Creationism vs Evolutionism

[otseng]

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

[Corvus]

Can you state the evidence that supports that we evolved from a common ancestor of apes? If our common ancestor could develop such a complex brain, why don't all the other organisms in the world do so also? developing a complex brain woudl suit any organism so why don't we have super-fishes or super-insects? The chance of an ape hitting a rock together with another rock and inferring that it caused fire and thus remembering it and teaching it to its children are so minute and minisqular in happening.

Minisqular? I think you have a shady understanding of evolution. Certainly, it would be magnificent if all animals had super brains. And wings. And gills. And sharp claws. I mean, all those help in survival, right?

In the real world, brain size is determined partly be descent and partly by appropriateness. A fish with a rudimentary nervous system is obviously not going to develop a big brain, and nor does it need one. Humans, on the other hand, one specific kind of primate, when isolated, required intelligence to survive, and used cuning to avoid its predators and catch its prey.

Apes had the bulk to counter threats. Monkeys took to the trees to survive. We took to outsmarting our enemies.

Also, is it not true that mathematicians say that a probability that is over 1050 is impossible?

No?

[adherent]

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

Hey buddy, you still haven't answered this question...

[Corvus]

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

Hey buddy, you still haven't answered this question...

Evolution is a process, as is biogenesis. Both don't necessarily explain the origin of life, and biogenesis especially was in no way meant to fulfill this purpose. Biogenesis states things reproduce, and that complex life, like a mouse or a man, cannot arise independently from mud, or non-living tissue. Complex is the key word.

[otseng]

Both don't necessarily explain the origin of life.

I disagree. Evolutionary teachings state that all life came from non-life. Life somehow originated from primordial soup that consisted of non-living chemicals and life came out of it.

[Corvus]

Both don't necessarily explain the origin of life.

I disagree. Evolutionary teachings state that all life came from non-life. Life somehow originated from primordial soup that consisted of non-living chemicals and life came out of it.

Evolution is a process. It theorises the beginnings of life as an effect, but the cause could just as easily been divine design as much as it could have been chance. Biogenesis still is not a theory that accounts for the origins of all life.

[otseng]

The cause could just as easily been divine design as much as it could have been chance.

However, divine design is a minoritiy position among evolutionists. At least in evolutionary textbooks, the vast majority state that life comes from non-life.

Biogenesis still is not a theory that accounts for the origins of all life.

Right, it doesn't answer how did life get started at all.

[adherent]

Corvus:
Here are a collection of fossilised hominid skulls from the Smithsonian institute. Not the flattening of the brow ridge and the way the jaws become less protrusive.

Tell me why they can't still be the same organism.

[Illyricum]

I have to adimit I haven't read all 8, 9 pages of this thread, so forgive me if this seems a little out of place. Also, I know I'm not an expert in thermodynamics, or fossils, or any that stuff really, but I wanted to pose a question; is it even logical to believe in evolution? Let's look at it this way: suppose I invited you all over for dinner, dinner was at 5 so that gave me plenty of time to make everything, then when you show up the dinner is all perpared and everthing, but let's say I told you that the dinner "just appeared" or that "somehow by chance just happened to be there", would you believe me? Which would be more logical, to believe that it "just apperaed" or that I made it? I'm sure you would say it is much more logical to believe that I made the meal. So, would it not then be more logical to believe that a god or some supreme being created the earth rather then believing that somehow the earth (or what ever it was before the earth) ran in to something, that it just "so happened" that it caused life on this planet and that "somehow by chance " humans and the animals around our so complex as they are today??

[Corvus]

Let's look at it this way: suppose I invited you all over for dinner, dinner was at 5 so that gave me plenty of time to make everything, then when you show up the dinner is all perpared and everthing, but let's say I told you that the dinner "just appeared" or that "somehow by chance just happened to be there", would you believe me? Which would be more logical, to believe that it "just apperaed" or that I made it? I'm sure you would say it is much more logical to believe that I made the meal. So, would it not then be more logical to believe that a god or some supreme being created the earth rather then believing that somehow the earth (or what ever it was before the earth) ran in to something, that it just "so happened" that it caused life on this planet and that "somehow by chance " humans and the animals around our so complex as they are today??

Your hypothetical situation has complex objects with some specific purpose arising instantaneously. This isn't how evolution works.

Let's look at it this way; I invite you all to dinner and we share a lovely meal. Someone compliments the meal, and asks for a recipe. I reply, "why, I don't have a recipe! I crafted it from mud then wished it into reality with my breath of life! There were no processes and steps that needed to be completed until the food was prepared and ready to serve."

Perplexed, the visitors fall silent, then sputter nervously into dialogue again. It happens that one visitor has the audacity to ask me my age. To which I reply, "Why, I don't have an age! I've always been! I'm the alpha and the omega! I was never born!"

Would you believe me? What I'm saying is, if you can't believe the table and its dishes arised independently, how can you believe that a complex being that is the absolute definition of good can do so, especially since it is impossible to even understand God or his purpose? Both are no more logical than the other. I don't think its illogical to believe in life resulting from a chain reaction of simple chemicals, gaining complexity with the passing of aeons. Comparing this to preparing a meal is disingenuous.

Corvus:
Here are a collection of fossilised hominid skulls from the Smithsonian institute. Not the flattening of the brow ridge and the way the jaws become less protrusive.

Tell me why they can't still be the same organism.

That's the whole point behind common descent.

[Potato]

First off, DNA is information.

Information is defined to be:

Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information


DNA is a blueprint for life, it is information for the construction of living organisms. Information can not come about from random events, so evolution can not explain the emergence of information from nothingness.


The theory of evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all things move from order to disorder. No order can naturally come from disorder. The Second Law is often called "the arrow of time" because all things progress towards less and less order with time.

Thus, DNA information can not come from random events. DNA is highly ordered information, and "the arrow of time" indicates that it will NOT increase in complexity, but decrease, which goes against evolution.

All biological systems are incredibly complex in their workings. The most elaborate machinery designed and built by human beings is no match for the most basic living cell. Irreducible complexity is a system that has several components, and for the system to function properly, all components must be present. If you look at an internal combustion engine, for example, there are hundreds of parts necessary for the engine to function. You can simplify the design only to a certain point, but there comes a point when the engine is irreducibly complex and cannot be simplified any further. Here, you will still have a few interacting parts, each of which are critical to the engine's function, and the removal of any single part will prohibit the engine from functioning. To build this engine, you need to design several parts to work together simultaneously. You cannot have a single part and have it "evolve" into a complex engine. For the engine to function, it must have all its parts that interact together. Evolution can not explain the existence of the separate elements that constitute complex living organisms. Even the basic cell has many many essential components necessary for its function.