Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

Yes (sic ) I'm a fan, I've owned most if not all of the Yes albums since the vinyl days, much played, when I originally thought it was rubbish for some reason but soon discovered it's actually excellent stuff after hearing "Yessongs" (live).
I also have "The Friends Of Mr. Cairo" & "Short Stories" Jon & Vangelis.
Yes live albums are particularly worth having but I've never seen them live except on video.

I really liked their Beatles cover of Every Little Thing:

Yes Every Little Thing

Saw then live at the Lafayette Club Wolverhampton. Amazing!!

 

[alwight]

I really liked their Beatles cover of Every Little Thing:


Saw then live at the Lafayette Club Wolverhampton. Amazing!!

I hadn't heard them do a cover before, thanks.

 

[freelight]

Let's settle it

Let's settle it

~*~*~




Who cares?












pj

 

[MichaelCadry]

~*~*~




Who cares?












pj

REALLY!!

Trying to avoid my post for your own benefit, eh?

MC

:wave:

 

[noguru]

I hadn't heard them do a cover before, thanks.

I have heard a live version of "I've Seen All Good People" where they fit "Give Peace a Chance" by John Lennon into the chorus. It's the same chord progression so it is an easy fit.

 

[noguru]

Rather than admit a mistake you now are just being dishonest. You can't even claim ignorance on this because you know that the Biblical model is the ability is adaptation, variation, rapid speciation etc.


You are committed to your religion, your system of beliefs, holding to it with ardor and faith. Beliefs about the past are not science. Biblical creationists, theistic evolutionists, intelligent design'ists, and atheists all examine the exact same evidence but interpret it to fit their belief system.


That's much the same as what I said. I said that Dawkins will often say things appear designed, but he won't allow himself, because of his religion, to even consider the possibility that they are designed.

Dawkins has said he would rather believe aliens seeded life on earth than an Intelligent designer. That is interesting! It shows Dawkins is more about promoting his religion than he is about science and truth.

You are obviously the one who is not honest, nor do you have the courage to admit when you are wrong. None of what you say is accurate, and you continuously repeat the same misinformation time after time. Even after being corrected a multitude of times.

Slapping your religious platitudes at the end of your post to compensate for your inaccuracies and continued deceit does not impress me.

 

[alwight]

I have heard a live version of "I've Seen All Good People" where they fit "Give Peace a Chance" by John Lennon into the chorus. It's the same chord progression so it is an easy fit.

Strangely I was listening to "I've Seen All Good People (Live)", In the Present (Live from Lyon), in the car today, when I thought I heard "Give Peace a Chance" in it at some point but thought no more of it, honest, I didn't just make that up.

 

[6days]

Rather than admit a mistake you now are just being dishonest. You can't even claim ignorance on this because you know that the Biblical model is the ability is adaptation, variation, rapid speciation etc.

FTR I've always been completely honest here.

And Richard Nixon was not a crook.

Surely you also believe that DNA information doesn't increase and that you thought your link was something that supported that notion?

You keep digging deeper into your handbag of fallacious arguments. The articleS I quoted recently were not about increase of info at all. They had nothing to do with that. (One was that antibiotic resistance was in bacteria before modern antibiotic medicine. The other article was about how amazingly complex the most 'simple' bacteria is)

Furthermore, you were dishonest in saying I believed DNA was pre created as is. You are not ignorant of the fact I have often said the. Biblical model is rapid change, variation and adaptation. So knowing you are not ignorant, (and certainly not stupid),you are being dishonest.

You are committed to your religion, your system of beliefs, holding to it with ardor and faith. Beliefs about the past are not science. Biblical creationists, theistic evolutionists, intelligent design'ists, and atheists all examine the exact same evidence but interpret it to fit their belief system.

Rubbish 6days, admit it, you have already presupposed your religious beliefs based on a literal adherence to an ancient scripture. Material evidence has to somehow be fashioned to comply with that belief.

Giggling....
I certainly am 100% biased... as you are.
We bother make interpretations of evidence based on 'religion'.

Science otoh doesn't need to nor should it presuppose anything nor does it have your particular pre-conclusions in mind, it is simply led by the evidence into whatever those conclusions are.

I agree!
However as Dave has pointed out in this thread, evolutionists don't really adhere to the scientific method. He has pointed out several frauds and many shoddy incorrect conclusions based on beliefs..not on evidence.

If those conclusions aren't particularly helpful to your particular beliefs then so be it that's your problem, not a problem for science.

The shoddy conclusions evolutionists have made has been a problem to the millions effected by race based slavery which increased due to Darwinian beliefs.
Shoddy evolutionary conclusions were largely responsible for the holocaust, in eliminating the "unfit".
Although you claim these faulty conclusions are no problem for science, that isn't much comfort to the millions of people who have suffered as a result of evolutionary beliefs.

That's much the same as what I said. I said that Dawkins will often say things appear designed, but he won't allow himself, because of his religion, to even consider the possibility that they are designed.

Science isn't a matter of opinion about whether something seems to be designed or not.

LoL
Then why do you seem so enamored with Dawkins opinions?
DNA may appear designed, because it is designed.
The universe may appear designed, because it is designed.
The human eye may appear designed, because it is designed.

Dawkins has said he would rather believe aliens seeded life on earth than an Intelligent designer. That is interesting! It shows Dawkins is more about promoting his religion than he is about science and truth.

Now you're being blatantly dishonest imo. He has never to my knowledge, nor to Ben Stein (Expelled) btw, even remotely admitted to having any such preference...

If you have read Dawkins at all, then you would know his abhorrence of those who believe in the Creator. When Stein asked about Intelligent Design, it was pretty obvious he was asking about a Creator. Dawkins answer essentially was 'perhaps life evolved elsewhere and they seeded life on earth'. Dawkins would rather believe in aliens than the creator.
Here is the Stein interview you refer to-

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

The most logical explanation to life on earth and our planet which "appears designed" for life is...
In the beginning, God created.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Y'all, This will help you believe in my Invisible Friend. Hope you find it helpful:

The first angel that ever visited me said, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come upon all of the earth, and worship Him Who made the earth and the heaven, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." A he had a loud, commanding, clear voice. No mincing words, that's for sure. I saw him flying in heaven. He was twice as bright as the planet Venus, and when he moved, he didn't move like a shooting star, but instead moved like a bee hovering to flowers. I could not take my eyes away from watching what I perceived and knew was an angel, and I knew I had never seen one before and that I may never see one again in my life. So my eyes were glued to watching him. Finally, another voice said, "Go call your girlfriend and invite her over for the night." So I raced to the phone to call her before she left to go do anything else for the night. I had just hung up with her before I saw the angel, and had told her we wouldn't be doing anything that night, because I was fasting to the Lord (I didn't tell her that part, till she got to my house). I'd been fasting for like almost six hours, no cigs, no food, just an ounce of water. It was easy not smoking, and I was happy giving the Lord a gift because He had visited me ten days earlier. That is a subject for another thread. Not here. This happened to me on March 15, 1974, at 9:15pm at night. FORTY YEARS and 2 or so hours ago. I ended up asking my Mom if I could invite my best friend and his family over that night and my girlfriend and my whole family, except my youngest sister Lila (she slept through all of it). We all stayed up all night and I told them what the Lord had told me the ten days earlier and what the angel had said to me that night, and we were up all night talking and joyful, waiting for Jesus to Return. He never showed up that night, but I knew what happened to me, and kept pondering it in my heart. All that I did know was that the Lord and the angel had visited me. That was enough for me to experience great joy. My best friend did not get off of work until about 3:15am that night. So we had to wait like 4 hours for him. But before that, my girlfriend had come over and we were talking in my parent's bedroom (where I was fasting and reading the Bible), and I perceived she saw the glow about me and in my eyes and wanted to mess around, but I told her we could not, but instead had to concentrate on the angel's visit. And I tried to explain some things to her from the Bible, but she could not understand, because she had a one-track mind. We had never had sex before, but she was my new girlfriend. We'd been together maybe a couple months. OK, it's time to close for now. This is part of my testimony, of which I've heard from the Lord God and angels, and the Holy Spirit, and certain visions, that I share with others, being a witness to all of it that happened to me and when it did. How's this for a Creator or Intelligent Design? Amen!!

In God's Loving Arms,

MichaelC

 

[freelight]

Take a chill pill.......

Take a chill pill.......

REALLY!!

Trying to avoid my post for your own benefit, eh?

MC

:wave:

Was just adding a little flippant humor here, break up the tension a bit

It was not a response to any one person or post.


In-joy!



paulie

 

[noguru]

Strangely I was listening to "I've Seen All Good People (Live)", In the Present (Live from Lyon), in the car today, when I thought I heard "Give Peace a Chance" in it at some point but thought no more of it, honest, I didn't just make that up.

Yes, they introduce it into the song very subtly, and only repeat it 2 or 3 times in the background.

 

[alwight]

Quote:

Rather than admit a mistake you now are just being dishonest. You can't even claim ignorance on this because you know that the Biblical model is the ability is adaptation, variation, rapid speciation etc.

FTR I've always been completely honest here.

And Richard Nixon was not a crook.

I think the only Tricky Dickey here is probably you 6days.

Surely you also believe that DNA information doesn't increase and that you thought your link was something that supported that notion?

You keep digging deeper into your handbag of fallacious arguments. The articleS I quoted recently were not about increase of info at all. They had nothing to do with that. (One was that antibiotic resistance was in bacteria before modern antibiotic medicine. The other article was about how amazingly complex the most 'simple' bacteria is)

Furthermore, you were dishonest in saying I believed DNA was pre created as is. You are not ignorant of the fact I have often said the. Biblical model is rapid change, variation and adaptation. So knowing you are not ignorant, (and certainly not stupid),you are being dishonest.

Now I tend to think you are probably trying to revise what you meant initially, but I'm not particularly inclined to go back and read it all again, let's move on.
If complex DNA had not been divinely created "as is" then it must have evolved naturally, right?
In a few thousand years?
Then presumably you must also believe that all modern complex DNA came about just same way, by evolution, and involved a progressive increase of genetic information, yes?
So if bacteria are as amazingly complex as you say they are then I'd like to know exactly how you think that came about, in presumably a few thousand years. Other creationists seem to think that DNA is actually irreducibly complex and evidence of divine creation, but not you apparently, perhaps you'd explain? :think:

You are committed to your religion, your system of beliefs, holding to it with ardor and faith. Beliefs about the past are not science. Biblical creationists, theistic evolutionists, intelligent design'ists, and atheists all examine the exact same evidence but interpret it to fit their belief system.

Rubbish 6days, admit it, you have already presupposed your religious beliefs based on a literal adherence to an ancient scripture. Material evidence has to somehow be fashioned to comply with that belief.

Giggling....
I certainly am 100% biased... as you are.
We bother make interpretations of evidence based on 'religion'.

So you presumably disregard natural evidence and simply rely 100% on your belief? Yes, I disregard the supernatural 100% because I don't simply believe, I believe what evidence shows me is rational to believe.

Science otoh doesn't need to nor should it presuppose anything nor does it have your particular pre-conclusions in mind, it is simply led by the evidence into whatever those conclusions are.

I agree!
However as Dave has pointed out in this thread, evolutionists don't really adhere to the scientific method. He has pointed out several frauds and many shoddy incorrect conclusions based on beliefs..not on evidence.

So what? How would that, even if entirely true, invalidate everything else?

If those conclusions aren't particularly helpful to your particular beliefs then so be it that's your problem, not a problem for science.

The shoddy conclusions evolutionists have made has been a problem to the millions effected by race based slavery which increased due to Darwinian beliefs.
Shoddy evolutionary conclusions were largely responsible for the holocaust, in eliminating the "unfit".
Although you claim these faulty conclusions are no problem for science, that isn't much comfort to the millions of people who have suffered as a result of evolutionary beliefs.

Now I think you are going off at a typical creationist tangent, you will, no doubt, be delving into eugenics, the Nazis and Social Darwinism next. That's where this seems to be heading imo, and something else gleaned from creationist websites perhaps. :sigh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

That's much the same as what I said. I said that Dawkins will often say things appear designed, but he won't allow himself, because of his religion, to even consider the possibility that they are designed.

Science isn't a matter of opinion about whether something seems to be designed or not.

LoL
Then why do you seem so enamored with Dawkins opinions?

I'm not particularly, you brought him up iirc. Why do you dislike him so much, does he say things that make you feel uncomfortable?

DNA may appear designed, because it is designed.
The universe may appear designed, because it is designed.
The human eye may appear designed, because it is designed.

Having such opinions may give you a warm glow 6days but having them doesn't make them true or science.

Dawkins has said he would rather believe aliens seeded life on earth than an Intelligent designer. That is interesting! It shows Dawkins is more about promoting his religion than he is about science and truth.

Now you're being blatantly dishonest imo. He has never to my knowledge, nor to Ben Stein (Expelled) btw, even remotely admitted to having any such preference...

If you have read Dawkins at all, then you would know his abhorrence of those who believe in the Creator. When Stein asked about Intelligent Design, it was pretty obvious he was asking about a Creator. Dawkins answer essentially was 'perhaps life evolved elsewhere and they seeded life on earth'. Dawkins would rather believe in aliens than the creator.
Here is the Stein interview you refer to-

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

I see, so contrary to what you said previously Dawkins didn't actually express any preference, you simply made that bit up then. I think that's called dishonesty 6days.
BTW in that interview Dawkins was highly reluctant to speculate about an "alien seed" theory and showed a remarkable patience imo when Stein wouldn't stop prompting him to do so. Of course the next creationist headlines were all about Dawkins believing in aliens, you can't win. :bang:

The most logical explanation to life on earth and our planet which "appears designed" for life is...
In the beginning, God created.

Did He create DNA as it is 6days? :sherlock:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Was just adding a little flippant humor here, break up the tension a bit

It was not a response to any one person or post.


In-joy!



paulie

Dear freelight,

Thank you pj!! It helped! Hope you're having as much fun as possible lately. Life is a trip sometimes!!

Much Love In Christ,

Michael

:salute:

:rotfl:

:wave:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Get rid of all the disease for one. Improve our senses for another.

I'm talking about the universe. You said it was a lousy design. How would you improve it?

No. He ruled out all the terrible outcomes.

Then why is it a lousy design?

When did I say that I could do better than God?

When you said His design for the universe was lousy. If you can't do better, you have no basis on which to make that judgement.

You are assuming that God did things in the manner you insist upon. That is what I am critiquing. I am saying that what you insist that God did was horrible design. One reason I say that is because God did not design anything, other than the laws and the initial conditions and the boundary conditions that prevented certain eventualities from occurring. I could not do anything better or make things better. That shows that you did not understand what I said and think me an egomaniac. I am saying that if God did ,indeed, design the universe as it now exists, as you insist, then it was lousy design.

I don't recall ever insisting such a thing. Perhaps you could quote me where I've done so?

A good design would have no death and no pain.

It didn't before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

A good design would not have countless species barely able to eke out a living when a simple change of anatomy or body chemistry would make life much easier. There have been millions of species go extinct. If they were designed by God, they would never have gone extinct.

That's just plain stupid. We can kill any biological organism that God designed, and thus drive such an organism extinct. That doesn't mean the design is at fault.

 

[6days]

Furthermore, you were dishonest in saying I believed DNA was pre created as is. You are not ignorant of the fact I have often said the. Biblical model is rapid change, variation and adaptation. So knowing you are not ignorant, (and certainly not stupid),you are being dishonest.

If complex DNA had not been divinely created "as is" then it must have evolved naturally, right?

I repeat..... "The Biblical model is rapid change, variation and adaptation"...

Science otoh doesn't need to nor should it presuppose anything nor does it have your particular pre-conclusions in mind, it is simply led by the evidence into whatever those conclusions are.

I agree!
However as Dave has pointed out in this thread, evolutionists don't really adhere to the scientific method. He has pointed out several frauds and many shoddy incorrect conclusions based on beliefs..not on evidence.

So what? How would that, even if entirely true, invalidate everything else?

It invalidates what you said. Evolutionism is not lead by evidence, but by beliefs.

Creationism is also lead by beliefs.

Both sides examine the exact same evidence.

Your side believes life comes from non life....that dinosaurs evolved into birds... that the universe and the laws which govern it created itself...etc

So if bacteria are as amazingly complex as you say they are then I'd like to know exactly how you think that came about, in presumably a few thousand years.

In the beginning, God created. The complexity in the simplest bacteria is evidence of design.

" scientists decided to try simulate one of the smallest known genomes of any organism (525 gene). The scientists had "a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
Interestingly, the article unwittingly suggests an Intelligent Designer may be responsible... "Now figure that millions of bacteria could fit on the head of a pin and that many of them are an order of magnitude more complex than M. genitalium. Or ponder the idea that the human body is made up of 10 trillion (big, complex) human cells, plus about 90 or 100 trillion bacterial cells. That's about 100,000,000,000,000 cells in total. That'd take a lot of computers to model, eh? If it were possible, that is."

DNA may appear designed, because it is designed.
The universe may appear designed, because it is designed.
The human eye may appear designed, because it is designed.

Having such opinions may give you a warm glow 6days but having them doesn't make them true or science.

I didn`t say it was true or science... But it certainly is true what I said;
What I said was....
DNA may appear designed, because it is designed.
The universe may appear designed, because it is designed.
The human eye may appear designed, because it is designed

 

[6days]

That's just plain stupid. We can kill any biological organism that God designed, and thus drive such an organism extinct. That doesn't mean the design is at fault.

True. And besides that, God's Word is quite clear why death and extinctions exist in our world.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days and alwight,

Creation is not a belief, it's a FACT!
Evolution is a belief.

Michael

 

[freelight]

tripping......

tripping......

Dear freelight,

Thank you pj!! It helped! Hope you're having as much fun as possible lately. Life is a trip sometimes!!

Much Love In Christ,

Michael

:salute:

:rotfl:

:wave:

Yes, in fact it is a TRIP.

From a non-dual (Vedanta perspective) :

Life is an adventure of creation arising in consciousness, evolving its potential, its creative will. The 'essence' behind the forms is real (being formless/unchanging/timeless), the appearances are not (they are subject to change, birth, death, disintegration, time).

The movement of creation arises naturally in this ocean of primordial substance as a perception-play of illusion making all appear to be 'evolving' in space, bringing with it the element of 'time'. That's all there is to it (without diving into all the minute details...of 'energy', 'mind', 'matter', 'spirit'.)



pj

 

[MichaelCadry]

Yes, in fact it is a TRIP.

From a non-dual (Vedanta perspective) :

Life is an adventure of creation arising in consciousness, evolving its potential, its creative will. The 'essence' behind the forms is real (being formless/unchanging/timeless), the appearances are not (they are subject to change, birth, death, disintegration, time).

The movement of creation arises naturally in this ocean of primordial substance as a perception-play of illusion making all appear to be 'evolving' in space, bringing with it the element of 'time'. That's all there is to it (without diving into all the minute details...of 'energy', 'mind', 'matter', 'spirit'.)



pj

Dear freelight,

When you read it slow, you can understand it. It is a trip.

In Christ's Love,

MichaelC

 

[noguru]

That's just plain stupid. We can kill any biological organism that God designed, and thus drive such an organism extinct. That doesn't mean the design is at fault.

Extinctions are not only caused by humans. Yes, humans have caused their fair share of extinctions. But that is because we often learn a new technology before we learn how to manage it responsibly. That coupled with the fact that greed will often keep us blind to our own lack of manageability. Because we often look inordinately to short term financial accounting for our idea of manageability, rather than taking other aspects into account as well.