Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

[Jehu]

Darwinists were so insecure about their pet genius they made sure they buried him beside Newton's bones. As if to elevate him to the stature of that REAL genius (and devout Christian). Newton invented Calculus just as a byproduct of his pursuit of the understanding of gravity.

The scientific hack Darwin cobbled together an existing miasma of thought and counter-thought against the obvious fact of creation, including stuff his grandfather was spewing in crappy poems.

All Darwin did was stuff a psuedo-scientifc platform under the hodgepodge of anti-Creation thought, giving bastards like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and other ruthless tycoons of the 19th century all the justification they needed for the rape of the planet and their fellow human beings.

Darwinism is the scientific prop for all the totalitarianism of the 20th century, including that wonderfully successful governmental theory of Communism. Marx read the Origin and wanted to dedicate his Communist Manifesto to Darwin. No wonder. Darwinism denies God as the creator, and Marx denies that God is over the nations.

Both are liars. One proved, the other in the process of being confirmed a liar. Too bad millions have to die before these false philosophies are discarded.

[balrog666]

TOE suggests life from the immaterial.

How do you get that from a threory of allele distributions over time?

Is TOE based strictly upon naturalistic processes or not? If it is, describe to me in any way possible how TOE accounts for symbiotic life? I'll even give you the species (Yucca Moth/Yucca Plant of the American southwest)

As opposed to what - unnatural processes?

What difficulty do you think symbiosis provides to the theory?

And what do you think mitochondria and chloroplasts are?

I'll be watching to see if you smuggle in any concept of Teleology. You want to propose all species descended (ultimately) from single celled animals (That is part of TOE), then give me some equations that describe this "scientific" process! LMAO

Give me an equation for the Theory of Gravity (hint for the stupid: that's not the Law of Gravity).

[conservative_crusader]

How very clever of you... Okay, I have no answer for this argument... you win. For what it's worth.

[conservative_crusader]

"Give me an equation for the Theory of Gravity (hint for the stupid: that's not the Law of Gravity)."

Mass of object x acceleration due to gravity = Force of Gravity

[balrog666]

So many lies, so little time.

Lying for the Lord is Doing God's Work

[balrog666]

You must have missed the hint. Try again.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

You can't even identify an insult when you see one.I think you need to learn how to argue.

Don't expect him to actually argue anything; he leaves that to the others from his camp. Many of us think he's simply a random insult generator.

[longshadow]

random placemarker

[stremba]

I would argue with you on your point that Biblical literalism is falsifiable. God could have done it exactly as stated in Genesis and arranged all of the physical evidence the way it is at that time. This is an unfalsifiable notion and is thus unscientific. When an omnipotent being is an integral part of an idea, that idea can never be falsified.

[stremba]

Please give me the basic physics that disproves the big bang.

[stockpirate]

How is it that at the center of the big bang as it is moving outward we at the same time have objects moving in the opposite direction?

Objects moving in orbits different than this outward movement. Not just on a flat plane, but some orbits moving in opposite directions.

If there was a big bang where did the matter come from before it banged? If this was the creation of the universe what is it expanding into?

A vacume is part of the universe, so if it was expanding into a vacume it was expanding into the universe, therefore it was being created in a medium that already existed. The matter that comprised the big bang was the universe before the creation of the universe in the big bang. Therefore it cound not have been created if it already existed.

[stremba]

You do know that the big bang is an expansion of space-time and is not an explosion, don't you?

[derheimwill]

Every proposition contains an assumption (Goeddel's theorem). We either assume that the bible is historical or we make all the assuptions in TOE or some sort of hybrid, but we all make assumptions.

[stremba]

It doesn't snow where you live, does it? Doesn't water freeze into ice crystals in your freezer?

[conservative_crusader]

No sir,

You have missed the hint, every body of matter in the universe attracts every other body of matter in the universe. Saying that rules of physics are constant here, and not constant at some other place, is a fallacy. It is an incredibly semantic fallacy. It destroys the value of any knowledge that can be gained from the argument, and I know from experience, that it is an argument used by amateur debaters. As soon as scientists find a point where a constant law of physics is not applicable, then I will believe you.

[PatrickHenry]

News Flash:
Big Bang disproved by creationist! Scientific world in shock!

The killer question: "If this was the creation of the universe what is it expanding into?"

Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying: "I feel like I've wasted my life. I've been such a fool!"

[stremba]

Allele's are just the latest pseudo buzz words by evolutionists.

So all humans have the same blood type? Better study genetics before you make posts like that.

[balrog666]

No sir, You have missed the hint,

So, you could have taken two minutes and looked up the "Theory of Gravity" and the "Law of Gravity" and learned something new for once on this thread, but noooooo ... you want to be a dumbass all your life.

Now why am I not surprised but this?

[conservative_crusader]

"So, you could have taken two minutes and looked up the "Theory of Gravity" and the "Law of Gravity" and learned something new for once on this thread, but noooooo ... you want to be a dumbass all your life. "

And you could have taken 2 minutes to devise a logical argument against *anything* that I've said, but nooooooooooooooooooo... you're much to intellectual for that. No, just because I am affiliated with creationists, I am automatically illogical. Well golly, I've argued every point you've said, and EVERYTHING YOU HAVE STATED REVOLVES AROUD THE STATEMENT THAT I CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING. Your every argument (if they are fit to be called that,) is a fallacy.

When I think of you, I picture an atheist version of the Iraqi information minister saying: "LIES!!! LIES!!! THERE IS NO GOD!!!"

[stremba]

There is no "center" of the big bang. It isn't an explosion; it's the expansion of space-time. The big bang occurred everywhere. The matter derived from the energy of the big bang (the two are equivalent). Science is currently speculative as to the source of the energy. One possibility is that the negative gravitational energy of the universe precisely cancels the positive energy of the matter plus radiation in the universe meaning that there was no energy actually created in the big bang. (zero total energy before and after) Similar to the question of the origin of life WRT evolution, the origin of this energy is immaterial. The big bang attempts to describe the development of the early universe after the expansion of space-time began. It doesn't cover why it occurred or where the energy came from, etc.