Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: creationists and evolution

  1. #1 creationists and evolution 
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Can i ask a question of creationist scientists, If you believe in the creation of all things from a divine source and not from evolution, how do you explain the evolution of bacteria to survive the medicines in their path?

    Eg antibiotic resistant forms of common bacteria


    This is a genuine question and not for the purpose of proving you wrong, just intersted in your explanation :-D


    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    let me guess their argument
    "Thats micro evolution, we dont belive in macro evolution"


    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    let me guess their argument
    "Thats micro evolution, we dont belive in macro evolution"


    is that the usual response then?
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    ive heard it from creationists
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    That is a common response. There's also a more radical equivocation that nothing is happening at all, which they support with profound misunderstanding, either on purpose or accidental, of basic evolution.
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Since none of the creationists have shown up yet, let me offer this argument on their behalf. They are free to provide a better one at any time.

    The majority of individuals, including those in the sciences, accept evolution, not because they undertand it, but because they have been told it is true. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach: we cannot all investigate every single aspect of science to satisfy ourselves of its authenticity. However, there is a danger, when defending evolution, of simply parroting the established viewpoint, without understanding all the relevant aspects and implications.

    One aspect, admittedly one that is also missed by many creationists, is that there is not, and never has been a Theory of Evolution. There have been many theories. Darwin's was not the first, though it came to prominence, produced a revolution in thinking, and, to some extent, forms the basis of all the current theories.

    This diversity of theories has also produced a diversity of definitions, definitions of evolution itself, and of associated concepts, such as species. Supporters of evolutionary theory have thus constantly moved the goal posts. Certainly, I would not claim that this was done to confuse and discomfort creationists, but it has definitely led to obfuscation of the core matters.

    Darwin was interested, primarily, in the evolution of animals and to a lesser extent of plants. He dealt exclusively with metazoans. He had no interest in microscopic life forms from the point of view of evolution. His focus was on large, multi-celled organisms; organisms whose distinctive characters were readily evident, even to an unskilled observer. It is to the evolution of such forms that we raise objection, not to minor variation in largely inconsequential aspects of tiny, single celled entities.

    Let us even concede, purely for sake of argument, that these changes of character are substantial. What significance has this for changes in character of elephants, or monkeys? The honest, scientific answer has to be 'very little'. And that has to be the answer for two reasons:

    Firstly, these bacteria that are supposedly exhibiting speciation are doing so, not in reality, but within the artificial definitions of species applied to these microscopic lifeforms. It really is ingenuous to accord the same meaning to species for a single celled, primitive, asexual entity, that we do for one that is multicellular, complex and sexual. To believe that some of these character changes produce new species is to distort the original meaning beyond breaking point.
    (This is not to say that sceintists may not choose to call such variants 'species', but to pretend an identity with the 'species' amongst mammals, or fish, or birds, is either to be very ignorant, or intellectually dishonest to a remarkable degree.)

    Secondly, these changes are taking place within prokaryotes. Such organisms have their genetic material spread randomly through the cell, not concentrated in a nucleus. In such an unstructured environment we might readily expect change to possible, indeed inevitable. The animal and plant species placed here by the Creator have their genetic material restrained within the structure of the nucleus of the cell. Such an environment is likely to suppress change, not encourage it.

    In short, adaptation of single celled, prokaryotic, micro-organisms is wholly irrelevant to the alleged evolution of multi celled, eukaryotic macro-organisms. To disprove the view that such animals were created the scientists must address only these organisms, and not appeal to the incidental qualities of the bacterial kingdom.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Are there currently any participants in the forum who would defend Creation "science"? The Islamic prof might repudiate evolution, but seems more interested in seeking converts to Islam.

    In response to Ophiolite:

    Since the purpose of sex is genetic exchange then we can merely look to the prokaryotic method of direct exchange in its place when defining a species. Surely prokaryotic organisms are not capable of direct genetic exchange with just any other prokariotic organism?

    On second thought, I know that some bacteria can do this (direct genetic exchange) but perhaps not all prokaryotic organisms, in which case it would not be such a good definition of prokaryotic species, in which case the species would have to be defined arbitrarily as you say.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    I agree with what your saying about darwin not studying the micro oganisms, That is not all i base my belief in evolution on :wink: just a quick question that i wondered about as its one of those times when potentially science and religion come together

    Eg a christian doctor working in virology etc I thought about it after the other thread i did recently of the mutation in a gene which could potentially make some people safe/safer from HIV virus

    One question, why would the genetic material restrained within the nucleus of the cell suppress change?

    surely its the genetic mutations at that level that causes the difference's that would either help or hinder a plant or mammal for instance have the edge over the others without the mutations
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •