How to Slam Dunk Creationists on Evolution

[ShadowAce]

The mechanisms necessary have been shown to exist and to work.  Creationism cannot say the same.

Yeah?  What mechanism has been shown to exist that adds information to DNA?

[Oceander]

I see the universe in all its wonder, and deeply study the human body.  I am afraid of nothing.  The scientific evidence in the Bible is actually pretty good if you open your eyes and are not afraid to encounter a personal God.  Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) knew that light was created before the sun and stars.  Job knew that the earth was a orb suspended in space long before scientists stumbled on that fact.

I am convinced the universe and all in it (including humans) were personally and intimately created by a loving God, not an accident of evolution that got started off and stood back from.  Your mileage may vary.  But stop with the being afraid stuff.

You see nothing.  You limit God to what you can imagine.  Why is it not possible for a being as great as God - the greatest of all - to have lovingly created the universe in a manner that, when seen from within, appears as a random act the those who are the created?   

Instead, you espouse a baby's tale that requires God to have waved a magic wand every time a new creature shows up in the fossil record.  Your fable requires a constant series of acts of creation by God every minute of every day.  How is that not evolution?   But you deny the very facts God sets before you because you cannot accept that God must have done it some way that is outside your weak imagination. 

That, or you espouse a single act of creation, without any follow ups to account for new creatures, which is flatly inconsistent with the facts God has left us. 

[Oceander]

Yeah?  What mechanism has been shown to exist that adds information to DNA?

Mutation and duplication. 

[ShadowAce]

Mutation and duplication.

Do you know the definition of the word "duplication?"  It does not add anything to DNA.

As far as mutation goes, what form of mutation that we have observed (outside of movies) is beneficial?

[Oceander]

Do you know the definition of the word "duplication?"  It does not add anything to DNA.

As far as mutation goes, what form of mutation that we have observed (outside of movies) is beneficial?

Put the two together and you have a new addition to an existing DNA strand.  Or is even that too difficult for you to imagine?

[truth_seeker]

Do you know the definition of the word "duplication?"  It does not add anything to DNA.

As far as mutation goes, what form of mutation that we have observed (outside of movies) is beneficial?

You do know that scientists have been studying for decades, looking for ways to treat diseases, etc.?

In the last week, an gene "edit" was performed medically to treat a patient.

The uses of DNA  appear to be well advanced, beyond your present knowledge.

The science of DNA is so well "settled," as to be used in evidence to convict and exonerate suspects in capital crimes, and to establish paternity.

DNA is very solid science. But some still cling to Rev. Benny Hinn, for his "science."

[ShadowAce]

You do know that scientists have been studying for decades, looking for ways to treat diseases, etc.?

In the last week, an gene "edit" was performed medically to treat a patient.

The uses of DNA  appear to be well advanced, beyond your present knowledge.

The science of DNA is so well "settled," as to be used in evidence to convict and exonerate suspects in capital crimes, and to establish paternity.

DNA is very solid science. But some still cling to Rev. Benny Hinn, for his "science."

hmm.  So you are saying that edits to genes are beneficial--and yes, I have seen the news.

That doesn't sound like mutation, or chance, or some unthinking natural selection process.  It does sound like an intelligence designed the process, determined the specific chromosomes to edit and actually performed the work.

Now--do the same thing without any intelligence guiding the process in an environment similar to the highly toxic one we supposedly had shortly before life "evolved."

[the_doc]

Evolution is every bit as scientific as global warming.  Just because you can get a bunch of scientists to sing in a choir does not mean they are right.  Show me one incidence of an intermediate form between species.  Show me one incidence of evolution working in front of our eyes to create a new species.  I have a degree in biology and some of the junk we were taught 35 years ago such as entogeny recapitulates phylogeny has already been disproven as junk.  It is interesting how the masses will take what they are spoonfed with out question because a "scientist" says so and science is never wrong   

That was my point.  Most laymen who believe in AGW are just intimidated by mainstream scientists.  Most laymen (and weak-minded scientists) look at the reputedly overwhelming evidence for CO2 warming.  In my opinion, there is no evidence whatsoever.  (Surprise, surprise!)

[truth_seeker]

hmm.  So you are saying that edits to genes are beneficial--and yes, I have seen the news.

That doesn't sound like mutation, or chance, or some unthinking natural selection process.  It does sound like an intelligence designed the process, determined the specific chromosomes to edit and actually performed the work.

Now--do the same thing without any intelligence guiding the process in an environment similar to the highly toxic one we supposedly had shortly before life "evolved."

I take it that you credit God with making us intelligent enough, to begin learning the "science" of his Creation. If so, many that value science would agree.

[LilLamb]

I think a simple explanation is that God could have used materials from previous worlds to make our world. Everything they find might be as old as they think it is, only it came from a world that predates ours.

[Mom MD]

You do know that scientists have been studying for decades, looking for ways to treat diseases, etc.?

In the last week, an gene "edit" was performed medically to treat a patient.

The uses of DNA  appear to be well advanced, beyond your present knowledge.

The science of DNA is so well "settled," as to be used in evidence to convict and exonerate suspects in capital crimes, and to establish paternity.

DNA is very solid science. But some still cling to Rev. Benny Hinn, for his "science."

Yes DNA is solid science.  And most Christians will shun Benny Hinn more thoroughly than you do.  Dont try to paint us with that brush.  Science and religion can coexist.  In fact we need religion or at least a well developed ethical system to put some boundaries around science.  Just because you can do something, does not mean that you should or that it is a good idea.

[Mom MD]

I think a simple explanation is that God could have used materials from previous worlds to make our world. Everything they find might be as old as they think it is, only it came from a world that predates ours.

Or God could have made the world all grown up.  Adam and Eve were created as full grown adults, not embryos.  But the Bible is silent on what happened before creation, although there are tantalizing hints that the world/universe may have existed in a markedly different form before the fall of Lucifer and his angels....

[Mom MD]

You see nothing.  You limit God to what you can imagine.  Why is it not possible for a being as great as God - the greatest of all - to have lovingly created the universe in a manner that, when seen from within, appears as a random act the those who are the created?   

Instead, you espouse a baby's tale that requires God to have waved a magic wand every time a new creature shows up in the fossil record.  Your fable requires a constant series of acts of creation by God every minute of every day.  How is that not evolution?   But you deny the very facts God sets before you because you cannot accept that God must have done it some way that is outside your weak imagination. 

That, or you espouse a single act of creation, without any follow ups to account for new creatures, which is flatly inconsistent with the facts God has left us.

While I overall appreciate being called weak and lacking in imagination, its been a stimulating conversation. When you get over belittling others because we are not intelligent as you maybe we can talk again.  I believe it is you who limits God, and no one denies a stepwise creation as laid out in the Bible.  I do not wish to renew the crevo wars from TOS, I was hoping people could discuss this in a civil matter here, but apparently not for some.  When you meet the God of my fable, I hope it goes well with you.

[Mom MD]

Yeah?  What mechanism has been shown to exist that adds information to DNA?

@ShadowAce

and adds information to DNA in a beneficial not destructive way.  I have never understood how those who know so much about science think evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are compatible.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Anyone who espouses creationism is clearly afraid of the possibility that God might be smarter and more imaginative than they are, else they wouldn't try to tie Him down to a theory that is so flatly inconsistent with the world - the facts - that God Himself created.

So let me get this straight:  If I differ from you on anything, I am 'afraid'?

By the same token, you must be 'afraid' of whatever I say that differs from your own rationale.

Do you see yet how ridiculous that sounds? 

And BTW, we cannot pretend to know God's ways, no matter how smart you or anyone else thinks.

The closest we have is within the book He gave us.

[Oceander]

So let me get this straight:  If I differ from you on anything, I am 'afraid'?

By the same token, you must be 'afraid' of whatever I say that differs from your own rationale.

Do you see yet how ridiculous that sounds? 

And BTW, we cannot pretend to know God's ways, no matter how smart you or anyone else thinks.

The closest we have is within the book He gave us.

Absolutely not.  It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me and everything to do with the fact that you adhere to a clearly nonsensical theory, a radically nonsensical theory that in fact is denied by the very creation God made. 

[Oceander]

@ShadowAce

and adds information to DNA in a beneficial not destructive way.  I have never understood how those who know so much about science think evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are compatible.

Which simply shows that you know nothing about the laws of thermodynamics. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Absolutely not.  It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me and everything to do with the fact that you adhere to a clearly nonsensical theory, a radically nonsensical theory that in fact is denied by the very creation God made.

So only those who disagree with you are afraid?  Must be a lot of people afraid out there.....

[Bigun]

God is God!  He could turn an Ostrich into an Elephant IF he wanted to but why would he do that since he created both in the first place.