Evolution or Creation

[Faultydesign]

Then I question the desire to evolve. Where does that come from? I big hang up that I have is that gender evolved and the the entire reproductive process. Why would something evolve the means to reproduce? That just means more competition for the food source.

[Oneironaut]

What? If something didn't evolve a means to reproduce, then it would die. All organisms have means of reproducing, or they wouldn't have had a way to get here.

But if you're asking about sexual reproduction, there is a clear advantage to sex: it mixes up the genes. Bacteria and other asexual organisms can only produce copies of themselves. Genetic change can only occur when the DNA is exposed to radiation or the makes a copying error. However, among sexually reproducing organisms like humans, half your DNA comes from your mother and half from your father. This makes it so that each individual has unique DNA, and the process by which better genes propagate themselves is made much quicker.

[Faultydesign]

First, are you familiar with the "Bombadeer Beatle"?

[tyrantowns]

I think that our mind is incapable of even coming close to finding out our beginning.
I guess we have to evolve some more :thumbsup: .

We've only begun to understand cells, wait a century and we may have it.

[Oneironaut]

First, are you familiar with the "Bombadeer Beatle"?

Yes, I am. The reason the beetle was able to evolve that way is because there is a catalyst necessary for the explosion to happen. In small doses this catalyst can provide a stinging heat, in sufficient amounts it actually causes ignition, and there are many working theories for how a steadily increasing amount of the catalyst could have created such a system gradually, if you actually bother to read what evolutionary biologists have to say about it. This particular beetle is a favorite for the old argument from personal incredulity. "I personally can't think of a way such a complex system could have evolved, therefore there is no way it could have evolved."

[da haze meister]

ok dude evolution is currently pwning creation 1 to 0
sorry to insult you faulty

[Oneironaut]

Kent Hovind says that they are dragons who used to live alongside humanity, and that's why we have all these legends of dragons.

Some other creationists think dinosaur fossils were put here by Satan to trick us into disbelieving the Bible.

http://www.truechristian.com/dinosaurs.html

[mojoke]

no, it doesnt. it teaches that people started when the conditions in the hot thin soup were right to form amino acids and proteins and shit which are the building blocks of life i think. then shit went from there

i bet you got a C in biology.

[forwonderbear]

I am not standing on the scientific proof of a creator God.

However, trying to agrue macro-evolution as science is an incredibly flawed principle.

yes, biogenesis is the problem: biogenesis means life only comes from life. but all "laws" aside, the hard part of macro-evo is the "amino acid soup" idea. once evolutionists take their theories back to the part of "genesis" you still have tremendous problems with a living organism arriving out of innanimate parts.

but forget about that: what about where even that innanimate MATTER came from? scientists talk about the big bang. but the problem there is that there had to be SOMETHING there to "bang" in the first place. scientists call this moment the singularity. but no one will talk about what happened before the singularity. where did that tiny piece of matter come from?

now, you of course would have the same problem with god. where did god come from? my point is in the end either you have eternal god (living being) or eternal matter (eternal matter). my point is in the end it's not more "scientific" to believe there is "no god". in the end you have to take on faith where EXISTANCE came from in the first place.

there are many parts of evolutionary science that i find very valid: survival of the fitest/genetic change through selective breading etc.

i am a christian, and i will also not say i have scientific proof of god. i admit readily that i believe in god on faith, not because it has been proven to me. i do however feel god's influence everywhere, but once again this is subjective of course

btw: i love science. i'm a biology/neurobiology student and i find scientific learning fascinating, of course especially living things (bios=life; ology=study)

blah blah good luck to y'all and peace!

[forwonderbear]

Da haze...what do dinosaurs have to do with proving evolution?

well, other than leviathin i don't think they're mentioned in the bible. there is the "gap" theory that there is an amount of time between genesis 1:1 and 1:2. the hebrew has some interesting clues here. i'm not sure if i believe it or not. there is also the theory that the "days" of creation are not literal 24hour days. i used to believe strongly that they were 24hour days, but now i'm not so sure. god created the sun and moon on the 4th so it seems a bit strange to me if the previous three days were 24hours. not sure where i stand on that

btw: i spent a couple years studying biblical languages (greek/hebrew)/biblical theology at a christian university. doesn't make me an expert by any means, but if you have any questions on actualy bible verses, i'd be glad to lend a hand with the literal hebrew translations (greek new testament too, but my greek sucks pretty bad )

pps: i hope this thread keeps going. i'm very interested to here in what YOU all think!