NationStates Jolt Archive

I think Evolution is total BS, and is there any real proof? I don't think so

I think Evolution is total BS, and is there any real proof? I don't think so

if you peice together the focile reccord it starts to make some sense

EVOLUTION-Science or Fiction?

Hypothesis (well, more correctly "theory") as yet unfalsified by science.

I really don't give either much credit. Creationism lacks any evidence that I'm aware of outside the Bible and evolution can't explain why there would be people who need glasses to see (without glasses, I, for example, can only see clearly about 1 ft. away. How long would I have lasted before glasses were invented?)

Hypothesis (well, more correctly "theory") as yet unfalsified by science.

*ding ding ding*
we have a winner!

I really don't give either much credit. Creationism lacks any evidence that I'm aware of outside the Bible and evolution can't explain why there would be people who need glasses to see (without glasses, I, for example, can only see clearly about 1 ft. away. How long would I have lasted before glasses were invented?)

Simple, nearsightedness is a recessive trait, and is only coming back to be common because of the evolutionary pressures holding down the trait have been removed.

evolution can't explain why there would be people who need glasses to see (without glasses, I, for example, can only see clearly about 1 ft. away. How long would I have lasted before glasses were invented?)
Evolution isn't here to explain that.

Wait you're kidding aren't you?

Here we go again. *joy* :rolleyes:

Evolutionary Theory: A scientific theory, supported by quite a bit of evidence if you're willing to accept the evidence.

Plus don't forget to go into the difference between Macro and Micro evolution! God knows we can't forget that debate.

the bible may not be considered science to many people but according to the bible there was a world wide flood which oddly has been part of some ancient cultures even though the stories may be slightly different than the one in the bible.

Wait you're kidding aren't you?

No, I'm serious.

the bible may not be considered science to many people but according to the bible there was a world wide flood which oddly has been part of some ancient cultures even though the stories may be slightly different than the one in the bible.


There is no evidence of a world wide flood kiddo, but if you want to take a small piece of the earth and remember that everyone on earth came from that same place and call that the flood in the Bible, go ahead. Sorry kiddo.

Depending on how you define science...

If you define it like Carl Popper then it probably isn't.


Just because all the other theories have more holes in them then evolution does, dosen't mean that evolution is automatically science, of course.

Depending on how you define science...

If you define it like Carl Popper then it probably isn't.


Just because all the other theories have more holes in them then evolution does, dosen't mean that evolution is automatically science, of course.

It stood up pretty damn well, don't you think?

It stood up pretty damn well, don't you think?
You can make lots of theories seem pretty infallable if you look at it through the right view. Thats why Marxists are so annoying.

You can make lots of theories seem pretty infallable if you look at it through the right view. Thats why Marxists are so annoying.
I assume you have evidence poking holes in it?

I think Evolution is total BS, and is there any real proof? I don't think so

Wow! Sounds like someone's been doing some thorough research!


That's like me reading through a copy of 'My First Science Book' and declaring quantum physics to be BS.

Macroevolution or microevolution? Or both? No question, I believe in the latter. I think the former is right as well, though I'm less sure.

What do fossils realy prove? scientists say that they were formed after millions of years but how would something really last that long, especially if there was supposedly a comet or something that hit the earth and killed off the dinosaurs. if that was the case there probably wouldn't be any fossils. as opposed to a world wide flood wich would have suddenly forced animals into a fossil like prison holding the tomb for only a few thousand years, that makes more sense to me. Plus where are all the missing links and why did we stop evolving and why do so many evolutionists dissagree with each other on the science of evolution.

I assume you have evidence poking holes in it?
I believe the common anti-evolution tack isn't what evidence pokes holes in evolution but what holes evolution already has - I just did a quick search and found this http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html

I do believe that evolution is what happened, by the way.

What do fossils realy prove? scientists say that they were formed after millions of years but how would something really last that long, especially if there was supposedly a comet or something that hit the earth and killed off the dinosaurs. if that was the case there probably wouldn't be any fossils. as opposed to a world wide flood wich would have suddenly forced animals into a fossil like prison holding the tomb for only a few thousand years, that makes more sense to me. Plus where are all the missing links and why did we stop evolving and why do so many evolutionists dissagree with each other on the science of evolution.

Wow... this is really sad reasoning. Who ever said the fossils we're seeing were from the dinosaurs killed by the "supposed comet"? They're from dinosaurs and other things the lived before, sometimes long before, that comet ever hit.

Here's a hint. Fossils are in the GROUND. So if a comet caused a dust storm in the AIR, the ground wouldn't be affected. And if there was some flood, forcing all the animals together, then why arent' there only mass graveyards of animals?

On a sidenote, do you know how fossils are actually made? How unlikely it is for one to get made? It's not like everything that dies and lays on the ground is made into a fossil.

What do fossils realy prove? scientists say that they were formed after millions of years but how would something really last that long, especially if there was supposedly a comet or something that hit the earth and killed off the dinosaurs. if that was the case there probably wouldn't be any fossils. as opposed to a world wide flood wich would have suddenly forced animals into a fossil like prison holding the tomb for only a few thousand years, that makes more sense to me. Plus where are all the missing links and why did we stop evolving and why do so many evolutionists dissagree with each other on the science of evolution.
1- Fossils prove we have ancestors that are extinct. Nothing else, UNTIL you realize that Fossils strung together form Evolutionary chains that show the decent of all animals. Naturally, it's hard to do that since most species don't leave enough fossils to have a chance of being recovered. And once organisms get small enough (Insects, barring exceptional cases, and Bacteria, for instance), they can't even leave fossils. Plus, the chance of a fossil actually forming is extremely unlikely. Add the chance of a personal actually digging one up...
2- The world was formed, as of current theory, about 4 Billion years ago. The comet hit the dinosaurs 65 Million years ago. There's plenty of time in there for evolution. Comets also don't destroy rocks that are deep enough down, which are what Fossils are, and the comet only hit a small part of the world. (Yucatan, to be precise.).
3- The problem is, there's not nearly enough water in the World to flood the world up to Mount Everest, even if you melted Antarctica down to the rock. Up pretty high, maybe, but why did all that rain evaporate and go back to normal, and why did Antarctica refreeze.
4- There are tons of missing links. TalkOrigins has a huge list.
5- We "stopped" evolving due to two reasons. Civilization- with no natural predators, we don't need to evolve much anymore. Time- Even if we were still evolving a lot (as compared to now, where the most common major mutation is a different Eye or Hair colour, barring that kid in Germany born with huge muscles). Anyway, even if we were still evolving a lot, it'd take millions of years for ANYTHING to happen, and even then it'd be hard to notice.
6- Why do scientists disagree over anything? Why do Christians disagree about scripture interpretation? Of course Scientists will disagree over evolution- that's how Science works.

I think Evolution is total BS, and is there any real proof? I don't think so

as a starting point, what sort of thing would you accept as good evidence for evolution? what sort of thing would have to be true for you to think that evolution makes sense as an explanation for it?

(i say evidence because science doesn't deal in proof)

for a fossil something has to be forced very quickly into a covering of some sort. still what about these fossils makes the millions of years old. some guy says and everyone believes him. heck I could pick up a rock in my back yard and say it was from the whatever age and somebody would believe me.
And anyways where are the missing links

for a fossil something has to be forced very quickly into a covering of some sort. still what about these fossils makes the millions of years old. some guy says and everyone believes him. heck I could pick up a rock in my back yard and say it was from the whatever age and somebody would believe me.
And anyways where are the missing links

Radiocarbon Dating. Radioactive Isotopes of Carbon decays at very exact and constant rates, so by measuring how much has decayed, you can accurately date things to a million years accuracy. (Naturally, that means you could Radiocarbon Date a cat as thousands of years old, but when you're talking about hundreds of millions of years ago a few thousand or even a million isn't much of an error.)

as a starting point, what sort of thing would you accept as good evidence for evolution? what sort of thing would have to be true for you to think that evolution makes sense as an explanation for it?

(i say evidence because science doesn't deal in proof)

I would need genetic proof that we evolved from a monkey much less an a singl cell that simply poofed into existence

I would genetic proof that we evolved from a monkey much less an a singl cell that simply poofed into existence

Technically, if I understand evolution correctly, monkeys and humans evolved from a common primate. So humans didn't come from monkeys as we know them. I could be grossly misinformed though.

Technically, if I understand evolution correctly, monkeys and humans evolved from a common primate. So humans didn't come from monkeys as we know them. I could be grossly misinformed though.

Think of a family tree. Monkeys and Humans are extremely removed "cousins". Back millions upon millions of years ago, there was a single species of Monkapeman or whatever you want to call it, and it split off in two directions due to the environment or predators or somesuch. One direction created the primate tree, and one direction created the ape tree. Somewhere in the "ape family tree" are the ancestors of humanity.

okay the missing links explain a few things, but wait a min, how do we know they're real where did they come rfrom. some guy just made them up. if we have never found the missing links how do we know what they are?

scripture only interprets one way but some people try to twist the meaning to bend it to their will so thus they're not even really interpreting scriptur

okay the missing links explain a few things, but wait a min, how do we know they're real where did they come rfrom. some guy just made them up. if we have never found the missing links how do we know what they are?

Yes, one or two have been fake, and there was a great debacle over Archaeopterix beign the missing link between Birds and Dinosaurs, but-

But for the most part it hasn't even been alleged that all of the thousands of fossils are fakes. That'd require a massive conspiracy to place fossils of all sorts in back yards and canyons everywhere. Icthyosaurus, for instance, if I remember correctly, was discovered by a young girl in her back yard a long time ago.

No, I'm serious.
Well anyways, as I said before, it isn't evolution's job to tell you why you're eyes are so fucked up. There were probably some half blind dinosaurs and humans running around a long time ago, and they got eatten. So the reason you have shitty eyes is either because Mother Nature decided to use you as a test subject to see how long you lived and if it was succesful or you've been sitting to god-damn close to the computer screen.

I believe the common anti-evolution tack isn't what evidence pokes holes in evolution but what holes evolution already has - I just did a quick search and found this http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html

I do believe that evolution is what happened, by the way.

Okay.. shall we go through them?
1. MOON DUST - Dust falls on moon and earth, but no large layer found on moon.

Well... as a possibility, there are very fast winds that go throughout our galaxy. We're protected by the magnetic field, but the moon is not. Therefore the dust was probably swept away.

2. MAGNETIC FIELD - Earth's magnetic field is decreasing, would have been huge in past.

Actually, that's not what scientists think. They think (have proof actually) that the magnetic field has switched orientations multiple times in the past. And a decreasing field is simply an indication that the field will switch in the future

3. FOSSIL RECORD - There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record.

Here I rely on the fact that the creation of fossils is almost by chance, and the probability of getting the creatures that you want to see would be very low

4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION - the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, but some fetuses don't show that

I didn't quite understand this argument. Why can't the new function of the yolk sac fit under this theory?

5. PROBABILITY - probability higher life evolved is VERY VERY low

So what? Things with very low probabilities do happen. Also, once you had organisms to work with, and with a high rate of mutation, it seems fairly likely for evolution to do its stuff.

6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - evolution defies 2nd law.
For this, I refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS - Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. Why aren't they gone completely?

If they aren't a factor in an individual's fitness and reproduction, then they won't be acted on by evolution. Yes, we all have an appendix, and in some of us it becomes inflamed. But due to modern medicine, the majority of people can get to a hospital in time. Therefore, noone is killed or bettered by their appendix. So no evolution.

8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION - Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.

Alternatively... Given how old the world is, and how much life has lived and died on the earth, there has been LOTS of time for coal and oil to develop from those creatures. Also, for a long time many of the continents were centered around the equator, which means there were lots of bogs and swamps for fossils to develop in.

9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA - Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.

Just because a new theory has a problem doesn't mean evolution as a whole is wrong. Scientists always try to expand theories and extend them.

10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY - Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish." The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!

Hmm... given how easy it is to change the molecular level, I don't quite buy that. Creationists ask how larger structures could be created, but then dismiss similarities in things like leg structure across species.

11. DATING METHODS - they're faulty....

Okay. So we can't know the exact time a fossil was laid down in rock. But we can compare it to fossils above and below it.


12. DINOSAURS - Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.

Oh my. Creationists believe in DINOSAURS?! Some things may look like dinosaurs, but nothing that large has been found. Fish from those eras, yes, but not the dinosaurs.

13. SUN'S DIAMETER - The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

These arguments are stupid. They argue that everything must be the way it was in the past.

14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW – sediment build up only shows 30k years

Well… since creationists don’t believe in continental drift, we have a problem. Here’s a hint. Maybe 30k years ago the Nile didn’t exist. It’s not like the Nile has existed since time immemorial.

15. EARTH'S ROTATION – same as sun’s argument

16. WRITTEN RECORD and 17. THE BIBLE

I won’t even bother with these.

Oh dear...well, that list gets thrown out just for the second law of thermodynamics 'fallacy'. If you don't know what your talking about, don't try and BS your way through it. In the universe, there is a trend towards disorder, in a smaller environment; there is no problem with order evolving, provided that more energy is pumped in to replace that lost as heat.

Besides, the 2nd law is referring to energy and heat, not evolution. Move on folks

Oh, and knock your self out on these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

total fictino and it should be banned cause it is based on personal opinions.

total fictino and it should be banned cause it is based on personal opinions.


Yeah.

Go to www.talkorigins.org and read up on it some time. It will do you some good.

total fiction and it should be banned cause it is based on personal opinions.

Um... if you choose to do it that way, everything is a personal opinion. But societies and groups of people agree to believe in science and the tenets of it. And using accepted scientific methods, evolutionary theory works, and has not been disproven.

total fictino and it should be banned cause it is based on personal opinions.

Really? Why don't we just burn all science books, too?

Evolution is not based on any one man's opinions any more than Democracy is based on Athens. Darwin and another man thought of it at nearly the same time (though Darwin gets the credit...), but after that it became Science.

Or should we ban Heliocentricism and Eliptic Orbits because it's based on Copernicus and Kepler's personal opinions?

Actually, we should ban the idea that the sky is blue. Everything is a personal opinion, the only difference is how many people agree and value it.

Actually, we should ban the idea that the sky is blue. Everything is a personal opinion, the only difference is how many people agree and value it.

What are you talking about, its black where I live, and this sheet of paper that GOD gave me says so.

What are you talking about, its black where I live, and this sheet of paper that GOD gave me says so.

Currently the sky is black where I am. Water also appears to be falling out of it. It seems to be close to 3AM on a rainy night in Ireland here. These are all, of course, just statements of my personal opinions and as such should be banned.

Currently the sky is black where I am. Water also appears to be falling out of it. It seems to be close to 3AM on a rainy night in Ireland here. These are all, of course, just statements of my personal opinions and as such should be banned.

:D

As the original poster said, I demand "real proof". How do I know you're telling the truth?

As the original poster said, I demand "real proof". How do I know you're telling the truth?

It is on the internet, ergo it is the truth.

Unacceptable. Invisible Orange Rhinocerus (Not the Pink Unicorn, for she is the evil one!) told me the sky is yellowy green with a large red stripe, and any who oppose me are insane.

Blue and Black Skies are total fiction and should be banned because they are based on personal opinion.

[This has been a friendly lampooning of an oponnent's arguement. Have a nice day, and don't take offense- it's not you, it's your position.]

I think Evolution is total BS, and is there any real proof? I don't think so

I agree entirely.

I agree entirely.

Glad to hear it. Prove your statement.

Glad to hear it. Prove your statement.

I don't think he can prove there is no proof for evolution. He could only have proof that evolution didn't work in certain circumstances ;)

I would need genetic proof that we evolved from a monkey much less an a singl cell that simply poofed into existence

alright, genetic evidence. how about the fact that humans are genetically nearly identical to chimpanzees and bonobos, very slightly less identical with gorrillas and orangs, and a bit more for old world monkeys, and even more for new world monkeys, and on down the line with genetic distance increasing with the time between us and our last common ancestor of whatever organism we are looking at? and if that's not good enough, what would be?

check out this nice chart of genetic distance between various primates - and a rabbit (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/primegendist.html)

Another thread based around a stupid question. Evolution is a process by which dynamic members of a closed system change to best fit a given situation. Science is a process for discerning facts based on trusted observation and experiment. Fiction is, broadly, any product of the human mind, and strictly, any non-factual product of the human mind. Evolution is real, no matter how you view it. We can create evolution in computer systems and watch it happen. Whether humans and other animals evolved from single celled organisms is another argument. One can apply scientific techniques to the question of "did humans evolve," but one cannot say that evolution itself "is" science. Also, for something to be considered fictional, even in the strictest sense, it should demonstrably non-factual, and considering that evolution is a concept and not a claim at fact it cannot be considered non-factual. And finally, would people please stop asking multiple choice questions leaving large and important options uncovered. Science and fiction are not opposites and do not, when combined, represent all possibilities.

I just wanna say, I read ALL of this, and it has been fairily enlightening :)

See, I believe in creationsim and evolution. Don't follow? I'm not a christian, I'm a diest. You know, monotheism at it's most basic.

And I must say, this thread has given me excellent solutions to when those annoying christians quote whatshisface, that "dino doctor" or whatever. Hovel, or something like that.


They're not the only one's who can quote someone who appears to be more intellegent in that subject ;)

Evolution is a scientific theory. Fiction tends to take the form of novels, short stories, and movies. I don't believe evolution has characters or plot.

If you believe in evolution or if you don't, go to this site and learn something

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

If you believe in evolution or if you don't, go to this site and learn something

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

Wow. You really want us to read this? It is insultive from the get go and my guess is the author of it did not intend for it to be used as an argument against evolution to be presented to evolutionists. Take this for example:

Many modern scientists are materialists. That is, they believe physical matter is the only ultimate reality. They suppose that everything in the cosmos, including life, can be explained in terms of interacting matter. Materialists do not accept the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces.
Now first, this is on a Christian website, so of course, everyone who reads the second paragraph (well, it isn't really a paragraph, it's more a gramatical hack job) already hates the evolutionists who were just stereotyped. Let me ask all the Christian who aren't evolutionists, why is it so wrong to ask? Asking questions is how we found things out for ourselves. If you are so afraid that these athiests (since clearly, that is what you think they all are) will prove your bible wrong, then why are you so adamant in believing in something you feel could be proved wrong? And on top of that, don't you understand the fact that the bible was written by man and not God no matter how much you like or dislike it? Proving creationism wrong (if it happens) (or heck, proving evolutionism right without proving creationism wrong) will not make your God go *poof* and disappear like the bable fish did in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and if it did, at least you're not being mislead any more.

No one has ever found an organism that never had a parent of some sort. Today, this is one of the most accepted facts in biology. All living things are produced from one or more parents. Surprisingly, however, many modern people still faithfully believe in a form of "spontaneous generation.
Eh, not sure what spontaneous generation has to do with evolution, and further more, not sure how much research in all areas of science this person has done, but recently, people have been thinking about labeling computer viruses as living. They reproduce on their own. And the only "parent" the first one had was a computer programmer.

Materialists assume life arose spontaneously somewhere in ancient Earth's water supply – water which contained absolutely no life, just minerals and chemical substances used by living things.
The author of this article continues to assume things that all evolutionists believe. I thought I had heard a theory in which a meteor or something had crashed into earth changing everything about the earth and therefore promoting the evolution of species. While the species may still come from nothing (or they could've been riding on that meteor as it is possible to believe in creationism and evolutionism), it is wholly spontaeous.

Because oxygen in the atmosphere would destroy all possibility of life arising by natural processes, materialists wrongly assumed the atmosphere had no oxygen. They also assumed it contained certain necessary ingredients, including ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen, water vapor and methane. However, it is well known that mixing these ingredients does not create life. Therefore, materialists theorized something else must be needed – perhaps a bolt of energy.
When you see "assumed," the author clearly means "theorized," but he hasn't learned this word or its meaning yet. Also, when he says "wrongly assumed," he really does not know much as to what he is talking about. He has not a shred of evidence to prove that when life began on this earth there was no oxygen. Heck, plants produce oxygen...and those were the ones that have been theorized to have evolved first (well, on a single-cell, simple organism level), which would explain how our atmostphere got flooded with oxygen. After all, oxygen only makes up like, what is it, 13% of our over all atmosphere. It wouldn't be that hard, in millions of years, for plants to go from 0% to 13% oxygen in the atmosphere.

THE BOTTOM LINE
on the origin of life

* During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.

* As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos.

* It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.(I got tired of reading all that so I skipped to the bottom...)
First, I like how he says this is the "BOTTOM LINE," and admits that he thinks this is how it is and nothing else is correct (of course, what could I expect, this was a religious site after all...).
As far as explaining anything, when will the creationists produce a scientifically credible explanation for their theory (which indeed creationism is, as it has not been proven, and that is the same reason scientists call evolutionism a theory, not fact because some 2000 year old book said "this is how it is")
It is highly premature for the author, without having done an interview of every evolutionist, to label every evolutionist as a materialist. Also, where are the comments about evolution? This is an argument about spontaneous creation vs creator creation, which did not come up in this thread (yet) and is why most religious people sound foolish when they put down evolution.

* There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.
There is however religious "proof" that "materialists" are wrong. Haha. Anyway, I'm not going to accept his babble about there being no scientific proof supporting this theory until he shows scientific proof that this is wrong. It hasn't been proven either way which is why we must still explore this area. And most of all...when did spontaneous creation become a necessary part of evolution? Who is to say that Adam and Eve weren't ameoba millions of years ago and that they really did evolve and eventually form human beings? Anyway, whoever posted this link probably read less of it than I did as there is not a single argument for or against evolution in here except that he assumes all evolutionists are evil materialists and then mentions the word "evolutionist" twice and then makes thousands and thousands of arguments that sound pretty strong against materialism. Anyway, find me a religious website that actually talks about how evolution is impossible...

Evolution is a scientific theory. Fiction tends to take the form of novels, short stories, and movies. I don't believe evolution has characters or plot.


Nah, it has plenty of characters, however they all just have walk-on/walk-off parts. As for the story, it is taking a long time to develop, and who here can honestly say that the plot-twist involving a comet wasn't a surprise to them? - possibly a bit of a deus ex machina, but it sure threw a spanner in the works. Overall I think the plot would be helped by more gunfights and explosions - the last decent explosion we had was way back in the Cambrian.

total fictino and it should be banned cause it is based on personal opinions.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on objective observations.

Religion, on the other hand, is based entirely on personal opinions. Perhaps it should be banned instead.

well DUH of course evolution is science. the theory is created by using the scientific method

is it TRUE? who knows? only to the best of our knowlege.

there was a time when evolutionists believed that if you kept cutting dog's tails off over many generations you would end up with a breed of tailless dogs. (i dont remember what thats called. please tell me so i can stop obsessing over it)

now we know that thats not true. does that make their theory wrong? yes. does that make evolution not be a science? no. it means that, using the scientific method, they have improved the theory. does that mean that every aspect of modern evolutionary theory is correct? only to the best of our knowlege, until scientific advances shows us where the errors are.

will it ever be totally true? probably not. we cant know everything

do YOU have to believe it? i dont see why. you dont have to believe in quantum physics or radio astronomy either. its not gonna make much difference in your life either way.

would you be RIGHT not to believe it? not to the best of our knowlege.

so let me recommend a book to you by a now-deceased creation scientist. i just checked on amazon.com to see that it is available used. he was a good seventh day adventist who dedicated his life to disproving evolution. the book was publish around 1980 so it must be somewhat out of date.

variation and fixity in nature, by frank marsh.

he makes some very good points about the nature of species and the incompleteness of the fossil record. worth browsing through if you can get your hands on a copy.

well DUH of course evolution is science. the theory is created by using the scientific method

is it TRUE? who knows? only to the best of our knowlege.

there was a time when evolutionists believed that if you kept cutting dog's tails off over many generations you would end up with a breed of tailless dogs. (i dont remember what thats called. please tell me so i can stop obsessing over it)

now we know that thats not true. does that make their theory wrong? yes. does that make evolution not be a science? no. it means that, using the scientific method, they have improved the theory. does that mean that every aspect of modern evolutionary theory is correct? only to the best of our knowlege, until scientific advances shows us where the errors are.

will it ever be totally true? probably not. we cant know everything

do YOU have to believe it? i dont see why. you dont have to believe in quantum physics or radio astronomy either. its not gonna make much difference in your life either way.

would you be RIGHT not to believe it? not to the best of our knowlege.

so let me recommend a book to you by a now-deceased creation scientist. i just checked on amazon.com to see that it is available used. he was a good seventh day adventist who dedicated his life to disproving evolution. the book was publish around 1980 so it must be somewhat out of date.

variation and fixity in nature, by frank marsh.

he makes some very good points about the nature of species and the incompleteness of the fossil record. worth browsing through if you can get your hands on a copy.

Lamarckian evolution was disproven once you had a dog with a docked tail that produced normal babies, though not everyone accepted it being so quickly defeated for a while.

there was a time when evolutionists believed that if you kept cutting dog's tails off over many generations you would end up with a breed of tailless dogs. (i dont remember what thats called. please tell me so i can stop obsessing over it)


Lamarckian evolutionary.

now we know that thats not true.

No, we might just not have cut the tails off enough generations of dogs.

Lamarckian evolutionary.



No, we might just not have cut the tails off enough generations of dogs.

He means it's extraordinarily unlikely considering lack of evidence and our knowledge of evolution and genetics.

Same general idea.

Concerning "now we know that thats not true."

He means it's extraordinarily unlikely considering lack of evidence and our knowledge of evolution and genetics.

Same general idea.

The "same general idea" isn't really precise enough for science, though is it?

Concerning "now we know that thats not true."



The "same general idea" isn't really precise enough for science, though is it?

No, but he probably isn't a scientist.

no really we know its not true

we now know that the transmission of traits comes from genetics.

if we cut off 1000000 generations of dog tails and there came up a breed with no tails it would not have been due to the cutting but due to a genetic change. either through selective breeding of short tail dogs or a genetic mutation.

or dont you believe in genes?

or dont you believe in genes?

No, I believe in genes.

My point was that just because we have found strong evidence of one method of evolutionary change, it does not automatically rule out other methods or processes of evolutionary change.

Your claim that Lamarckian evolution had been disproved was in error. It has never been observed in action, but this does not mean that it cannot occur.

This does not imply that I believe in Lamrackian evolution - in fact I believe it to be a nonsense, a crock, a half-baked theory.

yes and the moon may be made of green cheese ON THE DARK SIDE

but im not gonna place any bets on it

no really we know its not true

we now know that the transmission of traits comes from genetics.

if we cut off 1000000 generations of dog tails and there came up a breed with no tails it would not have been due to the cutting but due to a genetic change. either through selective breeding of short tail dogs or a genetic mutation.

or dont you believe in genes?

Actually, a genetic mutation only catches on and becomes a truly dominant trait if it provides the organism with an advantage over other organisms of the same species without that specific trait. Cutting off dogs tails would give an advantage to a dog that already had no tail because it would not need to waste energy growing the tail in the first place. It's only a slight advantage, but it is there, and over a million generation it would become quite powerful. On the other hand, if you go back to Darwin's Origin of Species you'll see that, according to Darwin, most evolution wasn't a fight for survival, but a fight for the best mates. Darwin said that the primarly competition between animals was males competing for the genetically best females, while the ideal female was determined by its suitability to the environment at hand. So by that logic, cutting off the tails of male dogs would have very little effect, while cutting off the tails of female dogs would be very effective at creating a tailless breed of dogs.

Actually, a genetic mutation only catches on and becomes a truly dominant trait if it provides the organism with an advantage over other organisms of the same species without that specific trait. Cutting off dogs tails would give an advantage to a dog that already had no tail because it would not need to waste energy growing the tail in the first place. It's only a slight advantage, but it is there, and over a million generation it would become quite powerful. On the other hand, if you go back to Darwin's Origin of Species you'll see that, according to Darwin, most evolution wasn't a fight for survival, but a fight for the best mates. Darwin said that the primarly competition between animals was males competing for the genetically best females, while the ideal female was determined by its suitability to the environment at hand. So by that logic, cutting off the tails of male dogs would have very little effect, while cutting off the tails of female dogs would be very effective at creating a tailless breed of dogs.

Your logic however assumes the existence of humans that cut off dogs tails. And.... evolution doesn't act that fast, and neither dog would have an advantage when humans take care of them. A naturally docked and one docked by a human would still reproduce the same. No advantage

Your logic however assumes the existence of humans that cut off dogs tails. And.... evolution doesn't act that fast, and neither dog would have an advantage when humans take care of them. A naturally docked and one docked by a human would still reproduce the same. No advantage

If the dogs tails were being cut off without humans it would work as well. Also, evolution doesn't act quickly, but a million generations is an incredibly long time. You are right that, assuming th dogs were being entirely provided for there would be no advantage in not needing to grow a tail, but assuming there is limitted food and so some dogs must go hungry, it is an advantage. Also, assuming the dogs are given the choice of which other dogs with which to mate the genetic advantage would show itself. If, as is usually the case today, each male and each female is presented with only one potential mate finding the "best" is simple and uneventful.

I don't understand "A naturally docked and one docked by a human would still reproduce the same. No advantage." so I can't really answer it.

uh
no
the "natural genetic not having a tail" would give a dog an advantage in that people breed dogs and choose dogs to breed based on external factors. this is how all domestic dog breeds have come about. selective breeding is a primitive form of genetic engineering.

the dog WITH a tail would be unable to pass her taillessness on to her offfspring because she doesnt have that gene. only the naturally tailless dog could pass the trait on. over time, if the dogs naturally without a tail conform to the breeders notion of how a dog should look based on all desired breed characteristics, then they would tend to pass this trait on to their offspring and those offspring without tails AND with all the desired other traits would be bred, etc until there were perfectly conforming tailless dogs.

one can only assume that dogs HAVE tails due to some genetic advantage or they would have developed taillessness on their own.

darwin didnt know the mechanisms of evolution. the whole theory has come a long way since the origin of the species.

If the dogs tails were being cut off without humans it would work as well. Also, evolution doesn't act quickly, but a million generations is an incredibly long time. You are right that, assuming th dogs were being entirely provided for there would be no advantage in not needing to grow a tail, but assuming there is limitted food and so some dogs must go hungry, it is an advantage. Also, assuming the dogs are given the choice of which other dogs with which to mate the genetic advantage would show itself. If, as is usually the case today, each male and each female is presented with only one potential mate finding the "best" is simple and uneventful.

I don't understand "A naturally docked and one docked by a human would still reproduce the same. No advantage." so I can't really answer it.

Sorry, I should have finished the thought more completely. The no advantage bit is that neither a dog born with no tail or one with a docked tail would have an advantage in their reproductive fitness. They're equal, since humans control their health and breeding. To have evolution, you'd have to assume selection by humans. Like breeders breed dogs with no tails to make it easier on themselves.

The only increased fitness from no tail would come about if all the humans (food and shelter for the dogs) were to die and leave them to fend for themselves in the wild. Then... *maybe* there would be a significant enough advantage to no tail to cause that trait to spread throughout the population.

The dog's puppies still would have tails without a "tailless-gene", so it's useless. A slight energy gain for one generation, maybe, but non-genetic modification of a dog would do nothing to offspring.

I think by cutting off tails, you would in no way affect the dogs. If, when it comes to choosing a sexual mate, dogs have some sort of tail preference, then you've nullified that and therefore halted evolution of the dog's tail. Instead of no-tailled dogs, you'd have random-tailed dogs, and you'd continue to to have this effect until you stopped cutting their tails. However, if you cut tails for many many generations and the dogs got used to this, then you stopped cutting tails, my guess is that the dogs sexual preference would be the dog of the alternate sex with the shortest tail, as that is closest to what it is used to, therefore, the dog's tail would gradually evolve into a short, possibly non-existant tail. Evolution is half-way about sexual preference.

And most of all...when did spontaneous creation become a necessary part of evolution?
Evolution depends on spontaneous creation because that in how evolution apparently started, the big bang. something cant come from nothing

Evolution depends on spontaneous creation because that in how evolution apparently started, the big bang. something cant come from nothing

Unless, rather arbitrarily, that something happens to be God, apparently.

Evolution depends on spontaneous creation because that in how evolution apparently started, the big bang. something cant come from nothing
You know, 100 years ago there were no computers. Then out of no-where there are computers everywhere! That's spontanious.

The big bang has nothing to do with life.

14 or so Billion years ago, the Big Bang happened.
4 Billion years ago, earth began
3 Billion years ago, life began

The Big Bang is indirectly responsible for life by creating the universe but it did not "spontaneously generate" earth's life.

We believe what we believe what we belive because it is how we were raised and how we grew up. Is it not a surprise, then, that many believe in creationism, given the existance of people who believe in things on this site?
http://objective.jesussave.us/creation.html
Go to some of the links, especially the childrens' section. The craziest garbage I have ever heard. How do people believe it?

Evolution depends on spontaneous creation because that in how evolution apparently started, the big bang. something cant come from nothing

Spontaneous generation in the context of evolution is not referring to the Big Bang. It's the theory that organic molecules, such as amino acids, nucleic acids, and sugars could have come about from totally inorganic substances.

The idea is that if the inorganic molecules, ammonia, methane, other gases get heated together or subjected to possible conditions that existed on Earth in the past, they could form organic molecules.

From there the molecules can become associated with each other to form larger complexes, until eventually at some point it could be considered life.

We believe what we believe what we belive because it is how we were raised and how we grew up. Is it not a surprise, then, that many believe in creationism, given the existance of people who believe in things on this site?
http://objective.jesussave.us/creation.html
Go to some of the links, especially the childrens' section. The craziest garbage I have ever heard. How do people believe it?

That one is a parody, I think. Like landoverbaptist.

You know, 100 years ago there were no computers. Then out of no-where there are computers everywhere! That's spontanious.

Well, actually 100 years ago there were thousands of computers.*










* The fact that I use the term 'computer' in its archaic form for 'a person who computes', such as an accountant, tally keeper, or mathematician, is readily admitted.

Actually, a genetic mutation only catches on and becomes a truly dominant trait if it provides the organism with an advantage over other organisms of the same species without that specific trait.

Surely, it has a chance to catch on if it provides no disadvantage?

Surely, it has a chance to catch on if it provides no disadvantage?

It has a chance to catch on even if it's detrimental.

But the chance is very, very small for "neutral" traits (after all, a single mutation that does nothing usually is just blended back in), and almost enver for detrimental mutations.

It has a chance to catch on even if it's detrimental.

But the chance is very, very small for "neutral" traits (after all, a single mutation that does nothing usually is just blended back in), and almost never for detrimental mutations.

And for the detrimental thing, some of the most interesting illustrations in favor of evolution occur when you look at how some detrimental traits could spread throughout a population. (Sickle cell anemia and malaria in Africa)

sometimes a "neutral" mutation comes packaged with a very beneficial one and that gets it passed on to future generations.

We believe what we believe what we belive because it is how we were raised and how we grew up. Is it not a surprise, then, that many believe in creationism, given the existance of people who believe in things on this site?
http://objective.jesussave.us/creation.html
Go to some of the links, especially the childrens' section. The craziest garbage I have ever heard. How do people believe it?On this site occording to 'Giraffenstein' after the creation there was lots and lots of incest. A lot of mother-f***-ing. Lots of father-f***-ing, sister-f***-ing, brother-f***-ing, and plenty of consin-f**-ing.

That was mean how they just bash Hindus like that.
Hey, Habu...
How many gods do you have?
Hubu:I don't know... I lost count!

Wouldn't you rather have just one God who loves you a bunch than a bunch of gods that don't love you at all?

Jesus loves everybody, even the unsaved like Habu! Remember to pray for Habu and others like him that they may find Jesus and accept Him into their hearts!That is the most bigoted piece of shit I've ever seen.

On this site occording to 'Giraffenstein' after the creation there was lots and lots of incest. A lot of mother-f***-ing. Lots of father-f***-ing, sister-f***-ing, brother-f***-ing, and plenty of consin-f**-ing.

That was mean how they just bash Hindus like that.
That is the most bigoted piece of shit I've ever seen.
Yeah, its satire, but it is true.

...Wait, did it say that kent hoven was going to jail?

Even as just a joke, that would rock so hard. I mean, that would seriously rock just so incredibly hard. I'd be laughing so hard I'd start crying.

Evolution depends on spontaneous creation because that in how evolution apparently started, the big bang. something cant come from nothing
You missed the point. I'm arguing that evolution does not depend on spontaneous creation. Suppose there is some sort of all-powerful being out there above us, CREATED something to start with. Maybe he created those weird single-celled things, then sat back and watched them grow and evolve. The point you religious people are missing is that not all evolutionist disagree with creationism, we just disagree that everything that exists now existed as it did forever ago.

...Wait, did it say that kent hoven was going to jail?

Even as just a joke, that would rock so hard. I mean, that would seriously rock just so incredibly hard. I'd be laughing so hard I'd start crying.

Unfortunately not. He's still out preaching across the country. Amusingly, his site has testimonials on it. http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/Testimonies/index.jsp

Interesting how all the negative ones are total rants but the positive ones are well articulated. Beautiful propaganda

Dude, it could be worst.

I go went to a public high school. I had to WATCH those tapes.

**shudders**

Then I had to deal with all the idiots who believed him, word for word!

**eye twitches**

Thank GOD that's over...

Dude, it could be worst.

I go went to a public high school. I had to WATCH those tapes.

**shudders**

Then I had to deal with all the idiots who believed him, word for word!

**eye twitches**

Thank GOD that's over...

Oh wow... I'm SO sorry! I hope you weren't scarred forever. :p

I wonder why there was only one pety reply to my long argument against that site and I easily put that down as the person who posted it did not fully understand what I was arguing... I'll asume it is because all of the anti-evolutionists just realized how wrong they were and don't want to make a fool out of themselves, but in reality, it's probably something more along the lines of they're not willing to admit my correctness so they go find a new thread to be wrong at.

I am pleased to see the overwhelming concurrence. I feel as if I've really touched you all...err, eh...sigh, not in that way...

Here is an interesting little fact, the 60% of the fossil record is clams. I am going to try and find some books I used in high school that had a ton of very intersting things to say on the subject of evoloution, and by the way microevoloution is a scientific fact, macroevoloution is still a theory.

1) where do you get this 60% information? Link us up.

2) We all know that microevolution is true and that macroevolution is a theroy. None of us have stated otherwise :p

. . . and by the way microevoloution is a scientific fact, macroevoloution is still a theory.
You just argued against yourself by admitting that macroevolution is a possibility that has not been proved or disproved. It is hard for you to argue against me by taking that standpoint as I believe it is a theory as well. I've no strong feeling for the absolute certainity of it, but I'm not shutting it out, as there is no proof either way (the same goes for creationism, and god, and the GUT)

Here is an interesting little fact, the 60% of the fossil record is clams. I am going to try and find some books I used in high school that had a ton of very intersting things to say on the subject of evoloution, and by the way microevoloution is a scientific fact, macroevoloution is still a theory.


I'm sorry, I have to argue the fact bit. We believe it will be true in all cases, but it's still a theory. It will always be a theory.

Maybe micro has more evidence going for it, both both are theories.

(Excuse the teacher moment. ;))

...and by the way microevoloution is a scientific fact, macroevoloution is still a theory.

Considering micro and macro evolution share the same mechanism and one is merely a lot of the other, it's hardly an unreasonable theory. You do realise that gravity at the quantum level is also 'still a theory,' right?

I'm sorry, I have to argue the fact bit. We believe it will be true in all cases, but it's still a theory. It will always be a theory.

False. Microevolution has been observed directly and duplicated in the lab. It is therefore a fact as well as a theory. Similiarly, large-scale gravity is not 'just a theory' because you can drop an object and observe the effects of gravity.

I'm sorry, I have to argue the fact bit. We believe it will be true in all cases, but it's still a theory. It will always be a theory.

Maybe micro has more evidence going for it, both both are theories.

(Excuse the teacher moment. ;))

Whats all this about seperating micro and macro evolution anyway? They're just the same thing only over different timescales, I wouldnt have thought you caould have one without the other.

Whats all this about seperating micro and macro evolution anyway? They're just the same thing only over different timescales, I wouldnt have thought you caould have one without the other.

Supposedly macroevolution is a change of species while microevolution is intraspecies. Naturally, both use the same mechanism, so since microevolution is directly observable, macroevolution is almost certainly true.

I wonder why there was only one pety reply to my long argument against that site and I easily put that down as the person who posted it did not fully understand what I was arguing... I'll asume it is because all of the anti-evolutionists just realized how wrong they were and don't want to make a fool out of themselves, but in reality, it's probably something more along the lines of they're not willing to admit my correctness so they go find a new thread to be wrong at.

ohhhh no opal, they are off talking to their travel agents, trying to book a trip to the congo so they can go see dinosaurs too

I'm sorry, I have to argue the fact bit. We believe it will be true in all cases, but it's still a theory. It will always be a theory.
False. Microevolution has been observed directly and duplicated in the lab. It is therefore a fact as well as a theory. Similiarly, large-scale gravity is not 'just a theory' because you can drop an object and observe the effects of gravity.

Theories can never be proven, they can only be disproven. Even though in my past experience, dropped objects fall to Earth, I cannot say with 100% certainty that if I lift up my keyboard and let go of it, it won't float upwards. Similarly, although it is fact that in our experience, there is variation within species, and apparently beneficial variations become more widespread, the idea we use to explain this evidence (microevolution) is a theory which might be proven wrong tomorrow by conflicting evidence that the theory is unable to explain. We would then have to devise a new theory which could explain both the old and new evidence.

Not that I don't agree with evolutionism, I'm just making a point about the nature of science.

I'm still looking for those books, don't worry I'll find them, I never throw away books. And there is a theory that says that gravity doen't exisit and that everything is constantly expanding. I don't really believe that but it is impossible to disprove.

Theories can never be proven, they can only be disproven. Even though in my past experience, dropped objects fall to Earth, I cannot say with 100% certainty that if I lift up my keyboard and let go of it, it won't float upwards. Similarly, although it is fact that in our experience, there is variation within species, and apparently beneficial variations become more widespread, the idea we use to explain this evidence (microevolution) is a theory which might be proven wrong tomorrow by conflicting evidence that the theory is unable to explain. We would then have to devise a new theory which could explain both the old and new evidence.

Not that I don't agree with evolutionism, I'm just making a point about the nature of science.

So we throw out a non-disproven theory just to prove a point? Are you mad?

Do you think that creationism is any better? (to everyone)

Supposedly macroevolution is a change of species while microevolution is intraspecies. Naturally, both use the same mechanism, so since microevolution is directly observable, macroevolution is almost certainly true.

A large amount of microevolution leads to macroevolution.

Time to go on the offensive. I assume your taking creationism from the bible no?

Okay, how did they fit all the animals onto the ark in order to save them from the flood?

I think Evolution is total BS, and is there any real proof? I don't think so

Evolution-deniers are in the same category as flat-earthers: complete and utter morons.

A large amount of microevolution leads to macroevolution.

Time to go on the offensive. I assume your taking creationism from the bible no?

Okay, how did they fit all the animals onto the ark in order to save them from the flood?

My creationism? I believe in evolution. I simply adopted creationist terms to try to explain how creationists subdivide evolution into two categories.

A large amount of microevolution leads to macroevolution.

Time to go on the offensive. I assume your taking creationism from the bible no?

Okay, how did they fit all the animals onto the ark in order to save them from the flood?

1. Read in Genesis they give the specifications for the ark.
2. You only need to take land animals.
3. Big animals like elephants and rhinos all start off as very small babies.

1. Read in Genesis they give the specifications for the ark.
2. You only need to take land animals.
3. Big animals like elephants and rhinos all start off as very small babies.

Calculations for the size and managing of such an endeavour as the ark prove it to be completely and utterly impossible.

Calculations for the size and managing of such an endeavour as the ark prove it to be completely and utterly impossible.

Another one-
How, barring lots of deific help, did noah even tell how all those insects apart? I sometimes have trouble telling 'black' and 'red' ants apart, let alone different species.
And where did the food for the carnivores and parasites come from?

Calculations by whom?

Another one-
How, barring lots of deific help, did noah even tell how all those insects apart? I sometimes have trouble telling 'black' and 'red' ants apart, let alone different species.
And where did the food for the carnivores and parasites come from?

Not to mention that the dimensions given for the ark in genesis have it 450 feet long, and a wooden vessel of that size would leak so badly that it would be completely unseaworthy.

Another one-
How, barring lots of deific help, did noah even tell how all those insects apart? I sometimes have trouble telling 'black' and 'red' ants apart, let alone different species.
And where did the food for the carnivores and parasites come from?

Barring help from God? What is wrong with you, the whole point of the story of Noah's Ark is that God spared him. On and by the way Noah didn't have to tell them apart, God sent all the animals to Noah.

Calculations by whom?


Constructing a wooden ship the size of the ark in times of antiquity would require an enormous expenditure of labor and materials. Where did Noah, by all accounts an ordinary man, obtain the resources?

Wooden ships do not withstand violent wind and wave forces very well, and this is particularly true for large wooden ships. The longest modern wooden ships are about 300 feet long, and require steel reinforcing to prevent breaking up.

The contention that a wooden ship 450 feet long could withstand the catastrophic forces postulated in the creationist scenario has to be met with considerable skepticism.

There are over a hundred thousand separate and distinct species of present day birds and land animals. It would be physically impossible for eight persons (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives) to provide for the care and feeding of all the flies, termites, worms, snails, fleas, bats, frogs, spiders, bark beetles, intestinal parasites, etc, etc.

Then of course we have several hundred species of larger animals that require 50 to 100 pounds of fodder per day: hippos, rhinos, buffalo, elephants, horses, cattle, giraffes, elk. moose, etc, etc. (Not to mention the enormous grazing dinosaurs that some creationists believe were sequestered in the ark.)

Many, if not most, plants and/or their seeds will not survive a year under water. Did Noah transplant trees from all over the world into tubs to store in the ark, and if so, how did he manage to acquire them?

Don't forget the meat eating animals. How did Noah acquire the tons of meat required for the diet of all those lions, tigers, hyenas, wolves, etc? (Not to mention Tyranosaurus Rex, Allosaurus, and all the rest!) In order for predatory animals like lions, wolves, etc. to survive, they must be outnumbered by their prey by at least a hundred to one. If each grazing animal and each predatory animal were represented by a single pair, then either all the grazing animals would be immediately eaten, or the predatory animals would starve to death, or both. The only other alternative would be for Noah and his descendants to have enough fresh meat stored to feed generations of lions, tigers, wolves, hyenas, foxes, eagles, hawks, etc. This scenario is totally preposterous!

Many animals require special diets. Koalas eat only eucalyptus leaves. Aphids require fresh plants. How would Noah know about these dietary requirements, and how would he obtain food meeting these requirements?

The logistics of stocking the food and feeding the animals is clearly a complete impossibility for eight persons! Just shoveling out the manure would a total impossibility; tons of food per day necessarily creates tons of manure per day!

Unless all those animals happened to be living in the immediate neighborhood (very unlikely, considering the different habitats of rain forest tree frogs, desert geckos, and polar bears), most of them would have to travel over large distances to get to the ark, a physical impossibility. Besides, what could possibly motivate all those frogs, lizards, snakes, salamanders, dragon flies, spiders, ants, etc to leave their natural habitats and attempt to travel thousands of miles to the ark? How could they possibly make the journey? How would they know how to get there?

The Bible states in Gen 7:4 that the ark was loaded in 7 days. The nine million species of animals extant would would have to board at a rate of 30 animals per second!

The creationist claim that diversification has resulted in present-day species being far more numerous than the number of species in the ark contradicts their claim that evolution of species could not, and did not, ever take place.

Keeping in mind that hibernation is not merely sleep, but rather a state of suspended animation, just keeping an animal in the dark will not cause it to hibernate. Most animals do not hibernate under any conditions, least of all in a ship violently tossed about under catastrophic storm conditions.

How did all the present-day parasites and diseases survive the flood without decimating the host population?

Frank Steiger, reprinted at http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/ark.htm

Okay, so that doesn't have actual calculations, but those are soem issues other than space.

Calculations by whom?

By people who have taken all the factors into account, and not swept them under the carpet like the various creation 'scientists' who have attempted to tackle the issue.

Barring help from God? What is wrong with you, the whole point of the story of Noah's Ark is that God spared him. On and by the way Noah didn't have to tell them apart, God sent all the animals to Noah.
CH510-CH529
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Have fun. More to the point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH512.html

Barring help from God? What is wrong with you, the whole point of the story of Noah's Ark is that God spared him. On and by the way Noah didn't have to tell them apart, God sent all the animals to Noah.

If God was doing all the work for him, then why exactly did Noah have to build an Ark in the first place? Why couldn't God just stick him and everything else he wanted keeping on a cloud for the duration? It's bizarre and illogical actions like this that make the Christian God completely unbelievable.

Just a little comment for right now. In that large post of yours it mentions pairs, that is a common misconception, Noah took pairs of some animals and then I think seven of some others. I personaly believe that most of the animals where babies when they we're on the ark, all of the ones that could survive as babies infact.

If God was doing all the work for him, then why exactly did Noah have to build an Ark in the first place? Why couldn't God just stick him and everything else he wanted keeping on a cloud for the duration? It's bizarre and illogical actions like this that make the Christian God completely unbelievable.

God could have but didn't. God wanted Noah to show his faith.

there is no sense arguing with anyone who believes the old testament is literally true
they are not famililar with logic

Just a little comment for right now. In that large post of yours it mentions pairs, that is a common misconception, Noah took pairs of some animals and then I think seven of some others. I personaly believe that most of the animals where babies when they we're on the ark, all of the ones that could survive as babies infact.


Nice dodge. Haul ass and start disproving that talk origins page kiddo.


Claim CH512.1:
There is room for all the animals aboard Noah's ark by taking juveniles of the largest animals (animals larger than about 10 kg = 22 lb.).
Source:
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, Santee, CA: ICR, p. 13.
Response:

1. Even assuming the largest animals were juveniles, the Ark is still overcrowded.

2. Noah is instructed to take "the male and its mate," implying sexual maturity of the animals [Gen. 7:2]. Juveniles don't have mates.

3. Juveniles must still be old enough to be weaned and, in some cases, socialized to learn behaviors from their parents. This would make many of the animals old enough to be mostly grown already.

Um, here's a quesiton. Assuming that Noah did all that, he then sacrificed a bunch of animals apun leaving the ark. And he did this immidiatly after leaving the ark.

So if there were only 2-7, wouldn't this kill off some races?




...So THAT'S where the unicorns went!

Just a little comment for right now. In that large post of yours it mentions pairs, that is a common misconception, Noah took pairs of some animals and then I think seven of some others. I personaly believe that most of the animals where babies when they we're on the ark, all of the ones that could survive as babies infact.

Babies would be harder to take care of in many cases. Mammals have to have their mother's milk to survive. And if it was just babies, where would Noah have gotten the milk? At least he could store fodder and such. (although not really as shown above by Doomduckistan)

I still need to read them, right now I have three browsers open and I am doing three differant things at the same time.

Ashmoria, please do not stoop to insults, I haven't and I disagree with most of you.

Celdrone has a point there. No need to get all fussy and impolite. Keep the insults to a minimum. And by "minimum," I mean "don't do it"

Thank you Goed. I have to go meet some friends in like 30 minutes so I need to go now, but I'll try to be on later.

God could have but didn't. God wanted Noah to show his faith.

By doing what exactly? If you've just claimed that it only worked because God did it all with his super powers, then what exactly was Noah doing that showed his faith?

And why would Noah need to show his faith, if God was right there telling him what to do? It'd be kinda hard not to have faith at that point.

Thank you Goed. I have to go meet some friends in like 30 minutes so I need to go now, but I'll try to be on later.


Yeah. Don't come back without some answers.

there is no sense arguing with anyone who believes the old testament is literally true
they are not famililar with logic


Oh really?

Care to point out a couple of places where the OT breaks the rules of logic then?

If you would also prove that logic does actually apply to the real world as well, that would be very much appreciated...

Yeah. Don't come back without some answers.

Hey, watch it. The only flames I've seen came from OUR side of the argument. There's NO need whatsoever to try and start a fight, or to insult here.

Hey, watch it. The only flames I've seen came from OUR side of the argument. There's NO need whatsoever to try and start a fight, or to insult here.
Flaming? No, I'm just sick of him and his kind debating with no sence of facts.

How on earth did this turn into a debate concerning Noah's ark?

Is there some neccessary contradiction between the story of tha Ark and the theory of evolution that I am missing here?


(I don't believe the story of the ark, but that is irrelevant here).

How on earth did this turn into a debate concerning Noah's ark?

Is there some neccessary contradiction between the story of tha Ark and the theory of evolution that I am missing here?


(I don't believe the story of the ark, but that is irrelevant here).


We're going on the offensive by undermining the basis behind creationism.

How on earth did this turn into a debate concerning Noah's ark?

Is there some neccessary contradiction between the story of tha Ark and the theory of evolution that I am missing here?


(I don't believe the story of the ark, but that is irrelevant here).


Because the story of the ark is part of a rival theory to Evolution, namely biblical creationism. Although, calling it a theory is a bit generous.

I still need to read them, right now I have three browsers open and I am doing three differant things at the same time.

Ashmoria, please do not stoop to insults, I haven't and I disagree with most of you.

im just saying there is no sense arguing with people who dont use logic. there is no logic in believing that the old testament is literally true. there is only faith.

if you do the calculations in an honest manner you will see that they are right.

We're going on the offensive by undermining the basis behind creationism.

...but the Ark has little or nothing to do with creationism.

Edit: what I meant to say here was that the story of the Ark does not depend on a Creationist view of the world, nor does Creationism require the story of the ark to be true. Obviously they are closely related in that they are both told in Genesis, but that book is a work of many hands.

there is no logic in believing that the old testament is literally true.

You do understand that all logic does is formalise the relationships between statements and the structure of arguments: it tells you nothing about how to form those statements or what those statements should be (provided of course they are not self-contradictory), yes?

You do understand that all logic does is formalise the relationships between statements and the structure of arguments: it tells you nothing about how to form those statements or what those statements should be (provided of course they are not self-contradictory), yes?

i just dont understand the point of having a discussion where no one is going to be convinced. the "anti ark" people can easily prove that is it impossible. that is not going to change the mind of the "pro ark" people who are aruging out of faith.

...but the Ark has little or nothing to do with creationism.

Edit: what I meant to say here was that the story of the Ark does not depend on a Creationist view of the world, nor does Creationism require the story of the ark to be true. Obviously they are closely related in that they are both told in Genesis, but that book is a work of many hands.


The nuts don't think so. Ask one of them.

Besides, its the infallable word of god. Disprove one part, and you shoot the rest of it to hell.

The nuts don't think so. Ask one of them.
So far there has been no response from the pro-Ark believers to my comments: they were addressed to the thread as a whole.

Besides, its the infallable word of god. Disprove one part, and you shoot the rest of it too hell.

Uncharitable to the believers there: I know of no Christians (even on NS) that will assert that the events told in the Bible are completely literal retellings of actual events. Most Christians believe that a certain amount of Biblical tales are intended metaphorically - thus the story of the ark can be seen as a metaphor for the judgement and mercy of the Old Testament God. Similarly, most Christians acknowledge that even if the entirity of the Bible was divinely willed, it has ben passed down to our times through translations and enscriptions carried out by fallible humans - thus it is not as you state "disprove one part and you shoot the rest of it to hell".

But it is possible to believe in both Creationism & Evolution simultaneously: all it requires is that a deity created life or a selection of life, and included within it the capacity for ebolution.


(I'm a believer in evolution by the way, for want of any other better explanation of the current state of affairs).

Oh, I know quite a few.

www.menofgod.us

There is a good 500 of them.

Oh, I know quite a few.

www.menofgod.us

There is a good 500 of them.

"We are experiencing some major problems at present. The web site, team speak, and many gaming servers will be down un till further notice. Please check back here for further details"

Not the most helpful link at present.

of course most christians dont believe in the bible as the inerrant word of god and utterly true. most christians believe in some form of evolution rather than the biblical story of creation. they just believe that evolution is guided by god. who's to say it isnt?

but there are some very serious fundamentalist christians who believe that every word of the bible is literally true from the garden of eden on through the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse. the very concept is so flawed that it can only be believed through faith.

if ONE Part of it is proven to be wrong, the foundation of their faith is destroyed. its like finding out that the pope is only somewhat infallible. what can you believe if you dont know what is true and what isnt?

"We are experiencing some major problems at present. The web site, team speak, and many gaming servers will be down un till further notice. Please check back here for further details"

Not the most helpful link at present.


>.>

Is it. Damn shame (cheers). You get the point from the URL though?

if ONE Part of it is proven to be wrong, the foundation of their faith is destroyed. its like finding out that the pope is only somewhat infallible.

The Pope is (according to Catholic theology) only somewhat infallible: it is only when he is speaking ex cathedra that he is infallible.


***
Ignoring us Protestants, are you?

The Pope is (according to Catholic theology) only somewhat infallible: it is only when he is speaking ex cathedra that he is infallible.


***
Ignoring us Protestants, are you?


im TRYING to.

i meant somewhat infallible within his infallibility. like finding out (how i cant imagine) that mary WASNT bodily assumed into heaven, or that st whoever-has-been-cannonized-lately ISNT in heaven.


or perhaps that the current dalai lama isnt the reincarnation of the last one?

or that joseph smith translated one of the golden plates wrong.

[QUOTE=Bodies Without Organs]
Uncharitable to the believers there: I know of no Christians (even on NS) that will assert that the events told in the Bible are completely literal retellings of actual events. Most Christians believe that a certain amount of Biblical tales are intended metaphorically - thus the story of the ark can be seen as a metaphor for the judgement and mercy of the Old Testament God. Similarly, most Christians acknowledge that even if the entirity of the Bible was divinely willed, it has ben passed down to our times through translations and enscriptions carried out by fallible humans - thus it is not as you state "disprove one part and you shoot the rest of it to hell".[QUOTE]

You know some pretty moderat Christians. Talk to some some Catholics and they will NOT admit that the bible could have been misinterpreted.
For them everything is to be defended.

Rubbin' hands together results in friction,
Not payin' the rent results in eviction,
Limitation is another word for restriction,
The trial resulted in a conviction,
I think evolution is nothin' but fiction...

Okay, so I can't rap. Shoot me.

(Some gunman runs over: "Okay!" Nooooooo! :sniper: )

Rubbin' hands together results in friction,
Not payin' the rent results in eviction,
Limitation is another word for restriction,
The trial resulted in a conviction,
I think evolution is nothin' but fiction...

Okay, so I can't rap. Shoot me.

(Some gunman runs over: "Okay!" Nooooooo! :sniper: )
Brilliant assumption. I ask of you what I ask of everyone else: Prove your point.

Rubbin' hands together results in friction,
Not payin' the rent results in eviction,
Limitation is another word for restriction,
The trial resulted in a conviction,
I think evolution is nothin' but fiction...

Okay, so I can't rap. Shoot me.

(Some gunman runs over: "Okay!" Nooooooo! :sniper: )

Prove your position. A statement of faith is meaningless to science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celdrone
Barring help from God? What is wrong with you, the whole point of the story of Noah's Ark is that God spared him. On and by the way Noah didn't have to tell them apart, God sent all the animals to Noah.


CH510-CH529
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Have fun. More to the point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH512.html


I will admit that I personaly cannot answer all of the links there, but I'm just 21, and I only became a Christian when I was 16, and five years is not enough time to learn all of Creation Science. Before that I was an atheist, and an incredibly vicious one at that. My car had the Darwin fish, I had bumper stickers telling Jesus to suck it, me and a bunch of my friends were even planning to go to a church meeting and ask a bunch of annoying questions just to piss of the Christians. Then one of my friends who was a Christian asked me to read some book his mother got for his little brother, I said no at first but he was persistent so I finaly read it. Then I told him it was a piece of shit. He asked what I was thinking when I read it so I told he I was thinking that it was a ridiculous waste of my time. So he asked me to read it again this time not letting my preconceptions get in the way (and yes despite the claims in CA230.1. Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions, everyone has preconceptions from your parents and your education as a child) I did. Lots of the evidence that I'd laughed off before started to bother me. So I found more books to read, to try and find something I knew was wrong. I couldn't. I started attending Church about three weeks later and two months after that I was Saved. The point I am trying to make is that your preconceptions, and my new ones, won't let any of us change our minds, not with out significant work on our parts. Anyone interested in more Evidence for Creation over evoloution vist here: Creation Evidence.org (http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html).
I would have loved to continue to discuss this with you, but I can see that the truth is making some of you hostile and insulting and I choose not to subject myself to it. The book mentioned above is called "It couldn't Just Happen" I am sorry but I can't remember who wrote it. The book I used in High School is called "Exploring Creation With Biology" by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell. I'll continue to check back on this thread and if tempers cool enough I'll probably come back to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celdrone
Barring help from God? What is wrong with you, the whole point of the story of Noah's Ark is that God spared him. On and by the way Noah didn't have to tell them apart, God sent all the animals to Noah.


CH510-CH529
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Have fun. More to the point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH512.html


I will admit that I personaly cannot answer all of the links there, but I'm just 21, and I only became a Christian when I was 16, and five years is not enough time to learn all of Creation Science. Before that I was an atheist, and an incredibly vicious one at that. My car had the Darwin fish, I had bumper stickers telling Jesus to suck it, me and a bunch of my friends were even planning to go to a church meeting and ask a bunch of annoying questions just to piss of the Christians. Then one of my friends who was a Christian asked me to read some book his mother got for his little brother, I said no at first but he was persistent so I finaly read it. Then I told him it was a piece of shit. He asked what I was thinking when I read it so I told he I was thinking that it was a ridiculous waste of my time. So he asked me to read it again this time not letting my preconceptions get in the way (and yes despite the claims in CA230.1. Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions, everyone has preconceptions from your parents and your education as a child) I did. Lots of the evidence that I'd laughed off before started to bother me. So I found more books to read, to try and find something I knew was wrong. I couldn't. I started attending Church about three weeks later and two months after that I was Saved. The point I am trying to make is that your preconceptions, and my new ones, won't let any of us change our minds, not with out significant work on our parts. Anyone interested in more Evidence for Creation over evoloution vist here: Creation Evidence.org (http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html).
I would have loved to continue to discuss this with you, but I can see that the truth is making some of you hostile and insulting and I choose not to subject myself to it. The book mentioned above is called "It couldn't Just Happen" I am sorry but I can't remember who wrote it. The book I used in High School is called "Exploring Creation With Biology" by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell. I'll continue to check back on this thread and if tempers cool enough I'll probably come back to it.

If a certain creator (who's deeply concerned about my sex-life and desperate for me to believe in him) were to walk into the room and start flooding stuff and creating stuff, I'd be convinced...

See, I used to be a christian, and converted to my own brand of deism when I was 17 :p


Oh, and it depends on which version or translation. They're a lot of differences between several. Which one is that from?

Your wrong!!!!!!!!

Oh my. With so many exclamation points, you MUST be right!

1. Read in Genesis they give the specifications for the ark.

The largest wooden ship even built was 350ft long, required iron cross-braces for structural support and needed constant mechanical pumping because it leaked so badly. The ark was supposedly 100ft longer, and Noah was no shipwright and had no technology to work iron.

2. You only need to take land animals.

And birds, because they still have to eat. And do you really think this helps? Noah and the animals would have to be physically *infested* with hundreds of species of worms, flukes, fleas and mites to allow them to survive, some of these having very serious health consequences. Noah would have had to catalogue the half a million of so species of beetles in the world and checked the gender of each. Since the bible says they boarded in a day, you're talking hundreds of animals a *second*.

[ICR.org counters this with the hilarious assertation that 'there were only 25,000 species then,' meaning their 'creation scientists' believe that speciation is not only possible, but happens far faster than science would predict.]

Fleas have been around for 60 million years.
Ants for 130 million years.

Fleas have been around for 60 million years.
Ants for 130 million years.

Good for them.

Fleas have been around for 60 million years.
Ants for 130 million years.

Your point being?

Theories can never be proven, they can only be disproven. Even though in my past experience, dropped objects fall to Earth, I cannot say with 100% certainty that if I lift up my keyboard and let go of it, it won't float upwards. Similarly, although it is fact that in our experience, there is variation within species, and apparently beneficial variations become more widespread, the idea we use to explain this evidence (microevolution) is a theory which might be proven wrong tomorrow by conflicting evidence that the theory is unable to explain. We would then have to devise a new theory which could explain both the old and new evidence.

I'm aware of that, but the observation that evolution happens is a fact, much like the observation that gravity happens is a fact. The theory that attempts to explain the mechanism behind it is subject to the rules of scientific proof as is the theory of gravity, but the underlying occurance that the theory attempts to describe is a fact.

The largest wooden ship even built was 350ft long, ....
And birds, because they still have to eat. And do you really think this helps? Noah and the animals would have to be physically *infested* with hundreds of species of worms, flukes, fleas and mites .....

[ICR.org counters this with the hilarious assertation that 'there were only 25,000 species then,' meaning their 'creation scientists' believe that speciation is not only possible, but happens far faster than science would predict.]

I've always wondered about the animals, fish, retiles and plants from areas totally unknown to Noah managed to be saved from the flood...Australia's own kangaroo, emu and platypus come to mind for starters.
Am I to assume that these creatures somehow swam, then travelled across country to link up with Noah, only to be deposited back into Australia again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celdrone
Barring help from God? What is wrong with you, the whole point of the story of Noah's Ark is that God spared him. On and by the way Noah didn't have to tell them apart, God sent all the animals to Noah.


CH510-CH529
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Have fun. More to the point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH512.html


I will admit that I personaly cannot answer all of the links there, but I'm just 21, and I only became a Christian when I was 16, and five years is not enough time to learn all of Creation Science. Before that I was an atheist, and an incredibly vicious one at that. My car had the Darwin fish, I had bumper stickers telling Jesus to suck it, me and a bunch of my friends were even planning to go to a church meeting and ask a bunch of annoying questions just to piss of the Christians. Then one of my friends who was a Christian asked me to read some book his mother got for his little brother, I said no at first but he was persistent so I finaly read it. Then I told him it was a piece of shit. He asked what I was thinking when I read it so I told he I was thinking that it was a ridiculous waste of my time. So he asked me to read it again this time not letting my preconceptions get in the way (and yes despite the claims in CA230.1. Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions, everyone has preconceptions from your parents and your education as a child) I did. Lots of the evidence that I'd laughed off before started to bother me. So I found more books to read, to try and find something I knew was wrong. I couldn't. I started attending Church about three weeks later and two months after that I was Saved. The point I am trying to make is that your preconceptions, and my new ones, won't let any of us change our minds, not with out significant work on our parts. Anyone interested in more Evidence for Creation over evoloution vist here: Creation Evidence.org (http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html).
I would have loved to continue to discuss this with you, but I can see that the truth is making some of you hostile and insulting and I choose not to subject myself to it. The book mentioned above is called "It couldn't Just Happen" I am sorry but I can't remember who wrote it. The book I used in High School is called "Exploring Creation With Biology" by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell. I'll continue to check back on this thread and if tempers cool enough I'll probably come back to it.


Are you straight out of a Chick Tract or something?

Creation Science is the biggest load of nonsense ever devised; their arguments range from flawed to inane, and none are backed by actual scientific evidence.

Am I to assume that these creatures somehow swam, then travelled across country to link up with Noah, only to be deposited back into Australia again?

It could be carried by an African Swallow.

Lol (I am in the Monty python region so that is specifically funny)

This is one of the threads I loved to read through (some very intelligent arguments)



I agree with the general feelings of most people that believe in evolution

“Show me”

a variation on the

“Prove it to me”

We want to see something besides blind faith.
Though that point on species completely unknown to Noah that really is a great point

Everything from species of animals to plants … (again we have to accept that their was an earth covering flood ... which is doubtful in of itself)
Lol and that 25 k different types of animals … funny stuff :)


People have brought up the point of contention between me and my family/Christian friends

Translations of the bible … which is right? (because though they are translated from the same book they have a WIDLY varied meaning to the readers) also things like translation errors (things like “40” in the original Hebrew was more like “a lot” then an actual number) but now there is significance drawn from the actual NUMBER itself which if it is based off of a flaw … how much else of your faith is also based off of flaws

The reason the story of the Ark does not work, is because it was conceived by primitive and poorly educated men, who did not understand all the difficulties that Noah might encounter in such an undertaking, but that was okay, because the intended audience were even more uneducated, and would believe practically anything they were told if it sounded interesting, and was shouted at them by a charismatic preacher.

Right,

Personally I don't believe in a lot of creationism, for many of the reasons given by others above me.

I do think that the theory of evolution is at the moment the best way of explaining how all the animals that are here are here...

I also belive that these are quite easy to defend positions. It has upset me that people who agree with my position are resorting to insults, you don't need to.

Start throwing insults about and you loose straight away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celdrone
Barring help from God? What is wrong with you, the whole point of the story of Noah's Ark is that God spared him. On and by the way Noah didn't have to tell them apart, God sent all the animals to Noah.


CH510-CH529
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Have fun. More to the point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH512.html


I will admit that I personaly cannot answer all of the links there, but I'm just 21, and I only became a Christian when I was 16, and five years is not enough time to learn all of Creation Science. Before that I was an atheist, and an incredibly vicious one at that. My car had the Darwin fish, I had bumper stickers telling Jesus to suck it, me and a bunch of my friends were even planning to go to a church meeting and ask a bunch of annoying questions just to piss of the Christians. Then one of my friends who was a Christian asked me to read some book his mother got for his little brother, I said no at first but he was persistent so I finaly read it. Then I told him it was a piece of shit. He asked what I was thinking when I read it so I told he I was thinking that it was a ridiculous waste of my time. So he asked me to read it again this time not letting my preconceptions get in the way (and yes despite the claims in CA230.1. Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions, everyone has preconceptions from your parents and your education as a child) I did. Lots of the evidence that I'd laughed off before started to bother me. So I found more books to read, to try and find something I knew was wrong. I couldn't. I started attending Church about three weeks later and two months after that I was Saved. The point I am trying to make is that your preconceptions, and my new ones, won't let any of us change our minds, not with out significant work on our parts. Anyone interested in more Evidence for Creation over evoloution vist here: Creation Evidence.org (http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html).
I would have loved to continue to discuss this with you, but I can see that the truth is making some of you hostile and insulting and I choose not to subject myself to it. The book mentioned above is called "It couldn't Just Happen" I am sorry but I can't remember who wrote it. The book I used in High School is called "Exploring Creation With Biology" by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell. I'll continue to check back on this thread and if tempers cool enough I'll probably come back to it.


Brilliant, you managed not to answer a single point that I made. Almost had me fooled into thinking that you said something there.

Nice try, no cigar. Come back with some answers.

The reason the story of the Ark does not work, is because it was conceived by primitive and poorly educated men, who did not understand all the difficulties that Noah might encounter in such an undertaking, but that was okay, because the intended audience were even more uneducated, and would believe practically anything they were told if it sounded interesting, and was shouted at them by a charismatic preacher.

All religions have some variation of a flood story. There is a theory that around the time of Noah there was an actual flood in the coastal regions around southern Turkey. Archiologists have found what they believe to be human settlements under 60 feet of water. Whether Noah built himself a giant boat, gathered up a bunch of animals and surfed out the tidal wave is probably folklore - just like all the other flood stories from history.

Really? Why don't we just burn all science books, too?

Evolution is not based on any one man's opinions any more than Democracy is based on Athens. Darwin and another man thought of it at nearly the same time (though Darwin gets the credit...), but after that it became Science.


That was Wallace if your forgot. ;) They conversed and Wallace saw that Darwin had a "better" explanation and decided to withdraw his.....

It is on the internet, ergo it is the truth.

Ahh but TV is the ultimate truth! ;)

Theories can never be proven, they can only be disproven. Even though in my past experience, dropped objects fall to Earth, I cannot say with 100% certainty that if I lift up my keyboard and let go of it, it won't float upwards. Similarly, although it is fact that in our experience, there is variation within species, and apparently beneficial variations become more widespread, the idea we use to explain this evidence (microevolution) is a theory which might be proven wrong tomorrow by conflicting evidence that the theory is unable to explain. We would then have to devise a new theory which could explain both the old and new evidence.

Not that I don't agree with evolutionism, I'm just making a point about the nature of science.

Yes, and this point about the nature of science is at the very heart of any creationism vs. evolution argument. Evolution is a theory derived from evidence - using the scientific method. Creationism is the practice of looking for evidence to support what Genesis says. Thus, while anyone who wants to may believe Creationism and disbelieve evolution just because they feel like it, Creationism *is not* science and never will be. Period. And if those who want to believe in creationism would just admit that, the whole argument would be pointless.

Has anyone bothered to mention that "Creation Science" is an inherant misuse of the term science by violating one of the fundamental pillars of scientific process, namely the necessity for repeatable, controllable experimentation? As Creation Scientists can't set up an experiment to test "creation theory" it can not be a scientific theory from the outset, regardless of whatever "evidence" may be put forth. Unless hypothesis can be proven by evidence garnered through independently repeatable experimentation, then it isn't science. And, since no one I'm aware of has convinced God to create a pocket universe for us in a test tube on command...

Darwin and another man thought of it at nearly the same time (though Darwin gets the credit...), but after that it became Science.

That was Wallace if your forgot. ;) They conversed and Wallace saw that Darwin had a "better" explanation and decided to withdraw his.....

Ah, but wasn't it Herbert Spenser that came up with the phrase "the survival of the fittest" and was the first to popularise the term 'evolution'?

Has anyone bothered to mention that "Creation Science" is an inherant misuse of the term science by violating one of the fundamental pillars of scientific process, namely the necessity for repeatable, controllable experimentation?

However, it should be noted that the theory of evolution on a macro scale also falls foul of this problem, as does any speculation about the Big Bang...

The reason the story of the Ark does not work, is because it was conceived by primitive and poorly educated men, who did not understand all the difficulties that Noah might encounter in such an undertaking...

Or it was intended allegorically/metaphorically.

Certainly it should be noted that the story has a certain power, we are drawn to debate it rather than other events in Genesis, and the similar flood tales from other cultures indicate that it is a meme of quite some potency. It may not require internal consistency or to make sense to survive and be influential.

However, it should be noted that the theory of evolution on a macro scale also falls foul of this problem, as does any speculation about the Big Bang...

However, it should be noted that unlike creation science each of these has an actual, observable scientific basis ("Microevolution" and the expanding universe, respectively) and is traced back conjecturally instead of made up on the spot.

ill give creationism a bit of respect the day one of these "scientists" publish a paper supporting the creation theory of a religion other than their own.


a christian creationist talking about the scientific validity of the hindu theory of creation, for example

Ah, but wasn't it Herbert Spenser that came up with the phrase "the survival of the fittest" and was the first to popularise the term 'evolution'?

Why yes he was. It's rather interesting how many people don't know he coined the phrase....

The term evolution may have been popularised by Spenser but the concept was around for well I am not sure actually.

In the case of Darwin, Erasamus had his own theories as well.....

Besides, his theories were part of a greater work that discussed many things(as you know "First Principles"), Darwin was the first for a formal work on just Evolution.

Hmmmm now you are making me having to go out and find First Principles! ;) Never read it. Only heard of it in lecture and it was mentioned in a book or two.....

I'm aware of that, but the observation that evolution happens is a fact, much like the observation that gravity happens is a fact. The theory that attempts to explain the mechanism behind it is subject to the rules of scientific proof as is the theory of gravity, but the underlying occurance that the theory attempts to describe is a fact.

Oh yeah of course. Just wanted to make sure we were all talking about the same terms with the same defintions.

I seem to remember reading somewhere, probably Bill Bryson's Short History of Everything, that a theory along the same lines as evolution was presented in some little-known gardening magazine some years before Darwin came up with it.

Oh yeah of course. Just wanted to make sure we were all talking about the same terms with the same defintions.

I seem to remember reading somewhere, probably Bill Bryson's Short History of Everything, that a theory along the same lines as evolution was presented in some little-known gardening magazine some years before Darwin came up with it.

If true, just like with Wallace, it was probably independantly theorized by all of them.

The universe is only 150 years old god just created all that evidence fools

The universe is only 150 years old god just created all that evidence fools


Damn...sarcasm right over my head.

Infidels, God created the world last tuesday with the appearance that you have been living for years before that! See how perfect his illusion is? ;)

ahh now the truth comes out it was doomduckistan. He created the universe when he was bored last tuesday.

or was that me? ahh well it was someone

It could be carried by an African Swallow.

Well, grant you that, yair.
African Swallow could, just not the European Swallow, not having sufficient air speed velocity.
Its all explained rather well here :

http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/

and provides a far more realistic and believable science than any ever offered by creationists.

The trouble with Evolution is that to understand it requires some scientific knowledge. However, since it contradicts biblical genesis, people who aren't scientists get involved in the argument. They will argue against it, without understanding the topic thoroughly.

What evidence is there for a creator?

What evidence is there for a creator?

An old book and many people say so. That's about it.

What evidence is there for a creator?

The fact that you and I exist. The fact that the world today is not a coincidence. How many coincidences does it take to make such a perfect natural world?

What evidence is there against a creator ;)

The trouble with Evolution is that to understand it requires some scientific knowledge. However, since it contradicts biblical genesis, people who aren't scientists get involved in the argument. They will argue against it, without understanding the topic thoroughly.
It doesn't necessarily contradict creationism, but if you believe the story told in Genesis word for word (which most Christians shouldn't despite the fact that they do, because they all say that it is the new testament they follow), then it contradicts that. You absolutely do not have to deny creationism to admit to evolution. Someone asked "How could this world be made so perfectly otherwise?" or something to that effect and mentioned something about it requiring a lot of coincidences...and I'm sort of baffled by this...I thought everyone had at least a basic understanding of Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Why do fish have gills? Because all the marine-dogs drown leaving behind only the gilled-fish. Etc. And if you're going to argue "What evidence is there against a creator?" and see there is none, then you are not even half way to knowing undeniably that creationism is absolutely right. First, the main question you have to ask yourself is "Is Genesis a reliable source for what happened all those years ago?" I mean...it may be "the word of God," but wasn't it written by man (and I might add, many many many years after the actual event), therefore it is possible that it is skewed...I mean, the theory of evolution would suggest that men looked like men long before the advent of writing and the ability to record, therefore, whatever story the people at that time came up with to explain their existance would be the one recorded forever. And after you're finished addressing this issue, you've got to answer the question, "What evidence is there against evolution?" Debate shouldn't be about proving your opponent wrong and making him look like a fool. Debate should be about answering questions for yourself and you should be more than willing to switch your view point if you find the evidence you take in is sufficient enough to personally justify that change of mind.

The fact that you and I exist. The fact that the world today is not a coincidence. How many coincidences does it take to make such a perfect natural world?

Evolution is not about coincidences, it's about a survival of the fittest. Poorly adapted breeds die out because they cannot compete with the others.

Besides, I wouldn't say the world is perfect. If you asked an engineer to design a life form (allowing them to assume we could make one) you'd probably get many improvements.

Bah, the world seems to run well enough for me.

As for the proof against, creationism and christianity arn't the same, though they are used as if they are.

I believe a diety created the world. But I'm not a christian.

Bah, the world seems to run well enough for me.

As for the proof against, creationism and christianity arn't the same, though they are used as if they are.

I believe a diety created the world. But I'm not a christian.
Well then, tally is up to two people thinkin' inside the box... (and by box, I am referring to your head, therefore, inside the box means your brain, which means making up your own mind not spreading the stuff that someone else programmed into you...)

...I really have no clue what you just said :D

...I really have no clue what you just said :D
It means me and you are the only ones that are really thinking this all the way through and considering all of the options. We have the pro-evolutions talking about putting down creationism and the pro-creationists talking about putting down evolutionism and neither has any solid proof to prove or disprove either side, and you and I speculate different options, which are apparantly pretty hard to see as we're on God-knows what page of this forum and only two people have come up with this idea...

I also belive that these are quite easy to defend positions. It has upset me that people who agree with my position are resorting to insults, you don't need to.

Start throwing insults about and you loose straight away.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...The style over substance fallacy!

<applause>

I also belive that these are quite easy to defend positions. It has upset me that people who agree with my position are resorting to insults, you don't need to.

Start throwing insults about and you loose straight away.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...The style over substance fallacy!

<applause>

Now...I feel the same way about personal insults in a debate that Nebbyland does, however I don't think they excuse me from responding to the attackers argument (if he made one, which he probably did...), so I really hope you didn't past all of Nebbyland's post...

I think one of the reasons people have difficulty grasping evolution, especially macroevolution, is because they fail to appreciate the enormous time scale involved. For example, if breeding can turn a wolf into a sharpei in 1000 or so years, just imagine what can happen in 3 billion years. 3 billion years is a long time, and humans in general have a hard time grasping the concept of a billion anything.

Also, people say, "but this is all coincidence!" Well, I'm afraid everything that happens anywhere is an extremely unlikely event. Only a tiny fraction of the suns in the universe are of the proper size to support life, only a fraction of those suns have a rocky planet at the correct distance to be able to support water in all three of it's states. Only a fraction had all the ingredients available for the development of life. Only a fraction sustained those conditions long enough for life to develop to any kind of complexity. We place special importance on it because it happend to us. When you get right down to it, the development of Mars is just as unlikely as Earth.
For example, rolling snake eyes in craps is unlikely. But guess what? Every roll is equally as unlikely. We just don't notice it because we don't place a special meaning on it. Yes, getting a Royal Flush is rare, but so is getting the exact hand you were just dealt. Don't believe me? Try dealing yourself a hand 100 times and see if you get the exact same hand twice.
What's my point? My point is that you can't dismiss something purely on the basis of it being unlikely. Everything is unlikely. It's not a basis for an argument against something. Evidence and experimentation is a basis, and the great preponderence of actual evidence supports evolution.

Now...I feel the same way about personal insults in a debate that Nebbyland does, however I don't think they excuse me from responding to the attackers argument (if he made one, which he probably did...), so I really hope you didn't past all of Nebbyland's post...

Right,

Personally I don't believe in a lot of creationism, for many of the reasons given by others above me.

I do think that the theory of evolution is at the moment the best way of explaining how all the animals that are here are here...

That's the rest of his post, a pair of 'I believe' statements. No arguments.

That's the rest of his post, a pair of 'I believe' statements. No arguments.
Heh. Sad.

The reason christian Creationists attack 'Evolutionists' is because they assume that evolution (if a reality) would undermine the 'fact' that God created the world, and the whole structure of Divine Creation, and therefore omnipotence, comes tumbling down.

The reason those that follow the theory of evolution attack (christian) Creationists is slightly different: A scientist says "Look! This disease has mutated to resist antibiotics... the surviving disease is resistant..." etc. The survival of the fittest, the progression of the most efficient, evolution. And, even though our little scientist is standing there with evolution actually happening in a petri dish in his hand, the backward southern states demand textbooks for schools that put forth the 'facts' of 'Creation', and rubbish the 'unprovable theory' of evolution.

One side has irrefutible dynamic evidence, and the other side has an old book.

Regardless of fossil records, of the discovered remains of fairly obvious ancestors to modern humans, of the scary similarity between foetal forms, and the closeness of DNA matching between species evolution suggests should be linked. Regardless of the Pepper Moths that have adapted to a more polluted environment by a complete change of colour, recordably, over the last few hundred years. regardless of all the evidence, Creationists say there is no proof.

I don't mind people believing in "Creation" without a shred of evidence except their faith. What I object to is that they would enforce it's teaching to our children - and many of them would outlaw the teaching of evolution if they could. Keep it in the church - schools are for education, use your church for indoctrination.

That's the rest of his post, a pair of 'I believe' statements. No arguments.


You're absolutely right, I didn't give any arguments, I set out my position, said that I didn't think insulting people was the right way to discuss it and left it to those who still believe that debate on a forum can change peoples minds.

I set out my "pair of 'I believe' statements" simply to give some context to the request.

And thanks for the comment about style I value it over comfort as well as content.

And thanks for the comment about style I value it over comfort as well as content.

Unfortunately, it's a logical fallacy. http://datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm

Faith is believing something you know to be untrue, then killing anyone who disagrees.

hey im a christian (catholic [not a very good one])
But i believe god created every thing science proves.
he created those single cell organisms and the law of science survival of the fittest so he created life and evolution

Unfortunately, it's a logical fallacy. http://datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm
Of course your link is correct, an argument succeeds or fails on the accuracy of the statements, my aim by my post was simply that those who had the same opinion as me (that I presented so as to avoid causing offence to those who I didn't intend to) were unnecessarily using insults against those whose opinions I didn't share. I think I asked them to stop the reason I did this was that I felt that they didn't need to be used.

There haven't been insults used since thus the purpose of my post was successful.

Had I been intending to persuade people that my view was the correct one then yes I will admit my post was a little pointless. I don't believe that I will persuade many people here that they are incorect in their belief that evolution is a load of BS as the creator of this thread stated. It also doesn't bother me that these people believe that. What did bother me was people who believed as I do resorting to insults to somehow persuade someone that their opinion was wrong.

Anyway I'd rather argue against someone wrong but with a well formed argument (style over content) than someone who is right but cannot defend their point of view (content over style). Better yet I'd rather discuss things that have no right or wrong with someone who might persuade me to change my mind.

why did we stop evolving
If you mean the human race, just take a look how it was 10 years ago. Then Internet for one thing wasn't as big as it is now. I would call that evolving.

If you mean like new spiecies, then there are actually evidence of current spieces that adopts to changes in there enviroment. Altho, it's alot harder to see evolution over ten years compaired to ten million years.

So I read this ENTIRE thread and I just have to say a few things:

1) I believe that many people don’t understand evolution because they haven't studied it properly. A lot of what they may know about it is just something someone once told them when they were taking a class long ago. Otherwise you wouldn't get statements such as "Evolution is total BS." The general population has some grave misconceptions about evolution and science in general. Much of this is based on Fear, Miseducation and Intolerance (as evidenced by many responces contained in this thread).

2) Some people may choose to trust in religion rather than science in the case of evolution. To me, it's never made sense to do that. Blind Faith is silly in my mind. I feel that in this day and age we would trust thousands of scholars and scientists rather than the contents of a good book i.e. the Bible. Other than that, there is no evidence for creationism. It is based on faith and belief that God created this world.

In any case, how can some measly people win against the "truth" which is told in the Bible? I feel like most will choose to believe the things which validate those beliefs, rather than doubt and undermine their current, personal theory. How can one not question this book as there is so much evidence more logical and contrary to this novel? This is how ignorance is born, because some are willing to listen and believe unsubstantiated "facts."



I needed to rant.

Thanks

I'm sorry, New Spartacus, but asking why we stopped evolving is the silliest question of all.
First of all, Man (Homo Sapiens Sapiens,) is an extremely young species. We've only been around 300,00 years, tops, and most estimates put it at 150,000-200,000 years. That, by evolutionary standards is a fingersnap. There's no evidence that we haven't stopped evolving. There simply hasn't been enough elapsed time to determine that.

Second, evolution only happens if there's a survival benefit. Sharks, for example, are supremely adapted to their environment. There is no survival benefit for them to change to any extent, therefore those slight genetic changes over time tend to be reabsorbed into the gene pool. In fact, most evolutionary changes to a shark would probably be detrimental to their survival, and so therefore are not passed down to the next generation.

It's similar with humans. There's little or no pressure for us to change because we now adapt our environment to suit us, rather than the other way around.

Again this misconception is fostered by a basic misunderstanding of what evolution is and a failure to grasp the enormous time scale involved. We can look at a number like a million and logically know that it's a thousand times larger than a thousand, but we don't have an experential feel for what a million years entails. We have a hard time wrapping our heads around the enormity of it, and so therefore we just assume that if much hasn't changed in the human species since man was able to make a written and visual record of himself, then he must not be changing at all.

To make it very simple:

We have no way to know that we're not evolving, and even if we aren't, it's entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.

hey im a christian (catholic [not a very good one])
But i believe god created every thing science proves.
he created those single cell organisms and the law of science survival of the fittest so he created life and evolution

and when he was done with it all and set the wheels in motion he got bored and started another project? =P

Don't take that seriously at all. And btw, I am a swedish atheist, feel free to "mock" that fact with jokes how much you want. Just sqaying that so everyone should understand there should be no hard feelings about this.

I remember studying the homo sapien evolution, one of the trends scientists have seen of late is human babies are born with larger brains. However, this trend has been documented on a very short time scale.

I remember studying the homo sapien evolution, one of the trends scientists have seen of late is human babies are born with larger brains. However, this trend has been documented on a very short time scale.

This isn't evolution in the genetic sense. This will probably have more to do with better pre-natal nutrition and general care (stopping smoking, drinking etc.) on the part of many mothers-to-be in the populations surveyed.

I would need genetic proof that we evolved from a monkey much less an a singl cell that simply poofed into existence
What would you prefer to believe? The "magic" Biblical creationism theory? There the whole world and humanity simply poofed into existence.

Besides, the first cell didn't poof into existence. It was created due to a correct alignment of proteins. This alignment is detailed and probability is against it happening, which is why most planets don't have life. But it happened on Earth.

This isn't evolution in the genetic sense. This will probably have more to do with better pre-natal nutrition and general care (stopping smoking, drinking etc.) on the part of many mothers-to-be in the populations surveyed.

I never said that it means we are evolving, but that its just a trend. There could be other reasons as well, because one of the ways they document this is by the number of cesarean-sections doctors are performing on pregnant women. Maybe it just means women don't elect to give natural childbirth. There is obviously very little that we know about homo sapien evolution because our evidence spans but a tiny spec of time.

I never said that it means we are evolving, but that its just a trend. There could be other reasons as well, because one of the ways they document this is by the number of cesarean-sections doctors are performing on pregnant women. Maybe it just means women don't elect to give natural childbirth. There is obviously very little that we know about homo sapien evolution because our evidence spans but a tiny spec of time.

There is that, I suppose: a lot more c-sections get done these days for a variety of reasons, many of them non-medical. Which is not to say that this behavioural/environmental change won't have some evolutionary effect on humanity.

What would you prefer to believe? The "magic" Biblical creationism theory? There the whole world and humanity simply poofed into existence.

Besides, the first cell didn't poof into existence. It was created due to a correct alignment of proteins. This alignment is detailed and probability is against it happening, which is why most planets don't have life. But it happened on Earth.


Plus scientists have been able to re-create the conditions of pre-historic earth in a test tube (putting all those gasses and elements together in a closed system). When subjected to things which jump-started the "evolution" process (subjecting the system to electricity and heat), within several weeks the system consisting of mostly elements, contained organic molecules which are ordinarily found in living things.

I know this because i took a class on evolutionary biology and we studied this. However, im having a hard time locating the name of the scientists responsible. Im pretty sure it was more than one. I'll do my best to search for it in the next day or so. If anyone knows, please post.

There is that, I suppose: a lot more c-sections get done these days for a variety of reasons, many of them non-medical. Which is not to say that this behavioural/environmental change won't have some evolutionary effect on humanity.

True, part of the reason this is interesting, is because normally a baby's head is limited in size because it has to come out of a pretty small opening which is why our heads arent Gigantic!!! But, since we can just perform c-sections, a baby's head isnt limited in size anymore, the pressure has been removed, so baby's heads and brains for that matter can be even bigger. The implications of this are quite obvious, but we won't be able to see the actual impact for many generations, if there is to be one (like higher IQ or something of that sort).

So what you are saying is that if evolution as a theory can be proved (which to date it has not) then that proves that there is no God.
you eliminate all other possibilities? Not a very scientific approach. Man through selective breeding has produced the Shire horse, the Shetland Pony, the Jack Russell and the Bull Mastif. If a greater power exists you would not credit it (him/her) with the same abilities that man has demonstrated since the times of the pyramids?
I love these open minded science types!
Evolution is a good workable theory with a few holes. If accepted it still does not discount creationism, just how what has been written should be understood.
I sit on the fence here as both sides of the argument have merit, I have said before, Steven Hawkin said his big bang theory still leaves room for god!
Because what was there before? Where did it come from? And just because we don't see a patern does not mean there is not one there!

I'm not having kids if they're going to crush my mind with psychic powers...

Kirtondom,

One of the most basic rules of science is that you cannot prove a negative, therefore no true scientist can say "There is no such thing as God!"

What get's us science-minded people is a willingness to believe things without anything to back it up and a resistance to any information to the contrary.

Most of here have not rejected God per se. What we do question is a literal adherence to the idea of Creationism as it is presented in The Bible (or, as there are a myriad of differing translations, "The Bibles",) especially when there are alternative explanations that have a lot more evidence backing them up.

I for one think that there is more to reality than I can perceive in the here-and-now. Why? Because I believe we do not know everything and that our sensory apparatus is not equipped to sense the entirety of reality.

There is room for God inside a strict interpretation of science. There is no room for science inside a strict interpretation of The Bible.

So what you are saying is that if evolution as a theory can be proved (which to date it has not) then that proves that there is no God.
you eliminate all other possibilities? Not a very scientific approach.

Where the crap did you get that? If evolution is "proven" that can still only take us to the beginning of life. It doesnt prove what happened before, creation of universe, like Big Bang or anything like that. "Someone" could have still thrown all those elements together, and through evolution all life was created. However, science is based on more than ONE book. It's also a lot easier looking for things to "fit the theory" rather than finding answers by trying to disprove a theory or hypothesis - that is what the scientific method is.

Kirtondom,

One of the most basic rules of science is that you cannot prove a negative, therefore no true scientist can say "There is no such thing as God!"

What get's us science-minded people is a willingness to believe things without anything to back it up and a resistance to any information to the contrary.

Most of here have not rejected God per se. What we do question is a literal adherence to the idea of Creationism as it is presented in The Bible (or, as there are a myriad of differing translations, "The Bibles",) especially when there are alternative explanations that have a lot more evidence backing them up.

I for one think that there is more to reality than I can perceive in the here-and-now. Why? Because I believe we do not know everything and that our sensory apparatus is not equipped to sense the entirety of reality.

There is room for God inside a strict interpretation of science. There is no room for science inside a strict interpretation of The Bible.


Well said, but what you mention about sensing the entirety of reality, have you ever read "The Doors of Perception" By Aldous Huxley?

Kirtondom,

One of the most basic rules of science is that you cannot prove a negative, therefore no true scientist can say "There is no such thing as God!"

What get's us science-minded people is a willingness to believe things without anything to back it up and a resistance to any information to the contrary.

Most of here have not rejected God per se. What we do question is a literal adherence to the idea of Creationism as it is presented in The Bible (or, as there are a myriad of differing translations, "The Bibles",) especially when there are alternative explanations that have a lot more evidence backing them up.

I for one think that there is more to reality than I can perceive in the here-and-now. Why? Because I believe we do not know everything and that our sensory apparatus is not equipped to sense the entirety of reality.

There is room for God inside a strict interpretation of science. There is no room for science inside a strict interpretation of The Bible.
Well put and can't find much to disagree with. The Bible (or other texts) do present some problems, because the writters were restricted by thier own experience, education and perceptions, therefore anything written by man will be inherently flawed. We cannot at present pass a concept from one mind to another without the posibility of misunderstanding or 'filtering' taking place.
I agree if you say the bible is correct verbatum you are on a loser from the outset. If you say the bible presents us with a basis then (and this is the fudged part) you can intepret the days of creation as any unit you like, and they could be decreasing in value geometricaly or anything, who's to say? All I say is don't dismiss the bible out of hand as religious people should not dismiss evolution out of hand, could it not still be 'god' at work?
As I say both have merits and I'll continue to prod this argument whenever it pops up.

I think Evolution is total BS, and is there any real proof? I don't think so

Yes, there is. How do you think that Darwin arrived at the conclusion that species change over time to adapt better to their environment? He didn't just dream it.

At the time there already had been discoveries of fossilized bones of animals never seen in the world and that could not be found anywhere. Existing species were being classified in a rough system according to their physical characteristics, i.e. teeth, legs, stomachs, etc. Some people noted that some of the fossils had some of the characteristics of existing animals and wondered if they were related.

After his trip around the world, classifying many species and, especially in the Galapagos, seeing how some specied that were virtually identical except for a specialized beak or other part of the body that allowed them to use a particular resource in an island, got to think if all those different species had originated from a common ancestor and the offspring changed, after many many generations to survive in the new environments.

To this idea he called evolution (gradual change) through means of natural selection (the idea that the better adapted survive). You could try getting his book "The origin of species" and find out how he came with his ideas. It's a fascinating reading even if you end up not accepting his train of thought.

In the 150 years or so after "The origin of species" a lot more evidence has been found to support evolution, mainly by tracing mytochondrial DNA and a better fossil record (though by no means even near complete). How natural selection works and why some species survive or how successful mutations come about is still a matter for debate, whether evolution happens slowly or in big jumps, since our current capacity of observation and the time involved for these changes to happen doesn't let us experiment in complex species and environments. Microorganisms and insects are easy to observe and experiment with, but they still leave some questions.

Evolution is pretty much regarded as fact by scientists today, and even most creationists are more concerned with the point of origin than with the mechanism leading to the variety of species, since it's so clear that species evolved and continue to evolve.

But evidence of a creator or guiding hand of evolution? So far, nothing.

Anya Bananya,

No, I sadly haven't read that yet, but as it's the inspiration for the name of one of my favorite bands (The Doors) I should certainly get on it, shouldn't I?

Where the crap did you get that? If evolution is "proven" that can still only take us to the beginning of life. It doesnt prove what happened before, creation of universe, like Big Bang or anything like that. "Someone" could have still thrown all those elements together, and through evolution all life was created. However, science is based on more than ONE book. It's also a lot easier looking for things to "fit the theory" rather than finding answers by trying to disprove a theory or hypothesis - that is what the scientific method is.
I agree with everything you just ranted out there. Sit down, take a sip of water and think calm thoughts.
I was trying to say exactly what you have reiterated.

Anya Bananya,

No, I sadly haven't read that yet, but as it's the inspiration for the name of one of my favorite bands (The Doors) I should certainly get on it, shouldn't I?

Yes. It's actually Huxley quoting Blake, IIRC.

Evolution is pretty much regarded as fact by scientists today,


No it is accepted as a very good working theory, not fact, like the theory of relativity. Works ok to date in most aspects but still flawed in others.

I agree with everything you just ranted out there. Sit down, take a sip of water and think calm thoughts.
I was trying to say exactly what you have reiterated.

it just didnt seem like you were saying the same things, sorry about that.

As far as the Bible goes, the way i like to think of it is as a good book, a really well written novel. In my mind it has nothing to do with god (and this of course is an issue of FAITH in God, which i dont have) but I have entertained the idea that it could be a metaphor for what actually happened (evolution, big bang, blah blah- and i have faith in science). To me the Bible is like the Greek myths about nature, it all seems very similar to me. We know that no one carries the sun in a chariot across the sky. But why do some still believe Noah built an ark?

it just didnt seem like you were saying the same things, sorry about that.

As far as the Bible goes, the way i like to think of it is as a good book, a really well written novel. In my mind it has nothing to do with god (and this of course is an issue of FAITH in God, which i dont have) but I have entertained the idea that it could be a metaphor for what actually happened (evolution, big bang, blah blah- and i have faith in science). To me the Bible is like the Greek myths about nature, it all seems very similar to me. We know that no one carries the sun in a chariot across the sky. But why do some still believe Noah built an ark?
That's fine. But I'll leave you with a few random sentences and let you infer what you will.
Baby, bath water.
Partialy flawed theory.
Hitler doesn't make vegatrianism bad.
I'll be back on the medicine soon, so should make more sense next time.

Evolution is something that scientists came up with, because they refused to believe the simple truth that God created the universe. There is practically no evidence supporting it. Granted, there's no evidence supporting creation either. But I think it takes greater faith to believe that you came from a monkey, than to believe that there's someone greater than you out there that created you. Humans have this awful habit of trying to be better than everyone and everything else. What would be so bad about having someone higher than you out there?

Oh and whoever said the the thing about no evidence supporting a worldwide flood, you're most definitely wrong about that. There's loads of evidence, and even scientists will tell you that at one point the world was completely covered in water. So... basically, I just wanted to say, YOU'RE WRONG, and check your facts before you post them, because I hate when people give other people false info, just to make themselves seem important.

No it is accepted as a very good working theory, not fact, like the theory of relativity. Works ok to date in most aspects but still flawed in others.

Ah, that is where you'd be wrong my friend. The majority of scientists do, in fact, fully support the theory of evolution as fact. It is taught as fact in the majority of public schools, or, no other theory will be offered for the kids to believe. It's being forced upon us, whether you wish to see it or not.They use the theory to support other things, assuming that evolution is fact, which in fact, it is not, so facts need to be separated from theory. Fact. The end.

Ah, that is where you'd be wrong my friend. The majority of scientists do, in fact, fully support the theory of evolution as fact. It is taught as fact in the majority of public schools, or, no other theory will be offered for the kids to believe. It's being forced upon us, whether you wish to see it or not.They use the theory to support other things, assuming that evolution is fact, which in fact, it is not, so facts need to be separated from theory. Fact. The end.

it is the only scientific theory to explain the origins of our species, and you think it shouldnt be taught?

There is practically no evidence supporting it.
If you're going to then say "check your facts", perhaps you should, too?
There's pleny of evidence to support evolution (the emphasis is on 'support') - It doesn't mean it all accurately points to the proof of evolution, but it does help support the theory.

As a neutral point: People have an amazing tendency to be able to read what they need in most data.

Humans have this awful habit of trying to be better than everyone and everything else. What would be so bad about having someone higher than you out there?
Because we can't comprehend why a higher being would create us, so part of our population have gone looking for the answer in one place (spiritualism) and another part have gone looking for something that they can understand more easily - evolution.

There's loads of evidence, and even scientists will tell you that at one point the world was completely covered in water.
Hmm... not quite true. The closest to that would be when the Earth was entirely covered in ice and snow.
The only time the sea could cover all of the land is when the ice caps melt and/or the land has eroded beneath the level of the water - whilst this will eventually happen, there's no proof that it has happened before and is considered to be another theory (much like evolution).

One point that was raised earlier used the fact that humans have stopped evolving as a point. Why would anyone think that?
Humans haven't stopped evolving, we just have less predators so our evolution has changed slightly. We are now evolving around society instead of survival.
A few quick examples of this: Little toes are getting smaller because we don't use them anymore - it's thought that they will eventually disappear altogether.
Appendix - Since we no longer die from appendicitis (or rarely), the appendix is no longer getting smaller (even though it doesn't work anymore because we no longer eat grass)

I think the best middle-ground is the possibility that the higher being created the Universe and planets and left life to develop itself. Not being very religious, I find this the only point that anyone can get to an agreement on because it doesn't exclude either point and you would never be able to prove it either way.

Penguinz Rule,

A few problems with your statements:

1. No evidence supporting evolution? Are you mad? Just because you haven't read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The amount of evidence via genetics, paleontology, and direct observation is staggering.

2. The idea wasn't just "made up". It was formulated 150 years ago and tested, refined, retested, refined again and so on ever since then.

3. There simply isn't enough water, even if it were to all melt and every ounce precipitated from the atmoshere, to cover the entire globe unless the crust was entirely smoothed out, and as our planet is geologically active, the crust is never going to be entirely smooth, especially not in the relatively short period of time in which man has existed. Maybe in the very beginning the Earth was that featureless, but as everything was most likely molten at that point, I seriously doubt that there was a world-covering ocean at that time.

What there is evidence of are several very large floods that happened in the Mesopatamian (Fertile Crescent) region in prehistoric times. As mankind was concentrated around those regions, it could very well account for the flood stories, because the primitive peoples of the era would have seen their know "world" covered in water without having any way of knowing what was happening beyond their borders.

Ah, that is where you'd be wrong my friend. The majority of scientists do, in fact, fully support the theory of evolution as fact.
wrong. NO scientist accepts the theory of evolution as fact, they accept it as a theory...that is a key part of being a scientist, and anybody who doesn't understand the distinction between fact and theory is not a scientist. there is not a single evolutionary biologist who believes macroevolution to be fact, they simply believe it is a thus-far-undisproven theory, and therefore the best working model. microevolution IS a fact, since it has been observed firsthand thousands of times in the laboratory and in the wild, but macroevolution is still regarded as a theory.

Oh and whoever said the the thing about no evidence supporting a worldwide flood, you're most definitely wrong about that. There's loads of evidence, and even scientists will tell you that at one point the world was completely covered in water. So... basically, I just wanted to say, YOU'RE WRONG, and check your facts before you post them, because I hate when people give other people false info, just to make themselves seem important.

So for fear of making yourself "seem important" please tell me what evidence you have of this worldwide flood.

ok, I'm an actual, honest to goodness biologist so lets see if we can set some things strait here. First off, despite what some people will claim there are transitionary fossils (assuming you don't believe all we scientists are a part of some huge conspiracy). 2: evolution is indeed still happening today, the rate at which evolution occurs is determined by the environment and the rate at which an organism reproduces. Human Evolution takes much longer then say bacterial evolution because we reproduce at such a slow rate. For evidence of the basics of evolution (ie natural selection) all you need to look at is the development of anti-biotic resistant bacteria or Mosquito's immune to DDT. Why does this happen? Simple a few individuals in the population have a genetic trait which makes them more resistant to that particular stress, normally this gene is eithe non-adaptive (ie it has no bearing on survival) or mal-adaptive (its over all harmful to the organisms ability to reporduce) however once the stress is introduced to the environment killing all the ones without that gene the ones that are left thrive and become the dominant strain. According to evolutionary theory (which I will admit is only a theory) over enough time, thousands and millions of years if this kept happening and a population was isolated enough so that many changes could build up in a population a new species would form. I'm not even going to touch the issue of how life originated as that ones even more up in the air, however I will point out that according to current theories the first mass extinction event was due to the increase of oxygen in the atmosphere by the first photosynthetic organisms (the first organisms were likely chemosynthetic or heterotrophic) so the line about the earths atmosphere always being oxygen rich is a bit rediculous. Finally, this whole arguement has gotten silly, let me ask this, why does evolution omit the presence of god? is not a day like unto a thousand years to god? I take this to mean that time to god is not directly related to how we humans percieve god. It is quite possible that god, if he exists (I am an atheist by the way) could merely use evolution as the tool by which he works.

The whole idea of fact that theory is all very relative anyway, depends on how it's defined. i think you should stop arguing about whether evolution is fact or theory.

wrong. NO scientist accepts the theory of evolution as fact,

Wrong. It is fact and theory, just like gravity.

they accept it as a theory...that is a key part of being a scientist, and anybody who doesn't understand the distinction between fact and theory is not a scientist.
Just like you don't grasp the difference between hypothesis and theory.

there is not a single evolutionary biologist who believes macroevolution to be fact,
Except for those who've observed it.

Theory != guess. Get it?

Ok, yet another silly arguement. First off NOTHING in science is a fact, the best you get is a law. Here for all you non-science people is the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, a law, and a fact.

A hypothesis is a proposed solution to a problem, evidence is collected and experiments performed to try an disprove it, until it is disproven the hypothesis stands

A Theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and re-tested a great deal, to the point where we are fairly confident in it being accurate.

A Law is a theory/hypothesis that has been observed and tested so many times that its almost ridiculous and still has not been disproved. In fact it has been tested so often that is treated pretty muych as fact.

A fact is something we know absolutely to be true, no question. In science, since you do not set out to prove something, rather you set out to disprove it under a given circumstance, nothing can become "fact".

If I have to choose between creation and evolution I'm taking evolution.
It makes sense and recent trends have somewhat proven it.
Have you noticed how talk children are becoming now adays?
That's natural selection also called evolution.

BAAWA,

Um, I have to disagree with you that macroevolution has been observed. As there are no human beings who have lifespans in the millions of years, no one has observed macroevolution. There is still quite a bit of fossil and genetic evidence to back it up though.

So for fear of making yourself "seem important" please tell me what evidence you have of this worldwide flood.

First of all, thanks from the Biologist - very astutely stated. As to the flood, though, it is impossible, and has been proven by geologists (by studying the formation of layers of rock). The proof is in that the layers of rock have to have certain levels of what deposits in rock when there is water covering them for a period of time. Shortly put, there would be silt deposits in the layers of rock. Now while we have these some places - where there could have been localized flooding, there is not, in fact, evidence at all for a worldwide flood. The other stories that we've seen in cultures - such as the epic of Gilgamesh in Sumeria, are not good enough evidence for a worldwide flood there is just the commonality that a great flood is a cultural archetype. It's a good story idea, and one that would help a culture identify with water. Now, I'm not trying to refute religion - I'm a devout Jew, but I definately don't take the bible as a completely literal document - and there's something wrong if they do. There's just simply not evidence for a great flood, sorry :(. Would be kind of cool, though, no?

Wrong. It is fact and theory, just like gravity.


Just like you don't grasp the difference between hypothesis and theory.


Except for those who've observed it.

Theory != guess. Get it?

incorrect. gravity is a law, and is not refered to as theory by any physicist i know. this "law" is actually much more restricted and narrowly defined than most people realize, and there are large parts of what the layman calls "gravity" that are not included in the law because they are still being worked on. however, there is a "law" of gravity that has been proven to the farthest extent science is capable of. evolution, in contrast, is regarded as a developing theory by those who study it, and i have yet to meet a biologist who refers to it as "fact." no reputable scientist would do so, according to the publishers of Science. evolution is not proven in the same way that gravity is proven, largely because it cannot be directly observed and therefore cannot be decisively confirmed (yet).

i don't see what you are talking about by bringing up hypothesis and theory. i understand the difference to be that a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation, while a theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

no evolutionary biologist (or any other person) has observed macroevolution. it's simply not possible to do so. macroevolution takes place over such long periods of time that humanity as a species hasn't existed long enough to witness it in its full extent. i don't see how you can claim that any scientist has observed it, since that is physically impossible. perhaps you are thinking of microevolution?

Omega Sect,

The increase in average height is generally agreed to be the result of better health/nutrition rather than genetic change. The time period in which the height change has been observed is simply too short for it to be the result of evolutionary change.

i don't see what you are talking about by bringing up hypothesis and theory.
I bring it up, because while you may know the difference, not everyone does. In common parlance the two terms are used interchangably. Oh and while I'm here I might point out that the theory of entropy merely states that without energy input a higher ordered item will move towards a state of disorder. Life in general does not violate this because we are constantly inputing more energy (ie food).

I bring it up, because while you may know the difference, not everyone does. In common parlance the two terms are used interchangably. Oh and while I'm here I might point out that the theory of entropy merely states that without energy input a higher ordered item will move towards a state of disorder. Life in general does not violate this because we are constantly inputing more energy (ie food).

erm, if you are Baawa, then why did you insultingly claim i don't know the difference? why did you bring that up, when it has no bearing on the current discussion? i'm not saying it's not a valid point, just that it is a side-issue that we shouldn't allow to muddle an already complex topic.

I am not Baawa, I'm Bacon and Sharkie (don't ask). I brought that up for the sake of Baawa

If I have to choose between creation and evolution I'm taking evolution.
It makes sense and recent trends have somewhat proven it.
Have you noticed how talk children are becoming now adays?
That's natural selection also called evolution.

Taller children isn't due to natural selection, it's due to better nutrition and living conditions. The average height dropped in the industrialised West in the 19th and 20th centuries because of cramped housing, bad food and lack of sunlight: hence things like the British "Bantam" regiments from industrial cities in WWI.

Natural selection only works through reproduction. If a mutation gives an individual a better chance of reproducing, or a better chance of his/her offspring reproducing, then it will be selected for. In fact, it doesn't always have to give a better chance: just so long as it doesn't mess anything up then there's a chance that the mutation will perpetuate in subsequent generations.