Serious Evolution/Creation debate

[Pappy777]

I'm not normally an active person on forums but noticed the need for truth here from reading through. Ok I want people to explain to me (or anyone) why evolution is a viable scientific model. Before we start I will share just a few confusions that make this a one sided debate most of the time, such as this is not religion vs. science because ultimately naturalism (evolution/atheism) is a religion in itself.

Something that secular scientists have stopped doing is differentiating between observational science and historical science. Observational science is using your five senses to gather information and use the information to make predictions and build technologies. Historical science is using the information you gather to try and figure out the past, historical science is not observable, repeatable, or testable which is where religion comes in. By combining these two types of sciences and asserting evolutionary historical science is correct they make creationists seem "anti-science" going so far as to say belief in evolution is necessary to create technology (the inventor of the MRI scanner was a Biblical Creationist).

The scientific method, understanding of the laws of nature, and surgical hygiene were derived from biblical principals. Interpretation of the evidence depends on what your worldview is, evolutionism is a naturalist worldview starting with the theories of men, while creationism is a Christian worldview starting with the word of God. For example the fossil record, evolutionists would say they are the result of millions of years of death and evolving, while creationists say they are the result of the global flood. Evidence against the evolution worldview would be the lack of indisputable transitional forms (which there are none by the way) out of the billions of fossils and the fact that there are marine fossils on top of Mount Everest, also fossils from "millions of years ago" that scientists have declared extinct have been found, no different then their fossils. There is so much more to be discussed so please ask questions or tell me why evolution is correct, the only rule is to remain civil.

 

[Phione]

WALL OF TEXT WARNING

I believe in evolution very strongly, mostly because it completely fits in accordance with all other laws of science scientists have very nearly proved, while creation involves creating something out of nothing. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. The Big Bang fits this as well because no new matter was created - it was all there, in the form of energy, since E = MC squared. But let's not make this about that, or any other form of science.

I want to talk about some common arguments I hear. Firstly, the Boeing 747 argument - that the chances of evolution producing a human being are comparable to a tornado in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747. This argument is silly for mainly the reason that complex beings did not evolve in one step - more like billions of them. If you see humanity as some sort of end product to evolution, then you are wrong. Humanity is just another organism - albeit an extraordinarily smart one - and will continue to evolve should situations requiring it arise. Of course, that is far less likely now, given humans live for longer than they did and are not culled by predators for bad genes. Onward. The very existence pof God, in fact - an intelligent being with near or true omnipotence somehow existing in void for infinity - is much more of an unlikely event than certain genes helping members of species live, and thus living long enough to reproduce and pass on said genes. A God's existence is also much, MUCH more unlikely than a tornado building a jetliner.

Next on the list, Specified Complexity. This argues, if I understand it correctly, that the chances of an eye just HAPPENING to exist are miniscule. Evolution is random, and therefore, if such a thing happened, the chances would be so low that it must have been instigated by a divine being.

My answer to that is that evolution is random in the sense that it is shaped by randomly occuring events in nature, but it is not adding completely random body parts. If organisms develop a large, useless bone on their forehead that weighs them down, don't you think they would be less likely to survive then those who instead develop primitive eyes that allow them to tell differences in light? Who would pass on genes? (Hint: B.) And if you claim that such perfection in our bodies means intelligent design was necessary, I would argue that our bodies are far from perfect. Our eyes see upside down and backwards for no apparent reason, costing us brainpower to straighten the image. We have two apparently useless body parts, the appendix and the tonsil, which probably served our ancestors some purpose but are still with us today. Evidently, evolution has not yet smoothed out some quirks and perhaps never will given our lifestyle, something that would be unnecessary for intelligent design.

Irreducible complexity. This says we are so complex that evolution could not have designed us. I would retort that A. We had many intermediary stages, and B. The existence of a god just being there in void is far too complex, and therefore must have been designed by another, more powerful god, who suffers from the same restrictions.

What use is a half-wing or a half-eye? Well, we would never have had a half-eye, because such an object would be useless and prohibiting. A far more likely explanation would be that the bodies of early organisms developed compounds that would respond to light. Those compounds became slowly stronger and formed to recognize directions, and took on a spherical shape. A lens developed, etc. etc. A half eye is not needed. For a half-wing, such appendages could have started out simply as devices for catching prey (bugs), and slowly evolved into gliding wings and finally proper ones.

You also could say that you're offended by the notion that we uses to be monkeys. I would not answer for obvious reasons.

Tl;dr: I tried to counter theist arguments and can't think of a way to paraphrase what I said. Yeah. Big wall of text.

 

[Pappy777]

Darwinian evolution confirmed

Naw, in all seriousness, I'm more of an evolutionist. Mostly because it's been confirmed by science. Religion never really has had any strong evidence other than a book backing it up.
Maybe that's just me.

Could I ask what in observational science has confirmed evolution? And there have been many archeological digs that have confirmed the accuracy of the biblical record including an Egyptian slave name list, an overwhelming majority of which were Hebrew, dating to the time the Bible says the Israelites were enslaved. That is one of many but there is also thousands of prophesies in the Bible, the only ones not fulfilled are the ones yet to come, some have been fulfilled in the last hundred years. (Look up "The Daniel Project" it's on netflix if you have it) Also the Bible makes scientific claims that until recently were thought to be nonsense (the expanding universe and only "one race" of humans as an example)

 

[KM]

Could I ask what in observational science has confirmed evolution? And there have been many archeological digs that have confirmed the accuracy of the biblical record including an Egyptian slave name list, an overwhelming majority of which were Hebrew, dating to the time the Bible says the Israelites were enslaved. That is one of many but there is also thousands of prophesies in the Bible, the only ones not fulfilled are the ones yet to come, some have been fulfilled in the last hundred years. (Look up "The Daniel Project" it's on netflix if you have it) Also the Bible makes scientific claims that until recently were thought to be nonsense (the expanding universe and only "one race" of humans as an example)

by picking a couple of the tens of thousands of prophecies, laws, and predictions in the Bible, you are engaging in a clear practice of confirmation bias - you are picking and choosing the things that confirm your belief - although they may be little more than coincidence - while ignoring the rest.

the bible may have some merit as a historical text, but this hardly confirms every single word of scripture in it as god-given and immutable. Consider, for instance, that a group of scientists find out that a heavy flood occurred at the point where and when the Bible purports that Noah built his ark, and that this also matched up with other mythologies - like the Greek one of Deucalion and Pyrrha. This in no way proves the validity of the bible other than its ties with history. In a world lacking of much scientific research, the main explanation for natural events and disasters was the gods - is it so preposterous to believe that ancient peoples experienced a great flood and then attributed it to the cleansing of human sin as a coping mechanism and explanation?

The reason the bible has managed to convince people of its legitimacy for so long is because of these shreds of generic truth in the sea of specific nonsense. it's the reason that people can completely ignore the wide swaths of leviticus that maintain that their daily activities are sinful and the ancient laws that require women to marry their rapists, because there are still enough vague prophecies and contradictions to affirm a belief regardless of the inaccuracies. It's the same reason that horoscopes and palm readers work - the Barnam effect.

There still lacks any proof that the bible and the religion it supports is anything other than human-made. all of the most "holy" places and people of the christian world have proven themselves to not be any less fallible than any other - the papacy, which is thought to be represented by a perfect human who embodies the principles of the church and is a direct conduit of God's word, has suffered extreme corruption, scandal, and political struggles - which seems to suggest that it's no different than any other position of power in the world.

 

[FrankSteel]

I feel like religions were created because early man couldn't explain why a lot of things happened, so they used supernatural forces as their explanation. Now that we actually have an explanation people don't want to accept it because religion has been around longer. My biggest problem with religion is that there are too many arguments and wars over religion, I try to be accepting of other view points, but sometimes I feel like we would be better off without religion.

Side note: I'm a practicing Catholic. Devout Atheist.

 

[Pappy777]

WALL OF TEXT WARNING

I believe in evolution very strongly, mostly because it completely fits in accordance with all other laws of science scientists have very nearly proved, while creation involves creating something out of nothing. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. The Big Bang fits this as well because no new matter was created - it was all there, in the form of energy, since E = MC squared. But let's not make this about that, or any other form of science.

I want to talk about some common arguments I hear. Firstly, the Boeing 747 argument - that the chances of evolution producing a human being are comparable to a tornado in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747. This argument is silly for mainly the reason that complex beings did not evolve in one step - more like billions of them. If you see humanity as some sort of end product to evolution, then you are wrong. Humanity is just another organism - albeit an extraordinarily smart one - and will continue to evolve should situations requiring it arise. Of course, that is far less likely now, given humans live for longer than they did and are not culled by predators for bad genes. Onward. The very existence pof God, in fact - an intelligent being with near or true omnipotence somehow existing in void for infinity - is much more of an unlikely event than certain genes helping members of species live, and thus living long enough to reproduce and pass on said genes. A God's existence is also much, MUCH more unlikely than a tornado building a jetliner.

Next on the list, Specified Complexity. This argues, if I understand it correctly, that the chances of an eye just HAPPENING to exist are miniscule. Evolution is random, and therefore, if such a thing happened, the chances would be so low that it must have been instigated by a divine being.

My answer to that is that evolution is random in the sense that it is shaped by randomly occuring events in nature, but it is not adding completely random body parts. If organisms develop a large, useless bone on their forehead that weighs them down, don't you think they would be less likely to survive then those who instead develop primitive eyes that allow them to tell differences in light? Who would pass on genes? (Hint: B.) And if you claim that such perfection in our bodies means intelligent design was necessary, I would argue that our bodies are far from perfect. Our eyes see upside down and backwards for no apparent reason, costing us brainpower to straighten the image. We have two apparently useless body parts, the appendix and the tonsil, which probably served our ancestors some purpose but are still with us today. Evidently, evolution has not yet smoothed out some quirks and perhaps never will given our lifestyle, something that would be unnecessary for intelligent design.

Irreducible complexity. This says we are so complex that evolution could not have designed us. I would retort that A. We had many intermediary stages, and B. The existence of a god just being there in void is far too complex, and therefore must have been designed by another, more powerful god, who suffers from the same restrictions.

What use is a half-wing or a half-eye? Well, we would never have had a half-eye, because such an object would be useless and prohibiting. A far more likely explanation would be that the bodies of early organisms developed compounds that would respond to light. Those compounds became slowly stronger and formed to recognize directions, and took on a spherical shape. A lens developed, etc. etc. A half eye is not needed. For a half-wing, such appendages could have started out simply as devices for catching prey (bugs), and slowly evolved into gliding wings and finally proper ones.

You also could say that you're offended by the notion that we uses to be monkeys. I would not answer for obvious reasons.

Tl;dr: I tried to counter theist arguments and can't think of a way to paraphrase what I said. Yeah. Big wall of text.

Yet it violates this law of science, life cannot come from non life. Where did the matter come from? Something would of had to come from nothing at some point in time naturally. And matter cannot be created or destroyed in a natural setting, while creation would be a supernatural event, involving an infinite God not bound by any natural laws as we are.

The Boeing argument also is referring to probability, rather than any details about either events. And the existence of God cannot be put into probability so who's to say what's more unlikely, you're naturalist worldview is what makes it so unlikely to you.

The eye has about 20 different parts, each with different layers and sub parts, if there was any part that didn't work, the eye would cease to function. That is the amazing complexity in the human eye that evolution cannot account for. Even Darwin said that it is "absurd in the highest degree" for the eye to of evolved. The appendix is now known to be a part of the immune system, strategically located at the entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high bacterial content. The tonsils have a similar function in the entrance to the pharynx. The idea of vestigial organs has been disproven. Our bodies are far from perfect due to the fact that thousands of years has passed, in a fallen world, from the originally created perfect humans. And there would be no need for a "more powerful god" when the Creator God is not bound by the laws he put in place to keep our world balanced. And I believe the human brain is limited to under 5% of its total capacity/power, so there is really no way for us to comprehend Him entirely.

The age of the Earth (as well as the universe) are restricted to be far far less than what is required of evolution. An example would be that if the universe was older than 100,000 years there would be no comets left, they would all of died by now. And while evolutionary scientists have dreamt up theories on how to get around this problem, there is not a shred of evidence for the leading theories. Also diamonds have proven the age of the Earth to be younger than they say, given the decay rate of radiocarbon there would be none left after a couple hundred thousand years. Yet we find significant amounts in diamonds (supposedly billions of years old) and fossils that are said to be millions of years.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

"There are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said, 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so.'" - Mark Twain

So if we're created in God's image, why do we have vestigial body parts? The appendix does nothing but explode. Also, we're created in God's image, but apparently we have to slice off our foreskins? What?

But other than that, there's simply no evidence for creationism. This isn't even a debate.

 

[Phione]

For your "life from nothing" argument, how do you define life? The life didn't come from nowhere. The very first life would have simply been compounds that link together and sustain each other.

 

[macle]

The problem with arguing with creationists is that they can just ignore evidence or make ridiculous claims. Fossils? Planted by Satan to deceive people. Radioactive dating? They don't understand it so it doesn't matter.

If there are any strict creationists here, hello Deck Knight , one of my questions to you is that do you believe that species change and the changes can be heritable? Are all the species on earth atm created by god or have new species been created?

 

[Pappy777]

by picking a couple of the tens of thousands of prophecies, laws, and predictions in the Bible, you are engaging in a clear practice of confirmation bias - you are picking and choosing the things that confirm your belief - although they may be little more than coincidence - while ignoring the rest.

the bible may have some merit as a historical text, but this hardly confirms every single word of scripture in it as god-given and immutable. Consider, for instance, that a group of scientists find out that a heavy flood occurred at the point where and when the Bible purports that Noah built his ark, and that this also matched up with other mythologies - like the Greek one of Deucalion and Pyrrha. This in no way proves the validity of the bible other than its ties with history. In a world lacking of much scientific research, the main explanation for natural events and disasters was the gods - is it so preposterous to believe that ancient peoples experienced a great flood and then attributed it to the cleansing of human sin as a coping mechanism and explanation?

The reason the bible has managed to convince people of its legitimacy for so long is because of these shreds of generic truth in the sea of specific nonsense. it's the reason that people can completely ignore the wide swaths of leviticus that maintain that their daily activities are sinful and the ancient laws that require women to marry their rapists, because there are still enough vague prophecies and contradictions to affirm a belief regardless of the inaccuracies. It's the same reason that horoscopes and palm readers work - the Barnam effect.

There still lacks any proof that the bible and the religion it supports is anything other than human-made. all of the most "holy" places and people of the christian world have proven themselves to not be any less fallible than any other - the papacy, which is thought to be represented by a perfect human who embodies the principles of the church and is a direct conduit of God's word, has suffered extreme corruption, scandal, and political struggles - which seems to suggest that it's no different than any other position of power in the world.

That is a false assumption to say that I ignore parts of the Bible, especially when I believe every word is God given. Plus I said that every prophecy has been fulfilled besides the ones yet to pass, I chose the few in the Daniel project because those ones arent confirmed only in scripture, you can observe and test them to be true, by using examples of say the prophecies of Jesus where the only confirmation is in scripture I would be using circular reasoning.

And the many flood/creation legends of pagan cultures provides support because Noah and his sons would of told future generations of creation and the flood judgement. After the different groups left Babel the stories would still be passed down, but as the cultures became more pagan the stories would start changing slightly to fit the new religious belief/culture, which is why there are different tellings of the true account. And the Bible is very compelling because of the MANY truths, and please describe this "sea of nonsense" you refer to. I would also love to hear of these supposed "inaccuracies." And if archeological evidence as well as testable prophecies don't convince you its something more than just a book, it exposes your willful ignorance.

Also you are referring to the Catholic church, which has been corrupt since it formed and is not an appropriate representation of the Christian faith. Alot of Christains think they are the apostate church the Bible talks about.

 

[Myzozoa]

False dichotomy, there is no reason to suppose that evolution and the existence of a creator are contradictory. The existence of 'non-optimal' morphologies does not contradict anything predicted by analysis via appeal to evolution. Evolution is a set of terms used to explain things that have actually happened, few (I hope) other than evopsychologists and pseudo-biologists use evolution as a prescription or soothsayer. 'Evolution' deals with adaptations to environments, but does not insist on instant perfect adaptation, and what 'perfect' adaptation is, given an environment, is another separate discussion. And to reiterate, neither does evolution intend to predict future states of affairs, or prescribe certain lifestyles.

If people suppose any analytic tool is a religion then all those who speak language are faithful.

 

[Tomahawk]

This is one of the worst debates ever. There is no proof for creation at all, there just isn't. Sorry religious fanatics. What pisses me off is when creationists say that there is no proof for evolution, and when proof is mentioned (there is a lot), they ignore it or do what macle said. It's like (similar to those who don't let their kids get vaccinated.. terrible) when there are 100 sources, 99 saying evolution is true and 1 saying it's false, they will show you that 1 and talk all about how that proofs creationism.

The worst part is, and I can't speak from personal experience since I don't live in USA, that there are schools teaching this. I've seen posts on Reddit (unsubscribed to r/atheism a long time ago but I can still remember) that show textbooks used in eg Texas that say that evolution is bullshit and that creationism is the truth. Answering some answers rightfully/correctly gets you an F, and subjective questions (eg is god real? this question should never ever be asked) have a 'correct' answer (god is real).

 

[Pappy777]

"There are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said, 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so.'" - Mark Twain

So if we're created in God's image, why do we have vestigial body parts? The appendix does nothing but explode. Also, we're created in God's image, but apparently we have to slice off our foreskins? What?

But other than that, there's simply no evidence for creationism. This isn't even a debate.

As I said before these "vestigial" organs have uses that have been discovered, the appendix plays apart in the immune system for example, and the circumcision was initially the covenant between man and God, but it is probable that God foresaw the problems the foreskin would cause in the future, he did not create man with the need to cut the foreskin, that became necessary later, after the fallen world took its toll on man. And the evidence is everywhere, creationists have the same evidence evolutionists do, its the presuppositions both groups have that determines how they interpret the evidence. (See the fossil example in the original post)

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

As I said before these "vestigial" organs have uses that have been discovered, the appendix plays apart in the immune system for example, and the circumcision was initially the covenant between man and God, but it is probable that God foresaw the problems the foreskin would cause in the future, he did not create man with the need to cut the foreskin, that became necessary later, after the fallen world took its toll on man. And the evidence is everywhere, creationists have the same evidence evolutionists do, its the presuppositions both groups have that determines how they interpret the evidence. (See the fossil example in the original post)

Your "evidence" comes from a book written by man some thousands of years ago, before we really understood science the way we do now. Now that we understand science, there is no reason to believe anything in the bible, especially since the opening lines of it are factually wrong. Why should we believe the rest?

Also, if you don't like my appendix example, how about those muscles that you use to wiggle your ears? Useless. Darwin's tubercule? Useless. Coccyx? Useless. Wisdom teeth? More of a nuisance than anything & up to 35% of people no longer even develop them.

Either way, you'll just ignore all evidence that contradicts your point, so I'm done.

 

[Photo]

The sheer complexity of developmental biology right through to even the most basic of organisms can't really be put in perspective. People who believe that God crafted humans in his like just seem kinda uninformed imo. God, just like heaven, and to some people marriage, sports, video games and so on, are a comfort. If life is shit, well I'll still have God on my side and get into heaven is a pretty similar concept to if life is shit I can escape into video games imo.

 

[FrankSteel]

Just take a natural science course at any respectable college, there is plenty of evidence behind evolution. I went to church every week for 20 years and it's all just believe it and don't ask questions.

 

[Pappy777]

The problem with arguing with creationists is that they can just ignore evidence or make ridiculous claims. Fossils? Planted by Satan to deceive people. Radioactive dating? They don't understand it so it doesn't matter.

If there are any strict creationists here, hello Deck Knight , one of my questions to you is that do you believe that species change and the changes can be heritable? Are all the species on earth atm created by god or have new species been created?

Did you even read the original post? Fossils are from the global flood, burying life rapidly which is why fossils are well preserved, and why you don't find "transitional forms". Radioactive dating uses circular reasoning. Say a glass of water is half full, knowing the rate it goes down from evaporation one can date when the glass was filled. But what if the glass was filled to a point much lower than you assume? Or what if someone took a drink at one point? See where I'm going with this?

And to your question: God created original "kinds" which is close to (but not limited to) the family classification level. These"kinds" were the ones brought on the Ark and through natural selection became all the species you see today. What alot of people don't know is the idea of natural selection originated from a creationist to explain what I just explained with the different kinds, natural and artificial selection both have been observed to mutate or eliminate genetic code causing the change we can observe. It has never been observed to add information to the genetic code which is required for evolution, but it has been observed to cause a loss of information. Which is how you get a poodle from a wolf (does that seem like beneficial change to you? )

This is one of the worst debates ever. There is no proof for creation at all, there just isn't. Sorry religious fanatics. What pisses me off is when creationists say that there is no proof for evolution, and when proof is mentioned (there is a lot), they ignore it or do what macle said. It's like (similar to those who don't let their kids get vaccinated.. terrible) when there are 100 sources, 99 saying evolution is true and 1 saying it's false, they will show you that 1 and talk all about how that proofs creationism.

The worst part is, and I can't speak from personal experience since I don't live in USA, that there are schools teaching this. I've seen posts on Reddit (unsubscribed to r/atheism a long time ago but I can still remember) that show textbooks used in eg Texas that say that evolution is bullshit and that creationism is the truth. Answering some answers rightfully/correctly gets you an F, and subjective questions (eg is god real? this question should never ever be asked) have a 'correct' answer (god is real).

Well like I keep saying the evidences are the same for both historical sciences, it's the bias on what the person believes to be true that dictates the interpretation. And the majority is not always correct, this is a testable and provable fact. And quite contrary to what you think, teaching creationism is illegal in United States public schools, so that was most likely a private or home school.

 

[Tomahawk]

Well like I keep saying the evidences are the same for both historical sciences, it's the bias on what the person believes to be true that dictates the interpretation. And the majority is not always correct, this is a testable and provable fact. And quite contrary to what you think, teaching creationism is illegal in United States public schools, so that was most likely a private or home school.

1) Creationists just say this to get the moral higher ground, but it's simply not true. I agree the majory is not always correct, but science usually is.

2) Ok good.


I am glad to live in the Netherlands where p much all religious people I have encountered still believe in evolution.

 

[Pappy777]

Your "evidence" comes from a book written by man some thousands of years ago, before we really understood science the way we do now. Now that we understand science, there is no reason to believe anything in the bible, especially since the opening lines of it are factually wrong. Why should we believe the rest?

Also, if you don't like my appendix example, how about those muscles that you use to wiggle your ears? Useless. Darwin's tubercule? Useless. Coccyx? Useless. Wisdom teeth? More of a nuisance than anything & up to 35% of people no longer even develop them.

Either way, you'll just ignore all evidence that contradicts your point, so I'm done.

My evidence is the fossil record, the rock layers, the exact same evidence you have. There is nothing in observational science that proves the Bible wrong, nor that the opening lines are false. And the fact we can't use every function we were created with is because of thousands of years living in a fallen world. See how this is a battle of worldviews and not evidences?

Just take a natural science course at any respectable college, there is plenty of evidence behind evolution. I went to church every week for 20 years and it's all just believe it and don't ask questions.

They teach you their worldview as indesputable fact, taking away chance for argument and people actually using their critical thinking skills. And churches that don't teach people how to defend their faith and say it's all believe don't ask questions are contradictory to Bible teachings. Even Jesus said to test the word, to doubt it to an extent, it's not about blind faith.

1) Creationists just say this to get the moral higher ground, but it's simply not true. I agree the majory is not always correct, but science usually is.

2) Ok good.


I am glad to live in the Netherlands where p much all religious people I have encountered still believe in evolution.

Observational science does not say evolution is true. It's the interpretation of naturalist/atheist people that says it is, which is historical science.

For your "life from nothing" argument, how do you define life? The life didn't come from nowhere. The very first life would have simply been compounds that link together and sustain each other.

It was "life from non life" and by that I mean you can't get life sustaining amino acids from a pool of chemicals

 

[Demoness]

It was "life from non life" and by that I mean you can't get life sustaining amino acids from a pool of chemicals

Considering that amino acids are made from chemicals (more specifically chemical compounds), yes you can.

 

[Pappy777]

Considering that amino acids are made from chemicals (more specifically chemical compounds), yes you can.

The trick is they have to be life sustaining, only levorotatory amino acids can make up the proteins that sustains life, any dextrorotatory amino acids present and that's going to make it quite complicated, and by that I mean impossible, for anything living to come about. And its been attempted to prove it possible, but failed. Not to mention the initial conditions necessary to create these amino acids naturally would in turn destroy them fairly quickly.

 

[mattj]

Just so it's been said, I'm a creationist, and I have many objections to the most common theories involving evolution, but I disagree with 99% of what was said in the OP and the way it was said and the way the topic was approached. We are not all Ken Hamm.

 

[billymills]

Moderator stand point:
I'll let this go as long as it appears to be going back and forth. I reserve the right to edit portions of posts that veer off topic. This thread is for discussing evolution and creation and any disputes between their supporters. It can include tangential topics such as origin of life and adherence to religious texts only as they relate to evolution and creation.

 

[mattj]

Also, if you don't like my appendix example, how about those muscles that you use to wiggle your ears? Useless. Darwin's tubercule? Useless. Coccyx? Useless. Wisdom teeth? More of a nuisance than anything & up to 35% of people no longer even develop them.

Either way, you'll just ignore all evidence that contradicts your point, so I'm done.

When I was young, and they brought up the idea of vestigial organs in middle school, the idea seriously bothered me. Look at the appendix. Look at hip bones in snakes and whales. They obviously don't serve a purpose. Why would a creator put them there? Can't you see how they are evidence that at one point, a long time ago, these species needed these organs, but have since changed so significantly that those organs aren't necessary any more? It really made me question what I was taught, (which is never a bad thing, though often uncomfortable), and for some time doubt the Bible's creation account.

However, today I'm convinced that vestigial organs don't exist.

Your appendix example has already been addressed. I don't know about you, but as a hunter and outdoorsman I use those muscles to tune my ears without having to turn my body so that seems like a rather odd example to bring up. You didn't mention hip bones, but that was a pretty common one that had a large impact on my youth, so this recent story making the rounds in the news was interesting to me personally. Name another allegedly useless body part in any organism. I'll gladly link you to someone explaining why said organ is still useful.

I find it amusing that you would accuse creationists of ignoring evidence that contradicts your point. Claims have been made for nigh on 150 years now that this or that allegedly vestigial organ supports the theory of evolution. But just like your famous appendix example, and just like the famous whale hip bone example I was confronted with as a youth, every single time someone says "this organ doesn't serve a purpose" someone discovers that it does.

Who is ignoring evidence in this particular case?

 

[mien]

There is nothing in observational science that proves the Bible wrong, nor that the opening lines are false.

Are you implying that it is scientifically possible to contain 2 members of every single species on the planet on a wooden boat roughly half the size of the titanic, while keeping each and every one alive for over a year?