeded by aliens anywhere in it....Rather his words were "highly unlikely"

...life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Nikk

No it is like this

-Ask for evidence of evolution
-Given evidence for natural selection
-Told that this is evolution
-Given evidence for mutations
-Told this is evolution
-Asked where have these produced new kinds of animals
-Told that it happened so long ago in the past that it is unobservable
-Told that it happened so quickly that it is unobservable
-Told that it happened so slowly that it is unobservable
-Asked if there is any evidence in the fossil record
-Told there is no evidence in the fossil record, but you must believe in evolutioin
-Asked why not just believe in God
-Told there is no God
-Asked based on what evidence there is no God
-Told there is no evidence, but just don't believe in him, because evolution is fact.
-What fact
-The fact that we told you and all the evidence we gave
-What evidence
-Natural selection, mutations
-but that is not evolution
-No, but evolution uses these to produce new types of animals (ie. dinos became birds)
-What evidence do you have?
-None, but you just have to believe it happened
-Why do we have to believe
-Because we are scientist and more intelligent then you and we study it every day, so who are you to question us, we don't care if there is no evidence for evolution, but we all must believe it because the only alternative is special creation and we don't want to consider that because we have rejected God.
-Oh I see!

This is untrue on so many levels.... Please explain how this fits creation. please read the article on the evolution of the eye.

Evolution: Change: Life's Grand Design

[rifleman]

Moderator cut: off-topic

Originally Posted by Nikk

Rifleman, its good to see you too! I see your up to your old tricks again. using infinite amounts of word you hope to convince us all that evolution is fact. Hopefully over the next million years you will be able to convince us although we may be lulled into a dead sleep instead.

Evolution is not a fact it has never been observed. You constantly list hundreds of reports showing natural selection, as proof and facts to this hypothesis, but that is not good enough. Natural selection is not evolution.

NIKK: sorry that I'm a bit wordy. Tricks? Nothing but the truth here man! Do you have trouble with more than one paragraph? Anything I said that's not to the point? Do you have trouble with my particular outlook? I DO talk a lot, but only because I try to get it right, and I've always assumed, until my experiences here on C-D, that a well-presented argument might well sway an attentive and open-minded audience. I now know that's just not the case here. No matter what I or anyone else presents to your side, you CAN'T change. you told me that once, remember? As is Can't / Won't / Would Rather Die Than Admit, etc.

Kinda sad, wouldn't you say?

BTW: please do link back to the imaginary post where I've "constantly listed HUNDREDS of reports showing natural selection". Hmmm... I'm pretty sure you're confusing me with, possibly, GCTroop or SuSuSushi or one of the other Truth Warriors. I've only pretty much linked to one. The Lenski proof of evolution. Just one! Maybe one other that supports something, but HUNDREDS? CONSTANTLY?

Wrong guy, buddy!

Let's see. esp. for that hostile fellow Shiloh1 with his barely camoflaged little innocent question. And Shiloh1, to quote your hostile line, "don't give me this "it's only adaptation" cr$d either!

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Can someone please define evolution - and don't give me this 'it's change'.

.

For those who will not listen, nor think nor speculate, and who would (as has been proven) ban the teaching of scientific curiosity in our schools, I'll sum up Evolution for you with a few ponits. Listening NIKK old bud? Can you manage a few more miniutes of reading the truth?

1, 2, ,3 GO!!

We know all the following for a fact:

∑ There's a system that uses DNA, supported by another system using RNA, that accurately duplicates the information that the cell carries through each successive generation,

∑ During the endless multiple (in the tens of thousands per cell) reproductions during it's lifetime, we also know that tiny errors do occur in ths translation of the DNA code by the RNA system. These are then faithfully reproduced from that point on.

∑ We also know that many of these translations induce / experience errors. Logically, we call them "transcription errors". since they are "chance", most of them are fatal. A very few are beneficial.

With me so far? Wanna fight about this? After all, just a few years ago, you guys said none of this could even happen! OK, so you've learned a tiny bit since then. Or HAD to...

∑ A species represents an outward expression of its genetic code set. THAT code set is called it's genotype. And that genotype is completely responsible for the organism's phenotype (outward appearance).

(Oh PS: I'm going to keep this as short as possible. Where you don't understand a term like pheno- or geno-typetype, and from your silly responses and mis-interpretations to a lot of this I know you don't. [Logic point: if you don't even understand the basic language of all of this, how in h$ll can you criticize it? But that's an entire new thread... Oh yeah... I forgot...I just started that one yesterday...])

∑ Additionally, a species represents a unique organism, different from its bretheren or ancestors in several key elements. Not just outward appearance (a rat versus a bear) but also in ability to do some things (a seal swims underwater; a cat not so much, even though the cat is the directly traceable progenitor of the seal family). Or, perhaps in its ability to digest something versus another organism's total inability.

∑ The definition of "species" has evolved over time. We haven't, as is snearingly smarmed out by Creationists, "changed our definition" to suit anything. Has your old CRT (look that up if it stumps you...) TV evolved into something entirely different by definition? Nope. It's just had its technology built on the old stuff, evolutionarily, but with the necessary changes in response to customer demand (i.e.: the changing ecological niche. Get it?).

∑ So. Those observed genetic changes, when enough of them occur, or when just one change significantly alters the organism's phenotype, allow it then do something it couldn't do before. Get it? Can't get your head around this yet? Wanna dispute it?

Well then, I'm not going to go any further. If you accept all of my points above, you've just witnessed evolution.

The funny thing about this apparently endless argument is that at not so long ago Creationists said their answer was the "Instant Universe" or "Instant Everything", as in "Poof! Here's Adam & Eve, and oh look... a cuddly T-Rex standing quietly behind them!" THAT was your idea.

That there was absolutely NO POSSIBLE PROCESS by which an organism could change IN ANY WAY! Impossible! Illogical!

Now, you know all I've said above is proven and true, so now you're fighting about tiny definitions, and hoping that this will staunch the flow of truth. "adaptation" versus "evolution".

Evolution is the process of an organism sustaining genotypic changes and surviving, possibly being able to utilize a new ecological niche or of doing something better than it could before (run faster, climb better, dive deeper). Simple enough for you?

I'm not going to argue with you guys that the end result of the simple point-processes above is what we call Evolution. You can argue all day long that "It's only adaptation!". Or blurt out "Oh yeah? Well what is a species anyhow?" I really don't care if you want to argue micro-semantics. If you want to call a wolf just an adapted fox, so be it. We, the guys holding the definitions book, choose to call it a species.

Your point has been (let me remind you), always, that THERE'S NO WAY FOR ONE TYPE OF ORGANISM TO CHANGE, SLOWLY OR OTHERWISE, INTO ANOTHER. NO POSSIBLE WAY!!!!

We've proved that there is a straightforward and documented process, and not only that, recently, it was proved in a lab, using one species that evolved through genetic changes into another.

So now you dismiss THAT as "Oh yeah well that was in a lab! doesn't count. Neener neener neener!"

Well, boys, just WHAT do you suppose "Evolution" is but adaptation encoded permanently into the DNA system? What point above do you say doesn't happen?

Do you know what your arguments sound like to rational people, guys?



I'd love to hear this.....

[Alpha8207]

This things been off-topic for some time now.

Since it was only marginally suitable for the Religion forum from the start, I'm closing it.