CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Darwinism VS Creationism
I am arguing that Darwins theory of evolution - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism - out rules the Christian theory of creationism - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism I think Charles Darwin's view on creationism has many more facts and eveidence than the Catholic Churches theory of creationism.
creationism is religion trying to justify its self because it has nothing to back up such a massive claim, at least Darwin has attempted to make sense of the world before us and currently with us, we a products of evolution, history has show where we have come from to where we are now, humans have evolved more than any other species and science has been the foundation of that progression, religion has been oppressor!
Then it should be simple for you to explain the Cambrian explosion and tell us where the billions of intermediaries are in the fossil record that it would take to get from simple to human.
It should be simple for you to explain how God automatically achieved infinite wisdom and power at the beginning of time out of literally no where. If it's hard for you to believe that human life could evolve from simpler life forms it should be incredulously hard for you to believe that the most complex possible life form that could possibly exist could just spawn out of nothing. What sounds more likely to you? Infinite complexity and the highest level of consciousness spawning out of the ether? Or a gradual process leading to higher complexity? If God doesn't need a creator than neither do we, God is much more complex than a human, if you believe something that advanced can just materialize out of nothing then why not something more basic? You know what, I think I just discovered the ultimate hypothesis, the "Extremely complex shit popping out of nothing" hypothesis.
It should be simple for you to explain how God automatically achieved infinite wisdom and power at the beginning of time out of literally no where.
There was no where. There was no time. He created both concepts. Why would explaining God be simple...
If it's hard for you to believe that human life could evolve from simpler life forms
It's not hard to believe. What's hard to believe is that life and the things that allow for life, and consciousness, could ever come to be in the first place without a creator.
it should be incredulously hard for you to believe that the most complex possible life form that could possibly exist could just spawn out of nothing.
No one thinks he was spawned.
What sounds more likely to you? Infinite complexity and the highest level of consciousness spawning out of the ether? Or a gradual process leading to higher complexity?
A creator from beyond our reality and a set of "rules" or sciences that we cannot comprehend.
If God doesn't need a creator than neither do we
Sure ya do. You are living under the laws of biology. God created biology.
God is much more complex than a human
True.
if you believe something that advanced can just materialize out of nothing then why not something more basic?
No one thinks he materialized or that he is material.
It should be simple for you to explain how God automatically achieved infinite wisdom and power at the beginning of time out of literally no where. If it's hard for you to believe that human life could evolve from simpler life forms it should be incredulously hard for you to believe that the most complex possible life form that could possibly exist could just spawn out of nothing
You are randomly attaching theoretical characteristics to God. The only characteristic God needs to have is that he created our reality. That's it.
Where he did or didn't come from or what he is like are irrelevant as to whether he created our reality.
Which is more realistic, that nothing spewed out the big bang or someone? Someone is more realistic. Nothing only gives birth to nothing. Where does god come from? He may not need to come from anywhere. We have no idea what he or his reality is like. We do know what our reality is like, and it needs a first cause, the unmoved mover. God's reality may not demand such an answer. It may not be anything like our reality and almost certainly isn't.
You are randomly attaching theoretical characteristics to God
You are randomly attaching the theoretical characteristic of God to the universe and asserting that he created it.
The only characteristic God needs to have is that he created our reality.
It depends which God you are talking about, if you ask a christian God is omnipotent and all knowing, if you ask a muslim he is al-rahiim (except to gays, and women, and kaffirs) If you ask a hindu he is a three headed elephant man. There are many more characteristics than what you describe, and they are all the manifestation of varying human cultures, each one contradicts the next and none of them are right.
Which is more realistic, that nothing spewed out the big bang or someone?
You are mentally ill. Neither nothing nor someone spewed out of the big bang. To put it simply, a field "spewed out" from a point of absolute density and oscillations propagated through that field which coalesced into particles which coalesced into vorteces of plasma which coalesced into stars and planets etc.
He may not need to come from anywhere.
If he doesn't come from anywhere, than he comes from nothing. If nothing can created infinite complexity and sentience than why can't it create simple matter and energy?
We have no idea what he or his reality is like.
Nor do you know whether or not he exists.
We do know what our reality is like,
No we don't, humans are just barely beginning to understand the small portion of reality we perceive. On top of that, we can only know the properties of something, we have no idea what something actually is because the human brain isn't capable of perceiving anything but a conceptual reality and physical reality. The vast majority of our brains consist of purely subjective things, and the only thing we can know objectively is the physical mechanics and properties of certain reactions and constructs under certain conditions.
it needs a first cause
Nothing can cause an effect without having something to effect, and every effect is caused by something that effected it, in order for god to cause something he must effect it, in other words he must be the effect which caused the effect which means he must have been caused in order to be the effect which caused something else because every cause is an effect and every effect is a cause. There is no "first cause" because every cause is the effect of a cause which causes other effects.
Nothing can cause an effect without having something to effect, and every effect is caused by something that effected it, in order for god to cause something he must effect it, in other words he must be the effect which caused the effect which means he must have been caused
This assumes that God is ruled by laws that he created in theory, which is a contradiction of terms.
You are mentally ill. Neither nothing nor someone spewed out of the big bang. To put it simply, a field "spewed out" from a point of absolute density and oscillations propagated through that field which coalesced into particles which coalesced into vorteces of plasma which coalesced into stars and planets etc.
Where did the field come from? Where did the 'point' come from? Where was the point?
Please provide Hubble images of the field and the point.
Darwinism has tons of theoretical evidence that keeps growing year after year. Creationism has a book with no discernable author, no scientific facts that can be authenticated (other than the few actual historical, archeological "happenings" that have been dug up), and NO proof of an entity causing them. I'm willing to change my mind if and when some proof is found. Let's see.... it's been over twenty centuries .... nothing but "quotes" from the "book".
If you want to believe life has no purpose, and nothing really matters, go ahead. I do understand you think you have a license to be a dirty rotten potty mouth, and you think your blood-letting ritual makes you powerful in dying, so you can be very stinking vile in your speech and attitudes, so pardon me for avoiding reading our comments.
Thanks!!!
I hope this helps, even though you believe life is meaningless!!!!
Now let loose with all your profanities and spit in God's face like a fool, I won't be watching.
So, yeah...you still can't answer the challenge. I have never seen you even try to justify your beliefs, yet you insist they are true. Why are they true? Answer that or stop making that proclamation.
Darwinism has tons of theoretical evidence that keeps growing year after year. Creationism has a book with no discernable author, no scientific facts that can be authenticated (other than the few actual historical, archeological "happenings" that have been dug up), and NO proof of an entity causing them. I'm willing to change my mind if and when some proof is found. Let's see.... it's been over twenty centuries .... nothing but "quotes" from the "book".
I thought I told you that a long time ago, I'm glad you are starting to be honest, whatever language you are translating I'm glad you finally admitted it in plain English. You are now in the club of honesty for beginners. I hope you will move up from there soon, keep being honest.
Corrected link, many atheistic scientists after being honest about the evidence become Creationists, and then find the Biblical world and life view is the only system of belief which explains reality and they become born again Bible believers....the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise knowledge and instruction.
They were never Christians to start with. We went through this with Super boy. Jesus said "many will come to me and say Lord, Lord......" and Jesus will say to them "I never knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity into everlasting fire." A person who becomes a child of God through faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ who is the propitiation for the sins of all who believe on Him cannot stop being a child of God any more than you can stop being a child of your parents.
Poople who say they were Christians and then became atheist had some kind of head knowledge about Biblical people, terms, and teachings, but they were religious and may have been in one of many religions which are not what is Christian in the Bible, including Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or UNIITY CHURCH like the demon driven guy who claims to be a Christian.......a head knowledge but not a heart experience from God which cannot be undone.
People who say they were Christians and then became atheists are people who were never saved and something happened so they became bitter toward God and put up a wall in their mind to try to close Him out.
How much does it bother you that you can't tell those people aren't Christians until after they become atheists? On a scale of 1 to 10. It must be around 10 because you love passing judgement.
Fine, there are far more theists who disregard God because He is clearly not involved. Science does not lead to God because God is not involved with reality.
That's because they've been indoctrinated by militant Atheism which tells us what is "science" based on a political and dogmatic worldview. It hides the Cambrian Explosion and lack of the billions of intermediaries it would take to get from molecule to human in the fossil record by sweeping it under the rug and telling you that you are an idiot if you disagree or point out the faults in their logic. David Berlinski was an Atheist moleclular biologist who began pointing out its flaws and was pushed out the door and silenced. That's very telling. The new Atheist movement is led by people not much different than the priests of old who imprisoned anyone that said the Earth revolved around the sun.
Is it impossible to believe your God which made everything also made the process we observe and call evolution? Heck, if it weren't for Genesis, the old Jewish tribal story of origins, then we wouldn't necessarily need this fight over mutual exclusivity.
It's about Jesus Christ who took our place in death to save us from Hell. All of Creation is all about Jesus Christ. It's all about Jesus Christ who created us and died to save us from Hell. Quit whining.
Since I have evolved from that pink, corpulent, slobbering mass of flesh I came into the world as into the magnificent creature I am today, I say evolution rocks, man!
Creationism doesn't have support from many feilds of science because creationisms claims are often not falsifiable, that is creationism methods fail to meet the standards of science. Creationism has not only failed to be accepted as science from the fields of science creationism claims have got it wrong; biology, geology, astronomy and archaeology but also repeatedly found to not be a science in the eyes of the court of law.
Creationism hasn't presented any theory in the scientific sense because creationism is a psuedoscience.
First issue I have with this is pretty much the same as everyone else finds with this but you have yet to acknowledge, "people can write and send ideas therefore there is a god" isn't a valid line of reasoning because it is jumping to a conclusion. This is one reason people keep telling you your question is "stupid" or meaningless.
The second issue I have with this has also been brought up by other debaters and that is the incredibly innaccurate portrayl of evolution you try to force. Making someone choose between two bad representations isn't a strong stance for you.
Your question isn't scientific at all even though you keep claiming it is. Well then test it, or how about show us what it tests. Instead of addressing these faults in your "argument" you just keep spouting the same flawed question.
Your strawman constructions are doing a disservice to you becuase you are not really finding flaws in the theory of evolution, but you are constructinng an alternate theory to find faults in.
You do this by learning/presenting things that explain evolution through religious sources viewpoint of what evolution is rather than what the science actually claims from the respective fields of science that support the theory of evolution; biology, astronomy, geology and archaeology. If I want to learn about Christianity do I go to Muslims or Doctors or maybe I should goto the source? So why would I go to Christian sources if I want to learn about evolution.
It would make sense that a broad base of experts with diverse backgrounds forming a concensus about the evidence are vastly more credible and impartial than a group whose vested interest in the field go against such a broad base of knowledge. To think otherwise would be to envoke a global conspiracy theory that that spans hundreds of years and crosses all the mentioned scientific doctrines in an unthinkable alliance just to take down the christian churches creation story.
Thats tin foil hat stuff.
Try finding something in this source that you find a flaw in and explain it could you? This is a scholarly source using peer reviewed knowledge, it is the true idea you are trying to misrepresent. Attacking anything less than this only proves that your argument is attacking a weaker stance that does not represent sciences claims.
Darwinism is more disputed than before, despite what scientists want you to believe, evidence is actually piling against Darwinism. Now I chose science since science should always be accepted over religion, however I am against Darwinism since it has failed to explain life. I choose science but not Darwinism or Creationism. Your choice, Science(search for truth), Darwinism(Naturalism), or Creationism(Religion).
Given the obnoxiously false dichotomy presented ("Science vs Religion"), I'll present my argument on the side that more literally follows my argument, rather than what the OP had in mind.
Now, to begin with, Creationism doesn't necessarily equate to religion, and Darwinian Evolution most certainly doesn't equate to science.
In the case of the former, the term "Creationist" quite literally only refers to believing in a "first cause", I.E. the guided Creation of the Universe. While this first cause can and is rightfully called "God", it doesn't necessitate a religion.
In the case of the latter, Darwinian Evolution is a scientific hypothesis which has received a disturbingly unskeptical acceptance from the scientific community and which has become the backbone of what I call the religion of Atheism (the belief, as many claim, that God does not exist), a most unscientific, faith-based entity.
In short, not a great start.
Anyway, in continuation, I will be arguing that Creationism is the more plausible explanation for our existence; I will accomplish this in two ways: first, by providing a formal logical proof for the existence of God, and second, by pointing out the flaws inherent in Darwinian Evolution.
First argument: proof of God:
(note: this proof, being rather lengthy, has been more or less copy/pasted from another debate.)
Before I can argue in favor of Creationism, the belief in God or gods, I must first define a couple terms, specifically for purposes of my arguments:
1. "God": "The omnipotent, intelligent, supernatural creator of the universe"
2. "Universe": "The entirety of physical existence"
Further, for purposes of this specific argument, I must clarify several terms, as their meaning is not known by many:
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics: This physical law states that "energy can be neither created nor destroyed". This also applies to matter, as the two are interchangeable, as proven by Einstein's famous equation (E = MC^2),
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: This physical law states, in essence, that the entropy of an isolated system can only increase. For the purposes of this argument, I'll only point out that, A. a consequence of this law is that the temperature of all matter in the Universe is slowly reaching equilibrium (at which point, all thermal reactions will cease, as they require temperature difference to achieve), and B. that all thermodynamic reactions (any reactions involving the exchange of heat) increase entropy (the aforementioned equilibrium).
With that out of the way, I can begin:
First, I will prove that the Universe was created by something:
The Universe has always existed, or it began at some point. That statement, by its structure ("P v ~P" in symbolic form), is true. Further, if one half of it can be proven to have definite truth value (true or false), the other must have an opposite truth value.
A consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, to reiterate, is that the temperature of all matter in the Universe is slowly reaching equilibrium. If the Universe has existed forever, then it follows that all matter in the Universe would be of equal temperature (due to having an infinite amount of time to reach said temperature), therefore life would be impossible. This is obviously not the case, therefore I can confidently say that the Universe has not existed forever, therefore the Universe had a definite beginning.
Since the Universe began, it follows that something created it, due to both "cause and effect" and its inherent complexity (more on that later). For the sake of simplicity, I'll refer to this "something" as a force.
Second, I will prove that God created the Universe:
Keeping the above information in mind (particularly the First Law of Thermodynamics), I will form a formal logical syllogism, first in propositional form, then in plain English:
Propositional:
All Universe-creating forces are physical law-violators,
No physical forces are physical law-violators,
Therefore no Universe-creating forces are physical forces.
Plain English:
The "force" that created the Universe performed actions that conflict with the laws of physics (matter and energy were created with the Universe, violating the First Law of Thermodynamics), and no physical forces are capable of conflicting with the laws of physics (physical forces must follow physical laws), therefore the "force" that created the Universe is non-physical, or supernatural.
This syllogism is valid due to its structure (All U is V, no P is V, therefore no U is P), and, as previously demonstrated, has true premises, therefore the syllogism is sound and the conclusion (that a supernatural "force" created the Universe) is true.
But that, in of itself, doesn't prove much. It fulfills one of the criteria for "God" (supernatural), but that's it. So let's do a bit of extrapolation:
The remaining criteria for this "force" to be "God" are are that it must be both omnipotent and intelligent. The former can be easily proven, as the "force" created quite literally all of our existence, the latter being indicated by the complexity and deliberate orderliness present within the Universe (the regularity of the physical laws, actual celestial bodies, etc.).
In conclusion, I have proven the existence of God using proven physical principles (the first two Laws of Thermodynamics) and formal logic.
Second argument: Inherent flaws in Darwinian Evolution:
1. Irreducibly Complex Structures:
An "irreducibly complex system" is defined as "a system in which all components are essential for the system's basic function". This term applies to a great many organic structures, most notably the human eye. These structures, given the essential nature of each component, could not have been formed through gradual alteration; any organism attempting to do so would need to develop countless, individually meaningless structures in order to form such a complex organ, a complete absurdity according to Darwinian Evolution.
2. Information:
Information is not itself physical (not based on the composition of the structure it's coded in or on), and is the key to all life. No physical laws are capable of creating it, however, nor any unguided processes in existence. It follows, therefore, that random, unguided processes cannot have formed life, as information is a prerequisite to it.
3. Natural Selection:
Natural selection is the well-documented process of species adapting to their circumstances via increasing in characteristics favorable to their environment. This is not, however, evidence of Darwinian Evolution (quite the contrary, in fact), as it is wholly incapable of actually altering a species; it only increases the abundance of already-present traits in a species. In other words, it's a conservative, rather than creative, process.
4. "Vestigial" Organs:
A significant number of creatures possess what are often referred to as "vestigial" organs; Darwinists often cite these as evidence of Darwinian Evolution. This is not the case, as these organs often serve an essential function to the creature in question, thus being designed, rather than "leftover". Even if, however, these organs served no function, they would still fail to serve as evidence of Darwinian Evolution; if these organs had "devolved", they would be a sign of organic conservatism, rather than creativity.
There are more arguments in this regard, but I think I've gone on long enough.
If anyone would like to refute my points, a couple suggestions:
1. My proof of God's existence is formal; in essence, the only way to disprove it is to deny one or more premise or deny the validity of the structure of my arguments. Dismissing it as a "theory" or denying it with no basis is both fallacious and demonstrative of your lack of knowledge of both debate and logic.
2. Namecalling, strawman arguments ("You believe in fairy tales"), and ad hominem attacks are demonstrative of your lack of interest in civil, rational discussion, and will not be dignified with a response.
There's absolutely no evidence for that though. You've corrupted the religion and the science by trying to merge them. You can't accept theistic evolution and maintain consistency in the bible.
you can't have evidence for something that exists outside the physical world. Evidence is, in this case irrelevant. as evidence is based around the observable world, and God and his nature is very much non-Observable. that's why religion is based on faith.
-
and yes, yes you can have religion and science in the same thought. it's the same reason you can have a nihilist that follows laws.reality comes in layers. science ascribes to the base layer, that only the physical world is true and exists. but yet many Secularists agree to follow laws. Laws do not truly exist. they are instead an accepted reality. no one has a right to life, or property but for convenience we pretend like we all do anyway. it makes life simpler, even if it's not strictly fact. so in that way you already have some amount of religion despite the fact Law is clearly false.
-
Side note, you assume that religion, and creationism is strictly biblical. What if I was a Deist? Or a Pan-agnostic person? seems short sighted to assume I only want to prove one god.
-
the original document used "Periods" not "Days" in the "seven day" creation model, they're a bit out of order, but meh. this is the word of god interpreted by man, and is also one giant game of telephone so I don't think it can be prefect in English.
-
Day 1 Let there be Light- massive expansion of the universe, sparking stars, and cosmic nurseries spawning molten stone planets.
Day 2 Let there be Sea and sky- rain from atmospheric water that had boiled from the molten surface, (comes from comets) cooling the crust of the molten planet. and the atmosphere coming to be.
Day 3- Land and Vegetation, the arrival and or creation of the first life on planet earth
day 4- Stars, Sun and Moon, which is less that those were actually made, but that the volcanic ash settled, allowing the atmosphere to clear, and those heavenly bodies to be visible for the first time
day 5-Sea creatures. and hey look at that. evolution says we all came from aquatic creatures. and evolved.
1. you can't have evidence for something that exists outside the physical world.
glad we agree. Thats probably the biggest reason why creationism should be dismissed out of hand. Theres absolutely no evidence to substantiate it.
2. Side note, you assume that religion, and creationism is strictly biblical. What if I was a Deist? Or a Pan-agnostic person? seems short sighted to assume I only want to prove one god.
I assume youre going by some kind of creation myth or doctrine that outlines how it happened. Otherwise if you are a deist or pan agnostic person id tell you that youre pulling creationism out of your ass and literally making it up off the top of your head. At least christians can point to a book as the source of where they get their ideas. Deists dont have that so their creation ideas are literally made up by them.
3. the original document used "Periods" not "Days" in the "seven day" creation model, they're a bit out of order, but meh. this is the word of god interpreted by man, and is also one giant game of telephone so I don't think it can be prefect in English.
Yet another reason to reject creation. We dont even know if what is written is totally accurate to what the message actually is .
4. Day 1 Let there be Light- massive expansion of the universe, sparking stars, and cosmic nurseries spawning molten stone planets.
Day 2 Let there be Sea and sky- rain from atmospheric water that had boiled from the molten surface, (comes from comets) cooling the crust of the molten planet. and the atmosphere coming to be.
Day 3- Land and Vegetation, the arrival and or creation of the first life on planet earth
day 4- Stars, Sun and Moon, which is less that those were actually made, but that the volcanic ash settled, allowing the atmosphere to clear, and those heavenly bodies to be visible for the first time
day 5-Sea creatures. and hey look at that. evolution says we all came from aquatic creatures. and evolved.
day 6- animals and mankind.
-
seems perfectly compatible from where I sit.
No its absolutely not compatible. While the evolution part is supported with evidence and pretty much established fact at this point the first 4 of that list are not. We have no evidence god exists nor that he created anything at all. Furthermore it completely fucks up the entire narrative of christianity.
If evolution is true then the story of adam and even cannot be true at the same time. They are completely contradictory. So if theres no adam and eve theres no fall of man. If theres no fall of man theres no inherited sin or any sin at all. If theres no sin then theres no need for a savior. If theres no need for a savior then theres no reason for the entire jesus salvation story. The entire christian mythos falls apart when you try to jam evolution in there. Just drop the religious nonsense and take the science instead of trying to make them fit together.
No evidence does not inherently prove a notion false.no evidence can only ever create a neutural stance. consider for a moment that you have no evidence to suggest that whatever system of law you follow is valid. Laws are an accepted reality. we use them to create meaning in a meaningless world. in the same way, for some, religion is a similar accepted reality. that accepted reality in no way interferes with Scientific thought. the two can run concurrently. as I was trying and failing to show in the six period model. evolution is merely the events that took place between 5 and 6.
You can't have evidence for something that exists outside the physical world. Evidence is, in this case irrelevant. as evidence is based around the observable world, and God and his nature is very much non-Observable. that's why religion is based on faith.
So you admit theres no evidence? Great. Then were done here.
and yes, yes you can have religion and science in the same thought. it's the same reason you can have a nihilist that follows laws.reality comes in layers. science ascribes to the base layer, that only the physical world is true and exists.
Sure, but only to a point. You can be a deist or a non-fundamentalist christian and say "the bible is just stories and poetry about how to live. Its not meant to be taken literally". If you take that position then sure you can reconcile the two. but if youre going to say that these events in the bible actually took place (i mean the ones involving magic and whatnot, not just historical facts that may have happened) then you are very much in contradiction with science.
Jonah did not survive inside a whale.
How can there be plants on the earth before a sun?
Rocks dont spontaneously pee water.
Etc. etc.
If youre going to say biblical events are true then you have brought the discussion into the realm of the natural world and thus into contest with science which studies the natural world. And science is going to win that battle 10/10 times.
Secularists agree to follow laws. Laws do not truly exist. they are instead an accepted reality. no one has a right to life, or property but for convenience we pretend like we all do anyway.
You are falsely equivocating laws and divine supernatural things. Also youre just wrong. Laws do exist. We write them down. We enforce them. There is evidence they exist. There is evidence of their efficacy or lack therof. Even though we made them up they exist insofar as they have consequences. They effect human life in very real ways.
Most all of those things cannot be said for the supernatural or god.
it makes life simpler, even if it's not strictly fact. so in that way you already have some amount of religion despite the fact Law is clearly false.
Not even close.
Side note, you assume that religion, and creationism is strictly biblical. What if I was a Deist? Or a Pan-agnostic person? seems short sighted to assume I only want to prove one god.
I wouldnt assume that until you told me. If someone were arguing creationism i think that presupposes a creation myth and thus refers to claims being made in a holy book of some kind. So i would attack those claims directly.
If you were a deist then theres no much to say other than there is no evidence that god exists so i think its silly to believe in one for no reason.
If you were pan-agnostic id ask what the hell that means.
the original document used "Periods" not "Days" in the "seven day" creation model, they're a bit out of order, but meh. this is the word of god interpreted by man, and is also one giant game of telephone so I don't think it can be prefect in English.
-
Day 1 Let there be Light- massive expansion of the universe, sparking stars, and cosmic nurseries spawning molten stone planets.
"let there be light" =/= "massive expansion of the universe, sparking stars, cosmic nurseries spawning molten stone planets"
You made that up.
Day 2 Let there be Sea and sky- rain from atmospheric water that had boiled from the molten surface, (comes from comets) cooling the crust of the molten planet. and the atmosphere coming to be.
Rinse and repeat same rebuttal as above.
Day 3- Land and Vegetation, the arrival and or creation of the first life on planet earth
How do you have this before the sun?
day 4- Stars, Sun and Moon, which is less that those were actually made, but that the volcanic ash settled, allowing the atmosphere to clear, and those heavenly bodies to be visible for the first time
Thats just a baseless interpretation. Totally subjective
day 5-Sea creatures. and hey look at that. evolution says we all came from aquatic creatures. and evolved.
You take god going "poof now theres sea creatures" and extrapolate it aaaaaaaaaaaalllll the way to the entire theory of evolution by natural selection? Thats the most baseless leap ive ever seen.
day 6- animals and mankind.
You just said in the previous day that it described evolution. Except we know from the story god poofs man into existence from dirt and a rib. That isnt evolution. Not even close
seems perfectly compatible from where I sit.
How?? God going "poof theres X" "poof theres Y" does not equate to those complex processes you described at ALL. Just because you can fenagle it and do mental gymnastics to make it sound like its kinda referring super duper generally to a scientific process does not mean that therefore it is describing that process. None of these scientific processes require god or include god in any way yet you just tack him on.
Youre just taking science and dumbing it down to the most overly simplistic descriptions of it to the point where it isnt even science anymore. Then you just say that it maybe kinda sounds like this bible verse so there ill just smash them together like some frankenstein creation and say they fit.
This isnt evidence of science and religion being compatible its evidence that people can do the mental gymnastics necessary to reconcile them in their own minds. But in reality theyre totally opposed to eachother fundamentally.
Sure you can. The order that creatures come to be in Genesis lines up with what Darwinists try to claim. Of course, Darwinism is a fairytale, so it doesn't much matter.
Correct. But seeing as i knew i was arguing with a christian then i went off of the implications it has for his religon specificlally. But youre correct generally.
It's a fine thought but Darwinism is a lie. It defies the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record, and the finding of blood vessels in so called "Dinosaur bones".
Evolution doesn't know how it got from nothing to the simple, nor does it provide us the billions of intermediaries in the fossil record that it would take to go from simple to human. And let's just ignore the Cambrian Explosion and call intellectual theists who dare question bad science "idiots" in order to shut them up.
How did everything for B get there? You haven't answered anything. You think that something more complicated than the universe exists to create the the universe because you think something as complicated as the universe can't exist on it's own.
It causes an infinite regress of causality to use your argument. Atheism cannot satisfy the paradox with a natural answer. The only possible answer to satisfy the paradox is a supernatural answer from beyond our reality.
It isn't a deflection. You think something exists because there is a Wikipedia article on it. That must mean you also think everything else on Wikipedia must exist.
The infinite regress exists with or without wikipedia. Go check it out on the site or page of your own choosing. It's a simple, and fundamental part of mathematics.
An infinite regress is basic math, like add and subtract. Everything has a cause. Your conceptualization is the same as saying "everyone has a mom, but there was not a first mom." That's an infinite regress paradox.
I didn't avoid the question. The infinite regress is math and science. The variable that satisfies the regress must be a natural answer if you are atheist. And you provide none because there is none. With an Atheist or naturalistic answer you always get "what caused that?" And infinitely. Therefore, the only answer that satisfies the paradox, must defy naturalistic answers, thus being supernatural.
I get it Cartman. You have bought into Atheist fundamentalist dogma. So did I. The problem was, I actually challenge ideas that do not make a lick of sense. Once I realized the leftist Atheist Religion had indoctrinated me, I broke free and faced the bitter truth, then found peace.
All the ideas that you present that don't make a lick of sense are theistic ideas. You keep presenting them as ideas put forth by science and atheism but they aren't. They are put forth by theists who don't understand science or atheism.
I understand science just fine, and you have no rebuttal because uou don't know how to debate an ex Atheist and are flummixed. Talk to me on your death bed. Even the world's greatest atheists gave up your bs on the bed.
That's still not an answer. If you can't even explain something basic within Darwinism, then we can justly assume that you bought it on faith without even knowing what's in the theory. Whales came from hyenas. That's the Darwinist claim. Google it. Is that what you believe?
If you can't even explain something basic within Darwinism, then we can justly assume that you bought it on faith without even knowing what's in the theory.
Or we can go with the much more likely scenario, that my audience can't understand a sentence containing 7 words in it and there is no reason to state anything basic about evolution to him.
I see you still lacking the ability to debate? why don't you answer the question! your responses are childish and show a lack of knowledge and intelligence, resorting to this behavior because you have no where to turn to for substance.
Its not a question to answer, its irrelevant to the debate, why don't you grow up, and act your age and give some credibility to your perfective faith.
What's scientific about your question dumbass?? for a man of your age you sure lack maturity, I'm guessing your going to continue with this childish response which only shows you and your religion to have nothing credible to respond with.
They are B. Whats your point? That because his words were designed by an intelligence therefore all life was designed by intelligence? That doesn't logically follow at all. We have evidence that his words have a designer. We can talk to him, he can prove he exists with photos and a plethora of other stuff. You cannot prove a god exists in the same way. You're still just asserting there's a pattern where there is none
Hahaha you don't like it that someone answer your question! why don't you respond to the person who has answered your question, or don't you have an answer again!!!
BIBLE DEVOTIONS STUDY INSPIRATIONAL PRAYER CONTACT
BibleTopicsThemesWordsPhrasesNamesReadingsPopularParallelCross Ref Languages
Enter keyword, passage, or topic
Search
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Search Bible verses
Search
21 Bible Verses about
Destruction Of The Wicked
Most Relevant Verses
Psalm 37:38
Verse Concepts
But transgressors will be altogether destroyed; The posterity of the wicked will be cut off.
Proverbs 14:11
Verse Concepts
The house of the wicked will be destroyed, But the tent of the upright will flourish.
Psalm 94:23
Verse Concepts
He has brought back their wickedness upon them And will destroy them in their evil; The LORD our God will destroy them.
Psalm 28:5
Verse Concepts
Because they do not regard the works of the LORD Nor the deeds of His hands, He will tear them down and not build them up.
Psalm 73:19
Verse Concepts
How they are destroyed in a moment! They are utterly swept away by sudden terrors!
Psalm 92:7
Verse Concepts
That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.
2 Peter 3:6
Verse Concepts
through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
Proverbs 10:29
Verse Concepts
The way of the LORD is a stronghold to the upright, But ruin to the workers of iniquity.
Ezekiel 13:14
Verse Concepts
"So I will tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst And you will know that I am the LORD.
Hosea 7:13
Verse Concepts
Woe to them, for they have strayed from Me! Destruction is theirs, for they have rebelled against Me! I would redeem them, but they speak lies against Me.
Daniel 8:25
Verse Concepts
"And through his shrewdness He will cause deceit to succeed by his influence; And he will magnify himself in his heart, And he will destroy many while they are at ease. He will even oppose the Prince of princes, But he will be broken without human agency.
Philippians 1:28
Verse Concepts
in no way alarmed by your opponents--which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God.
1 Timothy 6:9
Verse Concepts
But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction.
Romans 9:22
Verse Concepts
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
Philippians 3:19
Verse Concepts
whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Verse Concepts
These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
2 Timothy 2:14
Verse Concepts
Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
2 Peter 2:3
Verse Concepts
and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
2 Peter 2:12
Verse Concepts
But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed,
2 Peter 3:7
Verse Concepts
But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Jude 1:10
Verse Concepts
But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.
Its more accurate to call it Evolution than just Darwinism since science has added a lot more evidence of Evolution since Darwin's time. Science now has evidence that Darwin did not have, such as DNA. And also thousands more transitional fossils that show step by step the process by which we came to be. They have fossils showing every step, from microbes, to aquatic creatures, to amphibians...mammals, primates, and then the homo species. There were almost 30 different sub-species of the hominids that we are, and which culminated in homo sapien. Beginning with homo erectus, which was about a million years ago.
Darwin didn't really even touch on this stuff, his work was mainly involved with evolutionary changes within certain species. Like the finches he saw on his trip aboard the Beagle around the Galapagos Islands back in the 1830s.
So...the evidence is all but irrefutable. Evolution stands alone among scientists as the best by far explanation of how we got here today. It is so packed with evidence that has never been challenged by ANY other science that the Theory of Evolution is close to becoming the LAW of Evolution.
So...as a Christian, I believe in Evolution. But I differ from materialist Evolutionists who claim it happened by random genetic mutations, which were then adapted by the species, if the mutation proved advantageous for living and dominating the competition in their specific environments.
I believe the God drove the Evolutionary Process. This theory is called Theistic Evolution. And it shows that science and religion are NOT always at odds, but can co-exist and even compliment each other.
They don't want you to know that they have found creatures that they claim are "hundreds of millions of years old" trapped in amber that look just like they do today, like ants, wasps, and spiders. Nothing about the subject is ever consistent and each thing contradicts the last claim.
1)Darwinism can't be demonstrated in a lab or even on a computer simulation.
2)The fossil record doesn't give the intermediaries to support it.
3)The Cambrian Explosion defies Darwinism.
4)Darwinism doesn't meet even the bare minimum of the Scientific Method. Observable, testable, etc.
5)Scientists are finding blood vessels in these "finds" which proves either they aren't the creatures paleantologists claim, or they aren't old.
So it's a cult taken on faith in a group who is politically compromised. Resist the new Darwinist religious elites and think for yourselves based on the actual evidence.
Here is the humanist religion of darwinist bigots......... the animals with longer necks could reach the higher leaves so therefore they survived more often and passed on their long neck genes to their offspring and therefore WHALA....GIRAFFES!!!!!!
LOL, oh wait a minute, why are giraffes one of the few animals with long necks and the vast majority of surviving animals have short necks. I guess they did not need long necks to reach the food after all.
Wait a minute, the cheetah developed speed to survive but the leopard didn't need speed because he developed stealth, while the Lion needed neither because he developed teamwork. I get it now, it is as clear as mud.
It's so nice to listen to self fulfilling prophcies in documentaries concerning evolution where every species just developed some particular trait to survive, but they all did it differently. NEWS FLASH.... IT'S ALL THEORY PUSHED AS FACT!
And then somehow, the obvious fact of animals passing on their genes somehow equates to the first living cell just popping up out of nowhere. Wait, I think we missed a few million steps there. Lets try backing it up until you prove how that first living cell came from nothing.
These so called facts to human existence I can live without.
Funny stories those evolutionists come up with, good points about the giraffes and big cats. Remember, bees and plants also evolved just in time to be there for each other when they needed each other, and who knows how they got along before then but you don't need to know as long as you believe in evolution......
it's not even a theory, it's a hypothesis which God-haters are so desperate to believe that every time they find a bone, it's declared a new missing link, then after they have a million bones the hypothesis is declared proved and then they call it a theory when it cannot possible rise beyond a hypothesis because it cannot be seen happening, it has to be believed. It's goofy, and a more and more scientists are realizing they were duped into believing it.
Its funny how we keep finding evidence of life way before we were around, yet we cant find anything that your religion claim? we find dinosaur bones that are millions of years old, but where are the bones of Jesus?? the ark? Adam and Eve? the forbidden tree?
and as for mother nature every animal and insect has adapted to its environment, it has EVOLED through out the generations to become more efficient to survive, just like us Humans have EVOLED to become so advanced and intelligent accept for a few humans like you?
Let me tell you what is really funny, and by "funny", I mean God will laugh at it.
There is objective truth, and you can know it, but you prefer to go your own way saying you can't know when you simply won't know. Life has objective purpose, you have objective value as an individual. It's good to know these thing, and you can know, but you won't, will you?
Who will you cry out to when calamity strikes you with pains and sorrows? Do you think anybody able to help you will care, after you have mocked in defiance against the only One who can help you? Do you think you will evolve out of your calamity?
Let me put this to you, do you think God created us as in earth or the universe and earth?
Let me put it in a story for you, God was bored one day and thought I need to do something, I know what ill do ill make the universe, and in that universe ill make a place called earth and only that planet in that galaxy will have life on it, so god then put his hand in his pocket and grabbed out the elements of the universe and proceeded to create life, and he did this in the dark, he wanted to surprise himself and when he thought that will do he said let there be light! and he created this gas ball called the Sun, as god gazed at his creation he thought I wont create anything that resembles me ill make dinosaurs first, humans can come later, I might even throw in an ice age just to mix things up!
I could go on all day with this story, and incorporate the bible bollocks along the way, your faith is a joke and it amazes me that anyone can find it in anyway credible.
God created us in Adam. We ware all in Adam when Adam was created. We all came from Adam, Adam was created by God. God put the power of procreation in Adam to bring us into existence. God wanted you here, so here you are. God loves you.
So if were all from Adam, why are we all so different now? and its impossible to come from two people that's called inbreed and we would be a world of mutants.
Adam and Eve were different from each other, were they not? If we all came from two perfect people, "inbreeding" would not be a problem as their would be no risk of imperfection. Adam and Eve fell from perfection, and things changed...death appeared in the genome, and it caused you to be born ugly instead of being perfect as God intended Adam AND us to be when He created us in Adam. Logic 101, son, keep working at it an you might pass.
your so thick, if Adam and eve had offspring (children) those children would have to breed with each other to make more babies (inbreed) or if Adam shagged his own daughter (inbreed) = Mutants Logic 101 perfection doesn't stop anything!
So you mean to say that East of Eden, when Kane came to know his wife, that wife was not a human? Or do you mean to say that his wife was his mother (the only female human alive)? OR did the bible leave out that humans continued to reproduce asexually and then marry their reproduction even after the miracle of Adam and Eve?
In addition to the points already made, Eve was created from Adam's rib according to your legend. Which means she had identical DNA to his. Which means inbreeding.
Correct. And there was no flaw in their genes, so it was not a problem. Flaws developed after the genome became contaminated with death. Mutations began appearing and now you are likely to produce some awful mutations if you inbreed. Things are different now than the way God made them.
According to your legend, Eve as a monkey's grand daughter. I guess that explains why 2/3 of the world eats bananas.
Ten years or so back, scientists were forced to concede by evidence of DNA that everybody on the planet is descended from one woman, and they also had to concede she would be the mother of all living, which is the meaning of the name "Eve". It was funny how quickly they drew up cartoons to show all the other tribes of monkey-like people dying out, and only Eve's tribe surviving.
You have to be awfully dumb to believe in evolution....it's for suckers to believe in.
Wrong. "Mitochondrial Eve" would have been 200,000 years ago http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm which is way off the time scale of the Old Testament and creationism. Furthermore your contention that their DNA was simply perfect is pure fabrication.
I'm not supporting the evolutionist version of Eve, just pointing out that the stupid scientists could have known long ago that Eve is the mother of all living.
Believe whatever you want to believe. Be a sucker for evolution. The whole thing was invented with the agenda of putting blinders on the general population, and you're a sucker for it.
an article in Discover magazine began with this paragraph:
At some point during the growth of an insect larva, a gene called Dll switches on and helps organize some of its cells into legs. If for some reason Dll is shut off, the insect will produce only stumps. In the early 1990s scientists were surprised to discover that almost identical copies of this gene can be found in mammals and other vertebrates--and that they too switch on as legs form. This was surprising for two reasons. For one thing, insects and vertebrates have radically different limbs: ours have bone inside and muscle outside, while bugs are the reverse--their flesh is protected by an armored exoskeleton. For another thing, insects and vertebrates are only distantly related: our last common ancestor lived perhaps a billion years ago and was assumed to be limbless, like a flatworm. Researchers therefore imagined the two lineages evolved their limbs--and the genes that build them--independently.4
The key word in that last sentence is "imagined."
The article doesn't state the problem very well, so it is easy to miss. It is miraculous that a flatworm would evolve into a primitive insect which, through chance and natural selection, happened to produce the Dll gene which was inherited by all subsequent insects. It is a double miracle if some primitive fish happened to, by random mutation, produce exactly the same Dll gene which turned it into the first amphibian that passed the gene along to all subsequent amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.
The disturbing news (to evolutionists) is that they've found this same gene in shellfish, too. So, the same miracle had to happen three times. There's got to be a limit to the number of times you can wave this magic wand!
The alternative explanation is that the mythical, legless, ancestral flatworm already had this gene, but it didn't do anything. It just happened to be there to help all the other future genes build a wide variety of legs. That takes a lot of faith, and brings another problem with it.
If Dll has been around for a billion years, why hasn't it mutated? The "mitochondrial clock" was formerly believed to experience one mutation every 600 generations. But studies on the descendants of the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II, show one mutation every 40 generations.5 (This causes some problems for evolutionists because, "Using the new [mitochondrial] clock, she [Mitochondrial Eve] would be a mere 6,000 years old."6 But that's another story.)
Granted, the mutation rate for human mitochondria might be slightly different from insect genes, but Dll should have mutated at least a little bit after a billion years.
The more we know about genes, the more trouble it causes for the theory of evolution.
This "200,000 year" assertion is based on faulty science and cannot be held as true due to contrary evidence. The number was invented hastily when Adam and Eve were proved by genetics, and the number was chosen to fit with what evolutions want to imagine.
Whether or not "mitochondrial eve" is 200,000 years or some other date depending on methodology the fact remains we are far far older as a species on this earth than the stories in the Bible indicate. And why is that? It's because the people living at the time the Bible were written had no means whatsoever to know yet the size of the earth, its age, or the wide dispersal of people already. And it's these people living practically in the dark who you are solely listening to for your instruction in how to live your life.
Whether or not "mitochondrial eve" is 200,000 years or some other date depending on methodology the fact remains we are far far older as a species on this earth than the stories in the Bible indicate. And why is that? It's because the people living at the time the Bible were written had no means whatsoever to know yet the size of the earth, its age, or the wide dispersal of people already. And it's these people living practically in the dark who you are solely listening to for your instruction in how to live your life.
All your facts are beliefs which to hold require that you ignore facts which contradict your beliefs. Go on believing whatever you want to believe. When you insist your beliefs are correct and ignore facts which are contradictory to your beliefs, you are being willfully ignorant and blinded by your beliefs.
hahahaahah........the truth is simple, fun, and funny
Here's the first half of the article which built up to referencing the article from Discover Magazine.
Biologists aren't entirely satisfied with the intrinsic subjectivity of classification, and have hoped that molecular biology would yield a more quantitative approach. It was hoped that comparisons of the nucleotides of DNA or RNA sequences would yield quantitative numbers that could be used to classify organisms with a high degree of accuracy. According to an article in the January 1998 issue of Science,
Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present. Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of 18S rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as originally thought.1
The article then discusses a figure that shows that mollusks are more closely related to deuterostomes than arthropods when the creatures being compared are a scallop (a mollosk), a sea urchin (a deuterostome), and a brine shrimp (an arthropod). That isn't too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp, and the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin shown on their diagram isn't surprising.
But when a tarantula is used as the representative of the arthropod, there is a 92% correlation between the scallop and the tarantula. It doesn't seem reasonable that a scallop should be more closely related to a harry, land-dwelling spider than to a sea urchin. This is troubling to the authors of the Science article, which leads them to remark,
The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate … current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly.2 [emphasis supplied]
It is more than slightly ironic that the article was titled, "The Coming of Age of Molecular Systematics." The text of the article says, in effect, that molecular systematics is still in its infancy, doesn't provide any useful information yet, and more work needs to be done. (Guess who might be seeking a grant to do that work. )
As the author of more than 50 articles published in several different well-known computer magazines, I know that very few of those articles were published with the title I gave to the article. Magazine editors sometimes feel they can make an article more appealing (and sell more magazines) by "punching up" the title a little bit. It is quite possible that the authors really titled their article, something like "Problems and Inconsistencies in Molecular Systematics", and an editor chose to "improve" it.
Since the authors are evolutionists, it never occurs to them that the data doesn't agree with the assumed evolutionary relationship because the theory of evolution is wrong. They fall back to the old "evolution happened so fast we must have missed it" argument. They assume a "rapid divergence of most of the animal phyla" that caused not only missing link fossils, but also missing link RNA sequences.
Given the probable rapid divergence of most of the animal phyla, the complexities of 18S rRNA sequence evolution, and the problem of taxon sampling, it is difficult to have confidence in 18S rRNA trees in the absence of corroborating evidence.3
In other words, if the results agree with what the theory of evolution (the Mother of All Corroboration) predicts, then the results of the RNA analysis are right. If they don't, they are wrong. They may find 99 sequences that don't show the assumed evolutionary relationship, but if they find one that does, that sequence will be "independent proof" that the traditional classification was correct. So, the RNA method is just as subjective as old-fashioned classification by physical characteristics.
Here's the first half of the article which built up to referencing the article from Discover Magazine.
Biologists aren't entirely satisfied with the intrinsic subjectivity of classification, and have hoped that molecular biology would yield a more quantitative approach. It was hoped that comparisons of the nucleotides of DNA or RNA sequences would yield quantitative numbers that could be used to classify organisms with a high degree of accuracy. According to an article in the January 1998 issue of Science,
Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present. Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of 18S rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as originally thought.1
The article then discusses a figure that shows that mollusks are more closely related to deuterostomes than arthropods when the creatures being compared are a scallop (a mollosk), a sea urchin (a deuterostome), and a brine shrimp (an arthropod). That isn't too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp, and the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin shown on their diagram isn't surprising.
But when a tarantula is used as the representative of the arthropod, there is a 92% correlation between the scallop and the tarantula. It doesn't seem reasonable that a scallop should be more closely related to a harry, land-dwelling spider than to a sea urchin. This is troubling to the authors of the Science article, which leads them to remark,
The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate … current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly.2 [emphasis supplied]
It is more than slightly ironic that the article was titled, "The Coming of Age of Molecular Systematics." The text of the article says, in effect, that molecular systematics is still in its infancy, doesn't provide any useful information yet, and more work needs to be done. (Guess who might be seeking a grant to do that work. )
As the author of more than 50 articles published in several different well-known computer magazines, I know that very few of those articles were published with the title I gave to the article. Magazine editors sometimes feel they can make an article more appealing (and sell more magazines) by "punching up" the title a little bit. It is quite possible that the authors really titled their article, something like "Problems and Inconsistencies in Molecular Systematics", and an editor chose to "improve" it.
Since the authors are evolutionists, it never occurs to them that the data doesn't agree with the assumed evolutionary relationship because the theory of evolution is wrong. They fall back to the old "evolution happened so fast we must have missed it" argument. They assume a "rapid divergence of most of the animal phyla" that caused not only missing link fossils, but also missing link RNA sequences.
Given the probable rapid divergence of most of the animal phyla, the complexities of 18S rRNA sequence evolution, and the problem of taxon sampling, it is difficult to have confidence in 18S rRNA trees in the absence of corroborating evidence.3
In other words, if the results agree with what the theory of evolution (the Mother of All Corroboration) predicts, then the results of the RNA analysis are right. If they don't, they are wrong. They may find 99 sequences that don't show the assumed evolutionary relationship, but if they find one that does, that sequence will be "independent proof" that the traditional classification was correct. So, the RNA method is just as subjective as old-fashioned classification by physical characteristics.
In fact, a number of recent studies on living populations have indeed come up with results which indicate a much higher rate of mutation in human mtDNA.3,4
Although not all studies to date have found the same high rate, at least two studies, looking directly at substitutions occurring today, have found rates as much as 20 times higher than previously assumed.5 Studies on the bones of the last Tsar of Russia also showed that he, along with 10–20 % of the population, actually had at least 2 types of mtDNA, a condition called ‘heteroplasmy’, also caused by mutations.3 This, too, throws off the ‘molecular clock’ calibrations.
According to one review of the data, these recent results would mean that mitochondrial Eve ‘lived about 6500 years ago—a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human origins. Even if the last common mitochondrial ancestor is younger than the last common real ancestor, it remains enigmatic how the known distribution of human populations and genes could have arisen in the past few thousand years.’3
The review in Science’s ‘Research News’ goes still further about Eve’s date, saying that ‘using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.’ The article says about one of the teams of scientists (the Parsons team5) that ‘evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations ... they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations’.4
Evolutionists have tried to evade the force of these results by countering that the high mutation rate only occurs in certain stretches of DNA called ‘hot spots’ and/or that the high (observed) rate causes back mutations which ‘erase’ the effects of this high rate. Therefore, conveniently, the rate is assumed to be high over a short timespan, but effectively low over a long timespan. However, this is special pleading to get out of a difficulty, and the burden of proof is on evolutionists to sustain the vast ages for ‘Eve’ in the face of these documented, modern-day mutation rates.
IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH GRASP OF SCIENCE TO UNDERSTAND THE ARTICLES I POSTED, YOU CAN'T HONESTLY CLAIM 200.000 YEARS AS THE AGE FOR EVE WHEN INDISPUTABLE VARIATIONS ARE SEEN WHICH SHOW THE ONE METHOD USED TO REACH THE 200,000 YEAR NUMBER IS NOT SOLID SCIENCE. THE NUMBER WAS THROWN OUT HASTILY AND LIVES AS A LIE WHEN IT IS PRESENTED AS INDESPUTED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU HERE....ANY HONEST SCIENTIST WHO BELIEVES THE 200,000 YEAR NUMBER WILL ADMIT THERE IS CONTRARY DATA WHICH CANNOT BE RULED OUT, SO THE 200,000 YEAR NUMBER MUST BE HELD AS INCONCLUSIVE AND NOT PROVED.....STILL A HYPOTHETICAL BELIEF.
It sounds like you are imagining how you would feel and what you would do if you were God, so your version implies that God is an idiot. That makes you an idiot, doesn't it? Logic 101, son. You'll probably flunk because it's too simple for stupid people.
Not in the slightest dumbass!! god cant be an idiot because he doesn't exist, logic 101 numb-nuts! and my little story was to emphasise the foolishness of religion and the stupidity behind this story!, a story forge in a time where answers for the world that surrounds them were few and far between, where mother nature was an or inspiring thing, where as we know it now as the weather, thunder and lighting, wind and rain, tornados and earth quakes, tsunamis and floods, a freighting thing to the unintelligent, and to really drive it home to you religious nut jobs if the bones of Jesus were found who would you turn to, to confirm the age and cause of death? you would turn to science to confirm your evidence you need science to confirm your claim but yet science is what you discredit.
As I promised to do last night when the spirit was upon me, I will now continue to destroy any post of your I find that has lies in it. As I did last night with the NIV thing.
Evolution IS a theory. Which means a collection of facts. As it says here.
Evolution is a model in historical science, you interpret the past to fit into this model. You can't prove evolution to be true, you just have to accept it as a fact first then fit past evidence like the fossil record into it. In the end, science always wins, and evolution is losing. To call evolution a "fact" is very ignorant since evidence is piling against it. It is time to admit Darwinism has failed and mainstream science should now change.
When I say "evolution" I mean Darwinism. Darwin proposed evolution through natural selection, however, natural selection doesn't explain how species originate but how they change. The fossil evidence doesn't support the model, and has inaccurate predictions. I am not going to get go into detail on all the problems with it, but I will say it gets more credit than it deserves. Many say it has "overwhelming evidence", when it just doesn't.
When I say "evolution" I mean Darwinism. Darwin proposed evolution through natural selection, however, natural selection doesn't explain how species originate but how they change.
Well yeah, it doesn't try to claim how they originate, because we don't know.
The fossil evidence doesn't support the model, and has inaccurate predictions
In what way?
I am not going to get go into detail on all the problems with it, but I will say it gets more credit than it deserves.
Then go into the main problems with it. Anything to substantiate the very grandiose claims you are making.
Many say it has "overwhelming evidence", when it just doesn't.
It has essentially overwhelming support by the scientific community. Hence why I am asking you to provide at least some of the evidence you claim makes it so obviously incorrect.
The problem I have with it is how species originate. Natural Selection doesn't explain how we originated, otherwise, evolution is pretty solid. We may find the explanation someday, but for now, we don't know.
The fossil record has many gaps that are predicted by Darwinian evolution, i believe Darwin doesn't have the full story, but only part of it.
That's redefining the word theory. Evolution is a hypothesis, calling it a theory is abusing the word "theory". A theory can be tested and observed. When you can actually show DNA being added to the genome through mutation or any process of evolution, then you have real evidence. Piles of bones and big mouths telling me I'm supposed to believe the fish bones turned into reptile and amphibian bones over millions of years is not science. Believing evolution happened is believing a hypothesis is correct when there is no real evidence. Presenting millions of piles of bones and telling me I'm supposed to believe it proves evolution is not science, it is not giving me anything other than a hypothesis. It's goofy. If you want to believe your mother was an ape.....well, who knows, maybe she was one. You sure make some gorilla music.