Evolution vs Creation

[Newview01]

What do you believe in? And what is a piece of conclusive evidence you use to support your belief?

I believe the fact that geneticists have proven that rarely, if ever, does a mutation provide new or useful information. Given this fact, it is mathematically impossible to have the life we do today in the timeframe proposed.

In addition, nobody has explained what cause the Big Bang, where the matter was prior, so on and so forth. There are numerous theories but nothing has been proven.

In short, one needs more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creation.

[Donkey Oatey]

This can't end well.

[Taco]

I believe I see a flat earther poll on the event horizon.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Taco

I believe I see a flat earther poll on the event horizon.

lol

[ReconWilly]

Originally Posted by Taco

I believe I see a flat earther poll on the event horizon.

Flat earth?

The U.N. YES the United nations fly a flag that is a map of flat earth.

I want to know what the U.N.'S Motivation for using the flat earth map as their insignia.

Did they create the flat earth movement as a psyop? Or do they know something that they are hiding? Is it predictive programming for future agenda goals?

Science sometimes feels like nothing more than a fanatical religion with a base desire to disprove the existence of God.

I'm neither religious nor atheist, i'm a seeker of the truth.

To much smoke and mirrors for anyone to claim thst they know the whole story...I'm not taking anyone's word for anything, i'll keep digging until i figure it out for myself.

[bobtodrick]

Creationism.
And Santa Claus.
And the Easter Bunny.
And the tooth fairy.
Yeah!

[silverdoctor]

So one has to ask - how old do you think the earth is? 5000 to 6000 years or 4.6 billion years? Do you believe in half life of elements?

Dinosaur fossils? They aren't actually bone by the way, the majority of fossils have all organic materials replaced with minerals - so essentially rock. Dinos likely died off some 66 million years ago - and not because of the asteroid that hit the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago.

DNA that makes us "human" only makes up for less than 9% of our genome. The rest "was" considered junk - mostly retrovirus DNA. Now if you really want to smoke the noodle, have a look at virus evolution and it's direct effects on us. Viruses likely made us human and still work with us today. Pregnancy and the placenta is directly affected by a retrovirus.

It's a myth that humans evolved from monkeys - more likely we have a common ape like ancestor.

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

This can't end well.

[bloopbloob]

Originally Posted by Newview01

What do you believe in? And what is a piece of conclusive evidence you use to support your belief?

I believe the fact that geneticists have proven that rarely, if ever, does a mutation provide new or useful information. Given this fact, it is mathematically impossible to have the life we do today in the timeframe proposed.

In addition, nobody has explained what cause the Big Bang, where the matter was prior, so on and so forth. There are numerous theories but nothing has been proven.

In short, one needs more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creation.

Earth is only 6000 years old. Climate change is obviously a hoax based on that fact, as there was no climate past that date. Carbon dating is just dumb. Half-life of isotopes is completey made up of unicorn dreams. Nothing to to back
that up.

As far as your statements, do you have a source you can share as to where you got it from? Because as a student of genetics in University for 4 years, I know it will not be credible.... but feel free to prove me wrong...

[alta270]

Unlike religion, one doesn't believe in science.

One understands it. No faith required.

[Newellknik]

Knowing that these perplexing problems are
being scrutinized where great minds abide .
Au contraire mon ami DO , these little forays
Into the improbable always end well .

[silverdoctor]

If you want to understand the big bang theory, you really need to jump into multiverse and quantum mechanics and quantum physics. Many think of the big bang in the idea of single universe - single entity - that's impossible. That everything came from a single compressed ball of whatever that blew up isn't the theory.

Think about hanging multiple bed sheets on a clothes line, side by side. Each layer of sheet is it's own universe and as they blow in the breeze, they bang together - create an explosion. I don't pretend to understand the math, but there's some pretty brilliant minds that understand it - the math is double checked by others. Quantum anything is pretty interesting, many great videos on youtube to explain it in laymans terms. I'm not doing a very good job of it.


Religion is the biggest limitation to the human mind.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

If you want to understand the big bang theory, you really need to jump into multiverse and quantum mechanics and quantum physics. Many think of the big bang in the idea of single universe - single entity - that's impossible. That everything came from a single compressed ball of whatever that blew up isn't the theory.

Think about hanging multiple bed sheets on a clothes line, side by side. Each layer of sheet is it's own universe and as they blow in the breeze, they bang together - create an explosion. I don't pretend to understand the math, but there's some pretty brilliant minds that understand it - the math is double checked by others. Quantum anything is pretty interesting, many great videos on youtube to explain it in laymans terms. I'm not doing a very good job of it.


Religion is the biggest limitation to the human mind.

I'd say hangovers are a bigger limitation to the human mind than religion

[bloopbloob]

Originally Posted by Newellknik

Knowing that these perplexing problems are
being scrutinized where great minds abide .
Au contraire mon ami DO , these little forays
Into the improbable always end well .

Troll is all you are. I have bred several hundred generations of drosophila melanogaster, and I know what is possible with genetics and mutations first hand. Enjoy your troll session.

[raab]

Originally Posted by alta270

Unlike religion, one doesn't believe in science.

One understands it. No faith required.

Except Science is routinely proven false and changing. I mean they can't even figure out what our appendix does but they want me to believe they know what life on earth was like millions of years ago, fat chance. Also there is no known instances of macro evolution in mammals. You'd think if macro evolution was real it would still be happening today and we'd be seeing all sorts of new species emerge, but were not. Actually the reverse is true we're losing species at an alarming rate. It's more plausible that the earth was actually filled with more species in the beginning and that they've become extinct over time.

I dont think theres really any argument against micro evolution though.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by alta270

Unlike religion, one doesn't believe in science.

One understands it. No faith required.

Unless you are testing theories yourself you had better have faith that what you are reading is true.

[Donkey Oatey]

I was thinking about this last night before falling asleep.

The biggest difference in the two positions is pretty simple.

I read all the time articles that start out with. Amazing discovery will fundamentally change the way we think about ...............could be anything from evolution to space time, to virus to ozone. And people are excited to find that previous thoughts are wrong and can be changed. Never see that with biblical scholars. Oh wait one time when it was articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls and it was more. This fantastic discovery proves we were right.

Science wants to be proven wrong. Can't say the same about the other side.

If civilization was destroyed today and brought anew tomorrow scientific discovery would stay the same, would we say the same about religion?

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

I was thinking about this last night before falling asleep.

The biggest difference in the two positions is pretty simple.

I read all the time articles that start out with. Amazing discovery will fundamentally change the way we think about ...............could be anything from evolution to space time, to virus to ozone. And people are excited to find that previous thoughts are wrong and can be changed. Never see that with biblical scholars. Oh wait one time when it was articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls and it was more. This fantastic discovery proves we were right.

Science wants to be proven wrong. Can't say the same about the other side.

If civilization was destroyed today and brought anew tomorrow scientific discovery would stay the same, would we say the same about religion?

Gotta take issue with that statement, ask anyone that doesn't agree with man-made climate change.

[half_bee]

Originally Posted by alta270

Unlike religion, one doesn't believe in science.

One understands it. No faith required.

Perfectly summarised.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by bloopbloob

Earth is only 6000 years old. Climate change is obviously a hoax based on that fact, as there was no climate past that date. Carbon dating is just dumb. Half-life of isotopes is completey made up of unicorn dreams. Nothing to to back
that up.

As far as your statements, do you have a source you can share as to where you got it from? Because as a student of genetics in University for 4 years, I know it will not be credible.... but feel free to prove me wrong...

1000 Genomes Project
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

In 2008, an extensive international effort was begun to sequence in unprecedented detail over 1,000 representative human genomes from around the world. The results of three preliminary pilot projects were published in October 2010—one of which uncovered a result that points to a youthful age for the human race.

In this pilot project, researchers examined in great detail the DNA base sequences from two families, including the mother, father, and child of each. A summary of the results appeared in Science, which stated that based on the data, "offspring inherit about 60 mutations that arose in their parents."1

In large measure, the research for the "1000 Genomes Project" is aimed at pinpointing exactly which mutations cause which diseases. Knowing the number of new mutations that arise with each generation can assist with tracking the new diseases that they may cause.

The measurement of close to 60 new mutations occurring within the reproductive cells of each generation is less than a prior estimate of 100.2 This figure can help answer key questions. For example, does this number of mutations provide enough "fuel" for change to have innovated modern humanity from primate ancestors? Also, can the potentially harmful effects of this rate of mutation accumulation be somehow reversed before too many incorrect DNA bases compromise humanity's survival?

Currently, the most accurate way to answer these questions is to use the freely downloadable population genetics modeling program called Mendel's Accountant.3 Developed by a team of scientists, including Cornell University plant geneticist John Sanford, the program calculates the cumulative effects on the fitness (average survivability) of individuals that inherit mutations— some beneficial, some harmful, but mostly neutral—over multiple generations.

The study of mutations that have no, or almost no, effect has presented a longstanding problem for evolutionary biology. Since these near-neutral mutations produce such tiny effects in cells, they do not appreciably affect any trait that is expressed in the organism.4 Therefore, these mutations are undetectable by any imagined natural process and simply add up over the generations.

Mendel's Accountant can simulate, with unprecedented biological accuracy, the result of this accumulation. Assuming a population size of 2,000 individuals, assuming that each mother has six children, and using the rate of 60 mutations per generation in the algorithms, the simulation shows the extinction of the human race after only 350 generations. This also assumes that natural selection would have been effective at removing the least fit from the population every generation.

If this result is anywhere close to correct—that humanity's genetic mutations would have led to extinction within 350 generations—how could that possibly fit within evolution's long ages? But if the total age of the world is about 6,000 years,5 as is consistent with biblical history, then mankind has been here for fewer than 300 generations.6 Thus, the latest and most accurate research into human genetics confirms a straightforward reading of the biblical account of origins and human history.

I don't mind being proven wrong, no source is perfect. I don't want to claim facts when there are no facts. Let me know what you think of this.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Newview01

1000 Genomes Project
by Brian Thomas, M.S.
.

Institute for creation research? Not at all biased eh?


I'll have to find it, but there was another genome project that chased mutations in the Y chromosome back up the tree - to Africa.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Institute for creation research? Not at all biased eh?


I'll have to find it, but there was another genome project that chased mutations in the Y chromosome back up the tree - to Africa.

My reading into this debate over the years has proven one thing to me - there is no unbiased research concerning this, one way or the other.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Newview01

My reading into this debate over the years has proven one thing to me - there is no unbiased research concerning this, one way or the other.

So, answer the questions you were asked... You started the thread, have a creationist ideal, I'm truly interested.

[Crankbait]

Originally Posted by Newview01

My reading into this debate over the years has proven one thing to me - there is no unbiased research concerning this, one way or the other.

good interview with a pro in the field;

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/...tenttype=audio

[EZM]

I'm pretty sure this thread won't change anyone's mind and will only serve to get people bent out of shape, some people will be getting time outs and yet others may be taking a ride on a band wagon - so I'm interested in the discussion, but more interested in remaining a member here on the forum.

I also don't want to inadvertently disrespect those members who do not share my views.

But I will be lurking. I'm making popcorn now. This should be entertaining.

[markg]

Why does the fact that someone believes in God (Christian) so aggitate others?
It seems like there are people out there that say "I dont believe in God and I hate him and those that believe in him". What have I personally ever done to any of you on this forum to deserve some of the vitriolic comments directed my way for my beliefs? I have a perfect trader rating and you can ask those I have dealt with if I am a nice guy and a credit to the forum and the answer is probably going to be a resounding yes. If we got together for a beer you might find you enjoyed your time hanging out.

Ask yourself why you become upset about someone merely asking the question if you believe in evolution or creation? Its an interesting question. One philosophers have been asking in various ways for hundreds if not thousands of years. How did I get here? What is the meaning of life? Is there a God? If so what does that mean, if not what does that mean? There are some very intelligent people on both sides of this issue with more letters behind there names than you can shake a stick at. Premier on this list is Dr David Berlinsky an agnostic Jew who I find very interesting and challenging. If your are truely an open minded person I would suggest looking at some of his work. He is the farthest thing from a "religious nutjob" He asks some very powerful questions about the existing scientific paradigm. Take a chance and watch you might have your mind opened

https://youtu.be/S89IskZI740

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by markg

Why does the fact that someone believes in God (Christian) so aggitate others?
It seems like there are people out there that say "I dont believe in God and I hate him and those that believe in him". What have I personally ever done to any of you on this forum to deserve some of the vitriolic comments directed my way for my beliefs? I have a perfect trader rating and you can ask those I have dealt with if I am a nice guy and a credit to the forum and the answer is probably going to be a resounding yes. If we got together for a beer you might find you enjoyed your time hanging out.

Ask yourself why you become upset about someone merely asking the question if you believe in evolution or creation? Its an interesting question. One philosophers have been asking in various ways for hundreds if not thousands of years. How did I get here? What is the meaning of life? Is there a God? If so what does that mean, if not what does that mean? There are some very intelligent people on both sides of this issue with more letters behind there names than you can shake a stick at. Premier on this list is Dr David Berlinsky an agnostic Jew who I find very interesting and challenging. If your are truely an open minded person I would suggest looking at some of his work. He is the farthest thing from a "religious nutjob" He asks some very powerful questions about the existing scientific paradigm. Take a chance and watch you might have your mind opened

https://youtu.be/S89IskZI740

Apparently Jesus had a younger brother, Chinese would you believe and before he was done, 20 million of his fellow countrymen were dead. Amazing what blind faith can accomplish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

Grizz

[alta270]

Originally Posted by markg

Why does the fact that someone believes in God (Christian) so aggitate others?
It seems like there are people out there that say "I dont believe in God and I hate him and those that believe in him". What have I personally ever done to any of you on this forum to deserve some of the vitriolic comments directed my way for my beliefs? I have a perfect trader rating and you can ask those I have dealt with if I am a nice guy and a credit to the forum and the answer is probably going to be a resounding yes. If we got together for a beer you might find you enjoyed your time hanging out.

Ask yourself why you become upset about someone merely asking the question if you believe in evolution or creation? Its an interesting question. One philosophers have been asking in various ways for hundreds if not thousands of years. How did I get here? What is the meaning of life? Is there a God? If so what does that mean, if not what does that mean? There are some very intelligent people on both sides of this issue with more letters behind there names than you can shake a stick at. Premier on this list is Dr David Berlinsky an agnostic Jew who I find very interesting and challenging. If your are truely an open minded person I would suggest looking at some of his work. He is the farthest thing from a "religious nutjob" He asks some very powerful questions about the existing scientific paradigm. Take a chance and watch you might have your mind opened

https://youtu.be/S89IskZI740

How can one hate something that one doesn't believe in, like a god, for instance. How can one hate fairies, if one doesn't believe in them? Heck, I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I sure don't hate him.

It is an interesting jump in logic to say one hates something that one doesn't even acknowledge its existence.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by markg

Why does the fact that someone believes in God (Christian) so aggitate others?
It seems like there are people out there that say "I dont believe in God and I hate him and those that believe in him". What have I personally ever done to any of you on this forum to deserve some of the vitriolic comments directed my way for my beliefs? I have a perfect trader rating and you can ask those I have dealt with if I am a nice guy and a credit to the forum and the answer is probably going to be a resounding yes. If we got together for a beer you might find you enjoyed your time hanging out.

Ask yourself why you become upset about someone merely asking the question if you believe in evolution or creation? Its an interesting question. One philosophers have been asking in various ways for hundreds if not thousands of years. How did I get here? What is the meaning of life? Is there a God? If so what does that mean, if not what does that mean? There are some very intelligent people on both sides of this issue with more letters behind there names than you can shake a stick at. Premier on this list is Dr David Berlinsky an agnostic Jew who I find very interesting and challenging. If your are truely an open minded person I would suggest looking at some of his work. He is the farthest thing from a "religious nutjob" He asks some very powerful questions about the existing scientific paradigm. Take a chance and watch you might have your mind opened

https://youtu.be/S89IskZI740

First of all, I can't hate something that i don't believe in. Secondly, I was raised Catholic - communion, confirmed etc. Been there, done that.

I don't know why people get offended by someone questioning others' belief? If you are so set in your belief, then it shouldn't upset you to be questioned - and answer questions. According to Christ, your job is to pass along the good news. But there always seems to be this clear division. Can't we ever talk about anything anymore? Can't we question anymore?

Religion fascinates me. People that follow religion fascinate me. I've never been a believer - but I do try to understand what others' believe and why. Is that so bad? This isn't you against me. The OP asked a few questions, couldn't understand the theory, I tried to answer.

[alta270]