RE: Creation vs. Evolution
March 28, 2009 at 10:12 pm
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2009 at 10:14 pm by Demonaura.)
If you are saying that it is literally all faith and all you have to go on is the bible then please hold on while I find my D&D books so I can propose a hypothesis equal to creationisim involving Bahamut's battle with Tiamat over who gets to rule the dragons. I am not trying to poke fun at you but, from my perspective you just told me you have no reason to beleive anything your saying except that the bible says so.
I also do not consider anything from answersingenesis.com to be worth anything, the site is used to demonstrate how bias distorts facts and is no longer useful to anyone except the writer.
I need to be clear, what specifically is information, a new acid base forming? a new trait? if we've shown anything in the last few posts it's that this concept of information is flawed completely so, if you are going to continue using the word please tell me exactly what constitutes a gain or loss of information, what information specifically is on a physical level.
Every fossil supports evolution (is a part of the bigger picturem, they all come together in the end though), you can look up just about any species you want and see the transitional phases, is there one you would prefer we find for you?
No monkeys did not come from humans, NOR did humans ever come from monkeys. Humans and apes share a common ancestor, neither of us existed at that point and this common ancestor has some of it's members evolve towards the path of humans and some evolved towards the path of apes, eventually speciation occured and the two could no longer breed. Thus humanity existed for the first time.
No I don't beleive that everything came from one single, simple cell. I accept the fact that all of our current species are a result of quadrillions of these cells became multicelled organisims, that eventually began to take on traits that increased their ability to survive and became different species based on their environment.
And complexity, even if it was reletive, only the ammount would be so. But, it isn't relative. Like 'information' I'd like to know exactly what you think is our measureing stick for complexity.
So please, before we move on please explain these two words from your definition. I'm far too used to both words being twisted and losing all meaning from people trying to create propaganda and I'm starting to think that's how you were taught to use them. No offence intended I'm only speaking from my perspective.
I also do not consider anything from answersingenesis.com to be worth anything, the site is used to demonstrate how bias distorts facts and is no longer useful to anyone except the writer.
I need to be clear, what specifically is information, a new acid base forming? a new trait? if we've shown anything in the last few posts it's that this concept of information is flawed completely so, if you are going to continue using the word please tell me exactly what constitutes a gain or loss of information, what information specifically is on a physical level.
Every fossil supports evolution (is a part of the bigger picturem, they all come together in the end though), you can look up just about any species you want and see the transitional phases, is there one you would prefer we find for you?
No monkeys did not come from humans, NOR did humans ever come from monkeys. Humans and apes share a common ancestor, neither of us existed at that point and this common ancestor has some of it's members evolve towards the path of humans and some evolved towards the path of apes, eventually speciation occured and the two could no longer breed. Thus humanity existed for the first time.
No I don't beleive that everything came from one single, simple cell. I accept the fact that all of our current species are a result of quadrillions of these cells became multicelled organisims, that eventually began to take on traits that increased their ability to survive and became different species based on their environment.
And complexity, even if it was reletive, only the ammount would be so. But, it isn't relative. Like 'information' I'd like to know exactly what you think is our measureing stick for complexity.
So please, before we move on please explain these two words from your definition. I'm far too used to both words being twisted and losing all meaning from people trying to create propaganda and I'm starting to think that's how you were taught to use them. No offence intended I'm only speaking from my perspective.
