NationStates Jolt Archive

actualy it cant possibly exist. darwin himself said that all things have evolved from something else. how is that possible for a rock? metals?, etc. in some past life a rock was still a rock, not a giraffe.


as it is, if you have any religous faith at all, you usually belive in creation, not some nut job scientist trying to sound like he is special by explaining everything in the world without god.

actualy it cant possibly exist. darwin himself said that all things have evolved from something else. how is that possible for a rock? metals?, etc. in some past life a rock was still a rock, not a giraffe.

as it is, if you have any religous faith at all, you usually belive in creation, not some nut job scientist trying to sound like he is special by explaining everything in the world without god.

erm, Darwin said all LIVING things have evolved from something else. a rock is not alive. what about that is confusing for you?

most scientists aren't trying to feel special by learning and studying, any more than people are trying to be special when they learn to read and write...people are curious animals, and like to learn. if you are threatened by somebody proposing reasons other than God then perhaps you should take a good long look at you beliefs, and why it is that you are so hostile towards people who ask you only to use the brain you claim God gave you.

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

ahh, okay. some people use multiple names, so i was just checking.

actualy it cant possibly exist. darwin himself said that all things have evolved from something else. how is that possible for a rock? metals?, etc. in some past life a rock was still a rock, not a giraffe.


as it is, if you have any religous faith at all, you usually belive in creation, not some nut job scientist trying to sound like he is special by explaining everything in the world without god.

ok, I'm not going to be insulted by the fact that you just ignored my statement that evolution does not eliminate god (I would point out that Darwin himself was a very devout man) . As for a rock evolving, lets look at marble, which is merely Limestone which has been changed, or the various sedimentary rocks. And with tectonic theory those same rocks can get subsumed and melted and re-erupted as magma to form that type of rock (the word escapes me, what can I say I'm a biologist not a geologist).

ok, I'm not going to be insulted by the fact that you just ignored my statement that evolution does not eliminate god (I would point out that Darwin himself was a very devout man) . As for a rock evolving, lets look at marble, which is merely Limestone which has been changed, or the various sedimentary rocks. And with tectonic theory those same rocks can get subsumed and melted and re-erupted as magma to form that type of rock (the word escapes me, what can I say I'm a biologist not a geologist).

igneous rock is the sort formed directly from volcanic action (from magma etc).

as it is, if you have any religous faith at all, you usually belive in creation, not some nut job scientist trying to sound like he is special by explaining everything in the world without god.

As a side note, one of my fellow biology majors in college was a very devout woman who accepted both evolution and creationism (since the two are not inherently opposed).

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.

No, really. it's regarded as fact. Pretty much like light comes out of the Sun. It's the mechanics of evolution that are theorized about, pretty much like how is light formed in the Sun.

Species change over time, that's a fact. How species change and why, there are theories (natural selection, mutation, etc.).

actualy it cant possibly exist. darwin himself said that all things have evolved from something else. how is that possible for a rock? metals?, etc. in some past life a rock was still a rock, not a giraffe.


as it is, if you have any religous faith at all, you usually belive in creation, not some nut job scientist trying to sound like he is special by explaining everything in the world without god.

so scientists are the nut jobs now? cause they never get anything right now do they...

there is a lot of evidence against evolution no one has brought up. i would like to see what people think of carbon dating and dating by layers. also what do the people of the forum think about how "man" began?

there is a lot of evidence against evolution no one has brought up.

Bring it up then.

Just a note... can anything ever be fact then (If fact is defined by absolute truth, that sort of sense)? You can never be 100% sure.

there is a lot of evidence against evolution no one has brought up. i would like to see what people think of carbon dating and dating by layers. also what do the people of the forum think about how "man" began?

There is nothing to "think" there is plenty of evidence that you should look up yourself. I second the "a lot of evidence against evolution no one has brought up" i hope you have more to say than that.

PintoBerg,

I have never, in all my reading, seen anything that actually disproves evolution. I really wish people would actually read carefully what has already been stated in this forum already, especially those things that have been stated by an actual biologist!

The difference between science and faith is that faith rejects everything that falls outside it's tiny box of perception. If it doesn't fit one's pre-concieved notions, then it is ignored, almost to the point of delusion. The very basis of science is that nothing is to be ignored. There is no such thing as "fact" because we accept that there can always be something out there that proves us wrong.

So, I'm not saying evolution is fact, I am saying that as of yet I have never seen any valid information that disproves it. Please, prove me wrong.

there is a lot of evidence against evolution no one has brought up. i would like to see what people think of carbon dating and dating by layers. also what do the people of the forum think about how "man" began?

Ok, now you will have to forgive me on some of this as my specialty is marine biology so once you move on land I start to lose some of my knowledge base. Radio dating (Carbon 14 dating isn't really useful for most evolutionary work as the half life is only 5600 years or so) is a very useful tool, but one must realize that there are ALOT of things that can mess it up including fire and other natural effects. As for dating by layers it is very useful for determining relative dates because of the laws of stratigrophy (basically without outside intervention the oldest layer is always on the botom). Now, for human evolution. I know this is a touchy one so I will keep it breef. The fossil record, which is fairly incomplete, does show a progression of hominid (human) species through the years. And before people bring up the Homo Neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) lets make one thign clear, they were not, according to the evidence, ancestors of modern man. They were a seperate species/sub-species which overlapped in time with Homo Sapien Sapien (modern man) who shared a comon ancestor with us. The most recent evidence indicates a single migration of Homo Sapiens from africa as the current species which would come to out compete what other hominids where in existence at the time.

there is a lot of evidence against evolution no one has brought up. i would like to see what people think of carbon dating and dating by layers. also what do the people of the forum think about how "man" began?

Would you care to mention any of this evidence? Several people have claimed that evidence "against evolution" exists but so far everyone's been too shy to actually produce any of it.

As for carbon dating: it's good for dating organic materials in an archaeological timescale. Other dating methods -- e.g. lead isochron -- are better for longer (i.e. geological) timescales and non-organic materials.

Dating by layers: older layers at the bottom, younger layers on top. Easy. Oh, and never try it in a cave system: the layers are so thin you'll never be able to tell anything.

"Man" didn't "begin": modern humans evolved from earlier hominids and primates. Hence the extremely close genetic relationship between modern humans and other modern primates.

There is no such thing as "fact" because we accept that there can always be something out there that proves us wrong.



Excepting of course those analytic, tautological ones, which may include the statements of mathematics. Science also relies on various basic assumptions which it cannot consider as anything other than facts - assumptions such as the law of the excluded middle, and other basic tenets of logic.


Your claim that there are no "facts" in science is dodgy because you then go on to claim that there can always be something that proves us wrong. What is this something, if it is not a "fact"?

there is a lot of evidence against evolution no one has brought up. i would like to see what people think of carbon dating and dating by layers. also what do the people of the forum think about how "man" began?

Yes, there is some evidence (real evidence, not wild speculations) that don't seem to fit in the current evolutionary understanding. I wouldn't call it a lot, because there are many more pieces of evidence that support it. Scientist normally don't bother with this kind of evidence because they tend to be one of a king, a statiscal anomally, and no observation can be infered from them.

If more were found, enough to reveal a pattern, then the evolutionary theory would have to be revised. That's the nice thing about science.

Yes, there is some evidence (real evidence, not wild speculations) that don't seem to fit in the current evolutionary understanding. I wouldn't call it a lot, because there are many more pieces of evidence that support it. Scientist normally don't bother with this kind of evidence because they tend to be one of a king, a statiscal anomally, and no observation can be infered from them.

If more were found, enough to reveal a pattern, then the evolutionary theory would have to be revised. That's the nice thing about science.

Absolutely. Successfully undermine a basic tenet of a religion and the believers will try to burn you at the stake. Successfully undermine a basic tenet of science and the scientists will give you the Nobel prize.

Your claim that there are no "facts" in science is dodgy because you then go on to claim that there can always be something that proves us wrong. What is this something, if it is not a "fact"?

Perhaps a better way to put it is that no explanation is fact, an observed phenomena such as pigeons flying is a fact, however the explanation for it can never become a fact because that explanation can always be disproven with new evidence. The hypothesis gets upgraded as things fail to disprove it, until it gets to the point where it has become so unlikely it will be disproved that we use it as the basis for other hypothesis (ie a theory or a law)

Perhaps a better way to put it is that no explanation is fact, an observed phenomena such as pigeons flying is a fact, however the explanation for it can never become a fact because that explanation can always be disproven with new evidence.

How does this sound:

Under scientific method all facts are at best provisional (except for those unquestionable assumptions that underpin science itself).

That works for me.

Bodies Without Organs,

Sigh,

I refer you to the top of page 17 of this very forum for a discussion of the difference between Hypothesis, Theory, Law and Fact, as it has already described these concepts very well.

I repeat: to the true scientist, nothing is "fact". You deal with the information you have, you hold it up to scrutiny, you test and retest it, but there's always the possibility that something comes along to disprove it (and said proof is tested by the same rigorous standards.)

For example, most everyone would agree that ice is cold, correct? And yet an iceberg contains more heat energy than a burning match. How can this be if a burning match is hot and an iceberg is cold? Well, anything that's above absolute zero has heat energy, and as an iceberg has monumentally more mass than a match, it contains more total heat energy than said burning match. Maybe this isn't a good example, but it shows the difference between percieved "fact" and what you find out when you dig a little further.

To call something a fact means you no longer question it, and the very point of science is to question everything, even things that we perceive to be truth.

Just a note... can anything ever be fact then (If fact is defined by absolute truth, that sort of sense)? You can never be 100% sure.

<sarcastically> Are you sure about that?

Anyways, as far as I think I believe that the Bible and evolution has some connection with eachother in small ways.

Evolution: man evolved from lower life forms.

Bible: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 1:7)

In the Bible, man is created from the "dust of the Earth". In that expression, dust could be taken as the lowest lifeforms on Earth. For example, the dust of society would refer to the poor, lower class of people (no offense, I am one of them). Taking that into consideration, the lower lifeforms, the dust of the ground, became man. Yet, who's to say that it all happenedc instantly since there is only one sentence in the Bible mentioning that. It could've taken centuries, more or less. So in reality: we as people do not know.

How does this sound:

Under scientific method all facts are at best provisional (except for those unquestionable assumptions that underpin science itself).

No. Laws are provisional, facts are not. They are two different things. One uses facts to make theories, facts are concrete things that you can observe and confirm.

I repeat: to the true scientist, nothing is "fact". You deal with the information you have, you hold it up to scrutiny, you test and retest it, but there's always the possibility that something comes along to disprove it (and said proof is tested by the same rigorous standards.)

In other words - any datum is at best taken to be true only provisionally, ie. subject to further pieces of data and what they assert. Which is pretty much what I said above.

I think we are much more in agreement than you believe.


...or were you taking issue with my statements concerning such principles as the law of excluded middles and the tautological statements of mathematics?

most scientists aren't trying to feel special by learning and studying, any more than people are trying to be special when they learn to read and write...people are curious animals, and like to learn. if you are threatened by somebody proposing reasons other than God then perhaps you should take a good long look at you beliefs, and why it is that you are so hostile towards people who ask you only to use the brain you claim God gave you.

Using the brain (we claim) God gave us to disprove his existence. What a novel idea.
Listen, you're hostile towards the other opinion too. Don't chide people on things that you're doing anyway. We're all being hostile, or seen as being hostile, even if we're not trying to be. Personally, I find this whole discussion pointless. No one is going to change their opinion to make someone else happy (or at least I hope not, because that's the second most dumbest thing I've ever heard). Everyone here is pretty much set in their beliefs and opinions and such.

CSW, I agree with you that laws are provisional. They are merely of the order of statements about what usually happens, or what has occured in the past, and we have no guarantee that the future (or a different location) will be anything like the past.

However...

One uses facts to make theories, facts are concrete things that you can observe and confirm.

Facts are not concrete things.

Can I touch a fact?
Can I carry a fact?
Can I stub my toe on a fact?

Surely the term "fact" refers to the correspondence between a statement and a state of affairs in the world, no? It is a statement about truth value, not about concrete things.


Edit: corrected dumb spelling mistakes and added section prior to quote.

Excepting of course those analytic, tautological ones, which may include the statements of mathematics. Science also relies on various basic assumptions which it cannot consider as anything other than facts - assumptions such as the law of the excluded middle, and other basic tenets of logic.


Your claim that there are no "facts" in science is dodgy because you then go on to claim that there can always be something that proves us wrong. What is this something, if it is not a "fact"?

teehee. i like your logic :)

Bodies Without Organs,

Yes, you and I are basically in agreement, there are only slight semantical differences. I was merely offering further clarification for those who haven't bothered to read the entire discussion.

Bodies Without Organs,

Yes, you and I are basically in agreement, there are only slight semantical differences. I was merely offering further clarification for those who haven't bothered to read the entire discussion.

Yeah, looking back I should have had inverted commas around the word 'fact' thusly -

Under scientific method all "facts" are at best provisional (except for those unquestionable assumptions that underpin science itself).

That should have eased the confusion.

CSW, I agree with you that laws are provisional. They are merely of the order of statements about what usually happens, or what has occured in the past, and we have no guarantee that the future (or a different location) will be anything like the past.

However...



Facts are not concrete things.

Can I touch a fact?
Can I carry a fact?
Can I stub my toe on a fact?

Surely the term "fact" refers to the correspondence between a statement and a state of affairs in the world, no? It is a statement about truth value, not about concrete things.


Edit: corrected dumb spelling mistakes and added section prior to quote.


Yes, yes, and yes. A rock is a fact.

Yes, yes, and yes. A rock is a fact.

Is "1+1=2"?

Hmmm. Possible we are having a problem of difference senses of the word here. I'll go away and think about this.

Is "1+1=2"?
Depends on what base we are in :-P
(lol to think of it 1 + 1 = 10 if I remember right)(base 2)
Is 1 + 9 = A?( yes ... base 16)

Depends on what base we are in :-P
(lol to think of it 1 + 1 = 10 if I remember right)(base 2)
Is 1 + 9 = A?( yes ... base 16)
1+1 in base two is 10, correct. 1 0, or two

I assume we are talking in the commonly accepted base 10.

I know :) I am just doing my comp geek / expect the un expected thing :)

Also illistrates how facts are variable from different points of view ;)

Ahhhhhhh! See, there's the problem when you automatically call something a fact. You assumed that the mathematical phrase was grounded in a base 10 system. Science cannot affort to make such assumptions.

And before people bring up the Homo Neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) lets make one thign clear, they were not, according to the evidence, ancestors of modern man. They were a seperate species/sub-species which overlapped in time with Homo Sapien Sapien (modern man) who shared a comon ancestor with us.

That isn't the "official" stance yet. That is still getting argued.

However, many do think they are a spinoff that was absorbed.

Then again just look at football (american) players or head down to the South and look into the swamps and the back woods. They still exist! :p

Apparently, while averaging a much shorter stature than modern humans, Neanderthals were much heavier and would probably be able to throw even the biggest of today's football players around like a rag-doll.

1+1 in base two is 10, correct. 1 0, or two

I assume we are talking in the commonly accepted base 10.

So, is that a fact, despite not being a concrete thing?

So, is that a fact, despie not being a concrete thing?

In base 10, 1+1=2. In base 2, 1+1=10, in base 3 1+1=2, in base 4 1+1=2, ect, ect

So in base 10, it is a fact that 1+1=2.

So in base 10, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


So not all facts are concrete things.

Does anyone else notice we've stopped having arguements over evolution and now are discussing aspects of it (and a whole unrelated topic about reality and facts)? I think all the anti-evolutionists left, just when it was starting to get fun... :(

It would make sense for Neanderthals to be stronger than humankind- especially modern humankind, whose muscles are not strengthened by a struggle for existance.

The difference in evolutionary theories and creationism are simple:

Evolution (whether it's strict Darwinism, Puntuated Equilibrium, etc.) is a hypothesis based upon a great deal evidence.

Creationism (whether Biblical, Theological Evolution, etc.) is a great deal of evidence based upon a hypothesis.

Otherwise stated, with Evolution, the evidence defines the hypothesis, while in Creationism, the hypothesis defines the evidence.

Does anyone else notice we've stopped having arguements over evolution and now are discussion aspects of it? I think all the anti-evolutionists left, just when it was starting to get fun... :(

It would make sense for Neanderthals to be stronger than humankind- especially modern humankind, whose muscles are not strengthened by a struggle for existance.

Well they probably went to bone up with Kent Hovind "knowledge" ;)

Correct withe the Neanderthal assessment. If they did exist today, they would not be the tanks they were since the environment changed.....

It's not just conditioning that made the Neandethals so robust. Their bone density and thickness far surpassed our, allowing for greater muscle mass and for the muscle to be more firmly attached.

Correct withe the Neanderthal assessment. If they did exist today, they would not be the tanks they were since the environment changed.....

Unless they had somehow maintained a lifestyle little technologically removed from that of their paleolithic times - think of the hunter gatherers of the Amazon or the reindeer farmers of the Steppes (off the top of my head).

Neandertal brains were actually larger (in ratio to their bodies) than Cro-Mags and Modern Humans. Not that they were smarter, just they tended to have everything a little bulkier. Also, some paleoanthropologists (Stephen Pinker for example) speculate that they had the ability to create language and, thus, culture.
As for the population being absorbed into the larger Cro-mag population, DNA analysis has so far given no indication that this is true. More than likely, in true human form, they were wiped out by the Cro-mags superior technology.
Although my professor used to say that if you dressed up a Neandertal in a business suit and shaved'em, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and anyone else on a subway car.

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

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. Ahem. Sorry.

You are right, the lack of "holes" does not make it science. What makes it science is the systematic attempt to disprove it. This is known as the scientific method. To call something science does not mean it is correct, or accurate, or infallible, it simply means that it is a conclusion that is arraved at using the scientific method.

The theory of evolution is supported by scientific research, creationism is supported by theological research. (ancient texts) This is why evolution is referred to as "science" and creationism is referred to as "bed-time stories." So Kwang, the fact that it was arrived at using science is what automatically makes evolution science. I love how people assume that calling anything "science" is the same as saying it is iron-clad truth...


EDIT: Sorry if this conversation ended long ago, I posted before I noticed there was already 20 pages....

Also, some paleoanthropologists (Stephen Pinker for example) speculate that they had the ability to create language and, thus, culture.


I would have thought that the cave paintings which are attributed to Neandertahls, rather than Cro-Magnons, would be a pretty firm indicator of 'culture'. The same goes for their habit of apparently burying the dead with garlands of flowers, and if they were responsible for the so called 'Neanderthal flute', then that is another strong indicator of culture.

Women tend to take it wrong when I offer to show them the Neanderthal flute.

Women tend to take it wrong when I offer to show them the Neanderthal flute.

Maybe it is the phrase 'pink oboe' that they find so disturbing.




(So how many posts did it take us to get from 'Evolution: True or False' to cheap nob gags?)

So far, none of the cave paintings have been attributed to Neanderthals (wow, I like to vacillate on that spelling). All artifacts found associated with the paintings have Cro-Mag origins. This isn't to say that Neanderthals didn't do it, just there's no evidence (I've heard of) they did. As for the flowers in gravesites, scientists still debate that. Some say it proves the Neanderthals had burial rites, thus religion, thus culture. Others say workers who first excavated the site contaminated with pollen from their boots. Until another site is found resembling the first, it's hard to say. The flute I haven't heard of. I tend to believe Neanderthals had an extensive culture because culture doesn't seem likely to have sprung up suddenly, especially considering older hominid species most likely had simple proto-languages. Discover Channel had a very good speculative special on this topic.

Maybe it is the phrase 'pink oboe' that they find so disturbing.




(So how many posts did it take us to get from 'Evolution: True or False' to cheap nob gags?)

300. :D

How could I resist?

I bet creationists don't evolve. Would explain a lot. It's a pride thing.

Actually, creationists probably cause evolution. What are the basic tenets of religion? Don't kill each other. Propagate. Value the community over the individual. Follow the leader. Share. If anything is a prime manual on species survival, it's a religious text. Who do you think a mass extinction is going to hit first, big city evolutionist or a secluded cult in Montana?

Actually, creationists probably cause evolution. What are the basic tenets of religion? Don't kill each other. Propagate. Value the community over the individual. Follow the leader. Share. If anything is a prime manual on species survival, it's a religious text. Who do you think a mass extinction is going to hit first, big city evolutionist or a secluded cult in Montana?

Cult in montana. They have a habit of commiting suicide to catch a spaceship hiding behind a comet.

Cult in montana. They have a habit of commiting suicide to catch a spaceship hiding behind a comet.

I should have edited it to say "a secluded cult in Montana NOT endorsed by Nike."

I should have edited it to say "a secluded cult in Montana NOT endorsed by Nike."

My money is still on the cult.

That isn't the "official" stance yet. That is still getting argued.

However, many do think they are a spinoff that was absorbed.

Then again just look at football (american) players or head down to the South and look into the swamps and the back woods. They still exist! :p
OK my mistake if that is the case, last I heard the genetic tests they had done indicated that not only were they a different species but that they had not been absorbed into our species. Though as I said human evolution is not my specialty, fish I know people I don't :-p

Actually, creationists probably cause evolution. What are the basic tenets of religion? Don't kill each other. Propagate. Value the community over the individual. Follow the leader. Share. If anything is a prime manual on species survival, it's a religious text. Who do you think a mass extinction is going to hit first, big city evolutionist or a secluded cult in Montana?
I'd have to bet my money on the cult dying out first, because they're a smaller population, but then again if they stayed secluded long enough they could "evolve" into something even more repugnant...televangelists

there is a lot of evidence against evolution no one has brought up. i would like to see what people think of carbon dating and dating by layers. also what do the people of the forum think about how "man" began?

Neither of those are contra to evolution, and the evolutionary trail of homo sapiens sapiens is well documented. Check out Talk.Origins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org)

I'd have to bet my money on the cult dying out first, because they're a smaller population, but then again if they stayed secluded long enough they could "evolve" into something even more repugnant...televangelists

So you're read up on U.S. history, too? :D

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.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Research = good

So you're read up on U.S. history, too? :D
yep, and I'm from the south so I have seen the power of inbreeding and isolation *shudder*

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?

[Quote=Bottle]incorrect. gravity is a law, and is not refered to as theory by any physicist i know.

Google for "Quantum Theory of Gravity". Then come back and grovel before me.

Or you could even go here: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae620.cfm

Hint: helps to do research before you shoot your mouth off.

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.

Those are the theory.

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."
All biologists who aren't cretinists do. I've never met one who wasn't a cretinist who didn't.

Read Richard Dawkins.

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).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

You were saying?

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.
Certainly seemed as if you were conflating the two.

no evolutionary biologist (or any other person) has observed macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

You were saying?

I'm sorry I couldn't sit and listen to all the people trying to argue without even half of the information needed to argue this topic. Not all of you are like that however. I have studied both extensively becuase religions are my hobby if I'm going to study one side of the story I've got to study the other.

There is actually quite a bit of evidence that evolution exists. The most basic proof of this is the doxen (that's right, the weener dog). First you must ask: What is evolution? I tell you evolution is the change of gene frequency in a population. That's right, evolution is really as simple as saying the number of a particular gene or trait changes in a population. Hitler tried to do this by making a population of blonde hair, blue eyed people. Humans do this to plants and animals whenever we feel like it. Corn was not always in it's present form; humans could not eat corn how it was so we altered it until it was edible.

Back to the doxen. I'm sorry, but God did not create the doxen, humans did. Women wanted a hunting type dog that was able to get into goffer holes to chase out the vermin (sorry to those goffer lovers out there) out of their gardens. So, people started breeding the longest, shortest, hunting dogs they could find together until they reached their desired dog.

So if man can do that purposefully how can one say that it cannot happen accidentally in nature. Well we've seen that it can. If a particular animal group gets wiped out it's usually for some reason (disease, natural disasters, humans). Any animals that survive pass on their genes only. All other genes that might have provided variation to that particular group are now lost. This has happened to leopards quite a few times.

In some monkey groups in Africa an individual can be infected with the HIV virus and never get sick. They have been exposed to it for so long that the gene that produces an antibody to the virus has survived where those who did not have that gene died off. We're finding that a few humans have this same gene. There have been cases in some humans that have been affected with HIV that they have lived for 20 or more years off meds and have not gotten sick (they show no signs of having the disease). This my friends, is evolution.

Therefore, even if you do believe in creation, you cannot say that evolution is BS. It continues go on to this day. As the environment changes things evolve to stay alive. Unless you're one of those people who believe that the world is only a couple of thousand years old you cannot deny the fossil record that we are still developing either. Any more questions email or IM me.

Evolution is something that scientists came up with, because they refused to believe the simple truth that God created the universe.

Troll

Baawa-How many anthropologists do you talk to? Any will tell you that they don't consider Evolution a theory any more. There is the possibly the theory of human origins becaues we can never actually know.

Have you ever sat down and looked at the difference between humans and chimps? They are 98-99.5% the same depending on the human and the chimp. That's right, we humans have mated animals with more of a genetic difference than that. If we can mate things that genetically different than that, what do you think that means about us and chimps? Now I'm not suggesting that we try to mate people and chimps. But that tells me that there is obviously some conection between us.

Though you might call anthropologist scientists in a way (they use facts and some scientific techniques) they are not scientists. They are anthropologists. They are not interested in what creationist or scientists want to believe. They are only interested in finding out the truth about whatever area of anthropology they are interested in. When new evidence is shown to them they either include it with previous things they thought to be true, or eliminate things the new evidence proves false.

Creations love arguing things (like the cave man crap) that anthropologists haven't believed for years.

Ahhh...And I bet I could tell all you creations quite a bit more about your religion than you could tell me too. You think the christian religion is the same as it used to be back in the year 1000. If you do, you have quite a bit of research to do about the EVOLUTION of your religion. :)

Baawa-How many anthropologists do you talk to? Any will tell you that they don't consider Evolution a theory any more. There is the possibly the theory of human origins becaues we can never actually know.

Have you ever sat down and looked at the difference between humans and chimps? They are 98-99.5% the same depending on the human and the chimp. That's right, we humans have mated animals with more of a genetic difference than that. If we can mate things that genetically different than that, what do you think that means about us and chimps? Now I'm not suggesting that we try to mate people and chimps. But that tells me that there is obviously some conection between us.

Though you might call anthropologist scientists in a way (they use facts and some scientific techniques) they are not scientists. They are anthropologists. They are not interested in what creationist or scientists want to believe. They are only interested in finding out the truth about whatever area of anthropology they are interested in. When new evidence is shown to them they either include it with previous things they thought to be true, or eliminate things the new evidence proves false.

Creations love arguing things (like the cave man crap) that anthropologists haven't believed for years.

Ahhh...And I bet I could tell all you creations quite a bit more about your religion than you could tell me too. You think the christian religion is the same as it used to be back in the year 1000. If you do, you have quite a bit of research to do about the EVOLUTION of your religion. :)

And here I was thinking Baawa was on the evolutionist's side. Silly me. :confused:

Have you ever sat down and looked at the difference between humans and chimps? They are 98-99.5% the same depending on the human and the chimp. That's right, we humans have mated animals with more of a genetic difference than that. If we can mate things that genetically different than that, what do you think that means about us and chimps? Now I'm not suggesting that we try to mate people and chimps. But that tells me that there is obviously some conection between us.


Add in some other intersting similarites:
The capacity to make war.
The capacity to lie.
Self-awarness.
Problem solving.
Rudimentary language aquistition

If you compare the human heart and a chimps, they are similar in the shape.

Hmmmmm a primatologist? ;)

Baawa-How many anthropologists do you talk to? Any will tell you that they don't consider Evolution a theory any more. There is the possibly the theory of human origins becaues we can never actually know.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

You were saying?

Have you ever sat down and looked at the difference between humans and chimps? They are 98-99.5% the same depending on the human and the chimp. That's right, we humans have mated animals with more of a genetic difference than that.
Point?

Ahhh...And I bet I could tell all you creations quite a bit more about your religion than you could tell me too. You think the christian religion is the same as it used to be back in the year 1000. If you do, you have quite a bit of research to do about the EVOLUTION of your religion. :)
I'm an atheist. It's not a religion.

So not all facts are concrete things.

No, you are wrong. Base 2, base 10, base 16 or base whatever, they are just conventions to represent nuimers. The numbers themselves are separated from the symbol that represents them.

Therefore one plus one equals two and that's a fact, whether you want to represent it 1 + 1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 10 or . ' . [ :

Just to let you know I am a biologist, Atheist, and evolutionist and I can honestly tell you that I still consider Darwin's Theory of Evolution just that a theory. I believe it is a theory with a lot of merit, and I personally think it is a valid explanation for the majority of the phemomena one sees in biology. However, while it is a widely accepted theory it is just that, a theory. Realise that for something to be considered a true scientific theory it requires ALOT of evidence that lends support to it. So now you have met your one biologist who ackowledges it as a theory not quite a law. Ok now I go to my girlfriend, for she is far more intersting then arguing evolution (which is saying something).

So not all facts are concrete things.

No, you are wrong. Base 2, base 10, base 16 or base whatever, they are just conventions to represent nuimers. The numbers themselves are separated from the symbol that represents them.Therefore one plus one equals two and that's a fact, whether you want to represent it 1 + 1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 10 or . ' . [ :


So you say I am wrong in claiming that not all facts are concrete things, and then claim that "one plus one equals two" is a fact, despite "one plus one equals two" not being a concrete thing.

Which leads back to my assertion that not all facts are concrete things.

Why did you dispute it if you were only going to provide evidence for it along the way?

So you say I am wrong in claiming that not all facts are concrete things, and then claim that "one plus one equals two" is a fact, despite "one plus one equals two" not being a concrete thing.


It's not concrete in that it doesn't have physical form. You can't touch a number or carry it with you. But it's concrete in the sense that it can not be denied, either by definition (as is the case of numbers), direct empirical observation (like pigeons fly) or enough statistical data that allows to make the generalization (like two bodies with mass will attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them).

So all facts are concrete things, even though they themselves may not be about concrete things.


Why did you dispute it if you were only going to provide evidence for it along the way?

Why not? Besides now we can discuss if things really have a concrete existence or are only a representation created by our minds.

After all, the thread has been going places.

Just to let you know I am a biologist, Atheist, and evolutionist and I can honestly tell you that I still consider Darwin's Theory of Evolution just that a theory. .

You might want to reread your Darwin. Darwin speaks of natural selection. Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't actually exist for Darwin doesn't mention evolution. It's something we have tagged to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. His origins of species is a rough book to read, but it's worth it.

It's not concrete in that it doesn't have physical form.

OK: 'concrete' as in 'definite'. I think we're running into problems of equivocation here. I believe CSW was using the term only in the sense of "physical material", and it was in objection to this that I presenting the question.

Sorry, I don't mean to make two posts in a row here.

Reread my first post, second paragraph (I think it's like #371 in this thread or something like that). Darwin new nothing about genetics. The only reason he has his theory of natural selection is because the evidence he found in the world he saw didn't match up with the fundamentalist Christian teachings he was taught and so deeply believed in.


Man, I can't believe you want to get into a conversation about whether existance is real or just all in our heads. There are so many arguements about that I think I'd actually have to go back and research it. But it would make for a good discussion.

I do not think it's all in our heads. If you can think of a way to prove it, go for it though.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Research = good

Gee, I can do research too (in fact, this is the very next entry in a web search after the references you pulled up.) The problem lies in the exact definition of Macroevolution, i.e. does it merely mean the arbitrary designation of a change in species, or a profound change in form and function?

Beware only referencing one source!

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/ORIGINS/QUOTES/macroevolution.html

Gee, I can do research too (in fact, this is the very next entry in a web search after the references you pulled up.) The problem lies in the exact definition of Macroevolution, i.e. does it merely mean the arbitrary designation of a change in species, or a profound change in form and function?

Beware only referencing one source!

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/ORIGINS/QUOTES/macroevolution.html

The Modern Synthesis theory has mostly been replaced by the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, thought up by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge, which states that changes happen quickly and in small groups rather than slowly over time.

Which goes far in explaining the lack of transitionary fossils. I was merely responding to BAAWA's rather patronizing tone in suggesting that I wasn't able to assemble two words together in a web search.

Which goes far in explaining the lack of transitionary fossils. I was merely responding to BAAWA's rather patronizing tone in suggesting that I wasn't able to assemble two words together in a web search.

Lack of tranistionals my arse! Transitional fossils are fossils that exhibit traits of more than one other species (and will probably diverge into those species). For instance, all ceratopsidae share traits with protoceratops, who came earlier, and from the looks of it, diverged into all the others. Archaeopteryx is a dinobird, of which there are several examples. Archy itself may not be the common ancestor for all birds (as some quotes may say) but it is definitely a transitional.

Some examples of transitionals:

Archaeopteryx; Basilosaurus and Ichthyostiga

Transitional from mammal to primate: Cantius, Palaechthon, Pelycodus, Purgatorius.

Transitional from reptile to mammal: Biarmosuchia, Haptodus, Procynosuchus, Varanops.

Transitional from reptile to bird: Coelophysis, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, Oviraptor.

Transitional from amphibian to reptile: Hylonomus, Limnoscelis, Paleothyris,

Transitional from fish to amphibian: Cheirolepis, Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, Sterropterygionoterogyrinus.

Evolution is both a theory and observed fact, it's a theory since it's a predictive all purpose model that can be used in multiple ways. It explains the ins and outs of why things happen in evolution. It does this by referring to scientific observations, they are the facts, and it is a fact that evolution happened and continues to happen.

Sigh, I misspoke (or mis-wrote, as the case may be.) I should have said, "the relative rarity of transitional forms". rather than "lack". Hey! I'm on evolution's side, fella!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Research = good
Gee, I can do research too (in fact, this is the very next entry in a web search after the references you pulled up.)
I didn't do a websearch, though. I know talkorigins.org.

The problem lies in the exact definition of Macroevolution, i.e. does it merely mean the arbitrary designation of a change in species, or a profound change in form and function?
Biologists have it defined well.

Beware only referencing one source!
Ah, but it isn't one source. It's a repository for multiple sources. You'd know this if you'd've gone to the pages.

So - the anti-evolutionist argument brought up Carbon Dating, which actually SUPPORTS the theory of evolution, Stratification, which actually SUPPORTS the theory of evolution, and the supposed lack of evidence for transition in fossil records, which actually SUPPORTS the theory of evolution - if you bother to go look for the evidence.

Is there actually a single anti-evolution argument left standing here? I think the Creationists gave up and went home a little while ago with their tails between their legs, and now we are left with the rabid programmed vermin, who keep spouting the same old, disproved and flawed arguments, and yelling "Because god says so!!!"

Well, if the only evidence is god, we may all have something of a wait for proof of Creationism. I'm not sure the seventh heaven even has an internet connection.

Also our DNA is 98.5% like that of a chimpanzee's. Theory proven. Besides, that and the Bible can co-act. When it says the world was made in seven day, each day could be half a billion years.

Also our DNA is 98.5% like that of a chimpanzee's. Theory proven. Besides, that and the Bible can co-act. When it says the world was made in seven day, each day could be half a billion years.

Problem is how do you prove/disprove the length of a Bible day?

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.

<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html>

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


Starts to make some sense, but then you run into the missing link.

If you have not heard the truth, consider this: If a species was to evolve, or gain new charectersitics, then 2 individual members (of different sexes) of this species would have to evolve or mutate at the same time, so they could mate. For example, if the male mutates but the female does not, the species would not be able to evolve. THe chances of such mutations happening at the same time is very small.

Just thought I'd add to your reply

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.


or was never there in the first place.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html


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.


They also argue that the supposed shrinkage is evident, which it is not.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html#_Toc430357875

Starts to make some sense, but then you run into the missing link.

If you have not heard the truth, consider this: If a species was to evolve, or gain new charectersitics, then 2 individual members (of different sexes) of this species would have to evolve or mutate at the same time, so they could mate. For example, if the male mutates but the female does not, the species would not be able to evolve. THe chances of such mutations happening at the same time is very small.

But then your realise the stupidity inherent in the previous argument.

Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Let me repeat that so that it sinks in.

Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Try and think before you post.

Also our DNA is 98.5% like that of a chimpanzee's. Theory proven. Besides, that and the Bible can co-act. When it says the world was made in seven day, each day could be half a billion years.
That doesn't prove the theory as it could be coincidence. (I'm not a creationist or an evolutionist per se. I just don't like people jumping to too quick of conclusions like both sides of this argument have been doing.)

I would take this the scientific way. Not saying Evolution is wrong, but saying how your theory is better. There are many mysteries Evolution is still trying to solve. Maybe another theory would better explain it.

Why did organisms grow? For billions of years they were single celled, then suddenly 500 million years ago multiple celled oganisms started and hundreds of them.

But then your realise the stupidity inherent in the previous argument.

Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Let me repeat that so that it sinks in.

Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Try and think before you post.

What do you mean? What I am saying is that if one individual has a mutation, another individual has to have the same mutation before they mate so they can produce a child. IF not, the child will be a half-breed, and to mate, the child must mate with another half breed of the exactly same type. This is exceedingly rare. That is why evolution is fiction, because the mutated individual would die out, and the entire population would have to mutate at the same time. Highly improbable.

I would take this the scientific way. Not saying Evolution is wrong, but saying how your theory is better. There are many mysteries Evolution is still trying to solve. Maybe another theory would better explain it.

Evolution is not a theory, evolution is an observation. There have been various theories promoted to explain evolution, including Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. If you have a new competing theory, then please expand on it.

Also our DNA is 98.5% like that of a chimpanzee's. Theory proven. Besides, that and the Bible can co-act. When it says the world was made in seven day, each day could be half a billion years.

the bible says god is perfect and does not change, saying that he would need 7 billion years would mean he was undecisive. which contradicts the bible

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

Evolution is still a theory -- there is some evidence that would seem to support it, but it has not been definitively proven.

However, the fossil record, and observation of mutation in isolated species (see Darwin's Origin of the Species) would tend to support this notion.

Are you a Creationist? I tend to think the two need not be mutally exclusive -- something set everything in motion...

What do you mean? What I am saying is that if one individual has a mutation, another individual has to have the same mutation before they mate so they can produce a child. IF not, the child will be a half-breed, and to mate, the child must mate with another half breed of the exactly same type. This is exceedingly rare. That is why evolution is fiction, because the mutated individual would die out, and the entire population would have to mutate at the same time. Highly improbable.
Uhm, you are wrong beyond my comprehension, so I'm not going to post any threads trying to explain to you, because by your logic, I couldn't breed with anyone but caucasians with brown eyes and hair...

the bible says god is perfect and does not change, saying that he would need 7 billion years would mean he was undecisive. which contradicts the bible
Well, the Bible says a lot of things. Guess where the largest area for opium production is? The Middle East. Guess where a lot of the stories from the Bible are placed at? The Middle East.

What do you mean? What I am saying is that if one individual has a mutation, another individual has to have the same mutation before they mate so they can produce a child. IF not, the child will be a half-breed, and to mate, the child must mate with another half breed of the exactly same type. This is exceedingly rare. That is why evolution is fiction, because the mutated individual would die out, and the entire population would have to mutate at the same time. Highly improbable.

People with brown eyes and people with blue eyes do mate quite often and quite successfully. Think about what you are saying.

Individuals do not mutate into different species. Populations evolve over time into different species. Evolution occurs at the population level, not the individual level. There is no such thing as a "half-breed" in evolutionary terms.

Uhm, you are wrong beyond my comprehension, so I'm not going to post any threads trying to explain to you, because by your logic, I couldn't breed with anyone but caucasians with brown eyes and hair...

Ummmmm, no that is not what I mean. What i mean is that if you were some kind of fish thing, you could not breed with a member of your species who has evolved and lost its gills.

Evolution is still a theory -- there is some evidence that would seem to support it, but it has not been definitively proven.

Evolution is not a theory, evolution is an observation. Natural Selection is a theory.

Evolution is not a theory, evolution is an observation. There have been various theories promoted to explain evolution, including Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. If you have a new competing theory, then please expand on it.
Some of it is observation, but most is theory. For example we have no way of knowing what color dinosaur skin looked like but it is presented that way. Mass extinctions are only known because of a change in fossils. Evolution is how we went from a fish to a frog to eventually a human. It could of happened differently.

Ummmmm, no that is not what I mean. What i mean is that if you were some kind of fish thing, you could not breed with a member of your species who has evolved and lost its gills.
May not be what you mean, but it is what you are saying. And by the way, a fish with gills can't birth a fish without gills, but a fish with gills can breed a fish with gills that breath dry air better and throughout many generations the ability to breath water is unnecessary and the dry air breathing becomes more necessary. Evolution is not an overnight thing pal.

Well, the Bible says a lot of things. Guess where the largest area for opium production is? The Middle East. Guess where a lot of the stories from the Bible are placed at? The Middle East.
And we of course are fully without sin and dont have a single problem.

May not be what you mean, but it is what you are saying. And by the way, a fish with gills can't birth a fish without gills, but a fish with gills can breed a fish with gills that breath dry air better and throughout many generations the ability to breath water is unnecessary and the dry air breathing becomes more necessary. Evolution is not an overnight thing pal.
Then what happened exactly? How did gills progress into lungs. And I want difinative proof. Give me fossils of each step. Oh and we need preserved gills to tell how it worked. We also need predators weather climate, atmosphere, and a map of where it first made land fall and then how it spread. Then you can say what happened. Until then speculation.

Hey check out www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com). Here you find archives of evidence that makes the evolutionary theory look about as solid as a slice of Swiss cheese. A few things he presented here.

The book Bones of Contention presents cited respectable information on how the only bones the evolutionists will allow to be printed are those that fit within the Geologic column. This book however counts for all the bones that where deemed “fully evolved” yet carbon dated prior to the time of their “less evolved” ancestors. Also consider (http://www.irc.org/pubs/imp/imp-286.htm)

Creationist science also gives logical evidence as to why the dinosaur could exist. In todays modern atmosphere, (which according to evolution hasn’t changed in millions of years) the dinosaur could not have gotten enough air to breathe. In an article published by Time Magazine they presented the idea that Lack of Oxygen killed the Dinosaurs. The Brachiosaurus had nostrils the size of a horse. Thus it was scientifically impossible for such a beast to consume enough air to sustain its life. Creationism does however answer this.

The Geologic column is the “road guide” to carbon dating things. Several carbon dating results have been rejected on creatures that did not fit this column. This was admitted in a public confession. (www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com)) has more on this if your interested. I have been well versed in the Flaws and strengths of evolution and am willing to debate this one on one to anyone who is willing to. Please go to www.drdino.com to read there, or to debate me simply go to the contact page at psychoelfpaladin.cjb.net (http://psychoelfpaladin.cjb.net) to find me.


PsychoElfPaladin
Jamation Dictator.

Ummmmm, no that is not what I mean. What i mean is that if you were some kind of fish thing, you could not breed with a member of your species who has evolved and lost its gills.

Do you think before you post?

If we assume that your creature "who has evolved and lost its gills" is no longer a fish, then it would not be a member of the fish species - it would be a member of a completely different species.

So fish and not-fish cannot breed. Well, der. Why would fish and not-fish need to breed. Fish would breed with fish, and not-fish would breed with not-fish. Fish and not-fish are not the same species.

You remember that part about populations evolving rather than individuals? You know, that part I repeated? Not-fish would be part of a population of not-fish, and would breed within their own population.

What about the mouth for beathing and 2, if some fossils are deemed "unfit" I dont see how you've made up for that. What is the cause for those fossils?

"Little e" evolution is alright, and quite possible, allow me to explain it: Little e evolution occurs within one species, examples are the ever-so-famous london moths, (who by-the-way did not actually evolve to another species, just another color.) This is the theory I was taught in class, and so far I can say most of it holds together.

"Big E" Evolution is Darwinism, this is the belief-and I call it that because it takes more faith to believe in Darwinism than Creationism-that all species evolved from a common ancestor. This is the theory I was not taught, and, suprisingly, I can only find reasons to disprove it.

The reasons I disapprove of it are quite possibly better explained by my proponent Jamation, but I basically believe that there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. The fossil record (believe it or not) is still incomplete. Many fossils have been pieced together incorrectly. Take for example the skulls of some neanderthals, one of which (so far as I know) was only the jaw-bone of an ape and the piece of a skull, the rest was completely pieced together in the mind of a scientist.

If anyone cares to refute these claims, be my guest, but please check everything at Dr. Dino's Website (http://www.drdino.com). Yes I am quite aware this is an evangalism site, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take a look at it. The website happens to be run by a man who takes pride in showing that most science actually supports creation.


In response to Morticide's post, Archaeopteryx was actually one of the wierder of scientists creation. Archaeopteryx and many other "evidences" for Evolution are completely blown apart in "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. Go down to your local library or bookstore, pick it up and see if you like it. If you do (and I will have to have a word with you if you didn't because I found it exceptionally enjoyable) you might also want to pick up "The Case for Christ" by the same author.


The information above is in no way meant to "force my religion" upon anyone in this thread, considering I never forced you to read it. And I have yet to duct tape someone's eyes open and subject them to indoctrination.

Evolution is by definition, small changes in an organisms hereditary DNA over time, that has been proven with bacteria, the real debate is not whether evolution is true or not, it is which theory of it is true, creative design or the tree of life.

Then what happened exactly? How did gills progress into lungs. And I want difinative proof. Give me fossils of each step. Oh and we need preserved gills to tell how it worked. We also need predators weather climate, atmosphere, and a map of where it first made land fall and then how it spread. Then you can say what happened. Until then speculation.
I never said it was anything more than speculation...but until you show me proof against it, your skepticism of its truthfulness is nothing but skepticism. And at the same rate, you can not prove creationism, so until you eliminate all other choices for explanation of our origins, your belief in creationism is merely skepticism. If you need the evidence to understand the theory, find it yourself. I'm not going to waste my time on someone who thinks they know it all but haven't even hardly looked at both sides of the argument with an open mind...

[QUOTE=DegorigtThe information above is in no way meant to "force my religion" upon anyone in this thread, considering I never forced you to read it. And I have yet to duct tape someone's eyes open and subject them to indoctrination.[/QUOTE]

You may not, but I sure as heck will. Contact me (http://psychoelfpaladin.cjb.net)

There are many problems with creationalism. If you want I can point them out for you. However, yes evolution does need some work. Perhaps in the future with quicker DNA scanning we can piece a family tree of these misplaced fossils. Currently it provides a one of the best answers to fossils and change in species.

[QUOTE=DegorigtThe information above is in no way meant to "force my religion" upon anyone in this thread, considering I never forced you to read it. And I have yet to duct tape someone's eyes open and subject them to indoctrination.

You may not, but I sure as heck will. Contact me (http://psychoelfpaladin.cjb.net)[/QUOTE]


Yeah...your sites full of crap. Look at snopes before you post shit about Kerry and Bush.

If anyone cares to refute these claims, be my guest, but please check everything at Dr. Dino's Website (http://www.drdino.com). Yes I am quite aware this is an evangalism site, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take a look at it. The website happens to be run by a man who takes pride in showing that most science actually supports creation.

Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) is a joke, a liar and a fraud. He is disowned by just about every other Creationist organisation out there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

Don't use anything from Hovind to support your arguments, or you will simply be laughed at.

I never said it was anything more than speculation...but until you show me proof against it, your skepticism of its truthfulness is nothing but skepticism. And at the same rate, you can not prove creationism, so until you eliminate all other choices for explanation of our origins, your belief in creationism is merely skepticism. If you need the evidence to understand the theory, find it yourself. I'm not going to waste my time on someone who thinks they know it all but haven't even hardly looked at both sides of the argument with an open mind...


Well that would go over very well with anyone I've met. "Find it yourself" he says. Seriously, if everyone looked at everything with an open mind this world would be full of conmen who tried to sell you cars with rolled back odometers. There is plenty of evidence for Creationism, one just has to look at that dusty religion rack at Barnes and Noble.

P.S. "your skepticism of it's truthfulness is nothing but skepticism" Yes... yes it is... very nice observation. I think I shall nickname thee "ObviousMan"

Let's not kid ourselves, evolution isn't speculation. We're just missing the fossils to turn it from speculation into proven fact. Think for a moment with me, shall we? Humans are feeble, with very little real means of protection. But, unlike almost any animal on the planet, we can kill literally every animal we come across when we're properly equipped. Why are humans here if we're so feeble? We, as a community, were the most easily adaptable to our environment. What caused that ability? Millions of years of eating protein, much more easily broken down than fruits or vegetables, hence, more brain size. More brain size = utilization of tools. Utilization of tools = easier living. And here we are today, humans are the dominant species on Earth.

About half-breeds...
I don't recall who posted that things would have to evolve all at once in order to evolve. Recessive genes are the key. If a community of dogs are forced to live by water, and the easiest way to get food is by wading through shallow water and catching the organisms living there, given a few million years, those dogs will have become less hairy (bad for getting around in water), have either a stronger set of hind legs or have lost them completely and had them replaced by a tail, combining the two limbs into one powerful method of propulsion, and their spine would be more easily manipulated. Voila, we have modern day whales. But, did a dog with four legs, lots of hair, and a weak tail mate with a fish and by accident produce a whale? To ask or suggest such a thing conveys a misunderstanding of the theory. The theory of evolution is gradual, that can't be stressed enough. Do you think we went straight from a hunched over hominid to a human? Straight from grunting to forming sentences? No, it happens very gradually over time, with the ability to adapt to one's habitat.

About the Bible...
Whoever thinks that evolution cannot be true if the Bible is correct, your ability to interpret is eschew. Look at the order that God created life on Earth...after the creation of the universe, and in the exact order that science has proven animals to come into existence to this very day. And, to call God "indecisive" for taking half of a billion years between each "day," (which plays out to about 3 billion years of life on Earth, so just use it for argument's sake) is simply not giving the ETERNAL due credit. Remember, also, the Bible states that God has no beginning and no end, thus, half of a trillion years would even seem like nothing. Pardon me for being so argumentative, but quite honestly, to call God indecisive for taking so long between introductions of species is just neglecting the spectrum of God's power.

About this thread...
It's the most valid example as to why humans should have died off millions of years ago.

Opal Isle I am an Evolutionist but, there are many problems with the theory. I was trying to point out how we can't defend the theory without proof.

Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) is a joke, a liar and a fraud. He is disowned by just about every other Creationist organisation out there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

Don't use anything from Hovind to support your arguments, or you will simply be laughed at.

Right... what else can you expect when you get a link from Jamation... :p Lee Strobel's book is probably a much better read. I took one look at that link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/, saw the word Charasmatic and left the site. Thanks for reminding me, I'd edit my post but I think this just about covers it.

Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) is a joke, a liar and a fraud. He is disowned by just about every other Creationist organisation out there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

Don't use anything from Hovind to support your arguments, or you will simply be laughed at.

For a fraud his claims are well baised and factually rooted. The Talk Origins claim that Hovind is dispised by his own is based of the dislike of a gimmick to use a 250,000 claim. This is in no way a disapproval of his style, information, or zeal. Debate the topic, not the people who present the evidence.

Ohhhh YES! Touch me THERE Dr Hovind. Uhhhhhhh...yeah, that's it...OH GOD!



Dude, I've seen the guys video tapes. Just look up his name and you'll find SCADS of places where he's wrong.

EXAMPLE: http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies/stars.htm

Evolution is flawed yes, but how do you explain for the fossils? How do you explain for extinct species, unless you sugest that current and extinct species existed since the begining? How do you explain continuing a species with 2 organisms without inbreeding (Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve)?

Yeah...your sites full of crap. Look at snopes before you post shit about Kerry and Bush.


As Shown by Article II of the bill of no rights (http://www.friesian.com/ross/ca40/noright.htm), you do not have the right to be offended. So I'll present my oponion, fact based as it may be, and paste it where-ever my Ctrl+v combo will work. Thank you.

About the Bible...
Whoever thinks that evolution cannot be true if the Bible is correct, your ability to interpret is eschew. Look at the order that God created life on Earth...after the creation of the universe, and in the exact order that science has proven animals to come into existence to this very day. And, to call God "indecisive" for taking half of a billion years between each "day," (which plays out to about 3 billion years of life on Earth, so just use it for argument's sake) is simply not giving the ETERNAL due credit. Remember, also, the Bible states that God has no beginning and no end, thus, half of a trillion years would even seem like nothing. Pardon me for being so argumentative, but quite honestly, to call God indecisive for taking so long between introductions of species is just neglecting the spectrum of God's power.

You seem to be a Christian. I implore you, read the book I have pointed to just a moment ago.

About this thread...
It's the most valid example as to why humans should have died off millions of years ago.

I agree :headbang:

Try talking to the brick wall.

As Shown by Article II of the bill of no rights (http://www.friesian.com/ross/ca40/noright.htm), you do not have the right to be offended. So I'll present my oponion, fact based as it may be, and paste it where-ever my Ctrl+v combo will work. Thank you.


Now now, let's keep this discussion flame-free, I'd like it to be readable in a few years. So settle down before I make you both sit in the corner and hug and kiss until you make up. :fluffle:

Originally Posted by Liberalasia
About the Bible...
Whoever thinks that evolution cannot be true if the Bible is correct, your ability to interpret is eschew. Look at the order that God created life on Earth...after the creation of the universe, and in the exact order that science has proven animals to come into existence to this very day. And, to call God "indecisive" for taking half of a billion years between each "day," (which plays out to about 3 billion years of life on Earth, so just use it for argument's sake) is simply not giving the ETERNAL due credit. Remember, also, the Bible states that God has no beginning and no end, thus, half of a trillion years would even seem like nothing. Pardon me for being so argumentative, but quite honestly, to call God indecisive for taking so long between introductions of species is just neglecting the spectrum of God's power.

The Bible also States that A thousand years is a day in the eye of our Lord and Vice Versa. So Biblicaly speaking, the world can be no older than 12,000 years and still explain everything accuratly.

For a fraud his claims are well baised and factually rooted. The Talk Origins claim that Hovind is dispised by his own is based of the dislike of a gimmick to use a 250,000 claim. This is in no way a disapproval of his style, information, or zeal. Debate the topic, not the people who present the evidence.

Yes, his claims are definately biased.

But as for a disapproval of his claims, did you miss this?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

Or even this?
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

Or how about this from Answers in Genesis, one of biggest and most well-known Creationist organisations out there?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Hovind is a loon who has been disowned by the mainstream Creationist organisations.

Jamation, you are absolutely correct. Anyone who claims that evolution is more credible because it comes from science is fallible, considering that the qualifications of many theologians is just as qualifying.

Jamation, you are absolutely correct. Anyone who claims that evolution is more credible because it comes from science is fallible, considering that the qualifications of many theologians are comparable.

Going back to the statement of the genetic differences between chimps and Humans: There is less than a 2% difference between the two species' DNA. A few inversions of the DNA during meiosis due recombination over the course of a few million years will do that. Ah, biology.....What a great class.

Well whoopdeedoo. A 2% difference. Couldn't that be just the way things were made?

Try talking to the brick wall.
thats what you get when you correct an evolutionist.

Yes Jamation, a thousand years is a day, but you miss the very point of the demonstration of God's eternality...it's just that: that He is eternal and time has no practical implication to Him. A literal translation of the Bible is what gets people in trouble. If you'd like to adhere to everything the Bible says, be my guest, I won't be held responsible for the consequences.

And Jay, ever heard of the Gap Theory? It would account for the Earth being how old it is, and still be accurate. Aside from just avoiding a completely literal interpretation, that is.

Yes, his claims are definately biased.

But as for a disapproval of his claims, did you miss this?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

Or even this?
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

Or how about this from Answers in Genesis, one of biggest and most well-known Creationist organisations out there?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Hovind is a loon who has been disowned by the mainstream Creationist organisations.


Matthew 7:14 "Because straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Its not the mainstream that gets into heaven, its the rightstream. His claims are based, thats all that matters in a debate, not the presentation.

well, this thread has become pointless because neither side has an open mind and it seems the only people with an open mind are on both sides...at the same time...so yea...stop saying you're right and the other side is wrong because neither side can show any evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to the other side...

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.


"The world," as quoted in the Bible, did not consist of eastern Asia since no humans had yet migrated into that region (especially Nepal or Tibet, whichever Everest is in today). When you're living in the stone age without Thinsulate gloves or electric space heaters, you are not going to move to a region with little/no natural resources and more snowcaps than the candy aisle in Sam's Club. The flood didn't need to cover so much as Mt. McKinley; everyone was in the Middle East.
The rest of your reasons are relatively weak, sorry to say. I'll explain that position if you want me to.
...Another misconception bites the dust. :sniper:

Going back to the statement of the genetic differences between chimps and Humans: There is less than a 2% difference between the two species' DNA. A few inversions of the DNA during meiosis due recombination over the course of a few million years will do that. Ah, biology.....What a great class.


It is a great class. In such a class you learn that genetics does a RECOMBINATION, and just that. Genetics recombines pre-exiesting base pairs and whatnots to create something from pre-exiesting information. Saying that the 2% diffrence can be done with these cross overs is like saying you can rearrange the letter in the word "jack" to get "Christmas"

You should pay attention in biology.

well, this thread has become pointless because neither side has an open mind and it seems the only people with an open mind are on both sides...at the same time...so yea...stop saying you're right and the other side is wrong because neither side can show any evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to the other side...
the Creationist side has shown evidence, and the Evolutionist side has just squinted to believe what they wish. Just as science does with the battle of Jerico.

"The world," as quoted in the Bible, did not consist of eastern Asia since no humans had yet migrated into that region (especially Nepal or Tibet, whichever Everest is in today). When you're living in the stone age without Thinsulate gloves or electric space heaters, you are not going to move to a region with little/no natural resources and more snowcaps than the candy aisle in Sam's Club. The flood didn't need to cover so much as Mt. McKinley; everyone was in the Middle East.
The rest of your reasons are relatively weak, sorry to say. I'll explain that position if you want me to.
...Another misconception bites the dust. :sniper:
Actually, I read in a physics book that if all the water in the world was in the liquid form (the gaseous water as well as the frozen water), the whole world would be covered...most of the United States being at least 25 feet underwater...or something like that, but either way, mountains today are surely taller now than they started as the tectonic plates in some areas move closer and shove mountains up higher...

the Creationist side has shown evidence, and the Evolutionist side has just squinted to believe what they wish. Just as science does with the battle of Jerico.
What? The creationist side has proven the existence of a creator? I missed this part...Jamation, you come off as nothing but an arrogant, religious prick.

Excuse me, Opal, but what do you think Jamation is doing?

cough TROLL cough

"The world," as quoted in the Bible, did not consist of eastern Asia since no humans had yet migrated into that region (especially Nepal or Tibet, whichever Everest is in today). When you're living in the stone age without Thinsulate gloves or electric space heaters, you are not going to move to a region with little/no natural resources and more snowcaps than the candy aisle in Sam's Club. The flood didn't need to cover so much as Mt. McKinley; everyone was in the Middle East.
The rest of your reasons are relatively weak, sorry to say. I'll explain that position if you want me to.
...Another misconception bites the dust. :sniper:

Not entierly true. As shown by Dr. Hovend, the tallest mountain was not nearly as tall as mount everst is today. The resulting diffrences in mountains, valleys, and canyons resulted from the fountains of the deep exploding, and the earths crust shifting under the earth being covered under water for a year.

Excuse me, Opal, but what do you think Jamation is doing?
Not providing any proof to the creationism story for one. All he is doing is debunking evolution, which doesn't necessarily paint such a pretty picture for creationism. Start bringing forth proof for creationism. Fight your own side of the story.

Yes Jamation, a thousand years is a day, but you miss the very point of the demonstration of God's eternality...it's just that: that He is eternal and time has no practical implication to Him. A literal translation of the Bible is what gets people in trouble. If you'd like to adhere to everything the Bible says, be my guest, I won't be held responsible for the consequences.

And Jay, ever heard of the Gap Theory? It would account for the Earth being how old it is, and still be accurate. Aside from just avoiding a completely literal interpretation, that is.

All your saying is that God created animals in the order in which science claims they evolved. Thats hardly grounds for basing your skewed faith, and risking damnation upon.

Oh i see.... all you will accept is factual proof that you can see and taste. Ye of little faith. Biblical references hold just as much ground as, say, the Big Bang Theory. That is, considering evolution is a theory.

What? The creationist side has proven the existence of a creator? I missed this part...Jamation, you come off as nothing but an arrogant, religious prick.

I never claimed to have shown emperical evidence of a creator. The evidence I have shown is anti-evolutionary evidence. As most people demand emperical evidence for thier faith, they will not accept historic evidence as a grounds to judge thier indoctrination. It is foolish to claim emperical evidence of God, and thus I have not. I simply advocate that when science fails (as it has here) Religion is the reasonable answer.

Editting an uneditable post: The aforementioned by me is targeted at Opal.

oh no.

The boy brought up damnation!

Guess what sonny boy? Most of us that are going to hell? DON'T CARE.

I never claimed to have shown emperical evidence of a creator. The evidence I have shown is anti-evolutionary evidence. As most people demand emperical evidence for thier faith, they will not accept historic evidence as a grounds to judge thier indoctrination. It is foolish to claim emperical evidence of God, and thus I have not. I simply advocate that when science fails (as it has here) Religion is the reasonable answer.
So you admit that you've shown NO evidence supporting creationism, therefore, with no evidence for either theory, anybody's guess is as good as the next guys...

So if you claim this Opal, you are conceding the fact of questioning religion.

Oh i see.... all you will accept is factual proof that you can see and taste. Ye of little faith. Biblical references hold just as much ground as, say, the Big Bang Theory. That is, considering evolution is a theory.
Who said I believed the Big Bang Theory? And if they both hold as much ground as the other one, what makes you so sure that your side of the argument is right and the other is wrong when you yourself have just admitted they both hold as much ground?

So if you claim this Opal, you are conceding the fact of questioning religion.
All things should be questioned.

So why are you taking an aggressive only on the religious side of the debate rather than both the religious and the evolution side.

Jamation, the only evidence you have provided in furtherance of your claims has been weak, to say the least.

Paying attention in biology class would do anything but strengthen your beliefs in God, to be quite frank. While I do dearly believe in Him, pardon me for saying this, but the miracle of life is not something that took a mere 7 days to accomplish.

Now, as for what you should have taken from biology class...
Evolution is gradual. Let's see how many times it takes to sink in. Evolution is gradual. Got it yet? Look, here's what we're saying. The creation of new cells in these animals are not the things that specifically cause evolution. For example, let's use good old humans to describe the evolutionary process. Let's take an ancient mammal, a tree dweller with powerful hind legs and a tail used for balance and occasionally grasping. It, for whatever reason it has, comes down from that tree. If a single alpha male left that tree, the group in which it lived would follow. On the ground, looking out for predators may be slightly more difficult. Thus, this animal may sometimes rear back on it's hind legs to see if there was any danger coming. It soon realizes that the more it can watch, the better. Given a few thousand years, the community of animals develops an always upright posture, thus, using its front arms more for manipulation and back legs more for transportation (starting to sound familiar?). Now about that tail...used for manipulation, and for balance when all fours, certainly seems pointless now. Bye-bye tail! Now we have an animal with two distinctly different types of limbs and no tail, that stands upright. It's not because of different cells, it's because of the environment in which it lived. Oh dear, it sure is hot out here in the African savannah! Better shed some of this hair, it'll make me a lot cooler. Oh man, does it get old eating this grass and roots and such...let's try eating that abandoned carcass over there and see if it works! The prime reason for us having different genetic makeups than chimps is that we have eaten more meat as a species than they have. That's what accounts for the big difference. Maybe you, in fact, should have paid some more attention in biology class.

oh no.

The boy brought up damnation!

Guess what sonny boy? Most of us that are going to hell? DON'T CARE.

Those who care not understand not.

Explain this creationists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Sounds like proof for evolution.

What does creationism actually have?

The moon dust theory which is a lie, all one needs to do is look up the new data.
The ark which is physically impossible
The young earth argument which is also a lie, all one needs to do is look up the new data.
A book written by erranous men

Creationism requires faith, and faith is the absence of proof. Therefore creationism CANNOT have proof.

Moving on.

If God was all loving, why did he allow his creations to die?
If God was perfect, and creation is a extenstion of one's will, and God is perfect in all forms, thus his will is perfect, and therefore the creation takes the perfection or imperfect of it's creator, how can a perfect god create imperfect creatures?

Religion is NEVER a reasonable answer. Simply because we do not understand it now does not mean religion is the answer. If you believed that, you'll believe Mars is a glass sphere, the world is flat, and we are the center of the universe (among other things).

So why are you taking an aggressive only on the religious side of the debate rather than both the religious and the evolution side.
Because right now the only people debating this are religious people putting down scientific theories without first question their own religious theories. Read through all 28 or whatever pages of the posts before you make claims as to what sides I am taking.

I also believe everything should be questioned. However, the side of evolution has done a hell of a better job in explaining itself.

All I hear from the other side is "OMGWTF ur goin to HELL!1!!89! Only teh BIBLE is right!"

So you admit that you've shown NO evidence supporting creationism, therefore, with no evidence for either theory, anybody's guess is as good as the next guys...
No, I'm saying i've shown historic and scientific evidence for the creationist side. This evidence has ranged from well cited and reaserached books, to current day discoveries. I have not shown emperical evidence. Note that word. Just as an evolutionist can show no emperical evidence of Macro-evolution. Then I fall to the aformentioned statment that when science cannot provide emperical evidence, then its not meeting the definition for the term Science. And thus evolution is as much faith as Creationism. Thats our current debate. Now if you wish to further bash me, do so on one of the many contacts I have listed on my webpage. psychoelfpaladin.cjb.net.

I also believe everything should be questioned. However, the side of evolution has done a hell of a better job in explaining itself.

All I hear from the other side is "OMGWTF ur goin to HELL!1!!89! Only teh BIBLE is right!"
This is freakin' me out how much me and Goed agree on this issue actually...also, I'm wondering how many people on either side have considered the possibility of both sides being right...

No, I'm saying i've shown historic and scientific evidence for the creationist side. This evidence has ranged from well cited and reaserached books, to current day discoveries. I have not shown emperical evidence. Note that word. Just as an evolutionist can show no emperical evidence of Macro-evolution. Then I fall to the aformentioned statment that when science cannot provide emperical evidence, then its not meeting the definition for the term Science. And thus evolution is as much faith as Creationism. Thats our current debate. Now if you wish to further bash me, do so on one of the many contacts I have listed on my webpage. psychoelfpaladin.cjb.net.
If you agree that your side has no more base than the other side of the argument, then I think you'd be taking more of a stance that Goed and I are taking...

EDIT: Because this is kind of how I think we both feel about this issue, and we're taking a similar stance...but I think you say one thing and think another, so...

What can I say, when I get under your skin, it's just me planting a little parasite to eventually take over your bo-

....erm...I make good logic ^_____^;;;;;

Explain this creationists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Sounds like proof for evolution.

What does creationism actually have?

The moon dust theory which is a lie, all one needs to do is look up the new data.
The ark which is physically impossible
The young earth argument which is also a lie, all one needs to do is look up the new data.
A book written by erranous men

Creationism requires faith, and faith is the absence of proof. Therefore creationism CANNOT have proof.

Moving on.

If God was all loving, why did he allow his creations to die?
If God was perfect, and creation is a extenstion of one's will, and God is perfect in all forms, thus his will is perfect, and therefore the creation takes the perfection or imperfect of it's creator, how can a perfect god create imperfect creatures?

Religion is NEVER a reasonable answer. Simply because we do not understand it now does not mean religion is the answer. If you believed that, you'll believe Mars is a glass sphere, the world is flat, and we are the center of the universe (among other things).

The Bible does not say the world is flat. And most of the Darwinists' "evidence" is fraudulent, poorly researched, and at best, very vague. Remember the Piltdown man?

Explain this creationists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Sounds like proof for evolution.

What does creationism actually have?

The moon dust theory which is a lie, all one needs to do is look up the new data.
The ark which is physically impossible
The young earth argument which is also a lie, all one needs to do is look up the new data.
A book written by erranous men

Creationism requires faith, and faith is the absence of proof. Therefore creationism CANNOT have proof.

Moving on.

If God was all loving, why did he allow his creations to die?
If God was perfect, and creation is a extenstion of one's will, and God is perfect in all forms, thus his will is perfect, and therefore the creation takes the perfection or imperfect of it's creator, how can a perfect god create imperfect creatures?

Religion is NEVER a reasonable answer. Simply because we do not understand it now does not mean religion is the answer. If you believed that, you'll believe Mars is a glass sphere, the world is flat, and we are the center of the universe (among other things).

The Bible does not say the world is flat. And most of the Darwinists' "evidence" is fraudulent, poorly researched, and at best, very vague. Remember the Piltdown man? Besides, have you ever even opened a Bible in your life? And if there is no God, how the hell could the universe have just come into being? How could living organisms have just popped into existence?

The Bible does not say the world is flat. And most of the Darwinists' "evidence" is fraudulent, poorly researched, and at best, very vague. Remember the Piltdown man? Besides, have you ever even opened a Bible in your life? And if there is no God, how the hell could the universe have just come into being? How could living organisms have just popped into existence?
First, double post. Second, consider the side Goed and I have taken. A creator (not necessarily the one in the Bible) created the world and some extremely basic organism and after billions and billions of years, the world "coincidentally" turned into what it is now.

To say that science requires faith is saying that religion is a science. Pardon me, but that's just irrational. The scientific method requires one thing: repetition. By the scientific method, you can't technically prove that Napoleon, Abe Lincoln, Gandhi, or, even Jesus, were ever alive as they have not showne themselves again. Bizarre, but true. Now, science has repetition. Religion, by and large, does not. Here's what I mean:

Animals die off at a great rate. Some say 100 species a day, some say 25, both are probably way too high, but for the sake of argument, let's say 25 and be very generous. Even with 25 species dying a day, that is a total of 25 new examples, every single day, that natural selection wipes out a great deal of life on this planet. As best as science can figure, 1 out of every 1000 species ever to live are still around. Natural selection, once more. So before you say that science is just as much of a faith as religion, perhaps understanding what you're saying could be beneficial to you.

If you go back to the beginning of the universe they say it began with a big bang theory. That there was nothing before that and then a big bang happened and everything appeared, and evolved from that. One question though: How do you get everything out of nothing? I have an answer to the question, God spoke, and BANG it happened.

I'll add right now that I am in no way trying to flame or insult or offend Darwinists. Every individual has the right to his or her beliefs. I simply think evolution is false. Another thing to consider: how could man be an animal? Animals have no conception of right or wrong. Humans do.

To say that science requires faith is saying that religion is a science. Pardon me, but that's just irrational. The scientific method requires one thing: repetition. By the scientific method, you can't technically prove that Napoleon, Abe Lincoln, Gandhi, or, even Jesus, were ever alive as they have not showne themselves again. Bizarre, but true. Now, science has repetition. Religion, by and large, does not. Here's what I mean:

Animals die off at a great rate. Some say 100 species a day, some say 25, both are probably way too high, but for the sake of argument, let's say 25 and be very generous. Even with 25 species dying a day, that is a total of 25 new examples, every single day, that natural selection wipes out a great deal of life on this planet. As best as science can figure, 1 out of every 1000 species ever to live are still around. Natural selection, once more. So before you say that science is just as much of a faith as religion, perhaps understanding what you're saying could be beneficial to you.

1 plant or animal species becomes extinct approximately every 15 minutes, or at least, that's what I read.

Jamation, the only evidence you have provided in furtherance of your claims has been weak, to say the least.

Paying attention in biology class would do anything but strengthen your beliefs in God, to be quite frank. While I do dearly believe in Him, pardon me for saying this, but the miracle of life is not something that took a mere 7 days to accomplish.

Now, as for what you should have taken from biology class...
Evolution is gradual. Let's see how many times it takes to sink in. Evolution is gradual. Got it yet? Look, here's what we're saying. The creation of new cells in these animals are not the things that specifically cause evolution. For example, let's use good old humans to describe the evolutionary process. Let's take an ancient mammal, a tree dweller with powerful hind legs and a tail used for balance and occasionally grasping. It, for whatever reason it has, comes down from that tree. If a single alpha male left that tree, the group in which it lived would follow. On the ground, looking out for predators may be slightly more difficult. Thus, this animal may sometimes rear back on it's hind legs to see if there was any danger coming. It soon realizes that the more it can watch, the better. Given a few thousand years, the community of animals develops an always upright posture, thus, using its front arms more for manipulation and back legs more for transportation (starting to sound familiar?). Now about that tail...used for manipulation, and for balance when all fours, certainly seems pointless now. Bye-bye tail! Now we have an animal with two distinctly different types of limbs and no tail, that stands upright. It's not because of different cells, it's because of the environment in which it lived. Oh dear, it sure is hot out here in the African savannah! Better shed some of this hair, it'll make me a lot cooler. Oh man, does it get old eating this grass and roots and such...let's try eating that abandoned carcass over there and see if it works! The prime reason for us having different genetic makeups than chimps is that we have eaten more meat as a species than they have. That's what accounts for the big difference. Maybe you, in fact, should have paid some more attention in biology class.

Ironic how you believe in something because you wish to put power constraints on the "all powerful" god you belive in. (its now lower cased because obviously we believe in diffrent gods.) You say the tail is now useless? I can count many many ways that tail would be usefull in everyday life. Aside from the tail and the fur, why dont' we speak Chimp? I understand that evolutionary theory is gradual, but the fact is the earth is not that old. Carbon dating has provin faulable in many instinces, and thus cannot be credited because a reading coincidentally fits with the geologic column. Further more it is physically impossible for the earth to be that old. The earth is loosing its gravitational pull [fact]. The moon is leaving the earth at about 2-3 inches a year[Fact]. Thus if the world was millions and billions of years old, he moon would have started Inside or on the earth. I don't know about you, but i don't see big rocks flying into space. We have this great invention called gravity. Carbon dating uses Uniformitarianism (sp?). So if you want to accept that as true then lets apply it to the sun. The sun is shrinking 5 feet per hour [fact]. Lets apply the uniform speed in reverse (as done with C-14 dating and such). Whats this? The earth would have been nuked into nothingness ages ago. Secondly lets assume you find some way to bypass that little problem of there being no genetic information for air breating lungs in fish. Lets say you bypass that, then a fish is born with lungs. Well we have a problem, he can't breathe.... Man... thats a thoughie.... Can't breathe..... Furthermore information is not hereditary. If my dad is a master mechanic i'm not going to be born a master mechanic. If my mother slits her wrists monthly, i won't be born with thick skin on my wrists. Enviromental problems are adapted to within the constrains of microevolution. THe problem with macro evolution, as mentioned earlier, is the information doesn't exiests for that stuff. But back to the fish. Lets say information is hereditary, then he knows that he needs to breathe water. Our little fish knows life can only exiest in the ocean. Well then he dies from swimming around and not breathing. Man that sucks. But you know what else? Thats natural selection. The non-desirable trait was weeded out.

Lastly your evidence is just as valid as mine. The diffrence is I cite respected creationist sources. You not accepting them does not make it any weaker.

Thanks for the data, but I'd feel kind of silly saying it was 100 a day when it's maybe 2 or 3. But I do appreciate it.

Oh, and as to humans having emotions, I guess we're just more evolved. :D

If you go back to the beginning of the universe they say it began with a big bang theory. That there was nothing before that and then a big bang happened and everything appeared, and evolved from that. One question though: How do you get everything out of nothing? I have an answer to the question, God spoke, and BANG it happened.
Well, one big theory looks like that. But there is more than one big bang theory. You may be unaware of this, but our universe is expanding and some scientists theorize that our universe gets bigger and bigger then begins collapsing in on itself down to almost nothingness, a dense balls, then a huge explosion happens, scattering all the matter out, so therefore, it's not like the big bang theory has to be explained as something coming from nothing...also, we don't really know enough about the Time to garuntee that there ever was a time before matter existed...time may stretch back as infinitely as the existence of matter itself..(i'm sure it does...)

Elliotopolis -
Please tell me: if 25 species are dying off each day, then how are these species repeatedly dying? Can't a species only die once?

To say that science requires faith is saying that religion is a science. Pardon me, but that's just irrational. The scientific method requires one thing: repetition. By the scientific method, you can't technically prove that Napoleon, Abe Lincoln, Gandhi, or, even Jesus, were ever alive as they have not showne themselves again. Bizarre, but true. Now, science has repetition. Religion, by and large, does not. Here's what I mean:

Animals die off at a great rate. Some say 100 species a day, some say 25, both are probably way too high, but for the sake of argument, let's say 25 and be very generous. Even with 25 species dying a day, that is a total of 25 new examples, every single day, that natural selection wipes out a great deal of life on this planet. As best as science can figure, 1 out of every 1000 species ever to live are still around. Natural selection, once more. So before you say that science is just as much of a faith as religion, perhaps understanding what you're saying could be beneficial to you.

I said not that Science requires faith. Science by definition requires testable information (I.E. Emperical). Evolution has not given emperical evidence. So its not qualified as a Science. My statements where that Evolution is a Faith, one that requires more faith that Christianity. This is justified because Evolution does not meet the definition of a science. It provides no evidence that is testable. All evolution presents are fossils and says "it works trust me."

Jamation...that was pathetic. I'm sorry, but in response to all the FACTS that you gave me, here's all you need to read. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

Enjoy.

And, in response to why we don't speak chimp...WE'RE NOT CHIMPS! Look, apparently, your view of evolution is remarkably off. We didn't evolve from chimps, we came from a common ancestor, very different things. So astoundingly different, it almost makes you look kind of like a joke for lambasting the guy earlier about not understanding biology. Far be it from me to call your credibility into question though. ;)

Elliotopolis -
Please tell me: if 25 species are dying off each day, then how are these species repeatedly dying? Can't a species only die once?

The extinction of a species cannot be proven so it doesn't matter. THe only want to prove extinction is with omnipotence. If you've got it tell me where i can get some. Extinction is only provable by being able to look everywhere at a given second. A species could simply be small and mobile. Even the DoDo moved around, we just assume its extinct.

Although I am a devout Christian, I firmly believe that neither Creationism nor Darwinism can be proven scientifically.

I said not that Science requires faith. Science by definition requires testable information (I.E. Emperical). Evolution has not given emperical evidence. So its not qualified as a Science. My statements where that Evolution is a Faith, one that requires more faith that Christianity. This is justified because Evolution does not meet the definition of a science. It provides no evidence that is testable. All evolution presents are fossils and says "it works trust me."
I don't understand how it requires any more or less faith and I'm wondering where you got your faithometer.

The extinction of a species cannot be proven so it doesn't matter. THe only want to prove extinction is with omnipotence. If you've got it tell me where i can get some. Extinction is only provable by being able to look everywhere at a given second. A species could simply be small and mobile. Even the DoDo moved around, we just assume its extinct.

Good point.

Jamation, if you can find me a tyrannosaurus rex, be my guest, otherwise, it's very possible to prove extinction. Almost a good try though.

Jamation...that was pathetic. I'm sorry, but in response to all the FACTS that you gave me, here's all you need to read. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

Enjoy.

And, in response to why we don't speak chimp...WE'RE NOT CHIMPS! Look, apparently, your view of evolution is remarkably off. We didn't evolve from chimps, we came from a common ancestor, very different things. So astoundingly different, it almost makes you look kind of like a joke for lambasting the guy earlier about not understanding biology. Far be it from me to call your credibility into question though. ;)

Yes evolution claims we came from a common ancestor. Humans came from a form of a monkey, and the monkey inturn came from something, and its all traceable back to one Mother/Father cell. Now if you think that the M/F cell divided into one cell for every species then those cells each went on thier own tangent, your the one with problems.

Jamation, if you can find me a tyrannosaurus rex, be my guest, otherwise, it's very possible to prove extinction. Almost a good try though.

As presented in the book "Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards" evidence can be found to suggest that Dinosaurs where simply large lizards. Every dinosaur has some reptile close to. That combined with the fact that lizards never stop growing provides for interesting debate ground and another hole in the swiss cheese slice of evolution.

Liberalasia: I checked out that article, and I found all it is is an attack on other's work. That doesn't necessarily make it the best source. If the guys that were beaten up on in the article had their own chance at retaliating, wouldn't that be the better source?

And as to your "t-rex" finding task: http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=DinosaursAndFossils&varPage=PicturesofDinosaursinthe20thCentury.jsp

Yes evolution claims we came from a common ancestor. Humans came from a form of a monkey, and the monkey inturn came from something, and its all traceable back to one Mother/Father cell. Now if you think that the M/F cell divided into one cell for every species then those cells each went on thier own tangent, your the one with problems.


Note to self: Read post before ranting.

Although I am a devout Christian, I firmly believe that neither Creationism nor Darwinism can be proven scientifically.

This is true. To scientifically prove it one side would need emperical evidence, and untill God comes down everytimes someone asks him to, we won't have emperical proof. We then must fall back on historic proof in which case the Bible wins hands down.

It is a great class. In such a class you learn that genetics does a RECOMBINATION, and just that. Genetics recombines pre-exiesting base pairs and whatnots to create something from pre-exiesting information. Saying that the 2% diffrence can be done with these cross overs is like saying you can rearrange the letter in the word "jack" to get "Christmas"

You should pay attention in biology.

Very well put. The thing is that the pre-existing DNA came from other primates before the chimps. Follow the percentages of differences between orangutans, gorillas, and other primates. The DNA of these animals are practically the same chromosomes except for a deletion here, a addition there, a mutation there, or an inversion that happened over the course of time. Each of these recombinations are easily spotted in each primates' chromosomes. It almost seems like a step by step progression. For example, the only difference between an orangutan and a chimp is an inversion on one spot on one chromosome. The same can be said about the orangutan and the gorilla. Some common ancestor of each of these species took up residence in the areas that these species now call home, and over the course of millions of years of reproduction and meiosis, these species came to be. Each species have this ancestor's genetic template, but it was tweeked to suit their populations' particular environments. Chimps tend to stay in forested areas, as do the other species mentioned, but during the course of humanity's evolution, we ventured out into the plains. This movement out of the forests helped to heavily influnce the way we were made. Mind you this is the highly condensed version, but hey this is but a forum and you can't completely say what you really to. If anybody wants to go even further with this, give me a holler.

Liberalasia: I checked out that article, and I found all it is is an attack on other's work. That doesn't necessarily make it the best source. If the guys that were beaten up on in the article had their own chance at retaliating, wouldn't that be the better source?

And as to your "t-rex" finding task: http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=DinosaursAndFossils&varPage=PicturesofDinosaursinthe20thCentury.jsp


Um...yeah

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_d

See the "dinosaurs" section.

That work rips your entire creationist argument to shreds.

Sorry if I sounded like a pretentious know-it-all.

CSW: give me an overview of what it says. Thats a lot to read, and I want you to explain it without it taking me hours. Don't pull some lame crap like "It says dinosaurs didn't exist with humans." I want to know the warrants of this supposed long essay.

CSW: give me an overview of what it says. Thats a lot to read, and I want you to explain it without it taking me hours. Don't pull some lame crap like "It says dinosaurs didn't exist with humans." I want to know the warrants of this supposed long essay.

Don't be a lazy shit. Read the damn thing

(Pardon my freedom)

The Bible does not say the world is flat.

But religion does, and religion is the path to understanding god.


And most of the Darwinists' "evidence" is fraudulent, poorly researched, and at best, very vague. Remember the Piltdown man?

The piltdown man is nothing compared to the creationism's outright fabrication of putting human footprints next to "dinosaur" ones and calling evolution false. You didn't comment on the link.

Besides, have you ever even opened a Bible in your life?

Yes. is there any conclusive, emprical proof in it? No.

And if there is no God, how the hell could the universe have just come into being? How could living organisms have just popped into existence?

Who said anything needed to pop into existance. The current theory that is accepted is simply the contiunous expansion and contraction of the universe finally ending and beginning with black holes.

Who said there needs to be a God? I find it just as absurd that a all powerful being simply appeared is more likely then a single hydrogen atom. You do know we have created the building blocks of life in a lab over and over again?

Jamation: Do you know what a gene mutation is?

As presented in the book "Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards" evidence can be found to suggest that Dinosaurs where simply large lizards.

What a joke. Dinosaurs can't be lizards. They are far more similar to modern birds then lizards. Look up new research. More then a few experts are saying Dinos were warm blooded, and to one who knows anything about anatomy, it makes sense. Lizards. What a joke. Intelligent, rational people stopped believing that long ago.

Reality cares not what you believe. Questions of science should be debated by people of science and questions of fiction should be debated by people of down-sydrome. That is my decree... so let it be done.

Oh CSW, you are sounding very hypocritical. It doesn't sound like you have read it either. By the time I have finished reading all of it, this thread will have died, inevitably "shutting-me-up". It would be quite arrogant to say that is your end goal. So, I will choose to instead ignore this argument. If you can't even defend it, how are you supposed to win?

Oh CSW, you are sounding very hypocritical. It doesn't sound like you have read it either. By the time I have finished reading all of it, this thread will have died, inevitably "shutting-me-up". It would be quite arrogant to say that is your end goal. So, I will choose to instead ignore this argument. If you can't even defend it, how are you supposed to win?


Look. Don't play games, this thread has gone for 30 pages, read the damn thing, it isn't going away.

Read it yourself, hypocritical piece of shit. I have neither the time nor effort to read a book on evolution in this short of a time frame. You're problem is you won't back down.

I apologize for being so blunt into calling you what I did. That wasn't my intention.

Read it yourself, hypocritical piece of shit. I have neither the time nor effort to read a book on evolution in this short of a time frame. You're problem is you won't back down.

tsk tsk, grammar. my, god sure didn't give you smarts about apostrophes.
and, i've notice, you won't exactly back down either.
comments?

This is the stupidest piece of crap I have ever come across.

All who do not know that 4!=24 put your hand up, realise that you lack a proper education, shut the fuck up, and try not to breed.

Irony*is*so*sweet…*I¹ll*back*down*when*I*have*lost.

This is the stupidest piece of crap I have ever come across.

All who do not know that 4!=24 put your hand up, realise that you lack a proper education, shut the fuck up, and try not to breed.

who was that addressed to? factorials are fun.

Irony*is*so*sweet…*I¹ll*back*down*when*I*have*lost.

then you should be backed down already.

15 answers to creationist nonsense

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

Explain this creationists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Sounds like proof for evolution.

What does creationism actually have?

The moon dust theory which is a lie, all one needs to do is look up the new data.
The ark which is physically impossible
The young earth argument which is also a lie, all one needs to do is look up the new data.
A book written by erranous men

Creationism requires faith, and faith is the absence of proof. Therefore creationism CANNOT have proof.

Moving on.

If God was all loving, why did he allow his creations to die?
If God was perfect, and creation is a extenstion of one's will, and God is perfect in all forms, thus his will is perfect, and therefore the creation takes the perfection or imperfect of it's creator, how can a perfect god create imperfect creatures?

Religion is NEVER a reasonable answer. Simply because we do not understand it now does not mean religion is the answer. If you believed that, you'll believe Mars is a glass sphere, the world is flat, and we are the center of the universe (among other things).

And I suppose that broccoflower is proof for God's nonexistence. Oh wait, that's only cross-breeding. Flies have less ingrained intelligence than a stalk of broccoli anyway. Even if that fly is in fact a new species and not just one of the hundreds of thousands yet to be discovered, it doesn't prove that there is no God. I believe in evolution, and I believe in God. I don't think I came from an amoeba or a cosmic catastrophe, but people change over the course of their lives, let alone hundreds of years.
God allows his creations to die so they (we, humans) may join Him if we chose to do so before we died.
God did create perfect creatures. Adam and Eve were without sin at the start, and the lions laid at peace with the lambs (see the very very beginning of Genesis). It was our choice to mess it up because along with perfection came free will and temptation. The "oldest trick in the Book" (i.e. the Bible for those of you who didn't know where that phrase came from) was used, and our choice affected EVERYTHING. Since then, the world has gone all to hell if you'll forgive my terminology.
Religion has been around since the beginning of time, and it will see the end of it.
...Two down. :sniper:

Religion has been around since the beginning of time, and it will see the end of it.


and in most cases that's quite a pity.

actually, i found that article to be very well-informed and clearly written, unlike the lunatic ramblings of several people that is now taken to be truth by the unfortunate masses.

It is a great class. In such a class you learn that genetics does a RECOMBINATION, and just that. Genetics recombines pre-exiesting base pairs and whatnots to create something from pre-exiesting information. Saying that the 2% diffrence can be done with these cross overs is like saying you can rearrange the letter in the word "jack" to get "Christmas"

You should pay attention in biology.
you are forgetting two very key types of mutation in this arguement, the first being delition the second being insertions. Nucleotides are copied and deleted etc they are not merely moved around.

And I suppose that broccoflower is proof for God's nonexistence.

No merely evolution and the means to do so.

Flies have less ingrained intelligence than a stalk of broccoli anyway.

Um....your lack of scientific knowledge is appalling.

Even if that fly is in fact a new species and not just one of the hundreds of thousands yet to be discovered, it doesn't prove that there is no God.

But it does prove evolution, which is what we are discussing.

I don't think I came from an amoeba or a cosmic catastrophe, but people change over the course of their lives, let alone hundreds of years.

Okay. you believe in a form of evolution.


God allows his creations to die so they (we, humans) may join Him if we chose to do so before we died.

So why did he allow 90% of all life to be annihilated during the precambrian extinction? You'd figure he'd allow species to contiunue, after all, it was his work.


God did create perfect creatures. Adam and Eve were without sin at the start, and the lions laid at peace with the lambs (see the very very beginning of Genesis).

So why did he create imperfect creatures if he is perfect?

It was our choice to mess it up because along with perfection came free will and temptation. The "oldest trick in the Book" (i.e. the Bible for those of you who didn't know where that phrase came from) was used, and our choice affected EVERYTHING. Since then, the world has gone all to hell if you'll forgive my terminology.

How can a creation of a perfect god do imperfect acts?


Religion has been around since the beginning of time, and it will see the end of it.

That merely highlights the weak minds of humans.

Creationism is a joke. There is nothing proving a shred of it, but there is proof of evolution.

One of the things that always makes creationists sound absolutely rediculous is that from what I've seen almost every one of their scientific experts who says that evolution is false has their degree in something other then biology, paleontology, or geology. I hate to break this to you but you don't ask a Biologist about complex theoretical math and you don't ask a mathematician about evolution. When there are a significant (ie more then one or two) actual biologists, with degrees from acredited universities who get up and say that evolution is a lie then maybe I will start to lend some credence to this (note I myself am a biologist and with the indepth study of the subject I have done I feel fairly confident in evolutionary theory). Oh and while you are at it get geologists with similar credentials to say that the earth is only 12,000 or however many years old as young earth people proport.

Hey check out www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com). Here you find archives of evidence that makes the evolutionary theory look about as solid as a slice of Swiss cheese. A few things he presented here.

The book Bones of Contention presents cited respectable information on how the only bones the evolutionists will allow to be printed are those that fit within the Geologic column. This book however counts for all the bones that where deemed “fully evolved” yet carbon dated prior to the time of their “less evolved” ancestors. Also consider (http://www.irc.org/pubs/imp/imp-286.htm)

Creationist science also gives logical evidence as to why the dinosaur could exist. In todays modern atmosphere, (which according to evolution hasn’t changed in millions of years) the dinosaur could not have gotten enough air to breathe. In an article published by Time Magazine they presented the idea that Lack of Oxygen killed the Dinosaurs. The Brachiosaurus had nostrils the size of a horse. Thus it was scientifically impossible for such a beast to consume enough air to sustain its life. Creationism does however answer this.

The Geologic column is the “road guide” to carbon dating things. Several carbon dating results have been rejected on creatures that did not fit this column. This was admitted in a public confession. (www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com)) has more on this if your interested. I have been well versed in the Flaws and strengths of evolution and am willing to debate this one on one to anyone who is willing to. Please go to www.drdino.com to read there, or to debate me simply go to the contact page at psychoelfpaladin.cjb.net (http://psychoelfpaladin.cjb.net) to find me.


PsychoElfPaladin
Jamation Dictator.

Sorry but Kent Hovind is a crank and a liar. He only preeches to the converted. Many of his claims have been challenged and yet he continues to parrot them.

His $250000 challenge is BS as well. A couple people have put in for it and he will not acknowledge them.

If you want to debate, please use a source that actually presents "reasonable" arguments.

"Little e" evolution is alright, and quite possible, allow me to explain it: Little e evolution occurs within one species, examples are the ever-so-famous london moths, (who by-the-way did not actually evolve to another species, just another color.) This is the theory I was taught in class, and so far I can say most of it holds together.
*SNIP*

As mentioned in the Jamation post, Kent Hovind is a crank and a liar. Quite a few of his claims were challenged, proven wrong, and yet he continues to parrot them.

The man is no scientist and his concern has nothing to do with science.

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

- (talkorigins.org) R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

Thought this was a nice statement on the part of the evolutionists. :)

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

- (talkorigins.org) R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

Thought this was a nice statement on the part of the evolutionists. :)
NO.
First the Earth is a sphere (nearly anyway) not round.
Second it is not a fact that all current life came from previous forms it is a logical suposition that is supported by the science and evidence available today.
The facts about the age of the earth, the age of life etc etc are also assumed based on available evidence and knowledge and are not indesputable fact. There are many 'respected' scientist that would argue about the age of a rock never mind the time life first appeared.
If anyone states that evolution is a fact and not up for debate is as ignorant and closed as the most fanatic religious cleric.
If eveolution is fact (I'm not saying it isn't a very good theory) and the outlandinsh statement made above is true then you will be able to provide evidence without gaps of the evolutionary path of every known species on earth won't you?
There are lots of facts stated with no supporting evindence, and the conclusions drawn from those smattering of facts are huge.
I coughed, lighting struck, I did not cough lightning did not strike, therefore I cough lightnigs strikes. Whako psudo scienetists at work.
Let's just accept that evolution is a very good theory supported by much (not all) of the evidence available and as it stands is the best theory we have until we get either better science or better evidence.
Let's also say that evolution does not disprove or put to rest the idea of some kind of creationism.
It also does not disprove aliens came and seeded the earth with the start of life, which is a theory (not supported by the available evidence).

must...not...rip...out...fawkes..

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

- (talkorigins.org) R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

Thought this was a nice statement on the part of the evolutionists. :)

im afraid i must agree with the other guy, fallacy of the undistributed middle, not enough linear evidence to support the assertions

Again, I think I should mention that the main difference between evolution and creationism is that in evolution the evidence creates the hypothesis while in creationism the hypothesis creates the evidence. You will not see a Creationist "refine" their theory or dismiss whole aspects like a biologist will.

Second, evolution is a Scientific theory, NOT a religious belief. God is an untestable theory and thus, had no place in science. On the other hand, science has no right to postulate on religious beliefs. Science can only present the most accurate reasons for how the universe behaves. Not the why. To say that since evolution is true, there can't be a god, then it becomes part of an individual's overall religion, but only as a part.

Third, evolution vs creationism is a false dicotamy. They are not two sides of the same coin. Creationism is a belief structure forced into the American population by a minority of religious fundamentalists. If Creationists truly believed in having all sides get a say in PUBLIC schools, they would have no issue with Hindu creation myths, American Indian, Buddhist, etc.

And the same scientists promoting evolution are also promoting such "radical" work on cancer research, fossil fuels, dark matter, space-time, etc. You can't dismiss such a predominant theory as Evolution without dismissing most of the other other theories in science. If you believe that this planet orbits the sun, you should believe in Evolution.

"We can pray over the cholera victim or we can give her 500 milligrams of tetracycline every 12 hours." -Carl Sagan

Again, I think I should mention that the main difference between evolution and creationism is that in evolution the evidence creates the hypothesis while in creationism the hypothesis creates the evidence. You will not see a Creationist "refine" their theory or dismiss whole aspects like a biologist will.

Second, evolution is a Scientific theory, NOT a religious belief. God is an untestable theory and thus, had no place in science. On the other hand, science has no right to postulate on religious beliefs. Science can only present the most accurate reasons for how the universe behaves. Not the why. To say that since evolution is true, there can't be a god, then it becomes part of an individual's overall religion, but only as a part.

Third, evolution vs creationism is a false dicotamy. They are not two sides of the same coin. Creationism is a belief structure forced into the American population by a minority of religious fundamentalists. If Creationists truly believed in having all sides get a say in PUBLIC schools, they would have no issue with Hindu creation myths, American Indian, Buddhist, etc.

And the same scientists promoting evolution are also promoting such "radical" work on cancer research, fossil fuels, dark matter, space-time, etc. You can't dismiss such a predominant theory as Evolution without dismissing most of the other other theories in science. If you believe that this planet orbits the sun, you should believe in Evolution.

The reason it always drops back to the Creationist/'Evolutionist' divide is the Bible Belt. The biggest protagonists in the war on evolution are the under-educated (and proud of it) masses of Southern America, with an insistence in God in all things. Yes - I have even met some who argue that the world is flat, that there is no such thing as 'the environment', that Islam is devil worship, that Hindus wouldn't be Hindu if they "knew better", that the only form of sex-education needed is brief mention of Abstinence, etc etc etc. Basically, you name a form of irrationality and they subscribe. These are the people trying to ban the teaching of evolution in schools. These are the people trying to ban the teaching of any other religions in American schools.

The largest attack on evolution comes from these Fundamentalists - many of whom (and i'm almost ashamed to say it) really do believe the Genesis account is literal and totally accurate - and that is their whole reason, and their whole argument for a crusade of Creationism.

yes, there are non-christian creationists - but they are a minority, certainly in the public arena. Muslim creationists are not running around on the forum yelling about how satanic and evil those accursed scientists are. This is why the argument always degenerates back to Evolution v's the Creationists.

The problem is that Creationists have no evidence to support their claims, have no ability to disprove evolution as a theory, and are determined to 'convert' the non-believers to the one true origin of the world...

Mmm.

I've been through these blasted things countless times so I'm not really interested in entering again, but just for the sake of my own curiosity and sanity has anyone ever had their mind changed by one of these debates?

Education is a good point. The most educated and well-verse Christians on the planet are, arguably, Jesuits and they are believers and promoters of evolutionary theories.

But then, Born Agains don't like them Catholics, do they?

Mmm.

I've been through these blasted things countless times so I'm not really interested in entering again, but just for the sake of my own curiosity and sanity has anyone ever had their mind changed by one of these debates?

Honestly, posters such as ourselves will almost never convince each other. The people whose minds might be changed are the tourists to these forums. That's who the audience for these posts probably should be. Politicians don't debate to change the other candidate's opinion, they do it for the voters.

But shurly if we evolved from munkeys, we would be harier?

And I suppose that broccoflower is proof for God's nonexistence. Oh wait, that's only cross-breeding. Flies have less ingrained intelligence than a stalk of broccoli anyway. Even if that fly is in fact a new species and not just one of the hundreds of thousands yet to be discovered, it doesn't prove that there is no God.
So what?

I believe in evolution, and I believe in God. I don't think I came from an amoeba or a cosmic catastrophe, but people change over the course of their lives, let alone hundreds of years.
You may wish to stop conflating evolution and abiogenesis.

God allows his creations to die so they (we, humans) may join Him if we chose to do so before we died.
That's rather silly.

God did create perfect creatures.
A perfect creature has automatic knowledge of morality. Gen 3:22 shows that Adam and Eve did not know about morality until they ate the fruit.

Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) is a joke, a liar and a fraud. He is disowned by just about every other Creationist organisation out there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

Don't use anything from Hovind to support your arguments, or you will simply be laughed at.
For a fraud his claims are well baised and factually rooted.
No, they are not. They are all based on lies, myths, falsehoods and misunderstandings.

The Talk Origins claim that Hovind is dispised by his own is based of the dislike of a gimmick to use a 250,000 claim.
No, it's not. The ICR and Answersingenesis.org people DO NOT like Hovind because Hovind uses arguments that they have said are crap and without base (like the "Darwin recanted crap).

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

ICR and AiG are nonsense, but even they know to disown Hovind. Hovind is the wild-eyed man claiming to have Cold Fusion and Anti-Gravity of Creationism.

But shurly if we evolved from munkeys, we would be harier?

My apologies if the above, with its innovative spelling, was intended as a pastiche: it can be so hard to tell. Anyway...

Most humans have pretty much the same amount of body hair as our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. It's just much finer and shorter.

the Creationist side has shown evidence,
No, it hasn't. It's just made wild-ass claims.

and the Evolutionist side has just squinted to believe what they wish. Just as science does with the battle of Jerico.
Ah yes. Where there was no battle and Jericho was abandoned by the time the Habiru got there.

Hint: the bible is a book of legends, fables, fairy tales, and myths.

But shurly if we evolved from munkeys, we would be harier?
My apologies if the above, with its innovative spelling, was intended as a pastiche: it can be so hard to tell. Anyway...

Most humans have pretty much the same amount of body hair as our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. It's just much finer and shorter.

..but we didn't evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys share a common hominid ancestor (or homunad encaster).

..but we didn't evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys share a common hominid ancestor (or homunad encaster).

Maybe.....we didn't evolve at all...

The Bible does not say the world is flat.
Matt 4:8

And most of the Darwinists' "evidence" is fraudulent, poorly researched, and at best, very vague. Remember the Piltdown man?
...which was exposed by SCIENTISTS as was NEVER an example of evolution.

Remember the fraudulent Shroud of Turin?

If you go back to the beginning of the universe they say it began with a big bang theory. That there was nothing before that
No, no one except idiot cretinists make the claim about nothing existing.

and then a big bang happened and everything appeared, and evolved from that. One question though: How do you get everything out of nothing? I have an answer to the question, God spoke, and BANG it happened.
And where did god come from? No, god always was is not a valid answer. That just pushes the mystery back a step.

Look, you lack any ontological grounding for your claim. Just STFU and you won't get intellectually pounded.

..but we didn't evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys share a common hominid ancestor (or homunad encaster).

Er... I don't think monkeys evolved from hominids. Modern monkeys and modern humans -- and ancient hominids -- share a common ancestor, sure, but a loooong way back. Hominids are a subgroup of the apes, and obviously monkeys aren't apes. But in any case, your point is valid: modern monkeys and modern humans are precisely that: modern.

Maybe.....we didn't evolve at all...

Possibly not, but if Creationists are going to present caricatures of the evolutionary model in an attempt to discredit it then their erroneus statements should be pointed out.

What do you mean? What I am saying is that if one individual has a mutation, another individual has to have the same mutation before they mate so they can produce a child. IF not, the child will be a half-breed, and to mate, the child must mate with another half breed of the exactly same type. This is exceedingly rare. That is why evolution is fiction, because the mutated individual would die out, and the entire population would have to mutate at the same time. Highly improbable.

No, it doesn't really work like that. Let's imagine that in a population of small herbivores one of them is born with slightly longer legs for whatever reason. This allows him (let's say it's a he) to outrun predators more easily. He grows up to maturity and mates with a female that is normal. Their offspring, some will come out with normal legs and others will come out with shorter ones, according to the laws of genetics described by Mendel. This means that even the children with shorter legs carry the long leg gene, even if it's recessive.

Most of the children with the longer legs will survive, while the most of the shorted legs are killed by predators. They all mate and in the next generation there are more individuals with longer legs. And on and on, until all the individuals in that group are born with long legs.

If this group remains isolated long enough the differences will have added up so much that it would be impossible for them to mate with the other groups, and will become a new species.

That's pretty much how the current theories explain evolution.

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" Matthew 4:8.

So??? How does it show that the Earth is flat???

Evolution is just mutation - if, say, a frog happens to have slightly better eyesight than the frogs around it, it has a higher chance of surviving and passing those positive genes on. The reverse is true for negative mutations.

It is this concept that opponents of evolution can't touch - so they vaguely attack modern dating systems and make outrageous claims like the "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" thing.

I've never heard anyone make a compelling case against evolution. Most attacks on evolution are made by people who are too ignorant to understand what evolution even is, let alone discredit it.

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" Matthew 4:8.

So??? How does it show that the Earth is flat???

How could he see the world if it wasn't flat? The curvature of the earth prevents you from seeing everything at once no matter where you are.

Possibly not, but if Creationists are going to present caricatures of the evolutionary model in an attempt to discredit it then their erroneus statements should be pointed out.

Not really...depends what caricature is it...sometimes comparison on another level is neccessary to throw reality hard into your face. quite like that method myself...

OK: 'concrete' as in 'definite'. I think we're running into problems of equivocation here. I believe CSW was using the term only in the sense of "physical material", and it was in objection to this that I presenting the question.

Oh, I see. I must have missed a message or two.

And no, I don't want to talk about whether reality is real or just perceived to be real. I was just kidding, but tend not to use smileys.

Er... I don't think monkeys evolved from hominids.

You are entirely correct and I look like a complete fool. I think what I intended to write was 'primate'.

So much for my grandiose claim about pointing out erroneus statements.

<-- an idiot, apparently.

How could he see the world if it wasn't flat? The curvature of the earth prevents you from seeing everything at once no matter where you are.

...Jesus Himself knows that the Earth is a sphere - He took part in creating it!! And Jesus doesn't need the Devil to "show Him the riches" because Jesus knows everything... -_-'

"see" is a relative term. The prophets of the Old Testament and New Testament "see" loads of images. That's prophecy!

Look, you lack any ontological grounding for your claim. Just STFU and you won't get intellectually pounded.

Excellent. It is not often we see the terms "ontological" and "STFU" used in the same paragraph. BAAWA receives a gold star.

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" Matthew 4:8.

So??? How does it show that the Earth is flat???

How do you see all the kingdoms of the world from one point on a spheroid object? Isn't that....IMPOSSIBLE?

Only way it can be done is on a nominally-flat surface.

btw, there are better translations than the KJV.

the bible says god is perfect and does not change, saying that he would need 7 billion years would mean he was undecisive. which contradicts the bible

Yeah, but it doesn't contradict other sacred texts. Like the Popol Vuh or the Bhaghavad Gita, which talk about very long periods of time.

Besides, if god is perfect and more than human, why do you want to reduce it to human terms and limitations?

How do you see all the kingdoms of the world from one point on a spheroid object? Isn't that....IMPOSSIBLE?

Only way it can be done is on a nominally-flat surface.

btw, there are better translations than the KJV.

helloooooooo? we're talking about the 5th Dimension here - spiritual dimension... ANYTHING can happen in that dimension... when you try to put something above your level of comprehension into your own perspective, of course there's gonna be something wrong about it.

sorry, but i'm sure the translation doesn't alter the meaning.

I've never heard anyone make a compelling case against evolution. Most attacks on evolution are made by people who are too ignorant to understand what evolution even is, let alone discredit it.
amen to that

Why does God need to be human-like though he has lived for at least 14 Billion years by now? Would not someone with infinite wisdom and infinite time think _slightly_ differently than a person?

Perception of time changes vastly from insignificant primate to all-powerful deity.