Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[lavakeese]

I think we exist because God created us. Happy? ^_^

[devonin]

That explains -how- we exist (Well, it doesn't actually explain anything because you provided no evidence) but doesn't address the actual question, which was -why- we exist.

[Baby-]

Originally Posted by lavakeese

I think we exist because God created us. Happy? ^_^

Could you elaborate at all??
Im not going to deny your belief, I just dont know what to believe in.
Dust is composed of around 20 chemicals, i think-- well that's what i read in a book, and those chemicals can be found in humans. This would help establish that God could have created us from the dust of the earth as stated in the bible. On the other hand there is a big connection between us and chimps.

[lavakeese]

1-I already told you there is no evidence to provide
2-I believe that God created Adam and Eve, who caused the fall of man, who begat everyone down to Noah, and who populated the world after the flood with his family. I'm not sure there is much else to elaborate. I believe it really is that simple.

[devonin]

Dust is composed of around 20 chemicals, i think-- well that's what i read in a book, and those chemicals can be found in humans. This would help establish that God could have created us from the dust of the earth as stated in the bible.

Now see, that's a bit of fallacious reasoning. Dust isn't "naturally occuring" The reason household dust has a lot in it that 'can be found in humans' is because one of the major componants of dust is dead skin that has come off the body. Cum hoc ergo proptor hoc doesn't apply here.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by lavakeese

1-I already told you there is no evidence to provide

Then you can't use that source in trying to defend your stance.

2-I believe that God created Adam and Eve, who caused the fall of man, who begat everyone down to Noah, and who populated the world after the flood with his family. I'm not sure there is much else to elaborate. I believe it really is that simple.

It isn't really simple at all because of the issues that are commonly brought up about the genetics of "2 people create civilisation" But aside from that, your point 1 completely invalidates your point 2, because you said there's no evidence to support any of these beliefs.

You're perfectly allowed to decide to take things on faith, but if you're going to take things on faith only, you can't use them in the CT forum in a discussion.

[Baby-]

ok, Muffins why do you think we have so much in common with a chimp??

Devonin how come humans became the ' power' of the world when we are so underclass to many animals: such as a lion??

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Baby-

ok, Muffins why do you think we have so much in common with a chimp??

We have about 96% (Don't quite me, I'm almost certainly misremembering) of the same DNA in common with some species of higher primate, but then we also have a good 40% in common with fish. There's less in DNA than a lot of people realise that make things dramatically different from other things.

Devonin how come humans became the ' power' of the world when we are so underclass to many animals: such as a lion??

We are underclass in terms, say, of ability to do damage with our teeth. That doesn't put us below them. A robin can fly and a lion can't, does that make the robin better? We can do math and a lion can't. The human "Ability" is the ability to think, create and use tools. In a one-on-one close up fight, I expect a lion to kill a human 10 times out of 10. But we don't do that, we stand 50 yards away in a vehicle that can move faster than the lion, and shoot it with a high-powered rifle.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by devonin

We have about 96% (Don't quite me, I'm almost certainly misremembering) of the same DNA in common with some species of higher primate, but then we also have a good 40% in common with fish. There's less in DNA than a lot of people realise that make things dramatically different from other things.



We are underclass in terms, say, of ability to do damage with our teeth. That doesn't put us below them. A robin can fly and a lion can't, does that make the robin better? We can do math and a lion can't. The human "Ability" is the ability to think, create and use tools. In a one-on-one close up fight, I expect a lion to kill a human 10 times out of 10. But we don't do that, we stand 50 yards away in a vehicle that can move faster than the lion, and shoot it with a high-powered rifle.

1) Studies have shown human and chimpanzee DNA to be identical anywhere between 96% to 98.8% (source: here) Also, to put it in perspective, if you stretched out the DNA in all of the cells in an adult human being (remaining in a double helix, but losing the supercoil), it would be over 113 billion miles long. If you only stretched out the 46 chromosomes in one cell, it would still be over six feet long. (source: here)

2) I love the whole lion-vehicle comparison. Just saying

[trillobyite]

Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Look up Francis Collins. He was a major player in the human genome project, a strong evolutionist, and a deeply religious man.

[marxandlennon]

Originally Posted by Baby-

Could you elaborate at all??
Im not going to deny your belief, I just dont know what to believe in.
Dust is composed of around 20 chemicals, i think-- well that's what i read in a book, and those chemicals can be found in humans. This would help establish that God could have created us from the dust of the earth as stated in the bible. On the other hand there is a big connection between us and chimps.

Dust comes from us, not the other way around...a huge % of dust is dead skin and such

[lavakeese]

Does the fact that chimps are similar automatically mean we descneded from them? If evolution were true, and as you seem to say humans are "better" then animals, then why are there still chimps? Or why are they so similar to us still? Why didn't they evolve more?

[AOL_blows911]

Originally Posted by lavakeese

Does the fact that chimps are similar automatically mean we descneded from them? If evolution were true, and as you seem to say humans are "better" then animals, then why are there still chimps? Or why are they so similar to us still? Why didn't they evolve more?

Because evolution is not an all-inclusive process. An entire species doesn't just evolve together to the next stage. Evolution comes about as outside stimuli force changes to a species or as a random defect when DNA is copied that happens to be favorable for that specific creature. In either way, the altered gene slowly mixes with a percentage of the origional population over time and that group of the origional whole becomes a new species. It's not the entire species that changes, only a portion of it (for example, the particular group might live in a harsher environment. Animals do migrate, you know).

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by lavakeese

Does the fact that chimps are similar automatically mean we descneded from them?

Trick question. No evolutionist who know the first thing about evolution thinks we descended from chimps.

If evolution were true, and as you seem to say humans are "better" then animals, then why are there still chimps? Or why are they so similar to us still? Why didn't they evolve more?

Again, we didn't evolve from chimps; we had a common ancestor, that is all. Chimps (and all other species of animal) have stayed relatively the same over the years because there's been no pressure to change. And even if there was, such as the food crises that forced some to begin eating roots or migrating to different climates, the population would stabilize to accomodate that stress, leaving the remaining creatures unpressured.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Relambrien]

Let me elaborate for Guido.

Evolution does not state that humans descended from chimpanzees. Anyone who believes this doesn't know the first thing about true evolutionary theory.

What evolutionists believe is that humans and chimpanzees both descended from a third species. Parts of that species evolved into today's chimpanzees, and parts of it went on to evolve into humans. That's why we can appear so different yet have such similar DNA.

[Curlyguy]

DNA is an incredibly complex molecule that contains a specific sort of language that directly or indirectly controls all the processes of an organism. Small random changes in DNA have been known to cause diseases like sickle cell anemia and cancer and never seem to do any good. Organisms that undergo mutations become less fit than others which should make them a victim of natural selction. Wouldn't an accumulation of random changes of DNA cause a devolution of a species because it messes up the specific coding of genes? And how is it that these changes can persist enough to change an entire species when certain molecules like DNA Polymerase proofread DNA sequences to make sure no changes rarely occur?

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Curlyguy

Small random changes in DNA have been known to cause diseases like sickle cell anemia ... and never seem to do any good.

Well, in malaria-stricken areas, sickle cell anemia is actually advantageous.

and cancer

Cancer isn't really hereditary...

Quote from the Cancer wiki:

Most forms of cancer are "sporadic", and have no basis in heredity. There are, however, a number of recognised syndromes of cancer with a hereditary component, often a defective tumor suppressor allele.

Wouldn't an accumulation of random changes of DNA cause a devolution of a species because it messes up the specific coding of genes?

Gene resequencing happens every time a child is conceived and doesn't throw us all off. Random mutations can be beneficial and thus give way to evolution. They can be neutral, and nothing happens, or they can be harmful and die out (thus not affecting the species as a whole), much like you said in the sentence before the above quote.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Sir_Thomas]

First page someone once said "How could things work so well together if its not God."


Well... it doesnt.
Example: This planet doesnt work well with the human species... seeing that
it wasnt "built" to adapt to our rapid growth in intelligence, and the damage that could be done with the byproducts of our intelligence.

This planet wasnt "built" to release the green house gasses and it wasnt built to adapt to a build up of said gasses.

[Curlyguy]

That's an intriguing point by Sir_Thomas ...I think a good question to ask is whether most of the problems with our planet exist because of an imperfect, constantly evolving world or the world has been created essentially perfect and human intervention and fallacy has led it to become imperfect...if it is human intervention than isn't it possible it wouldn't be the fault of intelligent designer but rather the human races own free will?
It would be interesting to see if someone can bring up an example where the world is imperfect that doesn't have human intervention......

[LOLdevin]

I'm not trying to be anti-religious but there's no way that the world was created by a lame form of david blaine haha. I mean god by that for those of you who didn't catch on.