What if macro evolution is impossible, and a creator actually did create us?

Question

1. The Miller Experiment that suggested that amino acids could have formed in the early atmosphere was completely flawed. Current data indicates that formaldehyde and cyanide would have formed and been antithetic to life.

2. Darwin's tree of life is impossible in light of the Cambrian explosion (the biological big bang), where many of the major animal phyla came into existence "suddenly". Punctuated equilibrium is the straw man "hypothesis" for this event, not natural selection.

3. Haechel's Embryos which suggest that all phyla look alke when first developing suggesting common anchestors are known to be faked and misleading (Stephen Jay Gould said that this was "The academic equivalent of murder").

4. The Archaeopteryx missing link from reptiles to birds is now known to be an extinct group of bird. No transitional forms have been found to date in all the millions of fossils, none!

Facts are that people who believe in macro evolution, believe in a mythical theory.

I simply was stating that the existing belief in natural biological creation is foundationally flawed. No one can prove God does or does not exist.

However, when the big bang occurred, where did all the matter and energy come from? You believe it happened and had no cause. I believe it had a cause, and a creator was involved.

Phoenix: The evidence is circumtantial. There is much we do not know and understand. I have good reasons to believe a creator exists, and that we are not random quirks of nature. Plato said it well:

“I think a man's duty is to find out where the truth is, or if he cannot, at least to take the best possible human doctrine and the hardest to disprove, and to ride on this like a raft over the waters of life.” -- Plato

Gluon: I ran out of room. There is random chance, chemical affinity, self-ordering tendencies, seeding from space, deep-sea ocean vents and other thoughts.

The platypus is not a transitional form leading to another species.

Skippy: I had no religious arguements in my comments.

Also, I have read Hume, and he clearly like many other philosophers states that you cannot prove or disprove the a "God" exists. He thought a God likely did exist. However, he was skeptical that you could prove that the Christian God was the right God, for except for the Bible, there is nothing in nature to prove it. He had high standards for proof.

Captain Atheism: I am not argueing the Genesis account of Creationsim, or whatever it is that you "assume" I am. I wish to stay strictly philosophical and scientific.

I do not believe in magic. However, you have great "faith" in macro evolution, even if it wrong, for then you will have faith in the next theory.

Look, where the did matter and energy come from to start the universe. You say it had no cause. I say it must have had a cause. Sorry, but your beliefs are logically impossible. Oscillating universes dod make it and Hawking attempt to eliminate the singularity of the big bang with complex, math is construed. The answers are not known, and I lean on the side that a creator was invovled.

JP, you are right. Those molecules would not have created amino acids and thus is not a valid piece of data to hang the hat that this shows that life could have been created naturally.

JT: One last time. I cannot prove that a creator exists. One example is that the singularity of the big bang, is very hard to explain. Why did the creation of universe occur at that point in time? You think that it just happened, and that is ok. I believe, it is more likely a creator was invovled. WHy is that a problem. I science comes up with a naturalistic explanation that makes sense, then I will believe it. Philosophically, all I can say for sure, is that the big bang was caused. In addition, the evidence for life being naturally created due to an element of randomness and natural selection, is unrealistic. Thus, it appears that a creator was invovled.

Source:

Various, but one good one was a NYTimes bestseller by a man who was a distinguished reporter and won the Pulitzer prize while working for the Chicago Tribune - Lee Strobel.

Skippy: It is and is not a religious arguement.

God is a creator with many other attributes which religion tries to define. I leave it at a creator who is an undefined God. As soon as I start to define God, that enters the realm of religion. I do not do that. Why? Because you cannot prove which is the right religion. Religion is an issue of faith. And, until we know better, it is a valid way of looking at life. In fact, it provides a basis for purpose in life, morals and destiny. These are good things to validate.

Answer 1

There is no definitive evidence either way. We are still learning. No one knows where we came from.

And your evidence supporting creation by a supreme being was...?

Answer 2

1) nothing to do with macro-evolution (and 'your' point is willful deception anyway about the state of research)

2) PHYLA - do you know what vertebrates were then? They were microscopic worms. And the 'explosion' happened over 20-40 million years! It makes perfect sense that the major body plans would evolve rapidly once oxygen and multicellular life took off. It's difficult to evolve a whole new body plan at a later stage in evolution. Many phyla didn't make it and went extinct in the Cambrian.

3) So, who uncovered it? SCIENTISTS and every SCIENTIST knows about it. It's an irrelevance. There is an overwhelming abundance of other evidence for evolution, including embryonic evidence.

4) So what, there are countless countless countless 'transitional forms'. I am a paleontologist and I see them every day. Typical creationist propaganda - the fossil record shows nothing BUT macroevolution, constant iteration of body plan from one species to the next. What is hard to see in the fossil record is microevolution (due to several reasons), not macroevolution! Why don't you actually have a look? Because right now you are flat out lying.

Scientists have no need to believe in evolution (in fact it would be an awesum career-making opportunity to find a REAL hole in it) yet 99.9% in the relevant fields (a few religious fundamentalists excepted) do. In contrast some religious fundamentalists NEED, for some reason, perhaps narcicism, to believe that evolution isn't true.

Facts are that you have no idea what you are talking about. Facts are that it is you who believes in a literal mythical story, and immorally seeks to destroy science and send us back to the dark ages, just because some of the results of science don't agree with your literal reading of a few lines.

Answer 3

Macro evolution hasn't been disproven. Christian fudamentalist psuedo-scientists have brought up some points they claim disprove it. Your arguments are non-scientific.

Let's face it, NO EVIDENCE would be sufficient for you to accept evolution. It just doesn't jive with your religious beliefs. Debating you and your kind is pointless for this reason.

Science, on the other hand, changes every day. Why, because new evidence is always coming to light, and that evidence actually DOES change theory. Science is a self-correcting process. Systematic inquiry is pointless for you and your kind, however, since you already know all the answers.

Your side argument on causality is equally bogus, but from a philosophical point of view. If the Big Band had to have a cause, then so did your God. And so did the thing that caused your God. Our notion of causality is a fallacious one anyway, read what David Hume had to say about it and it might open your eyes.

I don't disagree with what you said about Hume, but remember one of his big arguments was that we have no proof for the notion of cause and effect, at all. Furthermore, in your first set of additional comments, you talk about the Big Bang and how you feel that implies a Creator. That, my friend IS a religious argument.

Answer 4

Unless you are asking questions like this to willfully disinform large numbers of people, then you are seriously misguided.

Now, you know the term "straw man" so please note that 1, 3, and 4 are all well described as being straw men. The evidence for birds being dinosaurs is strong, #4 is just plain wrong.

Number #3... I don't know if I am familiar with Haechel but embryos are still there to be examined... for one good example, humans still go through a 'fish-like' stage in early embryonic development. Number #1 is a good point, perhaps nature is more complex than we thought. We need to keep looking at abiosynthesis. Also, #2 needs to be studied further. Who knows, maybe a theory will turn up that adds in explanatory power to our current understanding.

In closing, it may help you to understand that the fossil record is (very) incomplete and that the fossils we have today got here for their own reasons, and have gone through a natural selection process of their own. Look at the phenotypical evidence plus the geohistorical evidence plus the genetic evidence plus the biochemical evidence and note that the many disparate fields all mutually reinforce a common ancestry tree-of-life

Answer 5

1.) As our knowledge of the early atmospheric conditions have improved, new experiments have been tried out, which have still been successful in creating the amino acids that we expect would be the fundamental building blocks for life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

2.) Saying we don't know why something happened doesn't instantly validate the "God did it" theory.

3.) "The intentional "fraud" now evident in Haeckel's drawings is used by some creationists as evidence against common descent and evolution. However, biologists point out that vertebrate embryos do in fact share many fundamental similarities in the phylotypic stage; the evidence is real but it exists in the embryos, not in Haeckel's drawings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawings

4.) In this case, you're just flat-out wrong -- when you're presented with EXACTLY the sort of transitional fossil one would expect with evolution, you suddenly try to shift the line that divides one species from another -- IGNORING the fact that those "boundaries" are completely arbitrary and man-made in the first place!

Answer 6

I'm not going to bother debating your creation theory above. But let me just point out two EXTREMELY important things here...

1. Creationism is logically impossible

2. Macro Evolution is highly likely (But you won't believe that, so let's at least say it's possible. Ask anyone other than a fundamentalist propagandist like the one you're quoting)

So on the one hand, we have one universally accepted scientific theory, that is at least "possible".

On the other hand, we have one that is clearly impossible, unless you believe in magic.

Macro-evolution is already leaps and bounds above creationism in terms of credibility. Even if the theory is wrong, we will replace it with another, better theory, built upon its foundation.

Since creationism has been proven wrong, what have you replaced it with? Oh yes... propaganda, and false information.

Trust me, you're not fooling any of us here. This sort of nonsense might work on a child. But we're educating them too, so they won't be duped by you, either...


Edit - As to your response, you're operating from the assumption that there was a beginning, and that there will be an end... to existence. I do not share this assumption.

Answer 7

You and people like you spend so much time trying to disprove something that cannot be proven. Do you ever grow tired of skating up hill? I mean seriously, what if the world is all an illusion and we are all dreaming. Or what if the clouds in the sky are actually hinding aliens? You can say what if all you like, but isn't much more plausible that there is a God and he/she is pushing evolution, he/she created life and made it evolve into certain things. Why not?

Answer 8

No each and all the creationists are doing is enjoying observe video games by potential of twiddling with the definitions. I nonetheless do no longer comprehend what's meant by potential of linking the words transitional and species. while it develop into first used it develop into in connection with feathered dinosaur fossil because of the fact they appropriate diverse genera. Now it feels like the creationists attempt to make it recommend species crossing border lines between species. this is an needless to say stupid concept. How can a separate species no longer be a separate species. in the event that they're asking approximately hybrids then the international is stuffed with examples. varieties and races of species abound. while they hit the ingredient that they do no longer breed jointly anymore then it truly is a clean species by potential of definition. are you able to call a Quince a transitional species between apples and pears. Quince can fertilize apples, pears can fertilize quince. yet quince in easy terms produce seed whether it truly is a quince quince mating. confident macro-evolution is actual, confident it truly is confirmed. All you would be able to desire to do is seem in a seed catalog. we've countless family species that have diverged sufficient from the be certain inventory to no longer be waiting to reproduce back to it and others that diverged sufficient that as quickly as the be certain inventory died out they could no longer be crossed to recuperate it. this could be an hassle-free situation for orchard operators. in easy terms particular varieties of apple fertilize one yet another. each so often the only actual reason they're separate species is they flower at diverse cases. Sorry that this submit is so previous due.

Answer 9

I've already put forth a long argument in a previous answer, so I will not bother wasting time arguing to brick walls again, so I will only address your last point.

"Facts are that people who believe in macro evolution, believe in a mythical theory."
For the sake of argument, I'll completely agree with you, say that evolution is a conspiracy created by scientists and the white man to put us other white men down.

Assuming that is all true, which mythical theory would make more sense:
That living things have a common ancestor, and over time will change?
Or
That a supernatural being created all known matter, is extremely interested in one species of one planet among nearly infinite amounts of species among nearly infinite amounts of planets, and sent his son (without any real explanation of what "his son" would mean) to Earth so that he could die for all wrong doings of individual members of that species of the past, present, and future, and also made it okay to eat bacon, which was apparently forbidden until then? (I love bacon)

Answer 10

Feh, #1 alone is easy enough to nuke.

Formaldahyde and cyanide are only antithetical to aerobic life. Since the early life forms were anaerobic, this is not a problem. In fact, for such metabolisms, cyanide can even be an energy source.

Answer 11

You failed to include any evidence for your "creation theory."

We can totally ignore evolution and that does nothing to advance the "God did it" argument.

Where is your evidence to support the theory of "God did it"?



Let me get this clearly in my mind:

You claim that energy must have been created because you say so.

And, then claim it is illogical to claim energy always existed.

After which, you then propose that an unnecessary, unproven and implausible "creator" created the energy that you claim suddenly sprang into existence.

Circular, illogical arguments only prove you cannot support your assertions with logical arguments.

In other words, you lose.