Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

6days

New member
Stuu said:
417 million years ago we shared a common ancestor with modern lungfish. That ancestor should reasonably be called a fish.

What's your problem with that?
Glad you are back Stuu. I was hoping you would return.

The problem with your beliefs about lungfish, is that it is only a belief, and not true. Its like the beliefs evolutionists have had about junk DNA, coelacanth, Nebraska man, psuedogenes, useless organs, human embryo gill slits etc
 

musterion

Well-known member
A child hears a noise in general direction of his darkened bedroom's closet. Convinced something he does not want to meet is there, he yanks the blanket over his head, scrunches up his eyes and clamps his hands over his ears. These actions, the child sincerely believes, will render the source of the noise nonexistent.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Glad you are back Stuu. I was hoping you would return.

The problem with your beliefs about lungfish, is that it is only a belief, and not true. Its like the beliefs evolutionists have had about junk DNA, coelacanth, Nebraska man, psuedogenes, useless organs, human embryo gill slits etc

Don't forget our pal Neanderthal!
 

noguru

Well-known member
A child hears a noise in general direction of his darkened bedroom's closet. Convinced something he does not want to meet is there, he yanks the blanket over his head, scrunches up his eyes and clamps his hands over his ears. These actions, the child sincerely believes, will render the source of the noise nonexistent.

:chuckle:

Yes, you should stop being afraid of the evidence and grow up. Being willfully ignorant of the evidence will not make it go away.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Life getting poofed (or breathed) into existence by a magic sky spirit sounds a lot like life from non-life to me.

Will there ever come a time when an evolutionist can accurately represent a creationist argument?

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!
 

Stuu

New member
Oh no!! The information comes from the mutation that is adaptable to a change in environment. A mutation adds a new feature that also becomes an increase in information.

--Dave
Ok, if you like. See how the word 'information' really just clouds any clear explanation of how evolution by natural selection works?

So many creationists trumpet their "information theory" platitude but I've never met one who actually could do the mathematics involved in the area of endeavour that is properly called information theory, or even link that to biology.

I'm not saying I can do the maths either, but it's not me who is reciting the platitude. The reason you use that term is because you intend to cloud and confuse, not to clarify or refute with any validity.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Glad you are back Stuu. I was hoping you would return.
Thanks!

The problem with your beliefs about lungfish, is that it is only a belief, and not true. Its like the beliefs evolutionists have had about junk DNA, coelacanth, Nebraska man, psuedogenes, useless organs, human embryo gill slits etc
It's not only my belief that we shared a common ancestor with lungfish over 400 million years ago, it is also a fact of natural history. Whether or not you have a problem with me believing it or not, you never said what your problem was with the fact.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Will there ever come a time when an evolutionist can accurately represent a creationist argument?
When creationists can get their story straight maybe more care will be taken. In the meantime I'll just assume you still believe that at one point within the past 4500 years the entire surface of the planet was covered in water - did I represent that correctly? - and laugh at your fantasy version of natural history that is based in nothing more than wishful thinking.

Stuart
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear Stuu,

I do not believe we shared a common ancestor with lungfish. I believe that God created lungfish and He also created man and woman. And He created the serpent responsible for Eve's indiscretion. He did cause the serpent to lose it's legs and crawl on the ground, licking the dust for the rest of it's life. And the snake may bite the heel of a man, causing man much pain or even death, but also that man will crush it's head with his heel/foot.

You'd like to believe that the lungfish is an ancestor of man, just because the lungfish has lungs too. Forget that. God created us the way we are. The Lord God also 'formed' man. God is a great chemist and can make a man out of the rocks. I dabbled in chemistry some and has my own chemistry set, plus studied chemistry in high school and got A's throughout the class. I understand it enough to make some deductions.

May God Love You, Stuart!!

Michael
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear Stuu,

I do not believe we shared a common ancestor with lungfish. I believe that God created lungfish and He also created man and woman. And He created the serpent responsible for Eve's indiscretion. He did cause the serpent to lose it's legs and crawl on the ground, licking the dust for the rest of it's life. And the snake may bite the heel of a man, causing man much pain or even death, but also that man will crush it's head with his heel/foot.

You'd like to believe that the lungfish is an ancestor of man, just because the lungfish has lungs too. Forget that. God created us the way we are. The Lord God also 'formed' man. The rocks are chock full of minerals and chemicals. Man is mostly water, so any hydrogen and oxygen could account for the water. God is a great chemist and can make a man out of the rocks. I dabbled in chemistry some and had my own chemistry set, plus studied chemistry in high school and got A's throughout the classes. I understand it enough to make some deductions.

May God Bless You With Lots Of Love, Stuart!!

Michael

:mrt:

:box:

:chuckle:
 

Stuu

New member
I do not believe we shared a common ancestor with lungfish.
The fact of our common ancestry with lungfish doesn't depend on whether you believe it or you don't.

You'd like to believe that the lungfish is an ancestor of man
You might like to take some care with what I would like to believe. Modern lungfish aren't our ancestors. How could they be?

Stuart
 

alwight

New member
Will there ever come a time when an evolutionist can accurately represent a creationist argument?
What creationist argument?
6days, for example, seems a bit unsure of his particular version of creationist belief, perhaps because typically there is no one version confirmed in material evidence. Except maybe for a belief that God must have done it somehow supernaturally, mysteriously a few thousand years ago, because that's what Genesis says, never mind if any physical evidence suggests otherwise.
 

Tyrathca

New member
Will there ever come a time when an evolutionist can accurately represent a creationist argument?

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!

I don't know, will there ever be a time when a creationist can accurately represent an evolutionists argument?
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The Schrödinger Paradox

Now Schrödinger would try to link life with the underlying theorems of thermodynamics. How is order ensured, given that systems of microparticles tend toward disorder? Schrödinger caught sight of the problem. Consider a copy machine: if you copy a copy, it gets dimmer; if you copy that copy, it gets dimmer and duller still. While organisms do lose features of their parents, their copying fidelity is astonishing; and they sometimes progress or improve, evolving complex refinements, sometimes whole new features. How do organisms perpetuate (and even increase) their organization in a universe governed by the second law? We call this "the Schrödinger paradox."

The basic resolution of the Schrödinger paradox is simple: Organisms continue to exist and grow by importing high-quality energy from outside their bodies. They feed on what Schrödinger termed "negative entropy"—the higher organization of light quanta from the sun. Because they are not isolated, or even closed systems.​

Light is deemed the added organizing element that allows for the possibility of evolution, and increase in "order".

But this is not a "proof", it is only an explanation of what must be true in order for evolution to take place in a cell that would other wise "not" increase in order.

Evolution is presumed to be true and Schrödinger is trying to explain how entropy is over come by living cells.

The circular argument goes like this.

We know that evolution is true because sunlight organizes cells.

We know that sunlight organizes cells because evolution is true.

Cells go from order to order and order to less order, but they do not go from order to more order.

--Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top