Creationism vs Evolutionism

[otseng]

OK, give me reasons why evolutionism or creationism is right or wrong.

[Corvus]

First of all, allow me to clear up a few misconceptions. There's undeniable proof that micro-evolution exists. It's macro-evolution that's not entirely proven, and obviously, since scientists can't force something to macro-evolve in a lab environment, is difficult to prove.

Second, people are quick tosay we descended from apes. That's not entirely true. What we do have is "a common ancestor" somewhere along the line, which makes sense, since we can see the resemblances between apes, monkeys and humans. Indeed, if current theories on evolution are correct, every animal should eventually be traced to a common ancestor.

That said, do check: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... tobetested

Check the Ontogeny and developmental biology in Part 2. Fascinating stuff.

[otseng]

Yes, let's get it cleared up at the beginning that micro-evolution (small changes within a species) is a fact. And the real issue is macro-evolution (where one species evolves into another species). So, the debate in terms of evolution is why is macro-evolution either right or wrong. So, all you evolutionists out there, what arguments do you have that we have macro-evolved?

[Shild]

As for mosconception clearing, it is important to note that speciation is not necessarily (or even usually) macro-evolution. You see, two groups of organisms are considered two different species if they cannot/do not mate to produce fertile offspring.

This means that a lot of populations considered different species out there are so similary that they might as well be one. For example, there is one species of finch which is diurnal and another which is nocturnal. If these two were forced to mate, they would produce fertile offspring, but they never do in nature, so they are considered distinct species.

Also, horses and donkeys can mate to produce offspring, mules, but mules are sterile, so horses and donkeys are considered distinct species, even though the genetic difference between them is minute.

Speciation has been observed, by the strict technical definition of speciation, but macro-evolution involves bigger leaps, (leg becomes wing, for example) which are much less likely.

Edited for spelling

[Izumi Koushirou]

I'm not going to pretend I'm good at Biology and understand Evolution completely.

However, I'm going to go out on a limb:
Otseng, instead of asking why evolution is right, why do you think creation is right? What evidence do we have to show that the creatoinist theory is right?

[otseng]

There are numerous reasons why the creation model is more acceptable than the evolution model.

The creation model fits more with the laws of nature than the evolution model.

Take the law of biogenesis. Life comes from life. Life cannot come from non-life. This is consistent with CM. EM completely ignores this law.

Take the law of thermodynamics. In a closed system, disorder increases. In the CM, the maximum amount of order was at the beginning. In the EM, the minimum amount of order was at the beginning, again inconsistent with thermodynamics.

[otseng]

Speciation has been observed, by the strict technical definition of speciation, but macro-evolution involves bigger leaps, (leg becomes wing, for example) which are much less likely.

Yes, thanks for the clarification. Macro-evolution is a major change that gives a totally new feature to the animal (or even plant).

Why is macro-evolution a fallacy? Cause it has never been observed, duplicated, or even seen in the fossil record. It's a completely unsupportable assumption made by evolutionists in order to support their theory.

[Corvus]

There are numerous reasons why the creation model is more acceptable than the evolution model.

The creation model fits more with the laws of nature than the evolution model.

Take the law of biogenesis. Life comes from life. Life cannot come from non-life. This is consistent with CM. EM completely ignores this law.

Take the law of thermodynamics. In a closed system, disorder increases. In the CM, the maximum amount of order was at the beginning. In the EM, the minimum amount of order was at the beginning, again inconsistent with thermodynamics.

Ah, the law of thermodynamics. What has thermodynamics have to do with life on earth? In any case, the Earth isn't entirely a closed system. We have the sun, which gives us more energy than we need.

Also, the law of biogenesis only means that life reproduces. It has nothing to do with creation. God creating life from nothing points to abiogenesis, not biogenesis, unless you think God is a part of nature, and not a creator as originally supposed.

[otseng]

Ah, the law of thermodynamics. What has thermodynamics have to do with life on earth? In any case, the Earth isn't entirely a closed system. We have the sun, which gives us more energy than we need.

Thermodynamics has to do with order. In the EM, the earth was just a "soup" at the beginning. No life, just a random hodgepodge of chemicals. Then, voila, life pops out of it. Order has somehow been increased. Now, this also means that disorder has increased even more somewhere else. Where?

Energy is not the only thing needed to create order. Energy has to be harnessed to produce something with greater order. Simply adding energy from the sun is not sufficient to create higher degrees of order. Some directive force to channel energy is needed to use the energy in a constructive way.

Also, the law of biogenesis only means that life reproduces. It has nothing to do with creation. God creating life from nothing points to abiogenesis, not biogenesis, unless you think God is a part of nature, and not a creator as originally supposed.

There is only one boundary condition in the CM, that is, as you pointed out, at the moment of creation of all living things. But, since I consider God is "living", it's not a problem for me. So, the law of biogeneis is not violated.

Now, how can you resolve EM with the law of biogenesis?

[Corvus]

Yes, If biogenesis is a reality, and God is a part of nature, he has to be subject to the laws of time. In that case, I have to ask, "Who created God?" Why has God always existed, and why can't the earth have always existed?

Thermodynamics has to do with order. In the EM, the earth was just a "soup" at the beginning. No life, just a random hodgepodge of chemicals. Then, voila, life pops out of it. Order has somehow been increased. Now, this also means that disorder has increased even more somewhere else. Where?

Very little of the universe has actually been explored. And it's just not "voila" it's after, possibly, millions of years. Regardless, the law of thermodynamics can be likened to a battery. It runs out of juice after a while . But our sun supplies all the juice we need, so the argument fails.

I'm horribly drunk.