Discussion with buddhists....hope fellow Christians here can
-
i'm not good at summary .. I only remember the meaningful parts.Originally posted by laoda99:icemoon says now still stuck at philosophy part
nvm...i always get him to summarise for me....
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
read my post, the reason Creation is not in the bio text books is due to politics not science. cause Creation had a tack to religion and therefore, is block by people using the state/religion separation.
[b]Though the modern synthesis is almost universally accepted within the scientific community, many people find aspects of it counterintuitive.
WHy don't u substantiate your stand by putting in a reputable scienc webpage tat show the scientific comittee is evenly split. If u can find me a reputable biology textbook tat dispute evolution, i eat my hat.
[/b]
as for the claims, since you started the claim that majority of scientist support Evolution, that you need to proof your claim first.
as for theory, theory is not facts, there are a lot of theory out there that are still being debated, and Evolution is one of them (the two major camps debating this are the Evolutionist and the Creationist, and neither had step down yet), stop being one sided mind and start reading with an open mind on both theory, and by the way, there are also some other lesser known theories around also.
Why Evolution is not a fact yet, is because even in the Evolutionist camp, there are still a lot of questions that are not answered, a lot of missing links.
another thing is, even among the evolutionist camp, there are still debates on the theory, like what trigger it? under what circumstances? what are the external factors? how it happen? what are the internal factors? ...etc all these are not covered in the text books, cause there are no conclusive answers yet.
, next,the dating devise used was never claimed to be 100% accurate as well.
*edit to reorg for better readibility -
As an observer, i think you are getting very personal in the debate. Personal attacks only lead to more personal attacks. As a senior in this forum, perhaps you have to observe your behaviour.Originally posted by laoda99:Face it. U only believe in the things u wanna believe.
May everyone here keep a peaceful mind when engaging in a debate, dun think we are here to make enemies rite?
Keep an open mind, we may think that we are always right but we could be wrong at times. We can't be wrong all the time but neither can we always be right. -
I agree with you. ThanksOriginally posted by invigorated:As an observer, i think you are getting very personal in the debate. Personal attacks only lead to more personal attacks. As a senior in this forum, perhaps you have to observe your behaviour.
May everyone here keep a peaceful mind when engaging in a debate, dun think we are here to make enemies rite?
Keep an open mind, we may think that we are always right but we could be wrong at times. We can't be wrong all the time but neither can we always be right.
anyway, the debate on Evolution vs Creation had been going on for so many years, involving so many brilliant minds, to think that we can reach a conclusion here is unthinkable. -
Haha, yah. So chicken first or egg first?? Haha.Originally posted by vince69:I agree with you. Thanks
anyway, the debate on Evolution vs Creation had been going on for so many years, involving so many brilliant minds, to think that we can reach a conclusion here is unthinkable. -
Originally posted by invigorated:As an observer, i think you are getting very personal in the debate. Personal attacks only lead to more personal attacks. As a senior in this forum, perhaps you have to observe your behaviour.
-
let's say if Creation is in the bio text books .. then how will it be?Originally posted by vince69:read my post, the reason Creation is not in the bio text books is due to politics not science. cause Creation had a tack to religion and therefore, is block by people using the state/religion separation.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? -
The argument was to present both theory side by side to allow the students to be expose to both side and allow them to choose for themselves which side make sense for them. Its not about replacing Evolution theory in the text books. but the Liberals/Athesis insisted that Creation cannot be teach in schools on the basis the religion should not be taught in school, and the general thinking is that Creation have to talk about God, hence cannot be teach.Originally posted by Icemoon:let's say if Creation is in the bio text books .. then how will it be?
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? -
If they taught christian creation, wont they have to teach the hindu, buddhist, wiccan, islam etc version too?
-
no can do, still have link to a religion.Originally posted by Cenarious:If they taught christian creation, wont they have to teach the hindu, buddhist, wiccan, islam etc version too? -
I getting very personal in the debate?Originally posted by invigorated:As an observer, i think you are getting very personal in the debate. Personal attacks only lead to more personal attacks. As a senior in this forum, perhaps you have to observe your behaviour.
May everyone here keep a peaceful mind when engaging in a debate, dun think we are here to make enemies rite?
Keep an open mind, we may think that we are always right but we could be wrong at times. We can't be wrong all the time but neither can we always be right.
-
read my post, the reason Creation is not in the bio text books is due to politics not science. cause Creation had a tack to religion and therefore, is block by people using the state/religion separation.
The reason why creation is not in textbook is simply because there is literally NO evidence supporting this statement. Can u show me an example or evidence for creationism ? Why don't creationism for once PROOF creationism isntead of condemning evolution ? Furthermore, instead of comdemning the evidences of evolution, can u SHOW an example or evidence where it proves evolution wrong ? The best creationism do is condemn a few evidence out of the few thousands as an argument without showing a counter prove or proof of creationism. If u can't do any of these, I don't understand on wat ground can u say creation should be in textbook other than it is religious in nature and totally unscientific.
I think u misunderstand tat science seek the truth, and do not pick bones with religion. On the other hand it seems tat religion is the one tat keep condemning science and keep giving wrong ideas to the masses.as for the claims, since you started the claim that majority of scientist support Evolution, that you need to proof your claim first
I already show u a reputable scientific website tat says most of the scientists believe in evolution. I have already supported my claim. It is time for u to show yoursas for theory, theory is not facts, there are a lot of theory out there that are still being debated, and Evolution is one of them
I have already said tat the word theory, meant tat it is already declared as a fact and it is NEVER shown to be false. There r many other things tat r called theory like atomic theory and gravity theory. So u don't believe in atomic structure as well as gravity as well ?Why Evolution is not a fact yet, is because even in the Evolutionist camp, there are still a lot of questions that are not answered, a lot of missing links.
Let me speculate, u read articles tat was religious in nature instead of scientific in nature. If u did read sources from scientific nature, then u should be able to back up your claim with reputable scientific website. If I am nto wrong, the best thing u can do is paste from a religious website.
On your missing links, similarly from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_links
A popular term to designate transitional forms with is 'the missing link'. The term is especially used in the regular media, but inaccurate and confusing. This is partly because it implies that there was a single link missing to complete the picture, which now has been discovered. In reality, the continuing discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further adding to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions. The term probably arose in the 19th century where the awaited discovery of a 'missing link' between humans and 'lower' animals was considered to be the final proof of evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
U can find more info from here
Today evolution is the unifying force in modern biology; it ties together fields as disparate as genetics, microbiology and palaeontology. It is an elegant and convincing explanation for the staggering diversity of Earth's five million or more living species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
Evolution: The central principle of biology
Main article: Evolution
The central organizing concept in biology is that all life has a common origin and has changed and developed through the process of evolution (see Common descent). This has led to the striking similarity of units and processes discussed in the previous section. Charles Darwin established evolution as a viable theory by articulating its driving force, natural selection (Alfred Russel Wallace is recognized as the co-discoverer of this concept). Genetic drift was embraced as an additional mechanism of evolutionary development in the modern synthesis of the theory.
a brief search with the words "introduction biology"
http://www.athro.com/evo/evframe.html
We do not, after all, expect to encounter a page-one story with the headline "New Experiment Proves Earth Goes Around Sun, Not Vice Versa. Galileo Vindicated." The fact of evolution has been equally well documented for more than a century.
- (Gould, 1997 p.60)
We have two reasons to say evolution is fact: First, all the patterns we observe in nature point towards a nearly four billion year long history of evolution of life on earth. Putting a fancy word on it, this is Consilience. Multiple independent lines of evidence (from classification, development, fossil record, molecular biology etc.) all point to a branched evolutionary tree of life. Second, the anatomy and biochemistry of organisms is filled with quirky features, things that only make sense as artifacts of history. Again, putting a fancy term on it this is Dissonance.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/BF/bf02/scott/bf02a02.html
Dobzhansky was saying that the fact that evolution occurs explains the interrelatedness of the various facts of biology, and therefore makes biology make sense
Dobzhansky said, "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is perhaps intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts, some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html
Yet biologists, particularly those statured by the peer review and publication of substantial personal research on the subject in leading journals of science, are unanimous in concluding that evolution is a fact. The evidence they and thousands of others have adduced over 150 years falls together in intricate and interlocking detail. The multitudinous examples range from the small changes in DNA sequences observed as they occur in real time to finely graded sequences within larger evolutionary changes in the fossil record. Further, on the basis of comparably firm evidence, natural selection grows ever stronger as the prevailing explanation of evolution.
Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the intelligent designers join the strict creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred in the first place) by arguing that scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to their own personal secular beliefs. This may have a kernel of truth; everybody suffers from some amount of bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. He will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible! Even a combined Nobel Prize and Templeton Prize (the latter designed to encourage search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such an epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory, and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science. There is only the residue of hoped-for default, which steadily shrinks as the science of biology expands.
Interesting quite from darwin
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And that is a damnable doctrine. -
Interesting quite from darwin
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And that is a damnable doctrine.
[/b][/quote]
Actually you will not be everlastingly punished, you will be completely destroyed. Yahweh is not so cruel, the eternal punishment is reserved for sa tan and his gang...
Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. -
10 Best Evidences for CreationOriginally posted by stupidissmart:The reason why creation is not in textbook is simply because there is literally NO evidence supporting this statement. Can u show me an example or evidence for creationism ? Why don't creationism for once PROOF creationism isntead of condemning evolution ? Furthermore, instead of comdemning the evidences of evolution, can u SHOW an example or evidence where it proves evolution wrong ? The best creationism do is condemn a few evidence out of the few thousands as an argument without showing a counter prove or proof of creationism. If u can't do any of these, I don't understand on wat ground can u say creation should be in textbook other than it is religious in nature and totally unscientific.
I think u misunderstand tat science seek the truth, and do not pick bones with religion. On the other hand it seems tat religion is the one tat keep condemning science and keep giving wrong ideas to the masses.
by Dave & Mary Jo Nutting and Dan Korow
1. The Fossil Record.
The fossil record provides evidence for a complex, instantaneous creation. Why? A: The lower geologic layers reveal a sudden proliferation of complex life forms with every phyla represented. This Cambrian Explosion or “Big Bang” of life is preceded by no simpler forms. B: Today’s living forms show no change from their supposed ancient ancestors. C: There are large and systematic gaps between the different kinds of fossils rather than gradual, evolutionary changes.
2. Irreducible Complexity
Prepackaged, highly engineered systems exist in our bodies that are so complex they defy evolutionary explanations. These systems involve integrated multiple parts and reactions that work together only as a whole. If you eliminate any one piece, none of the system works at all. Evolution supposedly operates by natural selection perfecting less developed systems. However, natural selection requires something working and in place to perfect! Examples in the human body are the immune system, blood clotting, and any one of hundreds of biochemical pathways.
3. Gaps in the Living World
If isolated members of a species change by evolutionary processes, the main population group can still continue. We should be able to read the history of the evolutionary progression right across the very top of the evolutionary branching tree. We can’t! Just as the fossil record contains large systematic gaps, the living world does too. We see evidence for creation of distinct kinds — not one kind changing into another.
4. Laws of Probability
The odds are enormously great against the successful occurrence of each of the myriads of needed evolutionary changes! Even the probability of 1 small protein occurring by accident is 1 chance out of 10260. Since we have thousands of even larger proteins, it is inconceivable they all happened by chance. Coupling that with intricate structures like eyes, wings, hearts, lungs, etc., the laws of probability scream out, “Creation!”
5. Law of Cause and Effect:
The Law of Cause and Effect is one of the best documented principles of science and of everyday experience. Every event must have a sufficient cause. Since the origin of the universe and the origin of life are events, they too must have a cause. The physical universe consisting of time, space, energy, and matter must all have a cause outside themselves. Likewise, life must have a living Cause. Following this reasoning to its logical conclusion, leads to an infinite, eternal, powerful, intelligent, living First Cause--our awesome Creator!
6. Chicken or Egg Principle
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for a long time. The question is even deeper, however. Chickens have many proteins. Each protein is coded for by the DNA/RNA system. However, many specific proteins are needed in order to manufacture DNA/RNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA/RNA? The logical explanation is that they were both created.
7. Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design demands an Intelligent Designer. The airplane, computer, and digital camera originated not by random, undirected, chance processes, but by engineering genius. Such sophisticated acheivements however, pale in comparison to the extremely complex, systematically ordered, precision regulated systems of living tissue. The superior flight of the dragonfly, the mind boggling information mega-processor of the human brain, and the eye as a self-focusing, fully-automatic, high resolution, 3-D motion picture camera are the natural prototypes for our acclaimed tech marvels. It is scientifically inconceivable, unreasonable and illogical to credit blind, brainless chance as their maker. God alone is wise without limits, and deserves the Glory.
8. The Anthropic Principle
The Anthropic Principle observes that the universe, including our beautiful, blue planet appears to have been specifically designed for man to inhabit (just as Isaiah 45:18 says). Without the delicate balance of multitudes of physical properties, life would be impossible. Examples include the strength of the four basic forces in the universe (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces), the size and shape of the earth, the distance from earth to sun, the tilt of the earthÂ’s axis, the concentration of atmospheric gases, and the presence of abundant liquid water. It couldnÂ’t just happen.
9. Information Theory
Information has intelligence as its source, not haphazard chaotic chance. A computer programmer instills purpose, plan, and design by implementing and organizing recognizable bits of data into an understandable language framework. In biological systems, information is encoded as DNA, the programmed software of cells. As evolutionist Dr . Micheal Denton says in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, “The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram.” Since raw organic molecules have no intrinsic cognitive capacity, who injected the information into the DNA? God alone is able.
10. Extreme Complexity
Complexity beyond comprehension characterizes all life forms, including the so-called “simple cell.” As Dr. Micheal Denton states referring to the cell, “...we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity...beyond our own creative capacities.” Everything, from atomic structures to cells, organs, organ systems, and living creatures speaks of incredible order, balance, and unity as a whole.
and God Said It!
It is really hard to argue with the only One who claims to have been there when the universe and life began. He said He created everything to reproduce “after its own kind” — not one kind changing into another. -
The fossil record provides evidence for a complex, instantaneous creation. Why? A: The lower geologic layers reveal a sudden proliferation of complex life forms with every phyla represented. This Cambrian Explosion or “Big Bang” of life is preceded by no simpler forms. B: Today’s living forms show no change from their supposed ancient ancestors. C: There are large and systematic gaps between the different kinds of fossils rather than gradual, evolutionary changes.
A
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm
For details u can read the website for summary
Given the data above, why do apologists still treat the Cambrian as an explosion? Basically, it is because they have not kept up with the increased knowledge of this time period over the past 50 years. Lazarus J. Salop (1983, p. v) wrote:
“Progress in Precambrian geology has been exceptionally great, indeed, quite striking for geologists of the older generation; only some 30-40 years ago the Precambrian appeared as an uncertain and even mystic prelude to geologic evolution. Even the very name-Precambrian-means some indivisible unit in the early history of the Earth, the beginning of which is poorly known.”
In general it is my belief that apologists have not really studied the Precambrian in any detail or have merely re-stated what others have erroneously written. The first red-herring to be corrected is the false idea that virtually all phyla appear in the Cambrian. Ray Bohlin writes:
“Nowhere is the problem of sudden appearance better demonstrated than in the Burgess Shale found in the Canadian Rockies. The Burgess Shale illustrates that in the Cambrian period (which evolutionists estimate as being over 540 million years ago) nearly all of the basic body plans (phyla) of animals existing on earth came into existence in a geological instant (defined as only 5 to 10 million years). No new phyla have appeared since that time (the Bryazoa [sic—grm] are one possible exception, but many paleontologists believe they will eventually be found to originate in the Cambrian period)." (Bohlin, 2000, p. 23)
This simply isn't true.
BTodayÂ’s living forms show no change from their supposed ancient ancestors.
If u look at banana, u can see many different forms in today market. They r evolved a few thousands years ago from a common mutated banana where it do not have seeds like the african banana. After cultivation for these hindred of years in different countries, u can see there there r great changes in the size shape and taste of the many types of banana
CThere are large and systematic gaps between the different kinds of fossils rather than gradual, evolutionary changes
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html
Soft parts, such as skin impressions of dinosaurs, and soft-bodied animals like jellyfish are sometimes preserved, and in some localities may be common, but they give us only brief glimpses of evolutionary histories. Obviously we have no record of the origin of life, and little or no evolutionary history of the soft-bodied organisms. It is hardly surprising, then, that we have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups. The creationists, of course, just love to draw attention to these gaps, which they score as points against evolution. We saw in Chapter 6, though, that their case is without foundation, because they have ignored vital evidence from the living world
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.htmlPrepackaged, highly engineered systems exist in our bodies that are so complex they defy evolutionary explanations. These systems involve integrated multiple parts and reactions that work together only as a whole. If you eliminate any one piece, none of the system works at all. Evolution supposedly operates by natural selection perfecting less developed systems. However, natural selection requires something working and in place to perfect! Examples in the human body are the immune system, blood clotting, and any one of hundreds of biochemical pathways.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
However, the theory of evolution also allows complex, functionally integrated, low-probability systems to arise via gradual variation and selection. For example, Darwin explained how, under his theory, a few photosensitive cells might evolve gradually into human eyes.
Evolution can achieve your stated effect.If isolated members of a species change by evolutionary processes, the main population group can still continue. We should be able to read the history of the evolutionary progression right across the very top of the evolutionary branching tree. We can’t! Just as the fossil record contains large systematic gaps, the living world does too. We see evidence for creation of distinct kinds — not one kind changing into another.
Same question as 1A, same answer as 1A. U can read it aboveThe odds are enormously great against the successful occurrence of each of the myriads of needed evolutionary changes! Even the probability of 1 small protein occurring by accident is 1 chance out of 10260. Since we have thousands of even larger proteins, it is inconceivable they all happened by chance. Coupling that with intricate structures like eyes, wings, hearts, lungs, etc., the laws of probability scream out, “Creation!”
Tis is pretty silly. Lets imagine a class of children, each with their unique burthdate. The probability of a child having tat particular birthdate is 1 out of 365. And there r many children in the class. So is it inconceivable tat such a class can occured ? There is no material evidence nor anything stated here BTW. -
The Law of Cause and Effect is one of the best documented principles of science and of everyday experience. Every event must have a sufficient cause. Since the origin of the universe and the origin of life are events, they too must have a cause. The physical universe consisting of time, space, energy, and matter must all have a cause outside themselves. Likewise, life must have a living Cause. Following this reasoning to its logical conclusion, leads to an infinite, eternal, powerful, intelligent, living First Cause--our awesome Creator!
Tis again shows no material evidence at all
If everything have a first cause, wat caused god ?Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for a long time. The question is even deeper, however. Chickens have many proteins. Each protein is coded for by the DNA/RNA system. However, many specific proteins are needed in order to manufacture DNA/RNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA/RNA? The logical explanation is that they were both created.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 199
. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003). Intelligent Design demands an Intelligent Designer. The airplane, computer, and digital camera originated not by random, undirected, chance processes, but by engineering genius. Such sophisticated acheivements however, pale in comparison to the extremely complex, systematically ordered, precision regulated systems of living tissue. The superior flight of the dragonfly, the mind boggling information mega-processor of the human brain, and the eye as a self-focusing, fully-automatic, high resolution, 3-D motion picture camera are the natural prototypes for our acclaimed tech marvels. It is scientifically inconceivable, unreasonable and illogical to credit blind, brainless chance as their maker. God alone is wise without limits, and deserves the Glory.
Same question as 5, same answer as 5. Who design god then ? If god do nto need a designer, why do natue need a designer ?The Anthropic Principle observes that the universe, including our beautiful, blue planet appears to have been specifically designed for man to inhabit (just as Isaiah 45:18 says). Without the delicate balance of multitudes of physical properties, life would be impossible. Examples include the strength of the four basic forces in the universe (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces), the size and shape of the earth, the distance from earth to sun, the tilt of the earthÂ’s axis, the concentration of atmospheric gases, and the presence of abundant liquid water. It couldnÂ’t just happen.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.
We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.
Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.
If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?
Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).
How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.
The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.
If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.
Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).
In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it. -
Information has intelligence as its source, not haphazard chaotic chance. A computer programmer instills purpose, plan, and design by implementing and organizing recognizable bits of data into an understandable language framework. In biological systems, information is encoded as DNA, the programmed software of cells. As evolutionist Dr . Micheal Denton says in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, “The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram.” Since raw organic molecules have no intrinsic cognitive capacity, who injected the information into the DNA? God alone is able.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html
It is easy to make false, scientific-sounding claims when discussing complex ideas such as Information Theory. Readers should be suspicious of any writing on the subject that:
Claims to provide a measure for meaning;
Claims to be based on both Classical (Shannon) and Algorithmic (Chaitin-Kolmogorov) Information Theory (or neither);
Claims to distinguish between random and non-random data;
Proposes new theorems, principles, or laws without thoroughly demonstrating their validity;
Infers causality from correlation;
Makes unsubstantiated claims about the probability of an event; or
Otherwise lacks mathematical rigor.Complexity beyond comprehension characterizes all life forms, including the so-called “simple cell.” As Dr. Micheal Denton states referring to the cell, “...we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity...beyond our own creative capacities.” Everything, from atomic structures to cells, organs, organ systems, and living creatures speaks of incredible order, balance, and unity as a whole
Tha balance etc is due to evolution because beings evolved to suit the environment Tis can be explained with evolution
In the end, the supposed evidence is given from a non-scientific website (Please prove me wrong if u can). Also, it does not present evidence, but show phenomenon, where with a greater understanding of evolution shows tat they can fulfil the phenomenon adequately. Adn the author make the mistake of concluding tat anything tat evolution seems to be wrong = creationism is right. For several points they point out a phenomenon and point to god without saying why it must be god (such as intelligent design). It can be purple hippo, advance alien technology, matrix, buddha, shiva, zeus, invinsible unicorn, techno santa claus watever. -
so its atheist vs christians again?
-
up to tis point it seems to be me vs the whole forum
-
ahem. u are in a christian forum dude.Originally posted by stupidissmart:up to tis point it seems to be me vs the whole forum -
Thanks for sharing the article. However, there exists ambiguities in the argument by Dave & Mary Jo Nutting and Dan Korow.Originally posted by breytonhartge:10 Best Evidences for Creation
by Dave & Mary Jo Nutting and Dan Korow
...and God Said It!
It is really hard to argue with the only One who claims to have been there when the universe and life began. He said He created everything to reproduce “after its own kind” — not one kind changing into another.
From what I understand, its arguments seem to only claim non-evolution, not creation, as it hugely criticises the thought of evolution. However, when met with the high complexity and extreme chance of an event happening, such as complexity of human body, cells and DNA, a vague summation/explanation is given: God created everything as things are too complex to be created by themselves.
This is a sweeping statement as no evidence was given in the article to show that we are created by God, with the exception of the Bible. It's an unverified correlation.
In recent years, more evidence on evolution has surfaced. I'm not sure when the article mentioned above was written so it could be because the article was written a long time ago.
Some examples for sharing:
Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate palaeontologist with interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Palaeontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in palaeobiology at the university.
Fossils provide evidence of missing links (Aricle is long, pls check link to find out more if you're interested):
Archaeopteryx - half reptile, half bird.
Fossils show how some reptiles became more bird-like.
It is now known that birds evolved from reptiles.
"A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird."
Link: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html
From the National Academy of Science (US):
On The Fossil Record:
So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.
On Creationism and the Evidence for Evolution:
Furthermore, on a minor scale, we "experience" evolution occurring every day. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are both products of evolutionary forces. Indeed, the rapidity with which organisms with short generation times, such as bacteria and viruses, can evolve under the influence of their environments is of great medical significance. Many laboratory experiments have shown that, because of mutation and natural selection, such microorganisms can change in specific ways from those of immediately preceding generations.
Link: http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html -
Dun feel that way, this debate has never been conclusive, even in many other forums here and overseas where this has been discussed at length.Originally posted by stupidissmart:up to tis point it seems to be me vs the whole forum
Just take it positively that everyone is just sharing here... There are no winners or losers. So no one is against you.
-
Dun feel that way, this debate has never been conclusive, even in many other forums here and overseas where this has been discussed at length.
For me, tis is probably the few hundred times I talked about evolution
Just take it positively that everyone is just sharing here... There are no winners or losers. So no one is against you
I seemed to have talked about evolution one time or another with the regular people in the forum. Let me phrase back the word... It is evolution against creationism... but sad to say I am the overwhelming minority here tat suppot evolution. -
Like I said in one of my earlier post, so many brilliant minds had debated about this topic for so many years, and no one had reach a conculsive result yet, so its unthinkable to expect us to reach any conclusion here.Originally posted by stupidissmart:For me, tis is probably the few hundred times I talked about evolution I seemed to have talked about evolution one time or another with the regular people in the forum. Let me phrase back the word... It is evolution against creationism... but sad to say I am the overwhelming minority here tat suppot evolution.
All we can do is to state our own view point and leave it as it is, cause neither of us can really completely proof/disproof evolution or creationism (if all these brilliant minds can't do it, its unreasonable for us to expect ourselves to do it).
cheers and have a nice day everyone... -
This may not be. Just that not all forumers would want to openly debate such difficult and extremely sensitve topics like these.Originally posted by stupidissmart:For me, tis is probably the few hundred times I talked about evolution I seemed to have talked about evolution one time or another with the regular people in the forum. Let me phrase back the word... It is evolution against creationism... but sad to say I am the overwhelming minority here tat suppot evolution.
If you are trying to change mindsets here, it is very difficult. You can share your ideas though, but bear in mind the sensitivity of religion. Convince yes, criticise no.